Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures

Abstract

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations. All examples are provided according to their condition and status as of the date of publication.

Transforming Biodiversity Governance

“…At the time, there was no accepted definition, and it was not until 2018 that the CBD adopted a decision that defined OECMs as "a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values" (CBD, 2018). OECMs are expected to involve a wider array of stakeholders in governance arrangements, particularly IPLCs, and spiritual and religious groups , and provide an opportunity to engage rights-holders and promote equitable and diverse partnerships in conservation efforts (IUCN-WCPA, 2019). Their governance arrangements are therefore expected to be more complex than those of traditional protected areas and are likely to require strengthening or the gaining of official recognition of informal arrangements .…”

Guidelines for geoconservation in protected and conserved areas

“…There is growing focus on the value of nature-based solutions and the promotion by IUCN and others of the role of healthy ecosystems in addressing existing and emerging global challenges, such as climate change, disaster risk reduction, food and water security, and human health and well-being (Cohen-Shacham et al, 2016;Griscom et al, 2017;IUCN, 2020). As far as possible, natural systems and processes (e.g.…”

Protected Areas Benefits Assessment Tool + (PA-BAT+): A tool to assess local stakeholder perceptions of the flow of benefits from protected areas

“…• To improve relationships with local stakeholders or to strengthen these relationships • To update management plans or during the initial phase of developing management plans • To contribute to the development of interpretation and education programmes • To help improve management effectiveness (Hockings et al, 2006) • As a contribution to rural development projects (e.g.…”

“…The PA-BAT+ is an assessment tool and not a monitoring tool. Ideally managers should identify the range of permitted uses of the protected area, agree on indicators and monitor results in relation to benefits as part of their overall assessment of management (Hockings et al, 2006) and equity effectiveness. Due to its participatory approach, the PA-BAT+ results reflect the current situation in protected areas and the real challenges people face in and around protected areas.…”