2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109780
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Running to stand still: The application of substandard OECMs in national and provincial policy in Canada

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar questions have been raised about forest management areas in Canada, which allow commercial and industrial activities (Ball & Nixon, 2022). Formally recognizing these areas sets a precedent for failing to comply with existing guidelines, and their recognition could have wider implications for potential OECMs with a history of resource extraction, normalizing OECMs that do not meet the required standard (Lemieux et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similar questions have been raised about forest management areas in Canada, which allow commercial and industrial activities (Ball & Nixon, 2022). Formally recognizing these areas sets a precedent for failing to comply with existing guidelines, and their recognition could have wider implications for potential OECMs with a history of resource extraction, normalizing OECMs that do not meet the required standard (Lemieux et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclusion of areas that have experienced habitat degradation as a result of industrial-scale resource extraction has been controversial (Lemieux et al, 2019(Lemieux et al, , 2022. These issues were raised in relation to Canada's interpretation that OECMs include limited fisheries closures, now called marine refuges (DFO, 2016).…”
Section: Advancing Understanding About How To Recognize Oecmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclusion of OECMs in both Aichi Target 11 and GBF Target 3 extends the boundaries of the field frame beyond traditional MPAs to include conservation undertaken by IPLCs, but it also pulls fisheries (back) into the frame. The ongoing contestation regarding whether and how fisheries management areas should be designated as OECMs (Garcia et al, 2022;Lemieux et al, 2022) reinforces the importance of this issue for field bounding.…”
Section: Defining Mpas and Their Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current PAs insufficiently cover existing biodiversity hotspots (WWF et al., 2021), and many mammal populations threatened with extinction reside outside these areas (Li et al., 2020; Pacifici et al., 2020). PAs have not achieved the anticipated goals of halting or reversing wildlife and ecosystem decline (Diaz et al., 2019; Geldmann et al., 2019; Lemieux et al., 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%