The Isle of Man Biosphere Reserve: an entire nation approach to sustainable development

ABSTRACT

Biosphere Reserves are learning sites for sustainable development. Although based on specific UNESCO criteria, implementation varies to accommodate regional and national circumstances. The Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea, was designated as an ‘entire nation’ biosphere in 2016 and is governed through a stakeholder partnership, led by the Isle of Man Government Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture. This paper introduces the characteristics of this unique entire nation model based on qualitative interviews that were used to examine the perceptions of the biosphere’s stakeholder partnership. Findings from the research illustrate that stakeholders understand the designation as a ‘holistic’ approach to sustainable development and use the discourse of ‘finding balance’ across sectors. Stakeholders also conveyed some tensions regarding how the biosphere can be interpreted as a reward for the status quo and/or an incentive for change, connected to how the designation is led from within government. The paper concludes that whilst there are circumstances unique to the Isle of Man, many of the challenges perceived by stakeholders are also common to the biosphere model in general.

KEYWORDS:

• Biosphere Reserve
• island governance
• stakeholder partnership
• sustainable development
• UNESCO

Introduction

In a variety of contexts, there have been critical examinations of the implementation of sustainable development policies. Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are one example of sustainability transitions that can be diverse and operate at different scales, changing across regions (Kratzer, 2018). UNESCO’s programme, ‘Man and the Biosphere’ (MAB), founded in 1971 was set up to address global environmental change (Fiske, 2022). There are 738 Biosphere Reserves in 134 countries¹ part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR). Inherent in the UNESCO BR concept, is that regions designated can act as ‘model’ sites for sustainable development, contributing knowledge and learning necessary to transition to a more sustainable future as a global network. BRs ‘as special places for people and nature, are a key tool to develop truly sustainable systems’ (Bridgewater, 2002, p. 12). There are a plethora of studies which focus on understanding BRs in practice around the world, often based on case studies of individual sites or multiple sites within specific national or regional contexts.

Within MAB there are regional and thematic networks, including the World Network of Island and Coastal Biosphere Reserves (WNICBR). Despite their diversity BRs within the WNICBR often ‘have shared characteristics and face common challenges’.² This includes vulnerability to global change, which is also part of their ‘great potential’ as sites for learning from the implementation and testing of sustainable development policies (WNICBR). The diverse landscapes of islands, their uneven development and complexities in resource management issues are at the heart of sustainable development policies (Douglas, 2006). There have been some case studies of the world’s island and coastal BRs (e.g. Alfaré et al., 2020; Matsuda et al., 2015); however, the Isle of Man, a UK ‘new-style’ BR, designated in 2016 has yet to be researched. The biosphere in the Isle of the Man has ‘unique status as the only “entire nation” BR’ (Price, 2020, p. 97). It was chosen as a pilot study site as part of an ethnographic study of a Scottish Biosphere, given similarities in terms of language and heritage, and contrasting governance models. Although both were designated in 2016, Wester Ross BR in Scotland is ‘community-led’ whilst the Isle of Man BR is led from within the Isle of Man government.

The paper begins with an overview of the literature on BRs as a model for sustainable development, illustrating key aspects of the model, opportunities and challenges. Next, the paper introduces the case study context of the Isle of Man and explains the methods of the research, which comprised stakeholder interviews and observations. The findings of the paper concern stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness and impact of the BR model in theory and practice. First discussed is the BR as a more holistic way of thinking about sustainable development and a mechanism for ‘finding a balance’ between different objectives. Second, the paper explores the differing interpretations of the BR as a reward for the status quo or as an incentive for change. This relates to tensions in terms of how effective stakeholders feel that the biosphere is for sustainable development and perceptions of the benefits and challenges of the model being embedded in government. The paper concludes by connecting the findings to the broader challenges for BRs, situating the Isle of Man in a wider international context.

A model for sustainable development

BRs are a territorial approach to nature conservation which are not officially ‘protected areas’ (Reed & Price, 2020). They are places for experimenting with strategies for sustainability and predominantly use soft law approaches to inspire collaborative action and participatory governance (Reed & Price, 2020). The BR model is part of UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere (MAB) programme, which has the overarching purpose of ‘connecting people and nature to inspire a positive future’. This is about finding ways to implement sustainable development and share learning globally, making biospheres a ‘powerful tool for helping people achieve sustainability’ (Bridgewater, 2002, p. 9). There are different ‘generations’ of BRs and the MAB programme has evolved over time since its origins in the 1970s (see Fiske, 2022; Reed & Price, 2020). BRs have three main functions: conservation, development and logistic support (Elbakidze et al., 2013). Each of these needs to be balanced (Torralba et al., 2020) and core, buffer and transition zones align to the three functions. The zonation approach allows for a ‘gradient of intensity of land uses' that means the BR differs from other kinds of protected areas (Moreno-Ramos & Muller, 2020, p. 256).

There can be significant diversity in the implementation of the model in practice, with national and local variations in the governance structures and approaches. For example, in Ukraine, the BR is incorporated into legislation, whereas in Sweden the concept is based on soft law, illustrating how implementation is ‘adapted to different political cultures’ (Elbakidze et al., 2013, p. 174). Diversity can be seen as a strength in terms of the overall WNBR; however, research has identified a ‘concept-reality’ gap (see Hockings et al., 2020) including difficulties regarding how the BR should be implemented on the ground to achieve sustainability (Van Cuong et al., 2017). Thus, studies of how the model translates into practice are useful to support continued monitoring of the success of, and variations within, the global network.

The Lima Action Plan affirmed that BRs should adopt participatory governance, requiring the inclusion of stakeholders in management processes and mechanisms for participation and collaboration (Onaindia et al., 2013). Participation from local communities and regional non-governmental actors supports the development of ‘practical solutions to concrete problems’ (Walk et al., 2020, p. 301) and reinforces the importance of people for the BR designation. BRs are argued to offer opportunities to reimagine relationships between people and nature through working with local communities and indigenous peoples (Bouamrane et al., 2020, p. 36). Participation is also crucial to BR legitimacy (see Mohedano Roldán et al., 2019) and a key focus of much BR research is the dynamics of stakeholder participation and governance relevant to implementing sustainable development.

As sites of inspiration for sustainable development BRs are relatively underappreciated (Reed & Price, 2020). They are broadly not well understood including by publics and policymakers; for example, the former may be unaware that they live in a BR (Moreno-Ramos & Muller, 2020). A key challenge for BRs is how to communicate the model, which can be difficult given the more ambiguous narratives than other designations such as national parks (Aschenbrand & Michler, 2021). The word ‘reserve’ also has a ‘negative connotation’ for stakeholders in different countries (Reed & Price, 2020, p. 8) and in the UK ‘biosphere’ is the preferred terminology (Price, 2020), communicating an inclusive approach beyond forms of fortress conservation. The lack of awareness among local governments and lack of investment by national governments is one of the major challenges to the legitimacy of action (Mathevet & Cibien, 2020), and the effectiveness of BRs in practice.

The Isle of Man BR covering an ‘entire nation’ makes it a unique and interesting case to examine within the WNBR. As described above, BRs can face a lack of legitimacy to act and a lack of awareness of the model among policymakers and governments. Moreover, the designation ‘does not confer any new level of jurisdiction’ meaning BR institutions are without ‘regulatory authority or direct management and decision-making powers’ (Price, 2020, p. 7). Most BRs sit within a specific national context, operating at a regional scale. They have been described as ‘subordinated to’ national legislation and governance, and this can limit implementation due to the political agenda and local context of the country (Torralba et al., 2020, p. 283). The Isle of Man differs because the BR is embedded in government and so could potentially shape the national context and have significantly more influence and authority.

Despite much research of BRs, some UK sites have been under studied, including the Isle of Man. Price (2020) has charted the evolution of the UK biosphere network from first to second generation reserves. A number of sites were delisted during periods of national review, and new sites were nominated to align with UNESCO criteria, namely that a BR must include people. The second phase of the UK national review between 2009–2016 is when the Isle of Man BR was designated. A brief overview of the model is included in Ruck and Price's (2019) report on the governance of UK biospheres, however, there are no research studies focusing specifically on stakeholder perceptions within the Isle of Man BR (hereafter IoM) nor the entire nation approach, which is the main focus of this paper. The unique characteristics of IoM are reported herein as a qualitative case study, contextualised using research of other BRs in the UK and the WNBR.

Material and methods

Background on the Isle of Man & the biosphere

The Isle of Man is located in the Irish Sea within the British Isles (see Figure 1). It is a crown dependency of the UK which represents the island internationally, remaining responsible for defence and international relations, whilst domestically there is a high level of self-governing autonomy. The Isle of Man has its own 'Manx' government and Tynwald, the parliament, was established over a thousand years ago, believed to be the most continuous parliament in the world.³ There are key sustainability challenges facing the Isle of Man including climate change, which was a major area of policy activity during the research, culminating in the government commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050.⁴ In ‘Our Island Plan’ the ‘overarching vision is to build a secure, vibrant and sustainable future’.⁵ Similarly, as with other nations, indigenous language revitalisation is important on the island, which is home to the Manx language (Wilson et al., 2015). Although the last first language speaker of Manx died in 1974, there have been substantial efforts by activists supported by the government to revitalise Manx Gaelic (Wilson et al., 2015) and the language and culture are a critical element of the BR designation.

Figure 1. The location of the Isle of Man in the British Isles, credit: created by author using ARCGIS, © OpenStreetMap contributors and the GIS User Community.

In 2013, the government and parliament sought BR status for the whole island and its territorial waters (Price, 2020). The biosphere was approved in 2016 and is overseen by a stakeholder partnership group (SPG), chaired by the Chief Minister of the Island (Price, 2020). The Vice Chair is drawn from the government Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFA). IoM is a ‘newer’ style biosphere, having been designated in 2016 and is rooted in sustainable development thinking and achieving the MAB vision of ‘connecting people and nature to inspire a positive future’. The biosphere contains a diversity of landscapes and towns within a compact area (Ruck & Price, 2019). The population of the island is approximately 83,314⁶ residents who live in the buffer and transition zones of the biosphere.⁷ The designation is premised on the conservation of both natural and cultural diversity on the island and builds on pre-existing conservation areas including Areas of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Marine Nature Reserves and Areas of Special Protection.⁸

Terms of Reference written by a DEFA official, in 2015, convey the overarching narrative of what the designation brings to the island. It provides an ‘opportunity to show how our high-quality environment, economy and community pride complement each other’. The Isle of Man is described as unusual compared to other BRs that tend to have smaller populations, and lower value economies, and rarely constitute ‘an entire jurisdiction as well as an independent economy, which has also been able to demonstrate very strong environmental, cultural and social credentials’.⁹ The SPG became the coordination body and ensures accountability and direction for the biosphere. It has a core purpose to ‘encourage all sectors of the Isle of Man to work together for a sustainable future’ and is responsible for producing the overall vision and strategy, as well as action plans for implementation.¹⁰ The biosphere coordinator is employed by DEFA, and SPG Terms of Reference outline that representatives should be included from different government departments and organisations, alongside representatives from the business sector and local communities.¹¹ Major sectors such as culture, farming, food and drink, finance and tourism are represented on the SPG.

Data collection and analysis

This study was part of ethnographic doctoral research on a UNESCO BR in Scotland. A pilot study in the Isle of Man was used to explore how the model worked in practice in a different context. The pilot study is an important, yet often neglected part of qualitative research (Malmqvist et al. 2019) and ethical approval was granted by the General University Ethics Panel at the University of Stirling. Qualitative research, focusing on interviews was organised with the biosphere coordinator, who invited SPG representatives to participate. Stakeholders were chosen by the coordinator, with the aim of securing diverse perspectives from across the SPG. I was also able to add perspectives through snowballing, based on the suggestions of the interviewees; however, it was not possible to interview all stakeholders nor participate in SPG meetings due to the limited time and rapid nature of the study. Through an intensive interviewing schedule, I was able to generate rich qualitative data, utilising local and insider knowledge about who could contribute to the research and how to practically navigate the island.

Interviews were carried out with individuals from the following organisations: Manx Wildlife Trust (MWT), Manx National Heritage (MNH), EcoVannin, CultureVannin, DEFA policy team, the Manx National Farmers Union (MNFU), the Manx Government planning policy team, and the University College Isle of Man (UCM). Between interviews, whilst travelling around and living on the island, there were also opportunities for informal engagements with local residents and the biosphere coordinator. I visited key locations on the island whilst based in the town of Ramsey in the North (see Figure 2), including the DEFA offices in St Johns, Douglas the capital of the island on the east coast, the south and east coast through Castletown and Peel on the west coast.

Figure 2. Fieldwork in the Isle of Man, credit: created by author using ARCGIS, © OpenStreetMap contributors and the GIS User Community.

Interview transcripts, alongside fieldnotes were the main source of qualitative data. The latter included observations of biosphere meetings and visits to different cultural and natural sites such as the Manx National Museum and the Calf of Man. Complementary biosphere documents and materials, as well as government policy documents, were also consulted as part of the analysis. For example, those collected during fieldwork and subsequently identified online included biosphere nomination papers, DEFA publications, and materials produced by the biosphere project coordinator, which targeted both the public and specific partners/sectors.

The data analysis was guided by the ‘fusion of theory and empirical material’ (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 4). Rather than approaches to qualitative research that are ‘dataistic’, I adopted a creative and imaginative approach recognising that ‘empirical material can encourage the challenging and rethinking of established theory and inspire novel lines of theory development’ (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 5). This approach draws from interpretivists, critical theorists and feminists who reject notions of an objective standpoint from which to observe the world and that the researcher ‘constructs’ data in ways which are political. Neither researcher nor those involved in the research exist in an ideological vacuum (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 6). Empirical material in this context acts as ‘a source of inspiration and as a partner for critical dialogue’ (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 15).

Thematic data analysis involved both manual coding, alongside the use of NVivo software for organisation and flexibility allowing for both emic and etic categories. The resulting findings are presented below, focusing on two of the larger themes that emerged and utilising quotes from interviews to illustrate these from stakeholders’ perspectives. Only organisation is used as an identifier for purposes of anonymity and confidentiality of stakeholders and for comments particularly critical or sensitive, no specific identifier has been used.

Findings

Biosphere as a holistic way of thinking

One of the major discourses that emerged from engaging with BR stakeholders was that the biosphere designation offers a ‘more holistic way of thinking’ (DEFA). The BR coordinator in DEFA, described how some BRs emphasise specific areas of land, and many focus on tourism; however as an entire nation BR, they ‘need’ to have a holistic approach. The importance of this is shown in the BR literature where there is evidence of overemphasis on conservation activities in the core areas (Moreno-Ramos & Muller, 2020), which means in practice BRs may operate no differently to protected areas, paying ‘lip service to management of the whole site’ (Hockings et al., 2020, pp. 245–246).

However, this was not the case for IoM, where stakeholders saw the value of the designation covering the whole nation/island. As the Manx Wildlife Trust (MWT) representative argued, this means the BR has the potential to ‘underpin all policy’ and open up a new way of governing for sustainability. Unlike BRs that exist at sub-nation/regional levels, there are opportunities then for IoM to foster new forms of holistic governance and achieve policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD). The Culture Vannin representative explained, having a biosphere tied to the national government has the potential to be a ‘great thing’ because,

… if they can spread that ethos through the government, which is the largest employer here, that can have an effect on everything we do. But the hard thing, even within a government, even within a small place is making sure everything is joined up, so that’s their real job to do.

However, holism and policy coherence was not necessarily easy to achieve in practice. In the first instance, the biosphere is managed from within one government department, with a remit for environment, food and agriculture. Within this one domain, holistic working is challenging, related to ‘age-old tensions between farming and conservation’ (DEFA). Additionally, government policy work on climate change appeared to be drawing staff and resource within DEFA away from the biosphere, rather than the two areas working together.

In terms of working across sectors, a DEFA civil servant highlighted that other government departments are not necessarily ‘receptive’ to biodiversity, which has historically been perceived as a nuisance. This is part of the challenge of PCSD, and using the SDGs as an example, policy (in)coherence occurs where progress towards tackling one goal may ‘make it harder (or easier) to meet others’ (Linnerud et al., 2021, p. 738). The non-governmental stakeholders agreed the biosphere ‘should be affecting the policy decisions they’re making’, but some felt it was too early to assess whether changes were occurring in practice. The coordinator characterised the government as ‘beginning to make policy through the lens of the biosphere’.

There were also challenges for joined up thinking and a holistic biosphere approach within the SPG. An aim proving to be a struggle and causing tensions during the research, was to produce a coherent biosphere strategy to guide future action. Five years after designation, the strategy ‘Working Together for a Sustainable Future’ 2021–2026 was published and its aims and ambitions are laid out under ‘Five E’s: economy, education, engagement, enjoyment and environment’.¹² The strategy maps how the BR links to other government policies and strategies, alongside the message that all residents of the island are citizens of the biosphere and can contribute to making the Isle of Man more sustainable. The task is not only to create a holistic approach to policymaking and generate positive cross-sectoral working within the SPG, but to bring the island citizens into BR participatory governance. From the perspective of the coordinator, everyone on the island had a responsibility and right to be involved, because the biosphere is more than a ‘government initiative’. She felt the potential of the designation is that it is about ‘the way we live our lives’ on the island and suggested ‘as biosphere grows in the psyche, it becomes more important’.

However, the challenges of communicating the biosphere concept were raised by all stakeholders, including demonstrating to the population how the designation ‘relates to people's everyday lives' (EcoVannin). The BR was described as a ‘nebulous’ concept (DEFA) and the UCM stakeholder explained the difficulties of finding a ‘solid definition’ of the biosphere, ‘a holistic concept’ that has ‘flexibility’. Despite having the backing of government, and acting as an ‘entire nation’ BR, the Isle of Man appears no different to other BRs, grappling with the ambiguous nature of certain narratives surrounding the designation (see Aschenbrand & Michler, 2021).

Finding balance?

Related to ideas of holistic thinking, joined up working and PCSD, a common framing of the challenge for sustainable development was the idea of ‘finding a balance’. A DEFA official said this was about asking the question, ‘what is the balance for us?’ referring to the specific conditions on the island. Many other stakeholders also spoke of balance when discussing how decisions should be made across domains and regarding areas where historically there has been trade-offs. Such thinking reflects how sustainable development narratives are ‘hopeful for balance and cohesion’ (Fiske, 2022, p. 115) and the biosphere was seen as a lens to ‘find a balance’ across diverse sectors of planning, housing, development, and conservation of natural and cultural heritage. The coordinator described the biosphere as ‘a balancer’, viewing this positively as part of the power of the designation, whilst at the same time explaining how people often wanted the biosphere to focus specifically on their sector. Hence, balancing is difficult to achieve in practice, with stakeholders often pursuing sectorally specific interests.

Conceptually, the idea of balance is also difficult in practice given there can be competing understandings of sustainable development within the SPG. The Manx National Heritage (MNH) representatives, said although similar language is used, stakeholders often mean different things. For example, being ‘productive’ or ‘successful’, could be about economic measures and/or producing wider social and environmental benefits and outcomes. Likewise, between stakeholders and the Isle of Man Government, there may be different priorities for sustainability. The Manx National Farmers Union (MNFU) representative explained farmers would rather be able to sell their produce for profit than receive farm support and was critical of the broader political economy in which cheap food is prioritised over self-sufficiency.

In the Isle of Man, as elsewhere in the world, governmental narratives continue to emphasise economic growth and a ‘green’ economy. These tend to be part of neoliberal capitalist approaches to sustainable development (Wanner, 2015), and within the SPG, some stakeholders preferred to see the biosphere adopt a more radical definition of sustainability. In one instance there was a desire to challenge economic growth and consumerism because, ‘we have too much stuff and we cannot keep growing’. This aligns with arguments in the BR literature that there is a need for alternatives to modern development rather than greener versions of the same (Stoll-Kleeman & Riordan, 2017). However, differences in interpretations of sustainability are difficult to address. BRs are seen as tools for implementing the SDGs and other international obligations (Pool-Stanvliet & Coetzer, 2020). The SDGs as ‘tangible guideposts’ (Fiske, 2022, p. 114) reproduce the idea that economic growth is desirable as identified in Goal 8. The aim of ‘finding balance’, whilst productive for cross-sectoral thinking, does not necessarily create space to address fundamental ideological differences.

Finally, linking back to communicating the biosphere, stakeholders reported that the narratives of balance and holism were not always manifesting in the views held by the public. For example, people would often interpret the biosphere narrowly as ‘more pastoral, static and about a minimal lifestyle’ and ‘idyllic conditions’ summed up as putting a dome over the island to keep it a particular way (UCM). The coordinator explained that ‘a good number of people have lost faith’ in the biosphere because it cannot be used to block developments such as house building and complaints were made to UNESCO that ‘this should not be happening in a biosphere’. Hence, communication is vital to conveying the biosphere ethos and IoM has a coordinator with public relations and communications expertise, a move away from the historical dominance of natural science backgrounds among BR managers and MAB practitioners (Reed, 2020). Despite the importance of communicating the designation, some stakeholders viewed this appointment more cynically, as politicians treating the biosphere as an ‘excellent marketing tool’. Such cynicism is part of a broader theme regarding whether a BR is an ‘effective tool for action’ or a ‘bureaucratic label’ (Coetzer et al., 2014).

Reinforcing the status quo or an incentive for change?

SPG representatives interpreted BR designation in two contradictory ways. First, the biosphere acts as a prize or a reward for the status quo. For example, for the MNFU, biosphere status was argued to give credit to farmers on the island, who now have ‘an acknowledgement what they’ve been doing has always been the right thing’. For decades, they have held ‘beliefs about the environment and farming’, and rather than following EU trends to industrialise, automate, increase pesticides, create bigger fields and remove hedgerows, they have stuck with those beliefs (MNFU). Planning officials in the government also felt that ‘biosphere reinforces what we were already doing. It hasn’t changed how we work, and it is a recognition for our existing approach’. It was explained that planning on the island was already rooted in holistic thinking and sustainability and was ‘always a balance’, officials feeling that planners were pioneers of the biosphere ethos.

The culture and heritage partners also saw their work as already reflecting the biosphere:

As a national trust, and with a museum function, the work of MNH contributes to the biosphere without needing any specific projects tied to it, because it serves as the cultural arm of the biosphere. (MNH)

We would see that a lot of our projects already contribute to that without even having to think about it, because it’s just a natural fit. (Culture Vannin)

The CultureVannin representative continued to explain that culture is the ‘glue’ connecting people and landscape and seascape, which aligns with the biosphere notion of connecting people and nature. They explained how existing work already relates to ways ‘people can feel more connected to landscape and then value it more’ and thus fulfils the biosphere mandate.

In contrast to positive interpretations of the biosphere accolade as a reward, it was also interpreted as problematic, because it reproduces the status quo and ‘the government don’t need to do anything’ (MWT). To some, the biosphere had essentially legitimised the dominant view ‘we are doing things right here’. There was frustration from the MWT that in the three years since the biosphere was designated, ‘not a lot has happened’. I also found such sentiments in Wester Ross, where there were perceptions of the biosphere as a ‘talking shop’ with significant action considered elusive. Vasseur (2020) noted that the pace of change can be especially slow where most BR activity is volunteer-led, but the above shows that this is also an issue for a government-led BR.

The idea that biosphere status reinforces the status quo, was also part of concerns that the biosphere as a reward, creates opportunities for greenwashing unsustainable activities and policies. For example, the EcoVannin stakeholder felt that companies can bolster their green credentials in association with the biosphere, whilst continuing damaging practices such as dumping waste in the harbour. They described the biosphere was allowing for ‘a process of self-certification for companies’ who can use the label to market themselves and their produce. SPG representatives sometimes therefore felt there were issues of hypocrisy and lack of will towards meaningful sustainability including from government. It was noted that the government does not have a green energy policy and continues to invest in drilling for gas in Manx waters, which is problematic in the context of climate change. Although to some extent this notion reflects the idea of the BR as a bureaucratic label where States can ignore the requirements of biosphere management for protected areas (Coetzer et al., 2014) it goes beyond this. In an entire nation context, actors can actively use the island’s BR designation to legitimise their own activities and products through the biosphere, without actually engaging with sustainability in a meaningful way.

Whilst stakeholders are concerned about the negative implications of the biosphere designation legitimising unsustainable practices, it is also simultaneously a mechanism for those stakeholders to highlight these incoherencies and advocate change. However, the UCM representative explained that where government politics ‘do not align with the biosphere’ and where ‘contradictions’ are obvious, this ‘creates space for apathy from people’, making ‘it harder to encourage a shift towards genuine change’. Within DEFA itself there were different perceptions on how the BR relates to broader government policies and change. One official felt that the biosphere ‘does not mean things are OK, but rather a work in progress’. They said the designation could actually open up possibilities to challenge other government policies. Another official was more cautious, and when asked about their ambitions for the biosphere, said, this was ‘within the realm of politics’ and they must remain ‘neutral’, rather than suggest what the government should be doing.

Certain non-government stakeholders argued the biosphere being in government might ‘stifle’ the ‘advocacy’ role the designation can play; however, staff within DEFA interpreted biosphere designation as ‘an instigator for social change’. As well as tackling some of the above incoherencies in policy and practice, the positive changes that the biosphere could inspire included ‘creating interface between biosphere and business and developing a curriculum around embracing concepts of biosphere in business’ (UCM). Another example was how the biosphere could be a motivator for change for food producers to embed sustainability into their processes. Moreover, planning officials were positive about how the designation was useful because it covers the whole island and is shifting the emphasis from economic development towards other considerations such as the climate emergency.

The kinds of activities described above, as well as conveying different interpretations, together clearly illustrate that in the Isle of Man, among the SPG, perceptions of the biosphere designation show a willingness to operate differently from traditional protected areas. The entire nation coverage of the BR is essential here, differing from other sites in the WNBR, which often overlay conservation-focused designations like National Parks (Alfaré et al., 2020; Reed, 2020). Hence, the biosphere can act as an incentive for change on the island, which moves beyond the ‘bureaucratic label’ (Coetzer et al., 2014) or ‘cherry on top’ towards the designation acting as a ‘tool for legitimising action’ (Mathevet & Cibien, 2020). But to what extent was this happening in practice?

Creating action in practice?

Within DEFA, it was suggested the biosphere is a way to do things that are more ‘bottom-up’, which embodies BR participatory governance and offers opportunities for new ways of working that are collaborative across scales and sectors (see Walk et al., 2020). Stakeholders were keen to see new biosphere projects advancing areas of work in partnership that they could not pursue individually. MWT, for example, sought closer working relations with CultureVannin to explore connections between landscape and language, but lack of time and resources were barriers to advancing this work. Ultimately, despite the potential of IoM to create change and foster collaborative working, many on the SPG felt there was a ‘lack of action’, and the designation was not having a big impact on the island.

Some referred to a lack of resources for the biosphere and others spoke of the challenges of partnership working. Despite being an ‘entire nation’ approach, IoM is largely driven by one member of staff in DEFA. Given the importance, and urgency of the biosphere, and how it ‘connects with other policies’, one stakeholder felt that there should be at least five times as many people working on it. Despite perceptions that the coordinator was achieving much whilst under-resourced, stakeholders could be very critical of the lack of progress. Hence, although led from within government, resource constraints are an issue for IoM and BRs broadly which tend to have ‘stretched’ human and financial resources (Vasseur, 2020, p. 317).

Regarding difficulties around partnership working, stakeholders referenced some disagreement among the SPG, and a lack of participatory governance, with DEFA ‘making all of the decisions’. One stakeholder felt the kind of governance and consensus building approach of BRs was difficult in a political and historic context where there have been issues of cronyism. Each member of the SPG has a different institutional context and stakeholders work in different ways, to different timescales and with varying resources available. A key difference was that government representatives need to be more ‘neutral’, whereas it was perceived that the likes of CultureVannin could be more ‘creative’ in their approach being outside government. Interactions among the SPG were described variously as more or less productive. For example, it was felt to be beneficial to have visiting experts from UNESCO to share knowledge, with IoM representing ‘a platform for listening and understanding and bringing together groups of people that would not normally meet’ (MNH). However, regular SPG meetings involve a lot of people, causing difficulties for doing more than ‘reporting back’ and making minimal contributions to a pre-defined agenda.

Moreover, there were reports of ‘entrenched attitudes’ that are difficult to navigate. Stakeholders normally exist within their own ‘bubble of thinking’ and must then ‘engage with people who have no idea or very fixed ideas’ about particular issues (MNH). For BRs, integrating different stakeholder knowledges and expertise can be challenging due to cultural barriers, mistrust and misunderstanding (Hockings et al., 2020). MWT and MNFU were stakeholders described as having ‘trust’ issues, with the biosphere a potential space to overcome this and work better together. One suggestion for how to manage the difficulties was that there could be a mediator role involved to ‘support the integration of the different organisations’ (MNH). In other biospheres, participatory workshops have been seen as a valuable tool for building relationships and enhancing participants' understanding of other perspectives (Onaindia et al., 2013).

The presence of difficulties working in practice to implement participatory governance is not unique to IoM and is a key part of the BR ‘concept-reality’ gap (Coetzer et al., 2014; Hockings et al., 2020). However, one of the strengths of the Isle of Man model in comparison with other sites is that governance and management processes are in place that exist as an institutional space specific to the biosphere identity. In Alfaré et al.’s (2020) research of three BRs, only one had such arrangements in place, the other two following national park legislation without BR-specific implementation systems. Through its SPG management structure, a strategy has been produced for the BR which covers the whole island, and which maps onto the nation’s policies, and the stakeholders within the SPG have clear intentions to generate more sustained and bespoke action in practice.

Discussion: IoM in context

The findings above illustrate the specific dynamics of IoM as an ‘entire nation’ biosphere and how stakeholders perceive the impact of the designation. IoM, whilst unique, shares similar opportunities and challenges with other BRs. Success or failure is often shaped by stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance and management and awareness and communication (Van Cuong et al., 2017). In IoM these three themes were at the heart of how SPG representatives interpret the entire nation approach of IoM, and each has its contextually-specifically dynamics.

Regarding the notion of the BR as a holistic approach, this is inherent to the model itself and is not unique to IoM, although in other BRs there have been challenges implementing this. Sites designated earlier in the MAB programme, can be overly focused on nature conservation activities within the biosphere ‘core’ zones (Moreno-Ramos & Muller, 2020) and fail to manage the biosphere as a whole site (Hockings et al., 2020). Additionally, because BR designation does not confer any new level of jurisdiction over a territory (Reed & Price, 2020), it can be challenging to establish effective organisational mechanisms and alignment with existing regional/national institutions. The position of IoM as an entire nation biosphere, with government leadership, offers scope for wider-reaching implications and activities. The authority to act is tied to existing political legitimacy that can be garnered towards the pursuit of PCSD and an island-wide, holistic approach to sustainability. The BR designation is seen by stakeholders to be valuable for these reasons.

As indicated in the findings, the ‘entire nation’ quality of the BR can act as a tool for bringing together sectoral interests across the whole island and foster new ways of partnership working. In contrast, many BRs are not acknowledged in national strategies, operating at a smaller scale within a larger territory without jurisdiction, and so the extent that broader policy can be aligned with the biosphere ethos of holism and ‘finding balance’ is more limited. Future research could examine in more depth whether IoM is performing better on PCSD than its neighbours. The findings herein illustrated that stakeholders do not see the biosphere yet leading to overall sustainability governance for the island with more action needed.

IoM is similar to other BRs in the challenge of communicating a holistic concept to the publics who live within the biosphere. Alongside a general lack of awareness, if people do know they live in a biosphere, they may not know what this implies, as the term is not well understood (Moreno-Ramos & Muller, 2020). Despite being an ‘entire nation’ approach, backed by the government, it is still difficult for people locally to see the relevance of this ‘nebulous’ concept in their everyday lives. Participation is central to the biosphere and engaging with communities is crucial for advancing sustainable development. Unlike other BRs which may operate through more local or regional groups, including the ‘community-led’ model in Wester Ross, IoM also faces the challenge of being perceived as a top-down government initiative. De-centralisation of decision-making is therefore key to a more participatory model (Walk et al., 2020) in practice.

Finally, moving onto the model as both reward for the status quo and instigator for change, this arguably characterises the biosphere model more generally. The former, is captured in the BR as an ‘international recognition’, a ‘cherry on the cake’ for a region (Mathevet & Cibien, 2020) to celebrate and conserve special cultural and natural heritage features. However, importantly, my findings showed how this can be interpreted problematically. As stakeholders suggested, biosphere designation can reinforce the status quo and stymie change in policy and practice. However, the biosphere as an instigator of change is more closely aligned with the model as a ‘learning site’ for sustainable development involving experimentation, and innovation, bringing international agendas into local practice (Elbakidze et al., 2013).

Aschenbrand and Michler (2021) recently described for German BRs the challenges of trying to reconcile the imperative to innovate and to conserve cultural landscapes. Alongside this dual imperative, the findings here illustrate that BRs can have a paradoxical nature as a designation that can be both an international accolade, recognising excellence and a mechanism to instigate change. This was especially evident in the entire nation model of IoM where the partnership dynamics include governmental and non-governmental actors with different interests and priorities for sustainability. It would be fruitful to explore the IoM model comparatively with other UK BR governance to further elucidate the role of the state in sustainability transitions. Recently, Kirsop-Taylor et al. (2020) examined this in North Devon BR and found negative perceptions of the state as a partner, especially during periods of austerity. In contrast, my research in Wester Ross points to the desire for more, rather than less collaboration with the state agencies. Exploring the differing political contexts for BRs in the UK across devolved administrations and including the Isle of Man as a Crown Dependency, would add new insights to BR research in an under-explored part of the WNBR.

Concluding remarks

The Isle of Man is home to an entire nation, island biosphere. This paper has focused on outlining how stakeholders within the biosphere perceive the impact of the designation for the island’s sustainable development. Based on a qualitative study comprising of interviews, the findings show the biosphere is viewed positively, as a ‘holistic’ approach, and a way to balance multiple objectives. However, they also show that there are practical and conceptual challenges to realising this, similar to those faced by all BRs. Namely, how to communicate the concept of a biosphere, how to work effectively in partnership across different sectors and interests, and overall resourcing to implement specific projects in practice. Two contrasting discourses of the biosphere emerged in the research: the biosphere as a reward and/or legitimator of the status quo and the biosphere as an instigator of change. Although these manifest in contextually specific ways in the Isle of Man, they reflect the characteristics of the biosphere model as both an ‘accolade’ for excellence and a ‘learning site’ for sustainable development and innovation.

Despite the contested narratives from within the SPG, and a desire for more action, it was evident that most, if not all partners conceptualised the biosphere in ways that are conducive to working differently for sustainable development. IoM is worthy of further research beyond a pilot study, offering an example of where the ‘new-style’ biosphere model is being interpreted more holistically, focusing on broader sustainability transitions than perhaps older style BRs that are more conservation focused. Although facing challenges, the unique ‘entire nation’ approach also gives IoM potential for innovative sustainability governance and working towards policy coherence for sustainable development. Currently, this is limited by the lack of resources for the biosphere, incoherencies across government, and difficulties with partnership working and wider public engagement. Higher level political leadership, support for stakeholder dialogue and facilitation, and wider societal participation are therefore needed to realise the full value and potential of the biosphere model on the island.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Isle of Man coordinator at the biosphere, and her PhD supervisor who helped to make this research possible, as well as her host on the island Cyril Jones.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zoe Russell

Zoe Russell is a PhD Candidate at the University of Stirling in the Faculty of Social Sciences & Faculty of Arts and Humanities. She is funded to complete an interdisciplinary qualitative research project on Wester Ross UNESCO Biosphere by the Economic and Social Research Council. Her work combines sociological and political approaches to understanding contemporary nature-culture relationships.

Notes

1 https://en.unesco.org/biosphere

2 http://www.islandbiosphere.org/Contingut.aspx?IdPub=628&Menu=About#anclaCon

3 https://www.biosphere.im/uploads/biosphere-isle-of-man-nomination-papers-part-i-and-ii_web.pdf

4 https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/climate-change-isle-of-man/

5 https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2021-GD-0085.pdf

6 https://www.gov.im/media/1369690/isle-of-man-in-numbers-2020.pdf

7 https://www.biosphere.im/uploads/biosphere-isle-of-man-nomination-papers-part-i-and-ii_web.pdf

8 https://www.biosphere.im/uploads/biosphere-isle-of-man-nomination-papers-part-i-and-ii_web.pdf

9 https://www.biosphere.im/legal/terms-of-reference

10 https://www.biosphere.im/stakeholders

11 Department of Education, Sport and Culture; Department for Enterprise; Department of Infrastructure; the Cabinet Office; Manx Utilities Authority; University College Isle of Man; Isle of Man Arts Council; Municipal Association; the Institute of Directors; the Chamber of Commerce; Manx National Farmers Union; Manx Fish Producers Organisation; Manx National Heritage; the Manx Wildlife Trust; Culture Vannin; food drink representative; tourism representative; financial services representative; Council of Voluntary Organisations; The Children’s Centre.

12 https://www.biosphere.im/our-5s