The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11′s “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs) in Key Biodiversity Areas

Abstract

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.

Shifting boundaries: taxonomy and site‐based conservation

“…Indigenous Peoples often manage their lands sustainably and may have done so for thousands of years, and have vast knowledge of the species found in the area. Recent analyses suggest that many Key Biodiversity Areas that do not overlap with protected areas appear to meet the criteria of OECMs (Donald et al ., 2019).…”

Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures

“…Decision 14/8, in paragraph 9, further invited the IUCN and other expert bodies to continue to assist Parties in identifying OECMs and in applying the scientific and technical advice on criteria for their identification. (Donald et al, 2019).…”

Estimating ecological metrics for holistic conservation management in a biodiverse but information‐poor tropical region

“…However, following guidelines on manageability (IUCN, 2016b;KBA Secretariat, 2019), for example, avoiding conflicting land uses such as mining, potential KBAs were limited to these six sites. KBAs may aid alternative management regimes where formal protected areas are not appropriate (Donald et al, 2019) (e.g., community farming lands) but may also provide a pathway to more formal protection (Kullberg, Di Minin, & Moilanen, 2019).…”