**1. Introduction**

Landscapes<sup>1</sup> transform over time as land use changes, infrastructure develops, human populations fluctuate, and impactful natural events occur. Ideally, landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> will adapt to these changing conditions to safeguard ecosystem functionality and guarantee sustainability. However, in large parts of the world, landscapes have been modified such that their carrying capacities have been exceeded, and irreversible environmental degradation ensued [5]. This situation often coincides with severe conflicts over natural resources that a ffect peoples' livelihoods and security [6]. Accordingly, over the last few decades, the need to balance human-induced developments and

<sup>1</sup> The term landscape is used by several scientific disciplines drawing on a wide range of definitions and concepts [1,2]. Considering a number of definitions developed more recently by various authors [1–4], we understand landscapes as dynamic, interactively developing social-ecological systems that often combine a mosaic of alternative land uses and different governance structures.

environmental resilience became increasingly obvious [7], with landscapes considered to be a suitable spatial unit for the governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> of social-ecological systems [8,9].

To address and resolve the conflicts among di fferent interest groups in a specific landscape, stakeholder participation, engagement, and collaboration is increasingly considered to be a major decisive factor [3,10]. In a landscape framework that includes operational governance structures and functioning institutions, stakeholder engagemen<sup>t</sup> is an important element to successfully negotiate inevitable trade-o ffs as part of conflict resolution [3,10–12]. However, as landscape institutions interact with superior levels of governance structures or ecological systems and the stakeholder spectrum expands, complexity and interdependences also grow further [1].

In this context, the concept of biosphere reserves and its implementation—conceptualized by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) science program "Man and the Biosphere" (MAB) and globally implemented since 1976 [13]—may o ffer valuable insights and experiences for landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> that focus on environmentally balanced sustainable development. As biosphere reserves are "designed to combine biodiversity conservation with socio-economic development and knowledge production (both scientific and local) and dissemination" [9], this concept proposes to address actual and future landscape challenges. Today, 701 biosphere reserves have been designated by UNESCO in 124 countries; together, they form the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) [14]. Within its regional or thematic sub-networks (e.g., AfriMAB, the network of biosphere reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa), the WNBR promotes the sharing of best practices and experiences from biosphere reserves around the world [15]. Each biosphere reserve designation precedes a stakeholder participation process and a formal request by the respective national government. Biosphere reserves are areas of di fferent sizes and focuses, but they often emphasize one ecosystem type or natural or cultural landscape.

This study aims to explore the potential and realized contribution of UNESCO's biosphere reserve concept and its implementation to landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> in Africa. Its objective is to provide a common understanding of biosphere reserve structures, functions, and processes and to illustrate their relevance for landscape approaches based on four case studies. According to our knowledge, investigating biosphere reserves in Africa from a landscape perspective is somewhat novel. The majority of references investigate biosphere reserves from an intrinsic perspective, while only a few studies [16] take a broader perspective and analyze biosphere reserves as implementing units for landscape governance and management. The focus of the present study is on key components of a landscape approach, as obtained from a review of the literature. The case study findings are reported in the form of narratives to complement the literature review and to illustrate first-hand practical experiences. The motivation for this study is derived from the notion that di fferent landscape concepts and approaches, which have emerged over time in various situations, can build upon and complement each other [7,12]. Thus, alternative approaches to natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> that aim to link conservation with sustainable development in Africa are likewise taken into consideration and contrasted. The focus of this study is on Africa, where multiple drivers of global and local change currently significantly impact landscapes [4]. At the same time, the implementation of the MAB program has made progress in parts of the continent, with the goal to establish model regions for sustainable development.

In this context, the overall guiding question of the study is the following: what can we learn from the concept of biosphere reserves and their implementation for landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> in Africa? We hypothesize that biosphere reserves: (1) provide a structural framework for landscape governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> and foster links between di fferent hierarchies; (2) coordinate intersectoral activities to achieve mutual conservation and sustainable development objectives in the designated area; (3) provide opportunities for knowledge generation and learning for stakeholders; and (4) address trade-o ffs between nature and people in a holistic manner, while contributing to conflict resolution among di fferent interest groups. This study focuses on stakeholder engagemen<sup>t</sup> and collaboration, assuming these to be overarching conditions for the development and maintenance of governance

and managemen<sup>t</sup> structures and the implementation of programs and projects to achieve sustainable development targets.

The following section describes the concept of biosphere reserves, as well as alternative landscape approaches, in Africa. Section 3 depicts the methods applied in the study and outlines an analytical framework that identifies four crucial components for integrated approaches to landscapes. Through this analytical lens, the results from a literature review are presented in Section 4 to analyze the biosphere reserve concept considering the four components. The analysis is complemented by findings from four case studies of biosphere reserves located in western and southern Africa and a discussion of factors that may impact success and failure in different contexts. In Section 5, we relate the results of the analysis of biosphere reserves to the wider discussion on conservation and development in African landscapes and draw lessons learnt from the investigation of biosphere reserves as potential models for landscape governance and management. The final section draws some general conclusions of the study.

#### **2. The Concept of Biosphere Reserves and Alternative Landscape Approaches in Africa**

#### *2.1. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserves*

Biosphere reserves are the primary tool of UNESCO's MAB program. This program was established in 1971 to strengthen the research on and implementation of human interactions with ecosystems and to explore conservation strategies that facilitate the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystem services [17]. According to UNESCO's definition, biosphere reserves are "learning places for sustainable development. They are sites for testing interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and managing changes and interactions between social and ecological systems, including conflict prevention and managemen<sup>t</sup> of biodiversity. They are places that provide local solutions to global challenges" [18].

The concept of biosphere reserves has been adapted continuously since its establishment [19]. Initially, areas were mainly designated based on biodiversity criteria and their capacity to support research activities [11]. In 1995, the MAB program's "Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the WNBR" was adopted. This strategy identifies the specific role of biosphere reserves in developing a new vision of the relationship between conservation and development. It further stresses the need for sustainable development, participatory landscape governance, and managemen<sup>t</sup> and the role of biosphere reserves to provide interactions between society and ecosystems through dialogue among relevant actors [20]. Thus, biosphere reserves presently serve as "model regions for sustainable development" [21] worldwide [9,10], aiming to integrate conservation with the improvement of local livelihood. To realize this vision, biosphere reserves concurrently aim to achieve the following three complementary functions:


Biosphere reserves are designated by an intergovernmental body, the MAB International Coordinating Council (MAB ICC). The designation process follows a common set of globally agreed-upon rules and principles. The designated area remains fully under national jurisdiction, however, according to the Statutory Framework of the WNBR, an integrated governance framework and managemen<sup>t</sup> plan is obligatory for a biosphere reserve [20]. The nomination process involves a profound understanding of the bio-geographic and socio–economic situation of the area but also demands the development of a clear strategy on how to fulfill the three functions of the biosphere reserve and the engagemen<sup>t</sup> of major local stakeholders. Eventually, the nomination dossier requires

the formal acceptance of all relevant authorities and political representatives at different governance levels (local, provincial, and national), before it can be submitted to UNESCO by the responsible national authority [20].

#### Characteristic Tools and Features of Biosphere Reserves

A characteristic tool to pursue the three functions of a biosphere reserves is the zonation concept. A biosphere reserve is zoned into one or more "core areas", a "buffer zone" surrounding the core areas, and a "transition area" (see Figure 1). A core area represents a legally protected site for the conservation of biodiversity and limits activities beyond conservation to research and education only. Some form of national or local legal protection of the core zone(s) is the only condition prescribed by the MAB program in terms of zonation. Hence, biosphere reserves have one or more legally protected core area(s), while their respective buffer zone(s) and surrounding transition zones have limited (or non-existent) legal protection status [22]. Many biosphere reserves integrate pre-existing protected sites as core areas and connect them through buffer zones forming "ecological corridors" [23]. The buffer zone is used for ecologically sound practices, e.g., for farming or tourism. The transition zone denotes an area with a variety of activities (including economic activities from subsistence crop and livestock farming to commercial agriculture, trade, industry, and tourism), where multiple stakeholders cooperate to manage and sustainably develop the area's resources [20]. Examples across the world show that biosphere reserves indeed have the potential to foster local economic development by generating additional income and employment opportunities associated with different economic sectors [22,24,25]. Specifically, the development of new technologies related to the sustainable use of land and water resources and the use of renewable energy or institutional innovations (like smallholder co-operatives or conservation associations) provide the potential to stimulate employment [16,22,26].

**Figure 1.** The zonation concept of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserves; picture: Volcans Biosphere Reserve, Rwanda, with the volcanoes being the core zone; compiled by the authors.

In recent decades, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves have contributed to raising awareness of the need for global standards to integrate conservation with social and economic development. Today, other national and international designations of protected areas follow the notion of zonation and likewise interlink conservation and local development [27]. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, however, accentuate their priorities differently compared to most other categories of protected areas, as their primary goal is the harmonization of the human–nature relationship within the designated area [9,28].

It is mandatory that the core zone of a biosphere reserve be a protected site under national or sub-national law. Hence, in most cases, biosphere reserves integrate pre-existing protected areas. Depending on the local and national importance of the protected area, this situation can substantially impact the landscape and its governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> system.

The designation of a specific area as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve also has the potential to further strengthen existing conservation activities, specifically by linking these activities to developments beyond the boundaries of the actual protected area and by providing a supportive and integrated institutional frame [16]. However, encompassing conservation sites under other formal arrangements (e.g., National Parks) within a biosphere reserve also bears the risk that a biosphere reserve will fail to achieve its potential as an "open concept" that links conservation and development due to disagreements, a lack of support, and conflicts among local stakeholders [9].

To ensure the long-term quality of designated sites, the Statutory Framework of the WNBR entails a 10-year-periodic review process to monitor, assess, and report on developments within a biosphere reserve. The results of this reporting process were mixed during the first two decades of its implementation [19]. However, since 2013, the MAB ICC has introduced several additional measures to further ensure the quality of the WNBR. These include an "excellence process" to support mechanisms for biosphere reserves that do not fully conform with the standards of the WNBR, as well as an "exit strategy" for Biosphere Reserves that remain non-compliant with UNESCO's designation criteria [9,29].

An important feature that determines the success of a biosphere reserve in achieving its goals is local ownership through identification of local stakeholders with the vision and mission of a biosphere reserve [23,30,31]. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are characterized by involving local communities and interested stakeholders in the decision-making processes and implementation of e ffective benefit-sharing mechanisms [16]. Such inclusive engagemen<sup>t</sup> can reduce conflicts of interest and generate economic opportunities for the local population and the likelihood for development-oriented approaches to achieve successful outcomes [11].

#### *2.2. Alternative Natural Resource Management Approaches in Africa*

While UNESCO Biosphere Reserves were established in Africa as early as the late 1970s<sup>2</sup> [18], alternative approaches to natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> that integrate biodiversity conservation with the socio-economic development of local communities have gained prominence since the mid-1980s [4]. These approaches, which were first introduced by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), can be summarized under the term Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) [32,33]. Biosphere reserve initiatives and ICDPs interacted or complemented each other, primarily where both approaches coincided on site, as described in Section 4.1 for Ghana [30,34].

#### 2.2.1. Development of Alternative Approaches over Time

Until the 1970s, land managemen<sup>t</sup> in many African countries was mostly conducted under sectoral approaches. While many traditional African societies used to apply holistic approaches to administer their natural resources, the socio–economic consequences of colonial and post-colonial governance systems led to landscapes that were widely characterized by single-purpose and exclusive-use approaches, with the managemen<sup>t</sup> and distribution of land under the broad authority of central governments. Often the needs of local communities were not reflected in landscape planning, as shown in reports about the relocations of populations for di fferent purposes of land use [29,35].

The conservation sector, until the 1970s, focused primarily on the preservation of natural landscapes inside protected areas. It widely ignored the situation outside conservation sites and the roles of humans in maintaining them. Beyond legally protected areas, natural resources on communal lands were—mainly as a result of population pressure—increasingly a ffected by the overutilization and

<sup>2</sup> Today, 79 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves have been designated in 29 African countries [18].

degradation of natural resources and a loss of biodiversity [36]. Realizing these flaws and their consequences for general environmental protection at the end of the 1970s, conservation across Africa experienced a change in mindset [33]. It was acknowledged that previous conservation approaches, which focused primarily on the establishment of protected areas, had been ineffective in stopping general habitat losses and the poaching of protected species [37]. Moreover, conservationists realized that protected area development in the past often came with social injustices among local populations [33].

On these grounds, ICDPs promoted a shift from the "traditional fortress conservation model" [12] towards integrated approaches, which included the livelihood needs of local communities. While the literature assessed the implementation of this "first generation of ICDPs" [4] as predominantly oriented towards conservation with often only symbolic participation mechanisms for local communities, they were forerunners of a paradigm shift in addressing land managemen<sup>t</sup> and conservation [4], specifically in Africa but also in other parts of the world [32,38]. This movement was fostered through the parallel emergence of the scientific discipline of "Landscape Ecology", which aims to better understand the relationship between spatial formations and ecological processes at different scales and levels of organization [12].

In the 1990s, change could also be observed in the field of development cooperation. Biodiversity was increasingly addressed as a socio–economic asset for economic development, which led to the growing integration of conservation perspectives into the conceptualization of rural development projects [12]. The development theory discourse in the 1980s changed and began to emphasize in particular the potential of decentralization and local empowerment approaches [12]. For these reasons, in the late 1980 and early 1990s, ICDPs became increasingly popular development instruments. Following the Rio Conference in 1992, a number of different integrated landscape approaches gained further popularity, e.g., under the names of integrated natural resource management, integrated rural development or community-based natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> (CBNRM) [12]. While these approaches have been differentiated in the literature, it is important to stress that, in practice, they often represent similar initiatives, albeit applied within different contexts and under different strategies [12].

#### 2.2.2. The Case of Community-Based Natural Resource Management

The CBNRM approach gained high levels of attention in the conservation and development sectors, especially in southern Africa, and has been vital for the implementation of many ICDPs since the 1990s. While under colonial and post-colonial legislation, the utilization of wildlife through local communities was broadly prohibited; however, in the 1970s and 1980s perceptions towards wildlife use rights started to slowly change in some countries [34]. New laws would allow private landowners and communities to make use of local natural resources and directly benefit from wildlife on communal lands. The first large-scale CBNRM-project was CAMPFIRE (Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous People) in Zimbabwe. This project was launched in 1989 and implemented at the district level, promoting income generation for communities through the sustainable use of natural resources, mainly by licensing wildlife access to safari and tourism operators [36,39]. The implementation in Zimbabwe sparked the introduction of similar programs in other countries, such as in Botswana, Mozambique, and Namibia. During this time, CBNRM became part of the development strategies and conservation policies in a number of countries and was increasingly supported by international funding organizations, the African Union (AU), and multilateral organizations [34].

CBNRM-approaches can take many forms and emphasize different subjects according to their regional or national implementation contexts or corresponding bio-geographic landscapes. CBNRM can be implemented as communal conservancies, as in the case of Namibia; as Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs), to regulate natural resources in the forests of Ghana; or as Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), such as in Tanzania. In some countries, CBNRM is predominantly regarded as a rural development tool; in others, there is a clear emphasis on the conservation aspect of CBNRM and its potential to protect ecosystems [34,36].While the scope and scale of CBNRM-approaches

di ffer, they all share the general principle of advancing the sustainable managemen<sup>t</sup> of wildlife and natural resources while fostering the empowerment and livelihood of local communities [40]. In all instances, CBNRM involves some degree of the co-managemen<sup>t</sup> of resources between central authorities, the local government, and local communities, which share rights and responsibilities through diverse institutional arrangements [34]. The conservancy-approach, as implemented (e.g., in Namibia), is based in particular on relatively broad-based stakeholder participation and the devolution of managemen<sup>t</sup> rights over local resources to local communities.

Despite mixed performance assessments [34], due to its potential for inter-sectoral sustainable development, CBNRM has been widely acknowledged by conservationists and development organizations as a useful tool to foster conservation and livelihoods and to implement international agreements, conservation strategies, and development agendas, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). All over Africa, CBNRM-projects have become important partners for international organizations to test innovations related to linking environment and development, finance mechanisms (like Payments for Ecosystem Services), or innovative approaches associated with climate change adaptation [4,34].
