Search

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are sites outside of protected areas that deliver the effective, long-term conservation of biodiversity. Both protected areas and OECMs contribute to the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework's Target 3, which calls for the conservation of 30% of marine, terrestrial and inland water areas by 2030. This paper provides the first global assessment of the contribution of OECMs to GBF Target 3. Between 2019 and 2023, 820 sites in nine countries and territories were reported to the World Database on OECMs, covering 1.9 million km2 of the Earth's surface and, in the terrestrial realm, contributing over 1% to the 30% coverage target. Notably, over 50% of reported OECMs are under governance by governments and less than 2% are governed by Indigenous peoples and local communities. In countries and territories that have reported OECMs, a far greater proportion of OECMs than protected areas are under shared governance (40.9% compared to 2.5%), and collaborative governance is the most common governance sub-type among reported OECMs. This paper finds that almost 30% of the 820 reported OECMs overlap with identified Key Biodiversity Areas, which are one global classification of areas of particular importance for biodiversity. With Target 3's pressing deadline of 2030, there is an urgent need to scale up understanding and local to national engagement with the OECM framework, ensuring that it fulfills its potential to recognize diverse forms of equitable governance and effective conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) have been a feature of global biodiversity targets since 2010 (Aichi Targets, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), although the concept has only relatively recently been formally defined. Although uptake has been limited to date, there is much interest in identifying OECMs to contribute to the target of protecting at least 30% of terrestrial, freshwater and ocean areas by 2030, in conjunction with protected areas. Australia has a long history of protected area development across public, private and Indigenous lands, but consideration of OECMs in policy has recently begun in that country. We review principles proposed by the Australian Government for OECMs in Australia and highlight where these deviate from global guidance or established Australian area-based policy. We examined various land use categories and conservation mechanisms to determine the likelihood of these categories/mechanisms meeting the OECM definition, with a particular focus on longevity of the mechanism to sustain biodiversity. We identified that the number of categories/mechanisms that would meet the OECM definition is relatively small. A number of potentially perverse outcomes in classifying an area as an OECM are highlighted in order to guide proactive policy and program design to prevent such outcomes occurring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Area-based approaches are a central component of global efforts to conserve biodiversity. While the focus of many countries has been mainly on protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMS) have been accorded global recognition in the past decade as a vital complementary approach to protected areas. This recognition has been reemphasised in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, with its Target 3 ratchetting up area-based coverage targets to 30 per cent by 2030. A growing focus and reliance on OECMs to contribute towards achieving this target is anticipated. The international community has in the past few years introduced some guidance to identify, secure, manage, monitor and verify the anticipated long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes of OECMs. Some commentators have argued for domestic legal intervention to complement this general international guidance. The South African Government has recognised the potential contribution of OECMs towards the achievement of domestic and global area-based biodiversity targets in its National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (2018) but has alluded to the need for legal intervention to ensure that they achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity. Some domestic commentators have highlighted the strong link between biodiversity stewardship (particularly conservation areas) and OECMs, advocating that these conservation areas should form the priority focus of domestic efforts to identify OECMs. This article scopes this potential link and specifically considers whether the current domestic legal and policy framework applicable to these conservation areas is sufficiently robust to ensure that only appropriate areas are identified as OECMs and that once recognised, they are governed and effectively managed in the long term. It highlights several frailties of the existing framework and drawing from anticipated legal reform in the Western Cape relating to biodiversity stewardship, it proposes a possible model for future national legislation regulating OECMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designating protected and conserved areas is a critical component of biodiversity conservation. The 10th Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 set global targets for the areal extent of protected areas (PAs) that were met partially in 2020, yet a new, more ambitious target is needed to halt ongoing global biodiversity loss. China recently introduced a national Ecological Conservation Redline policy, which aims to ensure no net change in land cover and no net loss of biodiversity or degradation of ecosystem services within areas that are critical for maintaining ecological safety and functions. Enacting this policy could achieve ancillary conservation outcomes even where conservation is not the primary objective, thus meeting CBD's definition of "other effective area‐based conservation measures" (OECM). By comparing the Ecological Conservation Redline boundaries with important coastal waterbird sites in China, we found that three times more sites could be conserved under the new redline policy compared to the national nature reserve system alone. This indicates that considering the redline policy approach as a form of OECM is a promising pathway to expand the areal coverage of PAs and conserve biodiversity outside currently designated PAs, providing a model that could be adopted around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Work on the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework is now well advanced and will outline a vision, goals, and targets for the next decade of biodiversity conservation and beyond. For the effectiveness of Protected areas and Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures, an indicator has been proposed for "areas meeting their documented ecological objectives." However, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has not identified or agreed on what data should inform this indicator. Here we draw on experiences from the assessment of protected area effectiveness in the CBD's previous strategic plan to provide recommendations on the essential elements related to biodiversity outcomes and management that need to be captured in this updated indicator as well as how this could be done. Our proposed protected area effectiveness indicators include a combination of remotely derived products for all protected areas, combined with data from monitoring of both protected area management and trends in species and ecosystems based on field observations. Additionally, we highlight the need for creating a digital infrastructure to operationalize national‐level data‐capture. We believe these steps are critical and urge the adoption of suitable protected area effectiveness indicators before the post‐2020 framework is agreed in 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Private land conservation areas (PLCAs) have become critical for achieving global conservation goals, but we lack understanding of how and when these areas respond to global pressures and opportunities. In southern Africa, where many PLCAs rely on trophy hunting as an income‐generating strategy, a potential ban on trophy hunting locally or abroad holds unknown consequences for the future conservation of these lands. In this study, we investigate the consequences of a potential trophy hunting ban in PLCAs in two biodiversity hotspots in South Africa's Eastern and Western Cape provinces. We used semistructured interviews with PLCA managers and owners to elicit perceived impacts of an internationally imposed trophy hunting ban on conservation activities in PLCAs, and to probe alternative viable land uses. The majority of interviewees believed that both the economic viability of their PLCA and biodiversity would be lost following a hunting ban. Owners would primarily consider transitioning to ecotourism or livestock farming, but these options were constrained by the social‐ecological context of their PLCA (e.g., competition with other PLCAs, ecological viability of farming). Our results suggest that a trophy hunting ban may have many unintended consequences for biodiversity conservation, national economies, and the livelihoods of PLCA owners and employees. Along with similar social‐ecological studies in other areas and contexts, our work can inform policy decisions around global trophy hunting regulation.

Private land conservation areas (PLCAs) have become critical for achieving global conservation goals, but we lack understanding of how and when these areas respond to global pressures and opportunities. In southern Africa, where many PLCAs rely on trophy hunting as an income‐generating strategy, a potential ban on trophy hunting locally or abroad holds unknown consequences for the future conservation of these lands. In this study, we investigate the consequences of a potential trophy hunting ban in PLCAs in two biodiversity hotspots in South Africa's Eastern and Western Cape provinces. We used semistructured interviews with PLCA managers and owners to elicit perceived impacts of an internationally imposed trophy hunting ban on conservation activities in PLCAs, and to probe alternative viable land uses. The majority of interviewees believed that both the economic viability of their PLCA and biodiversity would be lost following a hunting ban. Owners would primarily consider transitioning to ecotourism or livestock farming, but these options were constrained by the social‐ecological context of their PLCA (e.g., competition with other PLCAs, ecological viability of farming). Our results suggest that a trophy hunting ban may have many unintended consequences for biodiversity conservation, national economies, and the livelihoods of PLCA owners and employees. Along with similar social‐ecological studies in other areas and contexts, our work can inform policy decisions around global trophy hunting regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]