2. 2
Contents
1. Ecosystem-based Adaptation and the IUCN
2. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
3. Climate Change and Biosphere Reserves
4. Surveyed Biosphere Reserves
5. Survey Methodology
6. Results
a. Awareness
i. Organizational Communication
ii. Population Understanding
iii. IUCN Principles and Adaptation Approaches
b. Recognized Impacts 11
c. Risks & Affected Zones
d. Internal & External Initiatives
e. Support and Resources
7. Conclusions and Action Recommendations
Abbreviations
UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature
CEM – Commission on Ecosystem Management
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
MAB – Man and the Biosphere Programme
SDG – Sustainable Development Goal
EPIC – Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities
EBA – Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
BR – Biosphere Reserve
TZ – Transition Zone
BZ – Buffer Zone
KPI – Key Performance Indicator
3. 3
Ecosystem-Based Adaptation and the IUCN
Adaptation has been identified as playing a key role in increasing resilience to
climate change in natural and managed ecosystems. It has been recognized at the
international level under the UNFCCC, IPCC, and many other organizations and
governments as a need for all people as climate change is already making changes to
which they must adjust. EBA is an adaptation approach that focuses on reducing
vulnerability to climate change through strengthening natural ecosystems through a
wide range of management activities including conservation, restoration, and
sustainable ecosystem management. It also places importance on the crucial
connection between livelihoods and societies in food, water, and energy security
through ecosystem services and resource management (Perez et al. 2010).
The IUCN has promoted the adoption of EBA and the IUCN Commission on
Ecosystem Management (CEM) has compiled case studies on EBA around the world
in order to better understand its uses and implementation (Andrade et al. 2010).
The IUCN has worked in tandem with UNEP, UNDP and other branches to prepare
these studies. In addition, the IUCN has put forth a set of guidelines to be used by
decision makers, listed below:
1. EBA promotes multi-sectoral approaches
2. EBA operates at multiple geographical scales
3. EBA integrates flexible management structures that enable adaptive management
4. EBA minimizes trade-offs and maximizes benefits with development and
conservation goals to avoid unintended negative social and environmental impacts
5. EBA is based on the best available science and local knowledge, and should foster
knowledge generation and diffusion
6. EBA is about promoting resilient ecosystems and using nature-based solutions to
provide benefits to people, especially the most vulnerable
7. EBA must be participatory, transparent, accountable, and culturally appropriate,
while actively embracing equity and gender issues.
However, in relation to other adaptation approaches, there are little data
surrounding how EBA is being implemented and the challenges and successes
associated with it (Munroe et al. 2012). This study aims to better understand the
current state of awareness and knowledge within BRs. This report examines the
components of successful EBA practices, and ends with policy recommendations
based on the findings. With this study and more studies of a similar nature,
increased knowledge of EBA effectiveness and good governance will help translate
the theoretical framework of EBA to real change on the ground.
4. 4
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) is part of the UN Man and the
Biosphere Programme (MAB), aims at studying and improving the relationship
between humans and the natural environment. Nominated by national governments
but internationally recognized, UNESCO Biological Reserves (BRs) are specially
designated areas that promote conservation of biodiversity and sustainable
development through an interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach to
management, with an emphasis on the involvement of local communities. There are
currently 669 BRs dispersed across 120 countries, 16 of which include trans-
boundary areas (UNESCO 2016). Each BR is comprised of three distinct yet
complementary zones. In order from the center to the boundary, they include the
core area, the buffer zone, and the transition area.
BRs are exposed to a wide range of environmental changes with each zone having to
deal with impacts at different levels. Climate change can bring significant
modifications of the ecosystems as well as the sustainability activities of the reserve.
Understanding how BRs are working in order to adapt to climate change is an
important step to determine their adaptive capacity and define the next steps for
them in order to move ahead.
Climate Change and Biosphere Reserves
Global climate change presents one of the largest environmental, social, and
economic challenges in human history. Since the industrial revolution, the increase
in greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), has caused average global
temperatures to rise by more than 1° Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels
(Pachauri and Meyer 2014). This increase in global temperature has wide and
varied effects on natural and human systems that are felt disproportionately in
developing countries.
The IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report predicts these effects to become increasingly
severe in the coming century if drastic and urgent action is not taken to reduce
global emissions (Pachauri and Meyer 2014). The UN’s 13th Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG), to ‘take urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts’ was adopted in 2015 by world leaders in order to address this global need.
The Paris Agreement adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC COP21) further acknowledges the seriousness of this
global crisis and has catalyzed global action in response. However, there are many
areas where policy has not caught up to the available science or where there are
little data.
5. 5
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves can be used as a place to model and monitor climate
change adaptation and mitigation efforts, primarily by supporting ecosystem
services and enhancing resilience through natural solutions. They also act as pilot
sites for countries to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
SDGs. However, it seems that climate change is markedly absent in the management
of many BRs and it is unclear how many BRs have a climate plan, on conceptual or
practical levels.
The current scoping exercise aims to understand the current state of climate change
adaptation in BRs. The following section briefly describes the BRs surveyed in this
exercise. It is followed by the methodology used in this scoping exercise, the results,
and some conclusions and recommendations.
Surveyed Biosphere Reserves
The following five BRs were surveyed in this study, and span two continents, four
countries, and vary largely in size, age, organization, and ecosystem type. Table 1
describes the basic characteristics of the five BRs.
Table 1. Surveyed BRs. *total/core:buffer:trasition (100,000 ha) **Data unavailable.
BR Area* Ecosystem Date Population
Noosa 150/50:50:50 Temperate Forest 2007 80,000
Bosque Seco 501/83:266:152 Dry forest, shrub 2014 106,000
Sumaco 931/205:179:547 Tropical Forest 2000 100,000
North Devon 380/0:0:377 River Catchment 1976 150,000
Laguna del Laja 566/** Temperate Forest 2011 **
Noosa Biosphere Reserve in Queensland, Australia was designated as a BR in
2007, though it has been an active site in conservation efforts for decades. It
includes the former Noosa Shire area and the coastal waters four kilometers
offshore. It is now managed by a Foundation formed by the Noosa Council, and has
many projects in tandem with the University of the Sunshine Coast as well as the
state and federal government. The main economic activity in the area is tourism, and
population driven industry. In addition to numerous scientific studies, a primary
goal for 2016 is to engage with community groups to develop Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs).
6. 6
Photo retrieved from: noosabiosphere.org.au
Bosque Seco, or Dry Forest, Biosphere Reserve in Southwest Ecuador is the
youngest BR in this survey and the 6th in Ecuador. The reserve is predominantly
rural, so agriculture and livestock drive the local economy and the local population
uses the flora and fauna for food, income, and medicine. An inter-institutional team
manages the BR and is composed of local municipalities, the Ministry of
Environment of Ecuador (MAE), NGOs, and the Technical University of Loja. Ecuador
and Peru are now coming together to create a bi-national BR, linking Bosque Seco to
Peru’s Amotapes BR, creating an important biological corridor.
Photo retrieved from: natureandculture.org
7. 7
Sumaco Biosphere Reserve in the Napo province of Ecuador is home to Andean
highlands, Amazonian plains, as well as the Sumaco volcano area, and covers a wide
variety of ecosystems and socio-cultural diversity. It is also home to a large
population of predominantly Quichua people, who receive help to use the natural
resources in a sustainable way. Economic activities include tourism, agriculture,
agro-forestry, and fisheries.
Photo retrieved from: redlegagenda.com
North Devon Biosphere Reserve in England was the first among the six BRs to be
designated in England. It is also twinned with the Malindi-Watamu BR in Kenya,
sharing experiences and learning about adaptation from each other. Earth Report:
Rising Tides is a TV documentary about this relationship and climate change
adaptation. This BR is inter-disciplinary in its approach, as it has foci in
conservation, culture, green economy, and education. Tourism is the biggest
contributor to the local economy as the BR attracts large numbers of visitors every
year.
Photo retrieved from: northdevonbiospere.org.uk
8. 8
Laguna del Laja Biosphere Reserve is located in the Patagonian region of Chile,
a known biodiversity hotspot. It acts as a biological corridor and connects three core
conservation areas. It is managed by the National Forest Corporation, which is
overseen and funded by the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile. The IUCN’s five-year
initiative, Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities (EPIC) has a pilot
project in this BR, focusing specifically on EBA and forest use for avalanche risk
mitigation.
Photo retrieved from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lagunadellaja
Survey Methodology
Through 2015-16, five BRs were given a questionnaire to be completed voluntarily
on their own time, consisting of 12 questions (Annex 1). Participants were given a
brief introduction to the purpose of the study and background but were otherwise
not specifically directed and were asked to return the questionnaires when the time
was available to them.
Table 2. Five BRs surveyed for this study.
Biological
Reserve
Country Representatives Organizations
Laguna del Laja Chile Alberto Schwarze National Forestry Corporation
Pablo Saavedra Bio Bio Regional Government
Roxana Cruz Bio Bio Regional Government
María Urrutia Ministerial Regional Secretary for the
Environment
Bosque Seco Ecuador Vicente Solórzano Bosque Seco Biosphere Reserve
Sumaco Ecuador Jaime Shiguango Cocoa Round Table
Felipe Rosero Naranjilla Round Table
Pablo Arechúa Sumaco National Park
Noosa* Australia Tim Vercoe Noosa Biosphere Education, Research,
and Development
North Devon* England Andrew Bell UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve
Coordinator
9. 9
*Attachments
Some BRs also sent further background information on current projects:
Sumaco: Traditional Agroforestry and Climate Change Adaptation
Noosa Biosphere Reserve Climate Action Plan 2011: Draft NCAP
EBA Guidance: Principles to Practice 2012: Working Document
Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area Report 2015: North Devon NIA Report
Results
Below are the results of the five surveys organized by theme and sub-theme,
correlating to survey questions. They are not inclusive of every response but instead
highlight the main trends found throughout and concerns expressed by the various
BRs.
a. Awareness
i. Organizational Communication. Although all BRs showed recognition of
climate change and resulting impacts to varying degrees, only BRs in developed
countries (Australia and England) had an organized framework for discussing
impacts. There was no organized discussion seen in surveys from developing
countries (Ecuador and Chile). Bosque Seco was in the process of forming a
management round table and mentioned environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Sumaco had virtually no discussion of climate change adaptation with the
exception of a cocoa round table. Agricultural impact was the only concern listed,
suggesting this was the main management concern. However, Sumaco also
employed a traditional agroforestry system, the Chakra system, and said sustainable
management of cocoa was very socially, economically, and ecologically important.
• 2/5 BRs have had a structured discussion of climate change impacts
North Devon, Noosa
• 3/5 BRs have had a general discussion of climate change impacts
Bosque Seco, Sumaco, Laguna del Laja
ii. Population Understanding. There was a wide spectrum of population
awareness to climate change impacts across BRs. BR populations in developed
countries had a basic understanding and knowledge of climate change impacts.
However this understanding was not developed to the degree of knowing scientific
or policy discourse, such as differentiating adaptation from mitigation. Laguna del
Laja and Bosque Seco populations were said to feel the impacts of climate change
without understanding it as such. However the Sumaco population was thought to
10. 10
be completely unaware of it. Noosa was the only BR that mentioned climate deniers
but was also the only BR that mentioned outreach events.
• 2/5 BR populations are well aware of climate change impacts
North Devon, Noosa
• 1/5 BR populations are completely unaware of climate change impacts
Sumaco
iii. IUCN Principles and Adaptation Approaches. Most surveys answered
that most if not all principles would apply to their BR, however the principles were
not favored equally nor were they all practiced. Aside from Noosa, no BR
differentiated the various adaptation approaches in their BR management.
• 5/5 BRs aware of IUCN EBA principles said some, if not all, would apply
• Principle 6 was least cited. Principles 1, 2, 5, 7 were most cited
• 2/5 BRs were completely unaware of different adaptation approaches
Sumaco, Bosque Seco
• 2/5 BRs only use the EBA approach
Laguna del Laja, North Devon
• 1/5 BRs use a combination of adaptation approaches
Noosa
b. Recognized Impacts
All BRs stated that there were impacts in addition to those discussed at the
organizational level. Noosa specified that impacts were large and variable. Change in
the hydrological cycle was the most cited impact, including rainfall patterns,
flooding, and drought. Secondary effects from changes to the water cycle such as
impacts to agriculture and livestock capacity were also listed. Environmental
impacts from climate change such as habitat fragmentation and change in species
composition/range were cited in addition to social and economic impacts, such as
population health. Tourism, agriculture, and food security were the biggest direct
economic impacts listed, particularly in developing countries. Sumaco also cited
disaster risk without early warning as an impact. Finally, though both Noosa and
Bosque Seco recognized many climate change impacts, both BRS also reported an
incomplete understanding of all impacts due to a lack of monitoring and assessment.
• 4/5 BRs cited changes to water resources as a climate impact
Bosque Seco, Sumaco, Laguna del Laja, North Devon
• 2/5 BRs cited changes to agriculture as a climate impact
Sumaco, Bosque Seco
11. 11
• 2/5 BRs cited a lack of sufficient available data to answer in entirety
Noosa, Bosque Seco
c. Risks and Affected Zones
All BRs cited complexity or range in the risks associated with climate change.
Bosque Seco and Sumaco both cited transition and buffer zones as most at risk to
impacts to climate change, though the two BRs are composed of very different
ecosystems; dry versus tropical forests.
• 2/5 BRs said transition and buffer zones most at risk
Bosque Seco, Sumaco
• 2/5 BRs said all zones affected
Laguna del Laja, North Devon
d. Internal and External Initiatives
Climate change initiatives were varied in scale, scope, and timeline. Bosque Seco
cited multiple small-scale projects but it was not clear what stage of development
they were in. Some examples of specific project targets were water storage, disaster
risk reduction, biological corridors, waste management, and recycling. North Devon
had the largest project network, with many different partner organizations (30+
organizations, 3 government departments, and 3 local authorities).
• 1/5 BRs currently have no climate change impacts initiative
Sumaco
• 1/5 BRs have a Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Noosa
o EBA was not explicitly mentioned in the CAP, however; emphasis was
placed on the importance of community-based adaptation and
ecological services
• 4/5 BRs have an internal initiative at some stage
Bosque Seco, Laguna del Laja, North Devon, Noosa
• 3/5 BRs cited an external initiative
Noosa, Bosque Seco, Laguna del Laja
o Noosa had several DRR strategies implemented by the Noosa Council.
o Laguna del Laja was developing a water storage project in the BT
under the Ministry of Public Construction that aimed to ensure
irrigation in agricultural area
o North Devon had many projects with public and private partners
12. 12
e. Support and Resources
The level of support and resources needed varied widely among all BRs. North
Devon claimed £100 million and community advocacy was needed for a
comprehensive adaptation plan. Noosa cited institutional arrangements as the
major constraint; including interest groups, sectoral bias, private property rights,
and financial incentives. Laguna del Laja was unsure if an adaptation plan was
needed at this time, but asked for more information. Both BRs in Ecuador cited
limited human capacity as the biggest challenge to adaptation. Specifically, Sumaco’s
limited human capacity included a lack of information, technical capacity, and
funding, but cited organizational capacity as most important, specifically at the level
of community leaders. Bosque Seco listed the following areas of limited capacity:
Technical (staff with expertise), Technological (generating information for
planning), Logistical (work and transportation facilities), Economic, and Legal.
All BRs agreed to the proposal of being part of pilot project to varying degrees as
this would help better integrate EbA in their work and enhance knowledge and
awareness among the populations living within the BRs. Laguna del Laja and North
Devon listed environmental priorities; Sumaco and Bosque Seco emphasized data
collection, tools, and capacity building as project priorities.
• 4/5 BRs cited government collaboration
Bosque Seco, Noosa, Laguna del Laja, North Devon
o North Devon provided government with data
• 3/5 BRs cited government support
Bosque Seco, Noosa, Laguna del Laja
o Noosa received government support through funding
Conclusions and Action Recommendations
The aim of this study was to assess the level of awareness of EBA as a tool to build
resilient BRs and reduce the impacts of climate change. Though there was relatively
little implementation of EBA and awareness was generally low, all BRs expressed
interest in further information and help in developing adaptation strategies and
initiatives. For example, Sumaco said the indigenous Kichwa population has
expressed the need and want for information and knowledge related to climate
change adaptation. Furthermore, the BRs that were aware of the IUCN EBA
principles said that they serve as a useful tool in guiding plans.
The policy recommendations for different BRs vary considerably as they have
different capacities, populations, and ecosystems. However, the first step in
increasing climate change adaptation in BRs, specifically EBA, is increasing
13. 13
awareness and circulating information, especially to those BRs that may have
limited access to such materials.
In addition to circulating information and increasing awareness among both
populations and decision-makers, vulnerability assessments are a necessary
starting point for any BR in order to better understand the case-specific need. After
an initial vulnerability assessment is completed and policy is tailored towards those
needs, including regular monitoring and reporting. It is important that and
adaptation plans and policies be data-driven and science-informed, including
local and traditional ecological knowledge. In order to facilitate change and
uncertainty, policies should also aim to employ flexible and adaptive
management.
Funding is needed in all BRs, but those with multiple partners across sectors had the
most diversity of funds and projects. This can become difficult and requires
increased institutional organization and communication. In developing
countries, however, human capital is the element that is most lacking and needed. In
order to build capacity in these areas, technical staff with expertise and on-ground
support is needed to implement these strategies. Multi-stakeholder collaboration
and participation in the decision-making process have also been recognized
throughout this study. Sumaco, though limited in technical expertise and
organization, has a cocoa round table that is comprised of over 70% Kichwa so the
local and indigenous population is a major part of the decision-making process. This
community-led approach is increasingly important in creating sustainable and
equitable policies.
Many of the above findings and components of good policy can be found highlighted
in the IUCN EBA principles. These principles serve as a guiding framework for BRs
to create management plans from. Up until now they have not been widely received
or recognized however IUCN and other organizations can play an important role in
capacity-building in this way, and help to catalyze action across geographic and
sectoral scales.
Acknowledgements
This working document is in preparation for an IUCN-CEM report addressing
ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in biosphere reserves. Included is an
analysis of a scoping study on the awareness of the impacts of climate change as
well as EBA in five biosphere reserves: Noosa, Australia; Sumaco, Ecuador; Bosque
Seco, Ecuador; Laguna del Laja, Chile; and North Devon, England. We would like to
thanks all the participants as well as the CEM for their support. The study was
approved by Brock University Research Ethics Board.
