59

Similarities and Differences between Biosphere Reserves
and Natural World Heritage
Hiroyuki MATSUDA
Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University
79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
E-mail: hymatsuda@gmail.com

Abstract
Biosphere reserves (BRs) and Natural World Heritage sites (NWHs) both include nature reserves. NWHs
are defined by UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (WHC), while BRs are a UNESCO project. Therefore,
Member States need to protect the universal outstanding values of their NWHs in accordance with decisions
by the World Heritage Committee. In contrast, recommendations are provided regarding BRs at theirregistration and every 10 years thereafter. The difference between the two is that World Heritage status helps
preserve value, and biosphere reserve status help to create it (UNESCO, 2011). For these purposes, an NWH
is a strict nature reserve while a BR is a model site for sustainable development. NWHs consist only of theproperty surrounded by a buffer zone outside the NWH site, while BRs consist of core areas, buffer zones andtransition areas. The core areas are designed to protect nature and eliminate human activity. For BRs,transition areas are as important as core areas. In the case of the Ogasawara Islands NWH, a regional liaison
committee was organized to promote smooth and appropriate protection and management of the naturalenvironment through close cooperation and coordination with governments, governmental agencies, islanders
and other interested parties. In addition, a wide range of expert advice is available from the Scientific Council
for Natural World Heritage in Ogasawara. In this way, participatory approaches are respected in Japan’s
Natural World Heritage sites.
Key words :	double-designation, nature reserve, participatory approach, top-down regulation, UNESCO
Both biosphere reserves (BRs) and Natural World
heritage sites (NWHs) are UNESCO (United Nations
Education and Science Organization) projects. The
former was inaugurated in 1976 and the latter, in 1972.
Both include nature reserves to protect primeval nature.
As of September 2019, there were 701 BRs in 124
countries, including 21 transboundary sites, and 213
NWHs and 39 mixed (natural and cultural) world heritage
sites worldwide.
There are a few differences between BRs andNWHs. (1) NWHs are defined by the World Heritage
Convention (WHC), while BRs are defined by
UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program.
Therefore, parties to the WHC need to protect theuniversal outstanding values (OUV) of the NWHs inaccordance with the decisions of the World Heritage
Committee. In contrast, the MAB International
Coordinating Council (ICC) gives recommendations toparties in a BR when the BR is designated or when aperiodic review is submitted every 10 years. MAB-ICC
membership is determined at the UNESCO General
Assembly.
The difference between the two is explained clearlyGlobal Environmental Research
23/2019: 059-062
printed in Japanby Irina Bokova, former UNESCO Secretary General:
While World Heritage helps to preserve values, Biosphere
Reserves are helping to create them (UNESCO, 2011).
For these purposes, NWHs are strict nature reserves,
while BRs are model sites for sustainable development.
NWHs consist only of the property surrounded by abuffer zone outside the NWH site. In contrast, BRsconsist of core areas, buffer zones and transition areas.
The core areas are established to protect primeval natureand eliminate human activity. To protect the primeval
nature of core areas, buffer zones are set around the corearea. Transition areas are set up to enhance the sustainable
use of natural resources. Figure 1 shows NWH and BR
zoning on Jeju Island, Republic of Korea. The core areaof the Jeju BR almost overlaps with the Jeju NWH site.
In the case of Ogasawara, the Management Plan ofOgasawara Islands NWH defines a management areasurrounding the NWH core area (Fig. 2).
BRs are not solely nature reserves, but also models
for society to follow in achieving sustainable development(Sakai & Matsuda, 2018). The transition areas are asimportant as the BR core areas.
NWHs are governed by the State party, which must©2019 AIRES

60

H. MATSUDA

Biosphere Reserve

World Natural Heritage

Global Geopark

Fig. 1 Zoning of Jeju BR and Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes NWH (Ko, 2013).

comply with all decisions of the World Heritage
Committee under the World Heritage Convention.
According to the World Heritage Convention, theWH Committee calls on Member States to comply withthe decisions of the World Heritage Committee. In thecase of Ogasawara Islands NWH, a regional liaison
committee has been organized to promote smooth andappropriate protection and management of the naturalenvironment through close cooperation and coordination
with the government and administrative agencies, island
residents and other stakeholders. In addition, a wide
range of expert advice is available from the ScientificCouncil for Ogasawara Islands Natural World Heritage.
Participatory approaches are sufficiently respected at
Japan’s Natural World Heritage sites. A Scientific Council
for an NWH was first organized in Shiretoko and played
an important role in consensus building among
stakeholders during the inscription process (Matsuda etal., 2019). Since then, a Scientific Committee for each
NWH has been organized, including previously existing
NWHs.
ReferencesKo, K. (2013) Strategies of Jeju Island biosphere reserve onclimate change issue. Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of theWorld Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves,

Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands, Estonia, 4–6 June 2013.
Sustainable Management in Island and Coastal Biosphere
Reserves, 15–21. Retrieved from http://descargas.grancanaria.
com/jardincanario/documentosweb/publicaciones%20de%20
biodiversidad%20Molecular/2013/2013-2.pdf (Accessed 8 October
2019)
Matsuda, H., Makino, M. and Vlachopoulou, E.I. (2018) Drawing
plans of a house that already stands: Knowledge systems of theShiretoko region, a World Heritage site of Japan. In: Sato, T.,
Chabey, I. and Helgeson, J. (eds.), Transformations of SocialEcological Systems: Studies in Co-creating Integrated
Knowledge toward Sustainable Futures, Springer, 55–75.
Ministry of the Environment, Forestry Agency, Agency for Cultural
Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government and Ogasawara Village(2018) World Natural Heritage Ogasawara Management Plan(Surmarized version). Retrieved from http://ogasawara-info.jp/pdf/en/ogasawara1.pdf (Accessed 8 October 2019)
Sakai, A. and Matsuda, H. (2018) International systems deployedat the local level: UNESCO’s man and the biosphere programmein Japan. In: Sato, T., Chabey, I. and Helgeson, J. (eds.),
Transformations of Social-Ecological Systems: Studies in Cocreating Integrated Knowledge toward Sustainable Futures,Springer, 251–265.
UNESCO (2011) Address by Irina Bokova, Director-General ofUNESCO on the occasion of the International Conference “For
life, for the future. Biosphere reserves and climate change” 40thanniversary of MAB. Retrieved from http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0019/001931/193127e.pdf (Accessed 8 October 2019)

Biosphere Reserves and Natural World Heritage

Fig. 2 Ogasawara Islands NWH and its management areas (MOE et al, 2018).

61

62

H. MATSUDA

Hiroyuki MATSUDA
Hiroyuki Matsuda graduated from Kyoto
University in 1985, receiving his Doctor ofScience degree, and became a research associate
at Nippon Medical School. He went on to serve
as senior researcher at the National ResearchInstitute of Fisheries Science from 1989. Hebecame an associate professor at Kyushu
University in 1993 and at the University of Tokyo in 1996. He has been aprofessor at Yokohama National University since 2003. In the past he hasserved as president of the Ecological Society of Japan and director of theJapanese Society for Ocean Policy. He has been a Pew Marine Conservation
Fellow since 2007.
(Received 8 October 2019, Accepted 25 November 2019)