Territories of multiple UNESCO designations management-Cases from China and Europe.

Earth heritage protection, conservation and management seem to attract public attention during the last decades after the establishment of Geoparks. UNESCO Global Geoparks established in 2015, is the third site designation of UNESCO after World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Man and Biosphere Programme launched in 1971 and World Heritage Programme created in 1972, included also significant Earth heritage sites but without specific requirements regarding their conservation and management. The Man and Biosphere Programme focuses on natural resources and mainly biological diversity conservation and the World Heritage Programme concentrates on cultural sites protection and management. Consequently, the establishment of the Global Geoparks initially in 2004 and their recognition as UNESCO designation in 2015 provides the framework for the conservation and management of the abiotic nature sites. A territory hosting geological heritage sites of international significance may also host precious biological resources, and valuable cultural relics. Thus such a territory may host multiple UNESCO designations. Due to different concepts of the Man and Biosphere Programme, World Heritage Programme and UNESCO Global Geopark, various management strategies are implemented with different tasks and focus. Sometimes the implementation of different management schemes within the same territory might cause conflicts and problems. Consequently, an integrated and effective management of areas with multiple designations in necessary. This paper focus on multiple UNESCO designations management in UNESECO Global Geoparks in China and Europe. Huangshan UNESCO Global Geopark in China and Adamello Brenta UNESCO Global Geopark in Europe are a few cases with recognitions of World Heritage Site, Man and Biosphere Reserve as well as UNESCO Global Geopark. Hence, through presenting the co-management activities and approaches on multiple designations in these two territories, positive results of biotic and abiotic conservation as well as local development are given. The cases intend to set examples for other territories with multiple UNESCO designations to conduct co-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]