Global South-North differences in ecological representativeness and conservation performance of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

doi:10.17520/biods.2025267

Abstract

Abstract:

Background: The World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR), established under the framework of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, plays a key role in linking biodiversity conservation with sustainable development. However, the ecological representativeness and conservation effectiveness of the network remain uneven across the Global South and the Global North. Existing knowledge gaps persist in systematically comparing their performance in habitat protection and spatial coverage of priority biodiversity areas. This study provided a global assessment of the ecological outcomes and spatial representativeness of 759 biosphere reserves, with a particular focus on South-North differences.
Results: Analysis of habitat quality data from 1992 to 2020 and three global conservation priority layers—Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), and Centres of Plant Diversity (CPDs)—show that although habitat quality has generally declined over the past three decades, the rate of decline has slowed in the past ten years. Habitat conditions in the Global North have remained more stable and at higher levels than those in the Global South. The coverage of KBAs, EBAs, and CPDs by biosphere reserves reached 11.91%, 9.76%, and 9.52%, respectively, all notably higher than the expected random coverage of 4.83%.
Problems & Prospects: Despite these positive signals, significant spatial gaps persist in ecologically critical regions—such as tropical mountains and islands—particularly within the Global South. These disparities highlight structural imbalances in monitoring capacity, conservation financing, and institutional support between the Global North and South. Looking ahead, building a more representative, equitable, and adaptive global conservation framework will depend on addressing these South-North differences and advancing the collaborative potential of the WNBR.

Key words: Man and the Biosphere Programme, Biosphere Reserves, biodiversity

Hui Wu, Le Yu, Jianqiao Zhao, Shijun Zheng, Tao Liu, Wenchao Qi, Qiang Zhao, Li Zhu, Xiaoli Shen, Keping Ma. Global South-North differences in ecological representativeness and conservation performance of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves[J]. Biodiv Sci, 2025, 33(9): 25267.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.17520/biods.2025267

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/Y2025/V33/I9/25267

Figures/Tables 3

Fig. 1 Global distribution of Biosphere Reserves across the Global South and Global North. Gray dots indicate the locations of 759 Biosphere Reserves worldwide. Background colors denote the Global South (red) and the Global North (blue). Following the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) classification of “developed regions,” countries categorized as developed economies (e.g., the United States, Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Israel) are grouped as the “Global North”; all other countries are grouped as the “Global South”.

Fig. 2 Representativeness of Biosphere Reserves (BRs) for Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), and Centres of Plant Diversity (CPDs). (a) Spatial overlap between global BRs and KBAs; (b1) Spatial overlap between global BRs and EBAs; (b2) Coverage rate of BRs across 218 global EBAs; (c1) Spatial overlap between global BRs and CPDs; (c2) Coverage rate of BRs across 234 global CPDs.

Fig. 3 Habitat quality trends and distributions for Biosphere Reserves in the Global South (red) and Global North (blue), 1992-2020. (a) Annual habitat quality trends: Linear fits are shown for three periods—1992-2000, 2001-2010, and 2011-2020; shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals; **** P < 0.0001; ** P < 0.01. (b) Habitat quality distributions in 1992 and 2020: Kernel density curves (top) and boxplots (bottom) showing the median, interquartile range, and range, with the mean and median annotated.

References 24

[1]	Bridgewater P, Babin D (2017) UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserves already deal with ecosystem services and sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114, e4318.
[2]	CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2022) Monitoring Framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-05-en.pdf/. (accessed on 2025-09-30)
[3]	Cuong CV, Dart P, Dudley N, Hockings M (2017) Factors influencing successful implementation of biosphere reserves in Vietnam: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt. Environmental Science & Policy, 67, 16-26.
[4]	Dabard CH, Mann C, Martín-López B (2025) Biosphere Reserves as catalysts for sustainability transformations: Five strategies to support place-based innovation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 73, 101508. DOI URL
[5]	Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LDC, Foster M, Knox D, Langhammer P, Matiku P, Radford E, Salaman P, Sechrest W, Smith ML, Spector S, Tordoff A (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience, 54, 1110. DOI URL
[6]	Gohr C, von Wehrden H, Saatchi S, Pettorelli N, Ibisch PL (2025) Effectiveness of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves in maintaining forest ecosystem functions. Communications Earth & Environment, 6, 83.
[7]	Gunawan H, Tryanto DH, Mizuno K, Kozan O (2023) Toward climate change mitigation:Restoration of the Indonesian peat swamp. In: Vulnerability and Transformation of Indonesian Peatlands (ed. Abe K), pp. 141-157. Springer Nature, Singapore.
[8]	Kuiper J, Carpenter-Urquhart L, Berbés-Blázquez M, Oteros-Rozas E, Fredström L, Psiuk K, Savu C, Kautsky R, Guerry A, Carpenter S, Green C, Meacham M, Remme R, Ravera F, Wankmüller F, Arkema K, Pereira L, Peterson G (2024) Biosphere Futures: A database of social-ecological scenarios. Ecology and Society, 29, art19.
[9]	Mirtl M, Borer ET, Djukic I, Forsius M, Haubold H, Hugo W, Jourdan J, Lindenmayer D, McDowell WH, Muraoka H, Orenstein DE, Pauw JC, Peterseil J, Shibata H, Wohner C, Yu X, Haase P (2018) Genesis, goals and achievements of Long-Term Ecological Research at the global scale: A critical review of ILTER and future directions. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1439-1462. DOI URL
[10]	Pettorelli N, Safi K, Turner W (2014) Satellite remote sensing, biodiversity research and conservation of the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130190. DOI URL
[11]	Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Armitage D, Bodin Ö, Schultz L (2017) Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecological Economics, 140, 79-88. DOI URL
[12]	Reed M, Price MF (2019) Introducing UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. In: UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: Supporting Biocultural Diversity, Sustainability and Society (eds Reed M, Price M), pp. 1-14. Routledge, Abingdon.
[13]	Sandström C, Mancheva I, Laudon H (2025) Unlocking the potential of biosphere reserves: A review of structural, institutional, and ideational challenges to transformational learning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 75, 101543. DOI URL
[14]	Schultz L, West S, Bourke AJ, D’Armengol L, Torrents P, Hardardottir H, Jansson A, Roldán AM (2018) Learning to live with social-ecological complexity: An interpretive analysis of learning in 11 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Global Environmental Change, 50, 75-87. DOI URL
[15]	Seddon N, Smith A, Smith P, Key I, Chausson A, Girardin C, House J, Srivastava S, Turner B (2021) Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27, 1518-1546. DOI PMID
[16]	Stattersfield AJ, Crosby M, Long A, Wege D (1998) Endemic Bird Areas of the World:Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.
[17]	Thakur TK, Patel DK, Bijalwan A, Dobriyal MJ, Kumar A, Thakur A, Bohra A, Bhat JA (2020) Land use land cover change detection through geospatial analysis in an Indian Biosphere Reserve. Trees, Forests and People, 2, 100018. DOI URL
[18]	Turner W, Rondinini C, Pettorelli N, Mora B, Leidner AK, Szantoi Z, Buchanan G, Dech S, Dwyer J, Herold M, Koh LP, Leimgruber P, Taubenboeck H, Wegmann M, Wikelski M, Woodcock C (2015) Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 182, 173-176. DOI URL
[19]	UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1995) The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.
[20]	UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2016) Lima Action Plan (2016-2025) for UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme and Its World Network of Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.
[21]	UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2024) Regional and Thematic Networks: IberoMAB Mid-Term Assessment Report. UNESCO, Paris.
[22]	UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2025) Mangrove Restoration as a Nature-Based Solution in Biosphere Reserves of Latin America and the Caribbean. UNESCO, Paris.
[23]	WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (1994-1997) Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation, Three Volumes. IUCN Publications Unit, Cambridge.
[24]	Zhao JQ, Yu L, Newbold T, Chen X (2025) Trends in habitat quality and habitat degradation in terrestrial protected areas. Conservation Biology, 39, e14348.