Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation

Alves-Pinto, Helena; Geldmann, Jonas; Jonas, Harry; Maioli, Verônica; Balmford, Andrew; Latawiec, Agnieszka E.; Crouzeilles, Renato; Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.

doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004

Cited by 58 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We have identified 87 planning units representing gaps in the current network of KBAs and protected areas, and 30 irreplaceable sites for threatened freshwater species conservation. We note that, in addition to formal protected areas, Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) may be an effective means of conserving freshwater biodiversity at some of the sites identified here, and these will play an increasingly important role over the next decade (Alves-Pinto et al, 2021;Donald et al, 2019). We hope that this exercise serves as a useful demonstration to be used as a basis for a more inclusive application of the systematic conservation planning approach to help inform future development and expansion of the existing KBA and protected area networks for freshwater biodiversity throughout the region.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and validation of Western African freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas

Starnes¹,

Darwall²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and validation of Western African freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas

Starnes¹,

Darwall²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECM) is an alternative solution to bridge the gap between socio-economic feasibility and bold conservation targets (Dudley et al, 2018;Bhola et al, 2020;Alves-Pinto et al, 2021). Notably, OECM is defined by conservation outcomes through community-led or private efforts (Jonas et al, 2014) when landscape management is shared with agricultural/forestry or indigenous traditional land use, and has less strict protection or lacks legal restriction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Area-based conservation planning in Japan: protected area network effectiveness to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Shiono

Kubota

Kusumoto

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reframe the imperfect review processes of nation-scale actions on area-based conservation through protected area (PA) networks, we first created novel infrastructure to visualize nation-level biodiversity information in Japan. We then assessed the performance of the existing PA network relative to land exploitation pressure and evaluated conservation effectiveness of PA expansion for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The Zonation algorithm was used to spatially prioritize conservation areas to minimize biodiversity loss and the extinction risk for 8,500 Japanese vascular plant and vertebrate species under constraints of the existing PA network and land use. The spatial pattern of the identified priority areas, which were considered candidate areas for expansion of the current PA network, was influenced by land-use types according to the mask layers of non-PAs, and low-, middle-, and high-ranked PAs. The current PA network reduced the aggregate extinction risk of multiple species by 36.6%. Indeed, the percentage of built-up areas in the existing PAs was in general smaller than that in the areas surrounding PAs. Notably, high-ranked PAs fully restrained built-up pressure (0.037% per 10 years), whereas low-ranked PAs in the national park and wild-life protection areas did not (1.845% per 10 years). Conservation effects were predicted to substantially improve by expansion of high-ranked (legally strict) PAs into remote non-PAs without population/socio-economic activities, or expansion of medium-ranked PAs into agriculture forestry satoyama and urban areas. A 30% land conservation target was predicted to decrease extinction risk by 74.1% when PA expansion was implemented across remote areas, satoyama, and urban areas; moreover, PA connectivity almost doubled compared with the existing PA network. In contrast, a conventional scenario showed that placing national parks in state-owned and non-populated areas would reduce extinction risk by only 4.0%. The conservation prioritization analyses demonstrated an effectiveness of using a comprehensive conservation approach that reconciles land-sparing protection and land-sharing conservation in other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) in satoyama and urban green spaces. Our results revealed that complementary inclusion of various PAs interventions related to their governance and land-use planning plays a critical role in effectively preventing biodiversity loss and makes it more feasible to achieve ambitious conservation targets.

show abstract

“…In the fields of marine conservation and fisheries management, several recent examples exist of definition-setting and indicator-setting processes to aid the interpretation of terminology. These include definition-setting processes for the terms "other effective conservation measures" (a term in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity) (Alves-Pinto et al, 2021), "industrial fishing" and "levels/scales" of Marine Protected Areas (Grorud-Colvert et al, 2021), and "illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing" (Macfadyen et al, 2019). It is vital to note that these are explicitly political processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Destructive fishing” – a ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media, and policy

Willer¹,

Brian²,

Derrick

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tackling the global problem of 'destructive fishing' is central to the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 'Life Below Water', yet the term remains vague, making it difficult to track and quantify progress. Here we evaluate the frequency and range of uses of the term 'destructive fishing' across the peer reviewed literature and media. Our research elucidated the clear lack of a consensus definition for 'destructive fishing', with only 6 academic articles to date providing a definition, and none of these matching. There is also a mismatch between regions where academia and policy identify fishing practices as 'destructive' and the regions in which the media reports it. There are however clear trends in the types of fishing activity referred to as destructive in the academic literature, media and policy, and the term is used to refer to practices beyond those previously exemplified as 'destructive' in an international policy context. We conclude that further exploration around the definition and scope of this term is warranted. By assembling a culturally and sectorally balanced pool of expert views, future research plans to use an iterative, anonymised approach to constructively address the conceptual vagueness and contention around this term.

show abstract

Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation

Cited by 58 publications

References 16 publications

Identification and validation of Western African freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas

Identification and validation of Western African freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas

Area-based conservation planning in Japan: protected area network effectiveness to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

“Destructive fishing” – a ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media, and policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About