Application of site-level assessment of governance and equity (SAGE) methodology to a candidate OECM: Andakí Municipal Natural Park, Caquetá, Colombia

Echeverri, Juliana Vélez; Cely-Gómez, Alejandra; Zafra‐Calvo, Noelia; González, Junner; Matallana‐Tobón, Clara L.; Santamaría, Marcela; Galan, Sandra De

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2021.parks-27-1je.en

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten studies used a case study approach to screen specific sites. These included 2 studies evaluating individual sites (e.g., Diz et al., 2018; Echeverri et al., 2021) (Table 2). Studies that focused on multiple sites (6) ranged from small‐scale assessments of 2 or 3 similar sites (e.g., complementary conservation strategies [Matallana‐Tobón et al., 2018]) (Table 2) to hundreds of similar (e.g., fisheries restricted areas [Petza et al., 2019]) or diverse sites (e.g., key biodiversity areas [Donald et al., 2019]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the studies that evaluated or discussed existing OECMs focused on sites in Canada (7) (Table 2), where OECMs are controversial (Lemieux & Gray, 2020). Retrospective studies that document how sites have been screened and registered by countries could help develop models of best practice and resolve some of the difficult questions about the evidence required to determine whether OECMs meet the relevant criteria (e.g., effective governance [Echeverri et al., 2021]; effective conservation outcomes [Beazley et al., 2021; Petza et al., 2019]). Building this evidence base could help inform the discussions about which areas should count toward protection targets, which preoccupy a considerable section of the OECM literature (Figure 4b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This supports the view that OECMs will need to be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis (IUCN‐WDPA, 2019), rather than by recognizing generic conservation measures (Alves‐Pinto et al., 2021), which will be resource intensive. Researchers could work with policy makers to develop or adapt tools, such as the Green List Standard (IUCN‐WCPA, 2017), SAGE (Echeverri et al., 2021), and ICCA guidelines (Corrigan & Granziera, 2010), to offer resources to support studies evaluating potential OECMs and to ensure national guidance aligns with IUCN guidance (e.g., Lemieux et al., 2019). This nevertheless requires a burden of proof be agreed on to ensure sites meet the necessary criteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Progress developing the concept of other effective area‐based conservation measures

Cook

2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010, the introduction of other effective area‐based conservation measures (OECMs) into international policy caused a paradigm shift in area‐based conservation, which included consideration of areas outside formal protected areas and places where biodiversity conservation may not be a management objective for the site. Despite the importance of this shift for global conservation, conservation science and policy have been slow to engage with the concept of OECMs. As the world moves toward protecting 30% of the Earth by 2030, it is imperative to develop evidence‐based guidance for how to identify effective conservation measures, especially tools to help evaluate and monitor the biodiversity outcomes associated with potential OECMs. To understand the current progress in developing the concept of OECMs, I evaluated the peer‐reviewed literature to consolidate and synthesize current knowledge. I conducted a thematic analysis of papers to identify the types of challenges and opportunities being discussed and lessons from studies evaluating the effectiveness of OECMs. Only 105 studies mentioned OECMs, and those that did rarely move beyond superficial mention of OECMs as part of area‐based conservation. Around one‐half of studies listed potential risks or benefits of OECMs but none provided evidence these issues have materialized. Twenty‐three studies attempted to identify potential OECMs, although specific case studies were rare. The 7 studies that evaluated existing OECMs were highly critical of how they had been implemented to date. Studies that evaluated conservation outcomes were extremely rare, and suggested effectiveness must be judged on a case‐by‐case basis. The current literature not only leaves many gaps in the science required to operationalize the concept of OECMs, but also often raises additional questions that need to be addressed. If these gaps are not filled by robust science, the promised benefits for biodiversity from OECMs may never be realized.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress developing the concept of other effective area‐based conservation measures

Cook

2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is increasing interest and funding made available to assess and work toward improving site-level governance in area-based conservation projects, e.g., as part of the IUCN Green List program (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2013;Franks et al, 2018;Bennett et al, 2020;IUCN, 2021;Springer et al, 2021). The participatory site-level governance assessment tools developed by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and partners and that are being piloted across the world provide a practical and context-sensitive framework to kick off and eventually monitor governance transformations from the bottom-up (Echeverri et al, 2021;International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED], 2021a,b;Schéré et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussion Tree Cover Loss and Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, our conceptual framework and discussion highlighted the importance of paying attention to the quality and equity in PA-level governance arrangements and mechanisms. Tools that assess and help improve site-level governance are emerging (Zafra-Calvo et al, 2017;Franks et al, 2018;Echeverri et al, 2021; International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED], 2021a,b; Springer et al, 2021) and could in the long term, if systematically recorded and made publicly available, support meta-analyses (Zafra-Calvo et al, 2019;Zafra-Calvo and Geldmann, 2020). These tools are also important to enable studies that consider not only the ecological but also social impacts of conservation measures at local and regional scales (Andrade and Rhodes, 2012;Miller et al, 2015;Oldekop et al, 2016;Miller and Nakamura, 2018).…”

Section: Lack Of Relevant and Good Quality Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating Country-Level Governance and Tree Cover Loss in Sub-Saharan African Protected Areas: Identifying Knowledge Gaps and a More Nuanced Perspective

Dehmel

Franks

Schreckenberg

et al. 2022

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Good governance’ is highlighted by many as being essential for improving protected area (PA) management and conservation outcomes, with a growing body of evidence based on site-level governance data. Yet how exactly governance at other levels supports or hinders successful PA implementation, and how this should be considered in conservation planning and practice, remains insufficiently understood. We conducted an exploratory analysis of the relationship between the quality of country-level governance and trends in tree cover loss within sub-Saharan African PAs. For the period 2008–2017, we correlated annual governance scores from the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) with the annual rate of tree cover loss in the total terrestrial area of PAs in 33 forested sub-Saharan African countries. Overall governance was not correlated with tree cover loss in a simple model, but there was evidence that overall governance was positively correlated with tree cover loss in PAs when the interaction with environmental governance was included. The interaction indicated that the rate of tree cover loss decreased for a given level of overall governance as environmental governance increased. Human development was negatively correlated with forest loss. Thus, the relationship between country-level ‘good governance’ and conservation success is more complex than a direct and positive cause and effect. Yet, uncertainty remains about the many possible and likely confounding pathways: whilst the quality of overall governance may be mirrored at the site-level, it may also contribute to increased anthropogenic pressures on natural resources. Through this research we found significant limitations in data quality and availability both to evaluate the effectiveness of protection beyond tree cover, as well as less conventional governance aspects, such as environmental policy and regulation or site-level governance. With an expected increase in area-based protection and conservation financing in the coming decades, such data will be vital to monitor the effectiveness of our efforts and ensure financial accountability.

show abstract

Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity

Dawson,

Coolsaet,

Bhardwaj

et al. 2024

One Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of site-level assessment of governance and equity (SAGE) methodology to a candidate OECM: Andakí Municipal Natural Park, Caquetá, Colombia

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Progress developing the concept of other effective area‐based conservation measures

Progress developing the concept of other effective area‐based conservation measures

Relating Country-Level Governance and Tree Cover Loss in Sub-Saharan African Protected Areas: Identifying Knowledge Gaps and a More Nuanced Perspective

Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About