*4.1. Governance*

4.1.1. The Governance Framework of Biosphere Reserves

UNESCO's MAB Program allows for a flexible biosphere reserve governance structure design. The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves explicitly emphasizes the

importance of diversity and encourages the development of national implementation structures that consider specific national contexts [20]. This consideration is related to a recognition of the peculiarity of landscapes worldwide with regard to: their biophysical features and the di fferences in natural resource use, traditional and cultural values of landscapes, existing forms of stakeholder organization, and concerning institutional and political contexts. In practice, this flexibility has led to a broad variety of governance approaches among biosphere reserves. In some cases, biosphere reserve governance structures are part of national, provincial, or municipal administrative authorities and may be considered in legislation. In other cases, biosphere reserves are managed by, or function as, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or are under some form of private managemen<sup>t</sup> [54,55].

While appreciating the diversity in national implementation contexts, governance structures should be in the position to promote the realization of a biosphere reserve's functions and to address the broad participation of stakeholders. Moreover, institutional structures should provide adequate mechanisms to foster sustainable resource use and human activities [20]. Due to the aforementioned diversity of governance models, it is di fficult to describe how biosphere reserves generally implement these institutional expectations. However, two typical models (see Figure 3), categorized by their organizational forms as the "authority model" and "NGO model", are described in a managemen<sup>t</sup> manual for African biosphere reserve managers, compiled in cooperation between the AfriMAB, the UNESCO MAB Secretariat, and the German Commission for UNESCO in 2015 [55]. Notably, these two models represent ideal types based on comprehensive experiences with biosphere reserves in Sub-Saharan-Africa. Most biosphere reserves may find themselves somewhere on the spectrum between these two model poles, but a basic understanding of the fundamentally di fferent governance approaches is helpful for understanding the structure and functioning of a specific biosphere reserve.

Both models share a similar composition in their organizational bodies in the form of a "managing body" that executes the daily work of the biosphere reserve; an "executive body", responsible for decision-making; and an "advisory body" to ensure an informed decision-making process. In the authority model, the managemen<sup>t</sup> body is in some way connected to a supreme governmental authority, such as a national or provincial ministry. Executive decision-making takes place within this authority, and the managemen<sup>t</sup> body is legally authorized to implement its decisions. This structure equips the managemen<sup>t</sup> body to have a strong administrative mandate in the designated area, which is usually bound to the mandate of the responsible governance authority, e.g., national parks and wildlife or forestry. As such, the executive or managemen<sup>t</sup> body has only limited opportunities to engage in activities that fall under the mandate of other public authorities, such as agriculture, tourism, water, or education. Sometimes, the mandate of the managemen<sup>t</sup> body is limited to the core zone only [55].

Among the four case studies, Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve (Ghana) provides an interesting example, with its governance structure integrated into an pre-existing administrative structure. The latter represents a several-tier system of traditional and political authorities that embodies the base of the local political system. To ensure adequate managemen<sup>t</sup> of the biosphere reserve, the "Lake Bosomtwe Resource Management Area" (CREMA) was established to function as the main governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> entity of the area [35]. CREMAs are a tool for communities in Ghana to manage their use of natural resources [34]. The establishment of the Lake Bosomtwe CREMA was conducted with special regard to existing traditional decision-making structures within the Ashanti region. The CREMA's constitution was legalized by a by-law of the two respective district assemblies, which have general oversight of the decisions of the CREMA board. The constitution foresees the inclusion of individual representatives of all engaged governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies and the two district assemblies as ex-o fficio members into the board [37].

According to the NGO model (see Figure 3), a biosphere reserve is not directly connected to any public authority but functions as an independent organization. Its main decision-making body is composed of di fferent relevant stakeholder groups, such as landowners, entrepreneurs, and researchers, as well as national or provincial public authorities. As this executive body has no supreme administrative mandate beyond the biosphere reserve, the managemen<sup>t</sup> body has less or no formal

authority to implement its decisions in the designated area [55]. Therefore, it functions instead as a coordinator for implementing different activities and projects towards the biosphere reserve's goals together with local and sometimes international partners. Without an "official" mandate for its managemen<sup>t</sup> body, the relevance of the biosphere reserve highly depends on its acceptance by local communities and local political stakeholders [16]. However, functioning similar to an NGO can also provide the managemen<sup>t</sup> body more leeway in implementing projects and, thereby, enhance its credibility as a politically independent organization [55].

**Figure 3.** Two exemplary governance models for biosphere reserves: the authority model (above); NGO model (below). Source: [55].

To illustrate a biosphere reserve structured according to the NGO model, we consider the example of the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve (South Africa). The Vhembe Biosphere Reserve understands itself as a non-profit organization that aims to work towards the objectives of the MAB Program [31]. The main decision body is the board of directors of 8–10 honorary persons who are representatives of different local

individual or institutional stakeholder groups. They are elected for a period of three years during the annual general meeting by the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve members. An additional board seat (without voting rights) exist for a representative of the Limpopo Province Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism, to represent the responsible governmental authority with the strongest executive mandate in the region. Additional board seats were established for the administrations of the four districts that form part of the biosphere reserve to link the biosphere reserve to local political and administrative structures. They advise the board from the perspective of the relevant public authorities. The board of directors holds five sub-committees tasked to elaborate information on conservation, development, research, education, communication, and finance. All managemen<sup>t</sup> activities and projects are coordinated by a coordinator and his or her co-worker [31].

The NGO model is less common in African countries but is prevailing in South Africa [47]. In this category, the level of influence between public authorities and local stakeholders di ffers widely, sometimes leading to complex interconnections between di fferent levels of local governance and stakeholders. This is especially true for biosphere reserves in countries where devolution processes towards land use and natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> have taken place in recent decades, and local institutions possess or share ownership of decision-making in the managemen<sup>t</sup> of land use [55].

#### 4.1.2. The Biosphere Reserve Zonation as a Tool to Structure Governance

Zonation is an important feature of a biosphere reserve but is also often highly contested. Hence, the involvement of stakeholders and their acceptance of zonation is crucial to adequately address and fulfil a biosphere reserve's functions [56,57]. In practice, zonation is the result of negotiation processes over di fferent types of land uses and the needs to consider existing local development plans, such as plans for infrastructure or industrial development [10].

At Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve, the core of the lake along with several smaller areas next to the waterside have been designated as separate core zones surrounded by a bu ffer zone around the lake and a transition zone at its outer edges. What makes this zonation pattern of nested circles so special is that it is based on the preexisting cultural zonation of the local communities that inhabit the area. For centuries, fishermen have not fished at the center of the lake, which is regarded a sacred place.

This cultural taboo has, therefore, been transmitted into the so called "cultural core area" [55]. Agreeing on the concrete zonation for Lake Bosomtwe was a complex process, as three di fferent governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies (Forrest Services, Water Resource Commission, and "Spatial planning and Land use") were previously involved in managing the land use in the area and had divergent opinions on how to implement a zoning scheme within the areas under their specific mandates. However, through their integration and cooperation within the CREMA (see Section 4.4), they jointly reviewed their earlier proposals and came to an agreemen<sup>t</sup> for joint zonation of the area [30].

Once the zones are established, promoting compliance and implementing conflict resolution is an important task, which ideally should be embedded in governance structures. To resolve conflicts over natural resource use that contradicts the zonation, the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve constantly sensitizes local communities and takes a constructive approach to integrate the stakeholders concerned. In recent years, mining activities that a ffected the bu ffer zones developed and became an important economic sector in the region. The Vhembe Biosphere Reserve facilitates the exchange and agreements between mining companies, the provincial government, and local communities, who are engaged by enabling Environmental Impact Assessments. If necessary, governance structures are adapted to accommodate for emerging issues and new stakeholders [31].

#### 4.1.3. Initiating a Biosphere Reserve and Shaping its Governance

The prevailing governance approach for biosphere reserves is also defined by the way that biosphere reserves are initiated. In some countries, a formal decision of the governmen<sup>t</sup> is the first trigger to establish a biosphere reserve [10]. However, a successful UNESCO designation demands a broad consensus among local stakeholders [58]. The nomination dossier needs the approval of all

relevant authorities and local mandate holders of the respective communities. Therefore, biosphere reserve initiators need to engage local stakeholders during the nomination process to jointly develop a common vision for the area and find consensus on the appropriate zonation. In some cases, this can lead to a lengthy process of several years, depending on the pre-existing experiences of the stakeholders with similar processes and potential conflicts that may emerge in the process [10,48].

In the case of South Africa, most biosphere reserves were established under the initiative of local stakeholder groups that decided to cooperate as non-profit organizations with provincial and national authorities towards developing a biosphere reserve designation [48]. For the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, a group of local land and conservancy owners began the nomination process. With the support of the Limpopo Provincial Government, they reached out to local communities within the proposed area to inform them about the concept, to negotiate the proposed zonation approach, and to achieve the necessary acceptance from political and traditional leaders [31].

In Ghana, the process to establish the Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve was initiated by the governmen<sup>t</sup> through the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), an agency subordinated to the Ministry of Environment, Science Technology, and Innovation. The EPA hosts the chair of the national MAB Committee and initiates MAB-related activities. Before the nomination project started, a cooperation project of the governmen<sup>t</sup> of Ghana, UNESCO, and local community authorities was conducted to sensitize local communities to the biosphere reserve concept and to guarantee the local population's support for the implementation of a CREMA as the main governance and managing body of the biosphere reserve [30].

## *4.2. Adaptive Management*

#### 4.2.1. Management Structures across Case Studies

Biosphere reserve governance structures, as outlined above, strongly impact managemen<sup>t</sup> procedures and performance. As we observed, the various institutional models (see Section 4.1), specific features of managemen<sup>t</sup> related to human capacity (including: sta ff time, knowledge, and experience), relations to stakeholders, and access to finances and infrastructure di ffer substantially across biosphere reserves. The decision on which organization will assume managemen<sup>t</sup> will strongly influence a biosphere reserve's orientation and ultimately its performance. Table 1 gives an overview of the managemen<sup>t</sup> organizations responsible for implementation in the four biosphere reserves investigated in this study.

Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve is managed by the Mount Mulanje Conservation Trust (MMCT), an NGO established in Malawi in 2000, the same year the biosphere reserve was designated by UNESCO. In 2005, it became a conservation trust funded by the World Bank through the Global Environmental Facility. MMCT shares its goals with those of the biosphere reserve. These goals basically entail conservation of the mountain's natural resources, primarily focusing on water, soils, and biodiversity, and the promotion of people's livelihoods through sustainable resource use to help develop a Green Economy. Economic activities are related to the production and marketing of, for example, tea, fruit trees, fish, and timber [52].

The Vhembe Biosphere Reserve functions as an NGO and is coordinated through a non-profit organization of the same name. Decisions made by the board are primarily implemented by a financed coordinator and a number of supporting volunteers [31]. Quite di fferently, at the Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve, a CREMA and its local units, CSRMs, form the managemen<sup>t</sup> unit of the biosphere reserve. The activities connected to the Biosphere Reserve are coordinated by two employees of the Water Resource Commission, the national agency responsible for water managemen<sup>t</sup> in Ghana, which is also a CREMA stakeholder. At the transboundary Mono (River) Biosphere Reserve in Benin and Togo, eight local protected area associations, composed of land-owners and users, local NGOs, and other conservation initiatives, were established and o fficially given the mandate to manage the eight core and adjacent bu ffer zones. The transition zone is managed by community authorities in Benin and territorial authorities in Togo [46,53].

A characteristic of each investigated biosphere reserve is that the core managemen<sup>t</sup> unit is very small. However, these units are supported by their respective executive boards and/or an advisory board. Moreover, managemen<sup>t</sup> often cooperates with di fferent governmental, non-governmental, and/or private sector supporting entities. This cooperation substantially increases management's capacity for implementation. For example, at the Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve, through close partnerships of MMCT with other organizations that operate in the area (who, contrary to MMCT, have a stronger focus on social matters like health and alphabetization), synergies evolve. This cooperation contributes to local sustainable development and serves as a mechanism to overcome the capacity limitations of MMCT. In practical terms, these partnerships involve the sharing of infrastructure or the mutual use of implementation tools. An example of shared tools are the so-called community profiles, which reflect communities' needs and priorities in the region and are developed by MMCT in cooperation with local communities [52].

In the Mono Biosphere Reserve protected area, associations have developed close links to o fficial law enforcement agencies, especially the police, foresters, and courts. These links have significantly helped increase adherence to internally negotiated regulations and use restrictions for the core and bu ffer zones. In addition, links to private sector companies, as recommended by UNESCO [20] (e.g., to a nearby limestone mine), resulted in additional support for conservation activities in the biosphere reserve [53]. Positive experiences and intentions to further engage with the private sector were also mentioned by other biosphere reserve managers [30,31,52]. Experience from the WNBR showed that private sector engagemen<sup>t</sup> in conservation and development initiatives is often motivated by image gains and, in some instances, by economic factors [59].

#### 4.2.2. Specific Management Challenges and Tools

In a multi-stakeholder landscape setting, conflicts inevitably emerge. This raises the question of how biosphere reserve managers can cope with such challenges. What mechanisms have worked to address and ultimately solve such conflicts, and what role does the zonation of a biosphere reserve play in this regard? In the Mono Biosphere Reserve, prior to its establishment, hardly any gazetted protected areas existed. Hence, the core and bu ffer zones were identified in an intensive stakeholder dialogue process that focused on communities' land use practices and future plans and included training on ecological interrelations. Zones were ultimately identified considering breeding grounds for fish, the reproduction of timber, or grassland restoration for communal grazing. Following the identification of the zones, associations were established and o fficially mandated to manage the core areas. Furthermore, rules and regulations were set and subsequently enforced with the support of the relevant authorities. The zonation requirements for the designation of the biosphere reserve stimulated a negotiation process that resulted in the protection of sites for communal rather than individual benefits. Today, the communally negotiated and clear zonation of the area has contributed to reducing conflicts rather than increasing them [53].

For the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, as for numerous other protected areas, mining activities within or near the biosphere reserve are usually a matter of conflicting interests. The designated South African Energy and Metallurgical Special Economic Zone (established 2017) is mainly located in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve [60]. While communities anticipate employment opportunities through the large investments (as planned for), conservationists and farmers fear negative impacts on the environment, specifically impacts related to the availability of already scarce water resources. The Vhembe Biosphere Reserve managemen<sup>t</sup> understands itself as a broker in this conflicting situation and contributes by providing a negotiation platform and relevant information [31].

A major tool for biosphere reserve management—and a UNESCO requirement [20]—is a managemen<sup>t</sup> plan. These plans di ffer substantially in terms of their implementation periods (from 2 to 5 years among the four case studies) and their details. The Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve operated in the past on the basis of a 5-year managemen<sup>t</sup> plan that focused specifically on the forest sector. This emphasis was due to the fact that the biosphere reserve is located in a forest reserve and overseen by the Department of Forestry. Subsequent to its periodic review of 2014, UNESCO advised the biosphere reserve to consider expanding its boundaries beyond the forest reserve. This suggestion catalyzed management's thinking towards an integrated managemen<sup>t</sup> plan that also reflects others sectors that form part of the management's activities in the region, including water, energy, agriculture, and tourism. As a result, a comprehensive, integrated plan is currently being elaborated (with external financial support) [52].

Funding is a major requirement for the provision of managemen<sup>t</sup> services in a biosphere reserve. Financial resources are needed for the remuneration of sta ff (if employed directly by the biosphere reserve), any managemen<sup>t</sup> activities and operations (including meetings, transport, etc.), as well as conservation and development projects implemented with local stakeholders. Funds derive from various sources: the governmen<sup>t</sup> (primarily national or provincial governments), NGOs (local, national, or international NGOs), and private sector companies within or beyond the biosphere reserve. Their availability and continuity largely impact a biosphere reserve's potential to advance its goals. Hence, expanding a reserve's funding portfolio and applying for funding is a central task of biosphere reserve management. For example, the MMCT in charge of the Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve's managemen<sup>t</sup> developed an endowment fund that is currently around 6 million US\$. This fund generates annual revenue; it is supplemented with funding from other sources (including international donor contributions and returns form MMCT's own electricity company) to implement community projects [52].

More generally, with respect to a biosphere reserve's dual goal of conservation and sustainable development, the question arises how managemen<sup>t</sup> can successfully link these goals—specifically in a landscape categorized by zonation. A strategy followed by the Mono Biosphere Reserve is to demonstrate the economic value of conservation measures to stakeholders. Ecotourism activities in the bu ffer zone generate employment and income. For example, conserving breeding grounds for fish improves returns from a fishery over the long term, and simple methods to produce compost increase crop yields [53]. Activities that connect stakeholders' needs to the vision of the biosphere reserve enhance understanding and trust in the biosphere reserve.

#### *4.3. Information, Communication, and Capacity Building*

Logistical support, which (according to the MAB Program) includes research and monitoring, as well as education, training, and demonstration projects in relation to conservation and sustainable development, is one of the three basic functions of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve [10,20] (see also Section 2.1). Logistical support is of specific relevance for socio-ecological systems, where strong interconnections and correlations between biophysical and social factors exist. Moreover, the changing conditions in landscapes—such as those induced by climate change—necessitate further investigations, testing, and constant adaptation [9]. The insights obtained from the four case studies show that by connecting di fferent components of logistical support, e ffective sustainability outcomes can be achieved.

The academic sta ff of the University of Venda, located in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, played a central role in establishing the biosphere reserve, and scientists are still part of the board. This circumstance has shaped and influenced the activities of the biosphere reserve. Scientific input from affiliated researchers contributed to the provincial government's Bioregional Plan for the Vhembe District, and the biosphere reserve remains a competent scientific partner of the governmen<sup>t</sup> [31]. Furthermore, through communication and close links between researchers and biosphere reserve management, emerging issues and questions with research relevance can be directly taken up and investigated within the area. This process strengthens the relevance and application of the applied research results. For example, the research conducted by the University of Venda on crop pest predation by bats and birds in macadamia orchards provided significant results for the local fruit and nut tree industry [61].

In general, the links and relationships to other national and international universities that may develop through the WNBR can result in valuable scientific exchange. This may lead to the testing and application of new research approaches or methodologies on landscapes, mutual projects, additional external research funding, and a broader recognition of the results. Current literature on the role of protected area networks and international research collaboration highlights this potential [62,63]. Biosphere reserves, specifically, are well suited for transdisciplinary research approaches, once stakeholders appreciate and value the concept [64]. Moreover, the involvement of students in research projects connected to the biosphere reserve can help broaden students' understanding of landscape approaches and system analysis.

In the Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve, an evaluation of the mountain's resources and related livelihood activities—carried out with support of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—provided central information for a new managemen<sup>t</sup> plan that is currently under preparation. Following appropriate educational measures for community members, today, people better realize the interconnections between natural resources and act accordingly. In addition, the biosphere reserve framework itself has proven to be a useful tool for managing its communication with governmental authorities and international organizations [52].

Besides university students, young people are, in general, an important target group for the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, partly because of their function as multipliers for aged family members and partly due to their role as future decision makers. In addition, young people are usually easy to reach and communicate with via social media. At the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, the focus on youth is reflected in a number of activities that include hosting of the first African Youth Biodiversity Forum in early 2020, regular football camps for students linked to raising awareness for conservation (and plans for a conservation school contest), an award for young recycling champions, and an app to exchange information on topics that are of specific relevance to biosphere reserve residents (e.g., information on water shortage) [31].

Across the investigated biosphere reserves, demonstration projects proved to be e ffective tools to build capacity and communicate the practices of sustainable production and processing. At the Mono Biosphere Reserve, a large demand for capacity-building activities exists that links conservation with the sustainable use of natural resources. Demonstration projects that, for example, showcased activities related to vegetable gardening, tree nurseries, the production of compost or biochar to improve soil properties, or sustainable fishery practices were most successful when carried out on the properties of the target group and through personnel not only knowledgeable in the subject matter but also very familiar with the circumstances, values, and culture of the target group. The immediate benefits derived from the implementation of new technologies for stakeholders are crucial, but medium and long-term benefits are also recognized and valued by communities [53].

A frequent challenge for biosphere reserve managers is to direct stakeholders' expectations towards a realistic perception of future benefits of the biosphere reserve and the necessary contributions as stakeholders to achieve these benefits. To avoid a cycle of "optimism and disenchantment" [16], which might have serious consequences for stakeholders' acceptance of the biosphere reserves, clear communication of the potential benefits, trade-o ffs, and prospective timeframes is crucial. In this context, the Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve is conducting consultations and capacity-building activities with local communities to provide knowledge about the necessary preconditions for scaling up the tourism industry around the lake [30].

## *4.4. Multi-Stakeholder Participation*

Regardless of the specific governance approach, stakeholder participation is one of the core conditions for a successful implementation of the biosphere reserve concept. The Statutory Framework of the WNBR lists the provision of participation opportunities for stakeholders as one of its central criteria for designating a biosphere reserve [20]. Research results shows that biosphere reserves that fail to e ffectively engage their relevant stakeholders endanger their sustainability in the long-run [10,16]. As a biosphere reserve combines di fferent sectors within a given area and aims to cooperate with di fferent networks of local stakeholders, coordinating between stakeholders, enabling engagemen<sup>t</sup> with the biosphere reserve structures, and moderating conflicts among stakeholders are key tasks of biosphere reserve managers and other a ffiliated actors (see Section 4.2). The biosphere reserve concept thereby allows for comprehensive approaches to achieve e ffective stakeholder participation with diverse entry points in the process for initiating, planning, implementing, and monitoring a biosphere reserve [56].

Participation should ideally begin in the initiation phase of a biosphere reserve, before any binding decisions are made regarding its establishment or specific zonation. This is necessary to create a shared vision between all potentially a ffected stakeholders that can legitimate the biosphere reserve among the local population [56]. Moreover, the early participation and integration of local stakeholders' knowledge into the development process of a biosphere reserve allows the construction of adapted structures, the identification of functional zones, and the development of early partnerships between the managemen<sup>t</sup> and population of the biosphere reserve [16,56].

Usually, the first step of the participatory process begins with the identification of the stakeholder groups relevant for the biosphere reserve. Although, according to the biosphere reserve concept, all stakeholders within the area will ideally be involved, in practice, this is hardly feasible [56]. However, through traditional or local governance bodies, the indirect involvement of community members in decision-making processes may take place. Nevertheless, especially during the initiation phase, large parts of the population may not even consider themselves as stakeholders. Furthermore, as one of the interview partners of this study estimated, even after several years of existence, only about 10% of the local population might know of the existence and the functions of the biosphere reserve. Similar figures have been given by other biosphere reserves globally [65].

Due to their limited capacities, biosphere reserve managers usually work with specific stakeholder groups and their local representatives [55]. In practice, the choice of individual stakeholders for involvement in certain decision-making processes and their opportunities for participation are questions related to the biosphere reserve's governance and managemen<sup>t</sup> structures and capacities (see Section 4.2) and the identification of relevant stakeholder groups in the area.

The Vhembe Biosphere Reserve in South Africa has made it a priority to involve as many individuals, communities, and organizations from the area as possible into its biosphere reserve structure. Each individual or institution situated in the area, e.g., smallholders, land-owners, village residents, business people, or NGOs, is entitled to become a member of the biosphere reserve by submitting a membership application and a formal declaration of support for the biosphere reserve's aims and objectives. Every member is consequently considered to be a stakeholder and categorized under a certain stakeholder group (e.g., farmers, landowners, or business owners) and has voting rights in the election of the board. Moreover, membership guarantees voting rights at the annual membership meetings and opportunities to become involved through contributions to the work of the advisory sub-committees [31,50].

From a community perspective, the main function of the CREMA system in Ghana is to allow participatory decision making at the local level for commonly shared resources [51]. At the Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve, local stakeholders participate in decision making and implementing CREMA policies through their membership in the Community Resource Management Committees (CRMCs). The CRMCs are formed by the village units within the Lake Bosmotwe CREMA and include all residents and propriety owners within the catchment of the lake. The CRMCs thereby locally execute the CREMA's decisions while simultaneously holding the CREMA accountable through their representatives on the CREMA executive board [30].

The ability for biosphere reserve managers to convince potential stakeholders to engage in the biosphere reserve lies in the demonstration of potential "win–win" situations for conservation and local development and the collective sharing of potential benefits. Such benefits can come in a direct form, e.g., through income from tourism [25], or in an indirect form, e.g., through the improvement of natural

resources as a result of conservation measures [55,56]. The concrete mechanisms used to sensitize local populations to the potential benefits of biosphere reserves and engaging stakeholders in such activities may, however, di ffer for specific stakeholder constellations on site. In all case studies, biosphere reserve managers predominantly approach and involve local communities directly through sensitization workshops, meetings, and demonstration projects. For conservation measures, it is important to attract community interest by demonstrating the economic benefits of such measures to stakeholders. As such, the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve aims to link its conservation work to current discussions on livelihood improvements in the area [31]. The Lake Bosomtwe Biosphere Reserve follows a similar path and sensitizes communities through specific projects, which are implemented through local CRSMs. These projects include a sustainable agroforestry initiative, as well as an education project in local schools to raise awareness of the benefits of proper sanitation and waste managemen<sup>t</sup> [30]. To highlight the economic potential of the biosphere reserve, the Mount Mulanje Biosphere Reserve promotes the establishment of sustainable supply chains of agricultural products within the biosphere reserve. One of the successful initiatives of the biosphere reserve is the development of a smallholder tea production association, which includes more than 20,000 smallholders. The establishment of this association is an example of linking di fferent stakeholder groups—in this case, smallholders and the tea industry—for mutual benefit.
