Private land conservation has an increasingly important role in ensuring global conservation networks are comprehensive, adequate and representative. To contribute to the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11, areas on private land must be either privately protected areas (PPAs) or 'other effective area-based conservation measures' (OECMs) on private land. Here we compare PPAs to OECMs on private land, clarify misconceptions and provide case studies for how two jurisdictions, Australia and South Africa, have worked through applying these categories to local private land conservation mechanisms.

Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity commits countries to the effective conservation of areas of importance for biodiversity, through protected areas and “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). However, the prevalence and characteristics of OECMs are poorly known, particularly in sites of importance for biodiversity. We assess the prevalence of potential OECMs in 740 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside known or mapped protected areas across ten countries. A majority of unprotected KBAs (76.5%) were at least partly covered by one or more potential OECMs. The conservation of ecosystem services or biodiversity was a stated management aim in 73% of these OECMs. Local or central government bodies managed the highest number of potential OECMs, followed by local and indigenous communities and private landowners. There was no difference between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state‐pressure‐response metrics.

Instructions and considerations for ecosystem based management in a useful guide.

No abstract

No abstract