A step-by-step methodology for identifying, reporting, recognising, and supporting ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs)

IUCN WORLD COMMISSION ON PROTECTED AREAS

Version 1.0 | Draft December 2020

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Authors: The development of this methodology is led by Daniel Marnewick, BirdLife South Africa (South Africa), Candice Stevens, Wilderness Foundation Africa (South Africa), and Harry Jonas, Future Law (UK/Malaysia). Contributors: Individuals who have provided inputs include: Agnes Lee Agama, South East Asia Rainforest Research Partnership (Malaysia), Thora Amend, WCPA (Germany), Ludi Apin, Sabah Parks (Malaysia), Clarissa Arida, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (Philippines), Dominique Bikaba, Strong Roots Congo and ICCA Consortium (DRC), Heather Bingham, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UK), Corina Brdar, Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (Canada), Scott Delyea, Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (Canada, Cristina Eghenter, WWF-Indonesia and ICCA Consortium (Indonesia), Gregor Fischenich, GIZ (Colombia), Amber Himes-Cornell, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (Italy), Jenny Kelleher, IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme (Switzerland), Eskild Kirkegaard, International Council for the Exploration of the Seas and IUCN CEM Fisheries Management Group (Denmark), Dan Laffoley, IUCN WCPA Marine (UK), David MacKinnon, Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (Canada), Clara Matallana, Humboldt Institute (Colombia), Marina Rosales Benites de Franco, Federico Villarreal National University (Peru), Ravaka Ranaivoson, Wildlife Conservation Society (Madagascar), Trevor Sandwith, IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme (Switzerland), Gisela Stolpe, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Sue Stolton, Equilibrium Research (UK), Kim Taylor Thompson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Canada), Gladys Warigia Njoroge, Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (Kenya), Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (Italy), and Flora Yifan He, Conservation International (USA). Feedback: Please send comments or queries to Daniel Marnewick (daniel.marnewick@birdlife.org.za) and Harry Jonas (harry@futurelaw.org)Citation: Marnewick, D., Stevens C. and Jonas H. (Editors) (2019). A step-by-step methodology for identifying, reporting, recognising and supporting other effective area-based conservation measures. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.WCPA Task Force on OECMs: This publication has been developed under the auspices of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Task Force on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. The Task Force is Co-chaired by Kathy MacKinnon (UK) and Harry Jonas (UK/Malaysia) and has over 120 members. More information about the Task Force is available online: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/oecms

1

171819

2021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

4344

454647

48495051525354

55

56

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xxGlossary to terms…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xxIntroduction…………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………….xxInstructions: How to use this assessment methodology………..………………..…………………………….xxPart 1: Screening for a potential OECM…….……………………….………………………………………………….xxPart 2: Consent and details……………………..…………………………………………………………………………….xx

2.1 OECM assessment tool consent form………………..………………………..………………………xx

2.2 Details of the participants……………………………………………..…………………………………….xx

2.3 Details of the area…………………………………………………………..…………………………………..xxPart 3: Identifying an OECM: The assessment tool…………………………...…………………………………..xx

3.1 Geographically delineated areas ….……………………………………………………………………..xx

3.2 Biodiversity values……………………..………………………………………………………………………..xx

3.3 Governed………..…………….………….…………………………………………………………………………xx

3.4 Managed …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

3.5 Effective…………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….xx

3.6 Associated functions, services and other locally relevant values………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx

2

57

58

5960

616263

6465

6667

6869

7071

7273

7475

7677

7879

8081

8283

8485

868788

8990

919293

3.7 Report summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….xxPart 4: Reporting to UNEP-WCMC………………. ………………….………………………………..….………………xxPart 5: Recognising and Supporting OECMs…..……………………………………..……………………………… xxReferences…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xx

3

949596

9798

99100

101102

103

ACRONYMS

[From the guidelines – to be edited at the end]CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

COP Conference of the Parties to the CBD

EBSA Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area

IBA Important Bird Area

ICCA Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

IMMA Important Marine Mammal Area

IPA Important Plant Area

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

KBA Key Biodiversity Area

LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area

OECM Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measure

PAME Protected areas management effectiveness

SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the CBD

SDGs UN Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNEP-WCMC UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre

WCC IUCN World Conservation Congress

WCPA IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

WDPA World Database on Protected Areas

4

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111112

113

114

115116

117

118

119

120

121122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

[From the guidelines – to be edited at the end]Biodiversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. (CBD Article 2).Candidate OECMs: Geographically defined spaces that have been identified as potential OECMs by the governance authority and are being assessed against the CBD criteria.Conserved areas: CBD Parties and other organisations are increasingly referring to “protected and conserved areas” (see for example CBD decision 14/8 and the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas). In this context, “conserved areas” include areas that may satisfy the criteria for “other effective area-based conservation measures”.Cultural and spiritual values: These include recreational, religious, aesthetic, historic and social values related to tangible and intangible benefits that nature and natural features have for people of different cultures and societies, with a particular focus on those that contribute to conservation outcomes (e.g. traditional management practices on which key species, biodiversity or whole ecosystems have become reliant or the societal support for conservation of landscapes for the maintenance of their quality in artistic expression or beauty) and intangible heritage, including cultural and spiritual practices.Ecologically and Biologically Significant Marine Areas: EBSAs are special areas in the ocean that serve important purposes, in one way or another, to support the healthy functioning of oceans and the many services that it provides. (https://www.cbd.int/ebsa/) Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. (CBD Article 2).Ecosystem approach: The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention. It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems. (https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/).Free, prior and informed consent: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a specific right that pertains to Indigenous Peoples and is recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It allows them to give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories. Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage. Furthermore, FPIC enables them to negotiate the conditions under which the

5

132

133

134

135136137138

139140141

142143144145146

147148149150151152153154

155156157158

159160161

162163164165166167168169170

171172173174175176

project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated.  This is also embedded within the universal right to self-determination. (UN, 2007).Geodiversity: The natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, fossils, minerals), geomorphological (land form, physical processes) and soil features, and includes their assemblages, relationships, properties, relationships and systems. (Gray, 2004).Governance authority: The institution, individual, Indigenous Peoples or communal group or other body acknowledged as having authority and responsibility for decision-making and management of an area.Habitat: The place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs. (CBD Article 2).Indigenous Peoples and local communities: This report follows the Convention on Biological Diversity’s uses of the terms “Indigenous Peoples” and “local communities”.In-situ conservation: The conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties. (CBD Article 2).Locally managed marine area: A locally managed marine area (LMMA) is an area of nearshore waters and its associated coastal and marine resources that is largely or wholly managed at a local level by the coastal communities, land-owning groups, partner organizations, and/or collaborative government representatives who reside or are based in the immediate area. (http://lmmanetwork.org/)Management authority: The organisation or entity responsible for the ongoing management of a site. The management authority may or may not be the same as the governance authority, the organisation or entity that holds legal or customary authority and responsibility for the site.Potential OECM: A geographically defined space that has been identified as having OECM-like characteristics but where the governance authority has yet to decide to assess it using the screening tool, whereupon it becomes a “candidate OECM”.Protected area: The CBD defines a protected area as: “A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (CBD Article 2). IUCN has a more detailed definition: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008). The CBD and IUCN recognise the two as being equivalent in practice (Lopoukhine and Dias, 2012) as in both cases these areas are intended to achieve in-situ conservation. Sustainable use: The use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. (CBD Article 2).

6

177178

179180181182

183184185

186187

188189190

191192193194195

196197198199200201

202203204205

206207208209

210211212213214215216217218

219220221222

7

223

224

INTRODUCTION ‘Other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) is a conservation designation for areas that are contributing to the effective in situ conservation of biodiversity outside of protected areas. This Methodology is a companion publication to the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Technical Report on Recognising and Reporting OECMs (IUCN-WCPA, 2019). It offers a practical means by which to implement CBD Decision 14/8 and builds on the IUCN-WCPA Technical Report Recognising and Reporting OECMs (IUCN-WCPA, 2019) by offering a practical means to assess individual areas against the criteria to determine whether they are OECMs, and appropriately recognise, report and support areas that are OECMs.OECMs and the Convention on Biological DiversityIn 2010, Parties to the CBD agreed the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020). The Strategic Plan contained a shared vision, a mission, strategic goals and twenty ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’. Aichi Target 11 calls on Parties to conserve 17% of terrestrial areas and 10% of marine areas through well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.An ‘other effective area-based conservation measure’ is defined by the CBD 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).

Governments, relevant organizations, Indigenous peoples and local communities are invited to apply the voluntary guidance on governance and equity of protected areas and OECMs (Annex I and II, Decision 14/8), identify OECMs, and submit data on OECMs to the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) (paragraph 2 and Annex III of Decision 14/8). Protected areas and OECMs in wider landscapes and seascapes Protected areas are proven to effectively conserve biodiversity (Gloss et al., 2019; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016). As a result of a clear definition and technical guidance on OECMs, the opportunity now exists to further strengthen the collective estate of protected and conserved areas through designing and recognising interconnected and sustainable networks of protected areas and OECMs across landscapes and seascapes. Additionally, OECMs allow for the engagement of a diverse range of rights-holders and stakeholders who are contributing to area-based conservation outside of the formal protected area estate. OECMs also provide a

8

225

226227228229230231232233234235236

237

238239240241242243

244245

246247248249250251

252253254255256257

258

259260261262263264265266267

framework to accommodate more diverse economic activities within the area-based conservation landscape, as well as potentially develop biodiversity financing, particularly around nature-based economies.

9

268269270

HOW TO USE THIS METHODOLOGYOverview

This OECM methodology enables individual areas to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and where they meet the OECM criteria to be appropriately recognised, reported and supported. For those areas that do not yet meet all criteria, the methodology also helps to identify the issues which would need to be addressed for an area to qualify as an OECM.

Step-by-step methodology This methodology is divided into six parts, which should be followed sequentially. It is essential not to bypass any stages. For example, where the governance authority has not yet given consent or has withheld consent, a full assessment of an area should not be undertaken.

Part 1 contains the screening tool that enables a determination of whether an area is a ‘potential OECM’, i.e. an area that could usefully be assessed against the criteria/characteristics of an OECM, subject to consent from the legitimate governance authority.

Part 2 provides for the legitimate governance authority to clearly state whether consent to an assessment has been given (the standard being for Indigenous peoples and local communities being free, prior and informed consent). Without consent from the legitimate governance authority, the site cannot be assessed. In cases where consent is given, the area becomes a ‘candidate OECM’. This part also provides for details of the candidate OECM, and details of the people partaking in the assessment, to be captured.

Part 3 contains an assessment tool that enables the rigorous application of the OECM criteria to individual candidate OECMs to determine if they meet the criteria of an OECMs. The assessment tool contiains a grading system which is intended to accommodate variability across country contexts and the uniqueness of OECMs.

Part 4 details the information necessary for reporting areas that qualify as OECMs to UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre to be uploaded to the World Database on OECMs.

Part 5 sets out a range of considerations relevant to the appropriate recognition of and support for OECMs

10

PART 1

Screening Tool

PART 2

Consent and Details

PART 3

Identifying OECMs

PART 4

Reporting to UNEP-WCMC

PART 5

Recognising and

Supporting

271272273274275276277278279280281

282283284285

286

287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312

Preparation

Before using this Methodology, please first read the IUCN Technical Report on Recognising and Reporting OECMs (IUCN-WCPA, 2019) and consult CBD Decision 14/8 (Box 1). Box 1: Core Reading Users of this Methodology should first read the following

1. CBD Decision on protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures: CBD Decision 14/8 is the primary reference for this OECM Methodology. Please see in particular paragraph 2 and Annex III. Download

2. Technical Report on Recognising and Reporting OECMs: The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has produced a publication that provides easily accessible guidance on CBD Decision 14/8. Download

Other materials and case studies are available on the IUCN WCPA Task Force on OECMs: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/oecms

11

313314315316317318319

320

USING THE SCREENING TOOL TO IDENTIFY A POTENTIAL OECM IN LANDSCAPES AND SEASCAPE

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

PART 1 SCREENING FOR A POTENTIAL OECM

A. INTRODUCTION

The screening tool should be applied to an individual area that has been identified as a Potential OECM. The outcome of this screening exercise is to determine whether it is a ‘potential OECM’ that could usefully be fully assessed (Part 3). The objective of the screening tool is to determine that the site:

1. Is not a protected area, and does not fall wholly or partly within a protected area;2. Has geographically delineated boundaries, a governance authority or management regime;3. Is delivering the effective in situ conservation of biodiversity; and4. Conserves biodiversity over the long-term.

B. SCREENING TOOL

Apply the following four tests to the area. For further reading about the criteria addressed below, please see ‘Core Reading’ in Box 1.

QUESTION ANSWER

Test 1: Not a protected area1. Is the area wholly outside of a protected area? Refer to element a of the Draft Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.

No (Not potential OECM)Yes (See below)

Test 2: Geographically delineated boundaries, governed and managed 2.1 Is the area geographically delineated, with

agreed and demarcated boundaries, to enable the in-situ conservation of biodiversity?

No (Not a potential OECM)Yes (See below)

13

330

331

332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347

2.2 Is the area under the governance authority of a specified entity or an agreed upon combination of entities?

No (Not a potential OECM)Yes (See below)

2.2 Is the area's management objectives and activities compatible with delivering positive and sustained long-term in-situ biodiversity conservation outcomes?

No (Not a potential OECM)Yes (See below)

Test 3: Effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity

3. Is there a strong probability that the area is delivering the effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity?

No (Not a potential OECM)Yes (See below)

Test 4: Long term

4. Is there a strong probability of the conservation outcome being achieved over the long-term through legal or other effective means and the current conservation efforts cannot be easily reversed?

No (Not a potential OECM)Yes (See below)

C. RESULT

One or more ‘No’

If the answer to one or more question is ‘No’, then the area is not a potential OECM. This result could be discussed with the governance authority to begin a process of engagement on that issue with the objective to improve that aspect towards the area meeting all the criteria of an OECM and thereby one day qualifying as a potential OECM.

All ‘Yes’ If all the answers to the questions are ‘Yes’, the area is a potential OECM. Consent from the legitimate governance authority is required (Part 2) for the site to be recognised as a Candidate OECM and to move ahead to a full assessment of the area (Part 3).

14

348349350

351352

OBTAINING CONSENT TO ASSESS A CANDIDATE OECM&

RECORDING DETAILS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND AREA

15

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

16

362

PART 2 CONSENT AND DETAILS

A. INTRODUCTION

If all answers to the questions in the screening tool are all ‘yes’, the area is a potential OECM. To move ahead with a full assessment, consent must first be obtained from the legitimate governance authority. CBD Decision 14/8 and the IUCN WCPA Technical Report are clear about the need for consent. Recognition of OECMs should follow appropriate consultation with relevant governance authorities, land owners and rights owners, stakeholders and the public. Any recognition or reporting of OECMs governed by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities should be based on self-identification and requires the free, prior and informed consent of those traditional governance authority(ies) (United Nations, 2007). Governance authorities have the right to object to the external nomination or recognition of their area as an OECM in cases where their consent has not been given.

Accordingly, for cases in which a party other than the governing authority is managing the process - including potential OECMs governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, to whom the principle of free, prior and informed consent applies – the consent of the legitimate governance authority must first be provided.

Obtaining such consent qualifies the area as a candidate OECM, after which it can then be assessed against the criteria of an OECM. This section records:

Consent by the legitimate governance authority for assessing the area as an OECM (2.1) Details of the area (2.2), and The details of the assessee (area's duly authorised representative/s providing the assessment information)

and assessor (person/s receiving the information) (2.3). Recording these details provides continuity for future monitoring and follow-up assessments.

17

363

364

365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390

B. INSTRUCTIONS

In order to obtain free, prior and informed consent, the governance authority should first understand the definition and characterises of an OECM, and the roles, responsibilities and obligations on the governance authorities of OECMs. Governance authorities must also understand that being identified as a candidate OECM and being assessed as a OECM does not necessarily result in the site being recognised or reported as an OECM. Materials to assist with this process are available on the IUCN WCPA Task Force on OECMs webpage: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/oecms

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION: FAIR DISPUTE OR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

In situations requiring fair dispute or conflict resolution regarding the recognition and reporting of OECMs, CBD Decision 14/8 provides the following points of guidance:

Recognising that diversity broadens ownership, potentially promoting collaboration and reducing conflict as well as facilitating resilience in the face of change;

Recognising that elements of effective and equitable governance models for protected and conserved areas may include appropriate procedures and mechanisms for fair dispute or conflict resolution; and

Noting further considerations for management approaches in accordance with national legislation and circumstances, and consistent with national policy and regulation, management approaches should consider any conflict of overlap between OECMs and already existing territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, including their governance systems, with due account being taken of free, prior and informed consent.

It should be duly noted here that the concept of equity is referred to in the CBD Decision 14/8 as one element of good governance. Equity can be broken down into three dimensions: recognition, procedure and distribution.

Recognition is the acknowledgement of and respect for the rights and the diversity of identities, values, knowledge systems and institutions of rights holders and stakeholders;

Procedure refers to inclusiveness of rule- and decision-making; and Distribution implies that costs and benefits resulting from the management of OECMs must be equitably shared among different actors.

18

391392393394395396397398399400401

402

2.1 OECM ASSESSMENT CONSENT FORMI/We, [insert: name] represent the legitimate and primary Governance Authority of [insert: name of the area], and I/we acknowledges that I/we understand what is an OECM, and the intent of this assessment, and I/we agreed and consent to undertake or take part in this assessment.

The information I/We, have provided herein is true, and to the best of my/our knowledge and abilities, accurate and complete.

GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY DETAILS #1 GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY #2

Full name Full name Organisation Organisation Designation Designation Relationship to site Relationship to site Email Email Tel/Cel No. Tel/Cel No. If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

Signed Signed Date DateLocation Location

GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY DETAILS #3 GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY #4

Full name Full name Organisation Organisation Designation Designation Relationship to site Relationship to site

19

403404405406407408409410411

412413

Email Email Tel/Cel No. Tel/Cel No. If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

Signed Signed Date DateLocation Location

Please add as many ‘governance authority details’ as required by copy/pasting the above boxes.

20

414415416

417

418

2.2 PARTICIPANT DETAILSProvide the details of the governance and / or management authority representatives taking part in the assessment, and the external person/s conducting the assessment (the assessor/s).

GOVERNANCE / MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY INFORMATION EXTERNAL ASSESSOR/S INFORMATIONPERSON #1 PERSON #1Name of participant Name of participant Organisation Organisation Designation Designation Relationship to site Relationship to site Email Email Tel/Cel No. Tel/Cel No. If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

PERSON #2 PERSON #2Name of participant Name of participant Organisation Organisation Designation Designation Relationship to site Relationship to site Email Email Tel/Cel No. Tel/Cel No. If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

If required: has the authority to speak on behalf of:

Please add as many ‘governance authority’ or ‘assessor’ details as required by copy/pasting the above boxes.

21

419420421422423

424

2.3 AREA DETAILS

INFORMATION DESCRIPTION NOTES EXPLANATIONArea Name

Property Description Provide details of the entire area, and where only a portion of area is being assessed then specify those portions related to the Candidate OECM.

GIS Location Coordinates in WGS84; Decimal degrees. The mid-point of the area can be used. Should the area ultimately qualify for reporting to UNEP-WCMC, a shapefile should be provided.

Area (km2) km2 of the Candidate OECM portion only.

Governance Authority(ies)

The institution, individual, Indigenous Peoples or communal group or other body acknowledged as having authority and responsibility for decision-making and management of an area. NOTE: this may be shared governance with more than one entity/ institution/ organisation/ individual involved in decision-making for the area.

Governance by indigenous peoples or local communities is self-identified and/or in accordance with national legislation and applicable international obligations.

Explanation of Governance Authority Provide description of the governance authority e.g.: its basis

for having decision-making authority, its structure, etc.

Management Authority

The organisation or entity responsible for the ongoing management of an area. The management authority may or may not be the same as the governance authority, the organisation or entity that holds legal or customary authority and responsibility for the area.

22

425

426

Management Plan or other planning tool Provide link/reference to the management plan, if one exists

and is available.

Primacy of Biodiversity Conservation in Overall Management Objective/s

Objectives for the area (including conservation objectives, if any), their relative priority to each other, and their implications on the potential for in-situ conservation of biodiversity, are understood.

Summary of associated ecosystem functions and services and cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values

Maximum 3-4 sentences intended to provide overall area context and connection to in-situ conservation of biodiversity as well as any cultural or social values. It should be noted that it is essential to ensure that recognition and protection of associated values leads to positive biodiversity outcomes and that management for associated values within an OECM should not negatively impact on biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Designation Formal or informal designation of the area e.g.: Sacred Natural Site; Watershed Management Area; Military Zone.

Designation Type

Four designation type values: international (e.g.: cultural World Heritage area); regional (i.e.: designated through a regional convention); national (e.g.: a Watershed Management Area); not applicable (if not formally/legally designated at any level, i.e. status is 'Established').

Status

Four status options: Proposed (proposed for legal designation, e.g. a Watershed Management Area that is soon to be legally-designated as such); Designated (legally-designated, e.g. a Watershed Management Area that has been legally-designated as such); Established (not legally designated or proposed for legal designation, but instead established through other means such as customary law. E.g. a Sacred Natural Site that has not been legally designated but is recognised by relevant stakeholders); Inscribed (applies only to World Heritage Sites).

Status year (year of proposal, designation, establishment or This is the year in which the status came into effect. If

unknown, enter 0.

23

inscription)

Ownership Type Ownership Types: State; Communal; Individual landowners; For-profit organisations; Non-profit organisations; Joint ownership; Multiple ownership; Contested.

Country or territory ISO3 code.

Parent country ISO3 code (if a dependent territory)

Marine Component Three marine values: enter '2' if all marine; '0' if all terrestrial; '1' if both marine and terrestrial.

APPLICABLE IS THERE IS A MARINE COMPONENT TO THIS AREA

Marine Area (km2) Areas of marine component in km2, if applicable.

No-take component (only applicable if there is a marine component)

Four no-take component values: all; part; none; not applicable

Area of no-take component in km2, if applicable

24

427

ASSESSING A CANDIDATE OECM AGAINST THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN OECM

25

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

PART 3 IDENTIFYING AN OECM: THE ASSESSMENT TOOL

A. INTRODUCTION

Once the governance authority landowner provides their (free, prior and informed) consent to a site being assessed, the area can be assessed against the key indicators under the five OECM characteristics, as described in the OECM definition (see Table 1). Table 1: Overview of the assessment tool

CONTENTS PURPOSE DEFINITION

3.1 Geographically Delineated

Assess whether the area is geographically delineated.

Geographically defined area implies a spatially delineated area with agreed and demarcated boundaries, which can include land, inland waters, marine and coastal areas or any combination of these. In exceptional circumstances, boundaries may be defined by physical features that move over time, such as river banks, the high water mark or extent of sea ice.

3.2 Governed

Assess whether the area is appropriately governed.

Governed implies that the area is under the authority of a specified entity, or an agreed upon combination of entities.

3.3 Managed

Assess whether the area is appropriately managed.

Managed specifies that the area is being managed in a way that achieves positive and sustained long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes. Relevant authorities, rightsholders and stakeholder should be identified and involved in management.

3.4 Biodiversity Value

Describe the biodiversity value of the area.

Given the explicit link between OECMs and biodiversity conservation outcomes, it is a clear requirement that OECMs must achieve the effective and sustained in-situ conservation of biodiversity. While approaches for identifying the important biodiversity elements of such areas vary according to national, subnational, and local circumstances, global guidance now exists for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN, 2016) and for describing areas such as Ramsar Sites and Ecologically and Biologically Significant Marine Areas (Dunstan, 2016). The biodiversity conserved by an OECM can occur in

26

435

436

437438439440441442443444

areas within and beyond national jurisdiction.

3.5 Effectiveness

Assess whether the area produces the required in-situ biodiversity conservation outcomes.

OECMs should be effective at delivering positive and sustained outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity. Specifically, there should be a clear association between the management and biodiversity outcomes, with mechanisms in place to address existing or anticipated threats.

3.6 Associated Values

Describe the associated ecosystem functions and services and cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values of the area.

3.7 Results Summary

Summarises the assessment results.

This assessment concludes with a final outcome for whether the site meets, or not, the OECM definition. Additionally, the associated values of the site are recorded; noting that these associated values are not pertinent to the site qualifying as an OECM.

B. INSTRUCTIONS

Answer the defined questions and grade the site against their ability to meet these indicators. Each question is graded as one of three potential outcomes. The combined outcome of these questions also uses the same grading system to finally determine whether the area meets the OECM characterises.

The grading systems is intended to accommodate the variability across country contexts as well as the complexity and uniqueness of OECMs where answers are often not black or white, and the complex nature requires various shades, i.e. a middle ground (orange) allowing sites to either make the necessary changes or provide caveats to qualifying as an OECM. This tool provides a structured framework with flexible indicators in order to accommodate variability across regional, national and local contexts.

27

445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461

[I think we need some guidance here on guarding against the dominance of assessors and western knowledge systems].

28

The site meets the OECM definition and Technical Report for Recognising and

Reporting OECMs criterion.

The site meets most of the OECM definition elements and Technical Report

for Recognising and Reporting OECMs criterion, which may be acceptable

under certain conditions, or which may require achievable and specific

interventions or changes to qualify as an OECM.

The site does not meet the OECM definition and Technical Report for

Recognising and Reporting OECMs, and most likely will not in the foreseeable

future.

GREEN ORANGE RED

462463

464

466

3.1 GEOGRAPHICALLY DELINEATED

A. INTRODUCTION

An OECM should have a clearly demarcated boundary. “Geographically delineated” implies a spatially delineated area with agreed and demarcated boundaries, which can include land, inland waters, marine and coastal areas or any combination of these. In exceptional circumstances, boundaries may be defined by physical features that move over time, such as riverbanks, the highwater mark or extent of sea ice—see Box xx.

Box xx: A closer look at geographical space

Geographical space has three dimensions; this requires any governance or management regime for a two-dimensional area also to account for the third (vertical) dimension if all the biodiversity of the area is to be effectively conserved in-situ. Designations of protected areas or OECMs will often have limits in the third dimension (e.g. only apply to a certain depth underground or below the water surface, or have an altitude limit to allow passage of commercial aircraft). This has become particularly controversial in marine protected areas, where vertical zoning for commercial purposes undermines conservation outcomes, disrupts ecological connectivity, and creates monitoring and enforcement challenges. For both protected areas and OECMs, the height and depth dimensions need to be consistent with effective conservation management to protect the full range of native biodiversity. In consequence, IUCN has a strong presumption against vertical zoning of OECMs.

While the size of OECMs may vary, they should be of sufficient size to achieve the long-term in-situ conservation of biodiversity, including all ecosystems, habitats and species communities for which the site is important. “Sufficient size” is highly contextual and is dependent on the ecological requirements for the persistence of the relevant species and ecosystems. (Refer to element h of the IUCN Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.)

B. ASSESSMENT

29

467

468

469470471472473474475476

477478479480481482483484

CRITERIA ASSESSMENT RESULT EVIDENCED-BASED RATIONALE

Does the area have a clearly demarcated boundary?

Green OECM - The geographical area has clearly delineated and agreed upon boundaries.

Orange OECM - The geographical area is intended to be clearly delineated but may not be easily or widely recognizable.

Red - The geographical area is not clearly delineated and/or is not agreed upon.

30

485

486

3.2 BIODIVERSITY VALUES

A. INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity value: Recognition of an OECM should include the identification of the range of biodiversity attributes for which the area is considered important and be based upon the best available knowledge. While approaches for identifying the important biodiversity elements of such areas vary according to national, subnational, and local circumstances, global guidance now exists for identifying Key Biodiversity Areas and for describing areas such as Ramsar sites and Ecologically and Biologically Significant Marine Areas. The biodiversity conserved by an OECM can occur in areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. (Refer to element h of the IUCN Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.)

In-situ conservation: OECMs are expected to achieve the conservation of nature as a whole, rather than only selected elements of biodiversity. (Refer to element g of the IUCN Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.)

B. ASSESSMENT

TIP: The assessor/assessee should do a desktop assessment of the biological value in the area before undertaking the assessment, which is then confirmed and expanded upon during the assessment.

CRITERIA (The below recognises global and national/subnational/local biologically significant areas)

ANSWER (Delete as

appropriate)

EVIDENCED-BASED RATIONALE (Describe the biodiversity feature)

REFERENCES (including web areas and links)

Does the area effectively protect one or more of the following elements of native biodiversity? Please select 'Yes' in the appropriate box/es below.

Yes No

Rare, threatened or endangered species and habitats, and the Yes

31

487

488

489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508

ecosystems that support them, including species and areas identified on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Red List of Ecosystems, or national equivalents.

No

Representative natural ecosystems. YesNo

High level of ecological integrity or ecological intactness, which are characterised by the occurrence of the full range of native species and supporting ecological processes. These areas will be intact or be capable of being restored under the proposed management regime.

YesNo

Range-restricted species and ecosystems in natural settings. YesNo

Important species aggregations, including during migration or spawning.

YesNo

Ecosystems especially important for species life stages, feeding, resting, moulting and breeding.

YesNo

Areas of importance for ecological connectivity or that are important to complete a conservation network within a landscape or seascape.

YesNo

Areas that provide critical ecosystem services, such as clean water and carbon storage, in addition to in-situ biodiversity conservation.

YesNo

Species and habitats that are important for traditional human uses, such as native medicinal plants, in addition to in-situ biodiversity conservation.

YesNo

Other biodiversity features recognized through biodiversity planning.

YesNo

Is the biodiversity value of the area formally recognised? If Yes, please describe the nature of this recognition: National, Subnational, and/or Local designations or recognition status (e.g.: South African Critical Biodiversity Area) Global guidance (e.g.: Key Biodiversity Area, etc.).

YesNo

32

509

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

An area does not need to be officially recognised for its biological value and thus should not be penalised for ticking 'No' to an answer. However, the area does need to demonstrate some significant degree of biological value and, noting the CBD focus on the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, should not be single-species focused unless the conservation of the species is achieved by also conserving in-situ the broader ecosystem, species, habitats, and processes in/with which it naturally occurs.

33

510

511

3.3 GOVERNED

A. INTRODUCTION

Governed implies that the area is under the authority of a specified entity, or an agreed upon combination of entities. OECMs can be governed under the same range of governance types as protected areas, namely:

1. Governance by governments (at various levels); 2. Governance by private individuals, organisations or companies;3. Governance by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities; and4. Shared governance (i.e., governance by various rights holders and stakeholders together) (Dudley, 2008;

Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2013).

As with protected areas, the governance of OECMs should be equitable and reflect human rights principles recognised in international and regional human rights instruments and in national legislation, including relating to gender equity and Indigenous Peoples (see Box xx). Governance mechanisms should be effective in maintaining biodiversity. Any recognition or reporting of OECMs governed by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities should be based on self-identification and requires the free, prior and informed consent of those traditional governance authority(ies) (United Nations, 2007).

Box xx: Governance terminology

Governed implies that an area is under the authority of a specified entity or an agreed upon combination of entities. OECMs can be governed under the same range of governance types as protected areas, and may include: “governments (at various levels); governance by private individuals, organisations or companies; governance by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities; and shared governance (i.e.: governance by various rights holders and stakeholders together)". (Refer to element c of the Draft Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.)

Equitable governance is referred to in the CBD Decision 14/08 as one element of good governance. Equity can

34

512

513

514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531

be broken down into three dimensions: recognition, procedure and distribution: Recognition is the acknowledgement of and respect for the rights and the diversity of identities, values,

knowledge systems and institutions of rights holders and stakeholders.

Procedure refers to inclusiveness of rule- and decision-making. Distribution implies that costs and benefits resulting from the management of OECMs must be equitably

shared among different actors.

Rights holders are actors/parties with legal or customary rights to natural resources and land, in accordance with national legislation and/or applicable international obligations.

Stakeholders are actors/parties with interest and concerns over natural resources and land.

B. ASSESSMENT

CRITERIA INTENDED EFFECT OF CRITERIA ASSESSMENT RESULT EVIDENCED-BASED

RATIONALEIs/are the Governance Authority(ies) the legitimate authority(ies)

Governance authority(ies) have all necessary legal standing or recognition to ensure that in-situ conservation of biodiversity can be achieved.

Yes, the governance authority is the legitimate authority;No, the governance authority is not the legitimate authority.

 

Governance Authority Type

The roles of all relevant governance authorities for the area, as pertains to the in-sit conservation of biodiversity, are identified and understood.

Government;Private;Indigenous peoples and local communities;Shared governance

 

Governance Authority Sub-type

The roles of all relevant governance authorities for the area, as pertains to the

Federal or national ministry or agency;Sub-national ministry or agency;

 

35

532533534

in-situ conservation of biodiversity, are identified and understood.

Government-delegated management;Transboundary governance;Collaborative governance;Joint governance;Individual landowners;Non-profit organisations;For-profit organisations;Local communities;Indigenous peoples.

Equitably Governed

The governance of the area is such that it fulfils all three dimensions of equity: recognition, procedure and distribution (refer to CBD Decision 14/08).

Yes - The legitimate governance authority has the appropriate provisions, procedures and mechanisms in place that meet all three dimensions of equity in its governance of the area.

Orange OECM - The legitimate governance authority has some provisions, procedures and mechanisms in place that meet some part, but not all, of the three dimensions of equity in its governance of the area.

No - The legitimate governance authority does not have the appropriate provisions, procedures and mechanisms in place and does not meet any of the dimensions of equity in its governance of the area.

 

Commitment to maintaining in-situ conservation outcomes

All relevant governing authorities are committed to the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Yes - All relevant and legitimate governing authority(ies) support the in-situ conservation of biodiversity in the area.

 

36

Orange OECM - While not all relevant and legitimate governing authorities support the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, no governing authorities act in ways that undermine in-situ conservation.

No - One or more relevant and legitimate governing authorities does not support the in-situ conservation of biodiversity in the area and in situ conservation of biodiversity is likely to be undermined, or the commitment does not exist.

USEFUL REFERENCES

Equitably governed Schreckenberg, K., et.al. (2016): Unpacking Equity for Protected Area Conservation, PARKS Journal.“Protected areas: facilitating the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11” (UNEP/CBD/COP/13/INF/17).

Governance:

Governance: The following document provides further details on governance, including guidance on choosing the correct governance authority sub-type (section 3). The document focuses on protected areas, but is largely also applicable to OECMs: Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.www.iucn.org/content/governance-protected-areas-understanding-action

37

535

536

537

3.4 MANAGED

A. INTRODUCTION

Managed specifies that the area is being managed in a way that delivers positive and sustained long-term in-situ biodiversity conservation outcomes. Relevant authorities, rights holders and stakeholders should be identified and involved in management. Unlike protected areas, OECMs do not require a primary objective of conservation, but there must be a direct causal link between the area’s overall objective and management and the in-situ conservation of biodiversity over the long-term. “Managed” can include a deliberate decision to leave the area untouched.

Management of OECMs should be consistent with the ecosystem approach, with the ability to adapt to achieve expected long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes and to manage emerging new threats (https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/). Accordingly, the management of OECMs should include “effective means” of control of activities that could impact biodiversity, whether through legal measures or other effective means (such as customary laws or binding agreements with the landowners). To the extent relevant and possible, management should be integrated across OECMs and integrated with surrounding areas.

An area where there is no management regime is not an OECM, even though its biodiversity may remain intact. For example, unmanaged areas of the high seas, areas under military conflict, and other areas currently in a natural or near-natural state should not be considered as OECMs in the absence of a management regime that provides effective and enduring in-situ biodiversity conservation. Management regimes can include deliberate decisions to leave the area untouched. (Refer to element d. of the IUCN Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs).

B. TEST

Criteria Intended Effect of Criteria Assessment Result Evidenced-based Rationale

38

538

539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565

Explanation of Management Authority

 Provide description of the management authority e.g.: its basis for being responsible for management actions, its structure, etc.

The Compatibility of Primary Objectives with Conservation

Objectives for the area (including conservation objectives, if any), their relative priority to each other, and their implications on the potential for in-situ conservation of biodiversity, are understood and are such that they result in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Green OECM - Primary and overriding objectives are clear and not in conflict with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Orange OECM - Based on evident intent (e.g. management intent, stated or implied objectives, allowable and prohibited activities), primary and overriding objectives are not expected to result in adverse impacts on the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Red - Based on evident intent the in-sit conservation of biodiversity is likely to be compromised by conflicting objectives, or objectives do not exist.

Management System

The management system is consistent with and has sufficient scope to result in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Green OECM - The area has a management system that, whether intentionally or otherwise, is clearly consistent with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, including the maintenance of biodiversity values for which the area is particularly important.

Orange OECM - The area has a management system that, whether intentionally or otherwise, is potentially consistent with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, including the maintenance of biodiversity values for which the area is particularly important.

39

Red - The area has a management system that is neither for, nor consistent with, the in-situ conservation of biodiversity; or no deliberate management system exists.

Adherence to Management System

Activities incompatible with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity do not occur and compatible activities are effectively managed.

Green OECM - All relevant management authorities (or where there is no management authority, governing authority (ies)) acknowledge and abide by a management system that results in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

Orange OECM - Most key, but not all, relevant management authorities (or where there is no management authority, governing authority) acknowledge and abide by a management system that results in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.Red - Few or no relevant management authorities (or where there is no management authority, governing authority) acknowledge and abide by the biodiversity conservation objectives (if any) of the area, or by any management system likely to result in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

40

566

3.5 EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITYA. INTRODUCTION

Effective: OECMs should achieve sustained and effective contributions to in-situ conservation of biodiversity. This criterion of effectiveness is broken down into a number of elements. (Refer to elements e and f of the Draft Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs specifically, along with Chapter 4.)

Positive outcomes: For biodiversity conservation (termed “effective” in the criteria of CBD decision 14/8): OECMs should be effective at delivering the in-situ conservation of biodiversity in the long-term. Specifically, there should be a clear association between the management and biodiversity outcomes, with mechanisms in place to address existing or anticipated threats. Effective biodiversity conservation outcomes may include strict protection or certain forms of sustainable management that are consistent with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity. Additionally, practical steps must be in place for monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of OECMs.

Viable size: While the size of OECMs may vary, they should be of sufficient size, and/or form part of a landscape/seascape conservation effort, to achieve the long-term in-situ conservation of biodiversity, including all ecosystems, habitats and species communities for which the area is important. “Sufficient size” is highly contextual and is dependent on the ecological requirements for the persistence of the relevant species and ecosystems. (Refer to element b. of the Draft Technical Report for Recognising and Reporting OECMs.)

Internal threats: Threats occurring or potentially occurring within the OECM that have the potential to negatively impact the in-situ conservation of biodiversity within the area.

External threats: Threats those occurring or potentially occurring outside the OECM that have the potential to negatively impact the in-situ conservation of biodiversity within the area. (External threats may become internal threats, for example, when pollution in an upstream river flow into the area).

41

567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586

Sustained long-term: The governance and management of OECMs is expected to be sustained and deliver the long-term effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity. Short-term or temporary management strategies do not constitute an OECM. Mechanisms that can be easily, despite being constituted as long-term mechanisms, overturned do not constitute an OECM.

B. TEST

42

587588589590591592593

CRITERIAINTENDED EFFECT OF CRITERIA

ASSESSMENT RESULT EVIDENCED-BASED RATIONALE

Addressing Internal Threats

Activities incompatible with the in-situ conservation of biodiversity do not occur within the area, and compatible activities occurring within the area are effectively managed such that in-situ conservation is achieved.

Green OECM - The governance and/or management authorities have identified existing and anticipated internal threats and have measures in place to effectively eliminate or prevent them.

Orange OECM - The governance and/or management authorities have identified existing and anticipated internal threats and have measures in place to significantly reduce them and subsequently remediate/restore any negative impacts to the value/s of the area.

Red - The area is experiencing current or imminent effects of internal threats that negatively impact on the value/s of the area, and cannot be mitigated against, or the governance and/or management authorities have not identified all relevant existing and/or internal threats, and/or do not have measures in place to effectively eliminate, prevent, reduce, and/or remediate them such that in-situ conservation of biodiversity can be achieved.

 

Addressing External Threats

Activities occurring outside the area do not compromise the achievement of in-situ conservation of biodiversity within the area.

Green OECM - The governance and/or management authorities have identified existing and anticipated external threats and measures are in place to prevent, effectively eliminate, or significantly reduce them.

Orange OECM - The governance and/or management authorities have identified existing and anticipated external threats, and where measures in place are inadequate/unable to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce them, there are measures in place to subsequently remediate/restore any negative impacts to the value/s of

 

43

594

the area.

Red - The area is experiencing current or imminent effects of external threats that negatively impact on the value/s of the area, and cannot be mitigated against, or the governance and/or management authorities have not identified all relevant existing and/or external threats, and/or measures are not in place and/or sufficient to effectively eliminate, prevent, reduce, and/or remediate/restore any negative impacts to the value/s of the area such that in-situ conservation of biodiversity can be achieved.

Sustained Long-Term

The area continues to deliver its biodiversity conservation outcomes indefinitely.

Green OECM - The governance and management system/s that results in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity is intended and expected to be sustained in the long-term (on-going and without any end point).

Orange OECM - The governance and management system/s that results in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity is likely to be sustained in the long-term.

Red - The governance and management system/s that results in the in-situ conservation of biodiversity is easily reversed or short-term or temporary without intention or expectation to be sustained.

 

Size The area is large enough on its own, or as part of an established and integrated conservation network, to conserve biodiversity in-situ over the long

Green OECM - The area is of viable size to achieve the outcomes for in-situ conservation of biodiversity over the long term.

Orange OECM - The area, in combination with nearby protected, conserved, and/or connected areas and/or complementarily managed areas, is of viable size to achieve the outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, over the long term.

 

44

term. Red - The area is too small and/or isolated to achieve the in-situ conservation of biodiversity over the long term.

TimingBiodiversity (as a whole) is conserved year-round.

Green OECM - The factors that govern and manage the area such that biodiversity is conserved in-situ are in effect year-round.

Orange OECM - The factors that govern and manage the area are in effect seasonally, but the area may qualify as an OECM if the seasonal measures are part of a long-term overall management system that results in the year-round in-situ conservation of biodiversity for which the area is important,

Red - The factors that govern and manage the area are seasonal, short-term or temporary during the year and do not result in a long-term overall management system that results in the year-round in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

 

Monitoring Process for Management and Governance

The effectiveness of governance and management of the area is evaluated.

Green OECM -There are ongoing processes to evaluate and inform the effectiveness of governance and management.

Orange OECM - There is a proposed framework or process to evaluate and inform effectiveness of governance and management, but processes are not taking place.

Red - There is no active or proposed framework or process to evaluate effectiveness of governance and management.

 

Monitoring Capacity The management

of the area is enhanced by the monitoring results.

Green OECM - The governance and management system/s have capacity to provide regular monitoring which can be effectively reported to enhance management.

Orange OECM - A monitoring mechanism/s is in place but does not consider the key biodiversity values for which the

 

45

area is recognised, or a monitoring mechanism/s is proposed which focuses on the key biodiversity values for which the area is recognised, but the monitoring is currently not being implemented.

Red - The governance and management system/s is neither willing nor has the practical structures and capacity to support any type of monitoring.

Monitoring of Biodiversity Attributes

The biodiversity value for which the area is recognised are monitored. (e.g. keystone species, ecosystem health, etc.).

Green OECM - A monitoring mechanism/s is in place which focuses on the biodiversity value for which the area is recognised (e.g. keystone species, ecosystem health, etc.).

Orange OECM - A monitoring mechanism/s is in place but does not consider the key biodiversity values for which the area is recognised. Red - There is no monitoring mechanism/s in place.

 

Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes

Biodiversity (as a whole) is conserved in-situ, including the biodiversity values for which the area is particularly important.

Green OECM - Based on clear evidence of biodiversity conservation outcomes, the in-situ conservation of biodiversity is achieved.

Orange OECM - Based on at least some evidence of biodiversity conservation outcomes and allowable and prohibited activities, the in-situ conservation of biodiversity is likely being achieved.

Red - Based on deficiencies in biodiversity conservation outcomes and/or allowable/prohibited activities, the area is unlikely to achieve in-situ conservation of biodiversity.

*Explanatory Note on Biodiversity Conservation outcomes: Yellow requires some evidence that in-situ conservation of biodiversity is likely being achieved. Areas should have direct evidence of biodiversity outcomes, including the condition of habitats and ecological processes, species abundances, impacts of invasive species, and effects of ecological isolation. Without robust monitoring data, other information should be used in the screening

46

595596597598599

process. Conservation outcomes may be able to be inferred from species abundance information (e.g. surveys or harvesting reports), or discussions with site managers and knowledge holders, or management effectiveness assessments.

In some cases, conservation outcomes may also be inferred from current uses and their expected impacts, or, in the absence of current-use knowledge, from an understanding of allowed and prohibited uses. In some cases, such as for larger remote areas with little human use, remotely sensed information (e.g., satellite imagery) may help inform whether conservation outcomes are likely being achieved.

Understanding whether conservation outcomes are being or likely to be achieved implies that reference or desired conditions can be defined, or at least that, going forward, baselines can be established against which future conditions can be compared.

47

600601602603604605606607608609610611

3.6 ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS, SERVICES AND OTHER LOCALLY RELEVANT VALUES A. INTRODUCTION

Healthy and functioning ecosystems provide a range of services. Ecosystem functions are an integral part of biodiversity, and are defined as the biological, geochemical and physical processes that take place or occur within an ecosystem. Ecosystem services include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation and disease; and supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient recycling. Protection of these ecosystem functions and services may be a frequent rationale for the recognition of OECMs. However, management to enhance one particular ecosystem service should not impact negatively on the site’s overall biodiversity conservation values.

OECMs include areas where the protection of key species and habitats and management of biodiversity may be achieved as part of cultural, spiritual socio-economic and other locally relevant values and practices. In such cases, it will be essential to ensure the recognition and protection of the linkages between biological and cultural diversity and associated governance and management practices that lead to positive biodiversity outcomes, such as customary sustainable uses of biodiversity (CBD Article 10(c)). Conversely, management for cultural, spiritual socio-economic or other locally relevant values within an OECM should not impact negatively on biodiversity conservation values.

Note: An area does not need to have these associated values present in order to qualify as an OECM. The purpose of recording these associated values, where they exists, is to assess whether they are adequately considered in the governance and management of the site.

B. DETAILS OF ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS, SERVICES AND OTHER LOCALLY RELEVANT VALUES

48

612

613

614

615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639

Summary of associated ecosystem functions and services and cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND SERVICESEcosystem functions and services: Healthy and functioning ecosystems provide a range of services. Ecosystem functions are an integral part of biodiversity, and are defined as the biological, geochemical and physical processes that take place or occur within an ecosystem. Protection of these ecosystem functions and services may be a frequent rationale for the recognition of OECMs.

Criteria (The below recognises associated ecosystem functions and services where applicable.) Assessment Result

Evidenced-based Rationale (Please provide additional information with regard to the answers provided.)

Governance and management measures identify and uphold any associated ecosystem functions or services of the area, where such functions or services exist.

YesNo  

Governance and management measures for ecosystem functions and services within an OECM does not impact negatively on biodiversity conservation outcomes.

YesNo  

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONSGovernance and management measures to enhance one particular ecosystem service should not impact negatively on the area’s overall biodiversity conservation outcomes.

CULTURAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OTHER LOCALLY RELEVANT VALUESCultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values: management of biodiversity may be achieved as part of cultural, spiritual socio-economic and other locally relevant values and practices. In such cases, it will be essential to ensure the recognition and protection of the linkages between biological and cultural diversity and associated governance and management practices that lead to positive biodiversity outcomes, such as customary sustainable uses of biodiversity (CBD Article 10(c)). Conversely, management for cultural, spiritual, socio-economic or other locally relevant values within an OECM should not impact negatively on biodiversity conservation outcomes.Criteria (The below recognises cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values where Assessment Result Evidenced-based Rationale

(Please provide additional

49

applicable.) information with regard to the answers provided.)

Governance and management measures identify, respect and uphold the cultural, spiritual, socioeconomic, and other locally relevant values of the area, where such values exist.

YesNo  

Governance and management measures respect and uphold the knowledge,practices and institutions that are fundamental for the in-situ conservation ofbiodiversity.

YesNo  

Governance and management measures for cultural, spiritual socio-economic or other locally relevant values within an OECM does not impact negatively on biodiversity conservation outcomes.

Yes;No  

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONSGovernance and management measures for cultural, spiritual, socio-economic or other locally relevant values within an OECM should not impact negatively on biodiversity conservation outcomes.

50

640

641

3.7 REPORT SUMMARY

ELEMENTS OF THE OECM DEFINITION PER CRITERIA ASSESSMENT RESULT ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION

CRITERION B: Area is governed and managed

Geographically Delineated Area: Is the area delineated to enable the in-situ conservation of biodiversity?

Green: Yes;Orange: Yes, but with a caveat;Red: No

Governed: The Governance Authority has legitimate authority and is appropriate for and committed to achieving in-situ conservation of biodiversity within the area.

Green: Yes;Orange: Yes, but with a caveat;Red: No

Managed: The area is being managed in a way that delivers positive and sustained long-term in-situ biodiversity conservation outcomes. Relevant authorities, rights holders and stakeholders should be identified and involved in management.

Green: Yes;Orange: Yes, but with a caveat;Red: No

CRITERION C: Achieves sustained and effective contribution to in-situ conservation of biodiversity

Biodiversity Value: The area is important for biodiversity attributes and is effectively protecting one or more elements of native biodiversity

Green: Yes;Orange: Yes, but with a caveat;Red: No

Effectiveness:Does the site achieve sustained and effective contributions to in-situ conservation of biodiversity?

Green: Yes;Orange: Yes, but with a caveat;Red: No

SUMMARY OF ALL CHARACTERISTICS Green: Yes, the area qualifies as an OECM;Orange: No, the area does not qualify as an OECM under its current assessment, but would qualify upon improvements of certain characterises, and thus remains a candidate OECM;

51

642

643644

Red: No, the area does not qualify as an OECM.

52

645

REPORTING AN OECM AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL

53

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

PART 4REPORTING TO UNEP-WCMC

INTRODUCTION

Once an OECM has been identified, it can be reported to UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the OECM database. An OECM should only be reported if its governance authority(ies) has consented to the data contained in this sheet (in addition to spatial data) being shared publicly [link to Governed tab].

The OECM database is linked to the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Alongside the WDPA, the OECM database is used to track progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. This sheet contains the descriptive data required for an OECM to be included in the database. The information has auto-filled based on the data inputted in the other sheets. Some fields will need to be completed manually.

This is a link to the World Database on OECMs: https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/other-effective-area-based-conservation-measures

WHO CAN REPORT?

Governments: If you represent a national government, you can report on OECMs under the governance of government ministries and/or agencies. You can also report on OECMs under other governance types and are encouraged to do so with the consent of the relevant governance authorities.

Indigenous peoples and local communities: If you represent an indigenous people or local community, you can choose to report directly on an OECM under your own governance, or you can do so via the national government.

54

653

654

655656657658659660

662663664665666667668669670671672673674

676677678679

Private actors: If you represent a for-profit organisation, non-profit organisation or individual landowner, you can choose to report directly on an OECM under your own governance, or you can do so via the national government.

HOW ARE THE DATA BE VERIFIED?

Data from governments: Data submitted by governments are considered to be verified by the state. Governments are encouraged to undertake careful assessments of potential OECMs (including through the use of this assessment tool), involving all relevant stakeholders, prior to providing data.

Data from indigenous peoples and local communities: These data undergo one of two processes prior to being included in the database. Which of these processes is carried out is the choice of the data provider? Option 1: peer-review by other indigenous peoples and/or local communities. UNEP-WCMC can advise on whether a peer-review network exists in your country. Option 2: verification by government.

Data from private actors: These data undergo one of two processes prior to being included in the database. Which of these processes is carried out is the choice of the data provider? Option 1: verification by members of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas. Option 2: verification by government.

In the database, data verified by governments are described as ‘State Verified’ in the ‘VERIF’ field. Data verified by WCPA members or peer-reviewed are described as ‘Expert Verified’.

HOW CAN I PROVIDE DATA?

The OECM Assessment form captures the necessary details in order to report the OECM to the UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the OECM database.

Assessment forms (or just this sheet in the form) should be sent to protectedareas@unep-wcmc.org along with spatial data in a GIS format (e.g. shapefile). Ideally this should be the boundary of the OECM, but a single point location can be accepted instead.

Complete a data-contributor agreement [add link] and send this to protectedareas@unep-wcmc.org with the data.

55

680681682683684685686687

689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706707708709710

ENSURING APPROPRIATE RECOGITION AND SUPPORT FOR OECMs

56

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

57

721

PART 5

RECOGNISING AND SUPPORTING OECMs

INTRODUCTION

OECMs are intrinsically important as local social-ecological systems, form integral parts of national biodiversity strategies and contribute to the Sustainable Development Gaols and global biodiversity targets. Yet they are under threat from a range of anthropogenic activities and the effects of climate change. They require appropriate recognition and support in order to ensure their ecological integrity.

RECOGNISING OECMs

OECMs can be recognised through a wide range of legal, policy or programmatic means. CBD Decision 14/8 underscores that, while national circumstances will differ, any related legislation should provide greater support and recognition to existing governance systems and not seek to supplant or unnecessarily alter those local arrangements that are effective. Ideally, any related measures will be developed with the full and effective involvement of the relevant right-holders and stakeholders. The application of forms of ‘recognition’ should also be dependent on the consent of the legitimate authority. As stated by the IUCN Technical Report: “Assuming an area meets the OECM criteria, the governance authority has the right to withhold or give its consent to the area being recognised as an OECM.”

The IUCN Green List on Protected and Conserved areas is another means by which OECMs can demonstrate excellence in the areas of good governance, sound design and planning, effective management and positive conservation outcomes. More information is available online: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/iucn-green-list-protected-and-conserved-areas

SUPPORTING OECMs

58

722

723

724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748

CBD Decision 14/8 and the IUCN Technical Report both underscore the point that recognition of OECMs should be supported by measures to enhance the governance capacity of their legitimate authorities and secure their positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity. This puts a positive obligation of states and other actors to genuinely understand the local relationships between governance, management and conservation outcomes and to work directly with the legitimate governance authority to develop local-appropriate strategies (Jonas et al., 2017).

59

749750751752753754755

756

757

REFERENCESCBD (2018). Decision 14/8 on ‘protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures’.

Gloss, L., Myron, E., Ahmed, H. and Johnson, L. (2019). International Outlook for Privately Protected Areas: Summary Report. International Land Conservation Network (a project of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy) - United Nations Development Programme.

IUCN-WCPA (2019). Recognising and Reporting Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. Technical Report. IUCN: Gland.

Jonas H.D., Enns E., Jonas H.C., Lee E., Tobon C., Nelson F., and K. Sander Wright (2017). Will Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures Increase Recognition and Support for ICCAs.’ PARKS 23.2. IUCN: Gland.

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2016). Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland.

60

758

759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775