task force on other effective area- based …€¦ · conservation value or no security of...

TASKFORCEONOTHEREFFECTIVEAREA-BASEDCONSERVATIONMEASURES

DISCUSSIONPAPER:FRAMINGTHEISSUES

DECEMBER2015

HarryJonasandKathyMacKinnon

2

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

Overview

Background

OverallConsiderations

II ELEMENTSOFADEFINITION

Other

Effective

Area-based

Conservation

Measures

RelevanceofOtherProtectedAreasPrinciples

RelevanceofOtherElementsofTarget11

Governance

III ANNEXES

I:Terminology

II:Bibliography

3

PARTIINTRODUCTION

4

OVERVIEW

Theoverall aimof this document is to help set out the issues, considerations andquestions relevant to the Task Force’smandate, namely: to develop guidance forIUCN members and CBD Parties on the definition of ‘other effective area-basedconservationmeasures’(OECMs).1

For eachelementof the term ‘other effective area-based conservationmeasures’,therelevantsub-sectionprovidesanoverviewofhowtheissue(s)aredealtwithinthe context of protected areas (Dudley, 2008 unless otherwise stated), sets out anon-exhaustivelistofrelevantquestionsandbeginstosetsoutTaskForcemembers’inputs(primarilyfrompublishedpapersandemailcorrespondence).

We intend this to provide Task Forcemembers an easily accessible resourcewithwhichtoapproachtheissuesandenablefocusedinputstotheongoingwork.Italsoaimstohelpmakeexplicittheargumentsformirroring,varying,ignoring,oraddingcriteriatotheprotectedareasapproach.

Notably, at this stage in theworkof theTaskForcewearenot seeking toanswerquestions with any sense of finality, but instead working to determine the fullspectrum of issues that need to be discussed and further researched towardsfulfillingourmandate.Weparticularlywelcomethefollowinginputs:

• Ideasandviewscouchedasissuesthatcommandfurthercollectivethought,• Argumentsfororagainstanyoftheemergingoptionsandapproaches,and• Suggestionsofcasestudiesorexistingdatathatrelatetoaparticularaspect

ofthediscussion.

BACKGROUND

In2010,the10thConferenceofthePartiestotheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(COP10/CBD)adoptedtheAichiBiodiversityTargetsaspartoftheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011-2020.Target11statesthefollowing:

By2020,atleast17percentofterrestrialandinlandwater,and10percentof coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance forbiodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively andequitablymanaged,eco-logicallyrepresentativeandwellconnectedsystemsof protected areas andother effective area-based conservationmeasures,andintegratedintothewiderlandscapesandseascapes.(Emphasisadded).

Since COP 10, the CBD and the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)haveagreedthatgreaterguidanceisrequiredtoassistpartiestotheCBDandother rights- and stakeholders to implement and report on Aichi 11. Instancesincludethefollowing:

1Foranoteontheacronymandtheterm‘conservedareas’,pleaserefertoAnnexI.

5

1.CBD:InOctober2013,apreparatorynotebytheCBD’sExecutiveSecretaryfortheSeventeenth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA) identified the “recognition and/or integration ofindigenous and community conserved areas and private reserves in nationalprotectedareasystems”asoneofthegapsrelatedtotheimplementationofTarget11. In the same note, the Executive Secretary underscored the necessity of“improving information on other area-based conservation measures such ascommunity-conserved areas” in the context of assessing the status of progresstowardstheTarget11atglobal,regional,nationalandsubnationallevels.Moreover,the official report of the meeting states that further consideration of whatconstitutesOECMsforthepurposeofreportingprogresstowardthistarget“wouldbeuseful”.

2.IUCN:Aresolutionadoptedatthe2012IUCNWorldConservationCongressinJejucallsonIUCNCommissions,IUCNMembers,UNEP-WCMC,theICCAConsortiumandotherorganizationstocollaborateinsupportofCBDDecisionX/2to:

Develop criteria for what constitutes ‘effective area-based conservationmeasures’, including for, inter alia, Private Protected Areas, IndigenousPeoples’ Conserved Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous PeoplesandLocalCommunities(ICCAs),andSacredNaturalSites(SNS)(IUCN,2012a).

Subsequently, inapositionpapersubmittedtotheCBDaheadofCOP11(October2012),IUCNcalledon:

the Secretariat [of the CBD], supported by IUCN, to provide Parties withspecific guidance regarding the kinds of areas that count towards theachievement of the area coverage element of Target 11. This should clarifythatareasthatdonot,andwillneverqualifyasprotectedareas,shouldnotbeincluded.SpecificguidanceshouldbeprovidedtoPartiestoensurethatareasthat meet the requirements, but which are not currently recognized orreported,arerecognizedappropriately, includingthose“othereffectivearea-basedconservationmeasures”thatqualify.

In 2014, the Protected Planet Report 2014, which tracked progress toward globaltargetsforprotectedareas(http://bit.ly/ProtectedPlanet2014),describedthetermas“poorlydefinedandlargelyundocumented.”Itsaid:

A key challenge in recognizing ‘other’ sites is to acknowledge their value forconservation without overestimating the level of protection. Any definitionmust therefore include those sites that truly complementprotected areas inconserving biodiversity in the long term, and exclude those that have noconservation value or no security of protection into the future (e.g., areastemporarilysetasideforconservationbeforeuseforcommercialforestry).

In2015,aftertheissuewasdiscussedattheWCPASteeringCommitteemeeting,anIUCN Task Forcewas establishedwith amandate to “develop guidance for IUCNmembers and CBD Parties on the definition of ‘other effective area-based

6

conservation measures.” The key criterion is that areas must provide effectiveconservation.

OVERALLCONSIDERATIONS

AspresentedinAnnexII,anumberofpapersthatdirectlyaddressOECMshighlightthefactthattherearehighhopesforOECMs’contributionstoachievingTarget11.They consistently call for a clear definition of OECMs and how they can beappropriatelyrepresentedwithinformalconservationtargetsandpolicies.

The same papers also express a range of concerns relating to Target 11. TheseincludethepossibilitythatTarget11maybeachievedintermsofareawhilefailingthe overall conservation goal, because the areas are poorly located, inadequatelymanaged, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs (Watson et al. 2015). Theinclusion of areas with limited conservation effectiveness to advance politicalobjectives may undermine the intent of the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity2011–2020 and the Aichi process (Mackinnon et al., 2015). Moreover the lack ofsciencetodefinethenatureandeffectivenessofOECMscouldleavethedooropento PA downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD), as “other”management regimes may be viewed as cheaper to maintain than formal PAs.Avoiding such perverse outcomes will require defining both ecologically sensibletargets,toguidewheresuchmeasuresarenecessary,andevidence-basedmetricsofeffectiveness, to ensure that they are genuinely safeguarding the biodiversity forwhichtheyareimportant(Watsonetal.,2015).

Inthiscontext,proposedquestionsandsuggestedwaysforwardsinclude:

1. Whatpotentiallynegativeramificationsmightarise fromagreater focusonOECMs,andhowcanthesebeforeseeninadvanceandminimized?Couldthisnewfocusleadtoarangeofadverseeffects,includingtheinclusionoflandusessuchasindustrialmonocultureplantationsinCBDparties’contributionstoAichiTarget11?To avert such lowering of standards accurate measurement of conservationeffectivenesswillbeoffundamentalimportance(Jonasetal.,2014).

2. EffectivenessmetricsforOECMswillbeabletodrawonmethodologiesusedin PAs, but will likely need the development of additional tools as well. Strongapplication of science will determine whether the broader interpretation ofprotectionthatemergedwithAichitarget11willbeapositiveornegativestepforglobalbiodiversityconservation(Watsonetal.,2015).

3. Atwin-trackapproachofbetter-targetedPAexpansionalongside increasedeffort todevelopand implementothereffectivearea-basedapproaches isneeded,integrated through improved prioritization, better international coordination, andgreaterresourcing(Butchartetal.,2015).

7

PARTIIELEMENTSOFADEFINITION

8

1. OTHER

1.1 DefinitionofProtectedArea

The CBD defines a protected area as “a geographically defined area which isdesignated or regulated andmanaged to achieve specific conservation objectives”(CBD,Article2).

IUCNdefinesaprotectedareaas:“Aclearlydefinedgeographicalspace,recognised,dedicatedandmanaged,throughlegalorothereffectivemeans,toachievethelong-termconservationofnaturewithassociatedecosystemservicesandculturalvalues”(Dudleyetal.,2008).

It is suggested that, despite their differing formulations, there is “tacit agreementbetweenthe[CBDandIUCN]thatthetwodefinitionsareequivalent”(Lopoukhine&deSouzaDias,2012).

The term OECM includes the word ‘other’. It is assumed the word is used todifferentiateOECMsfromprotectedareasrecognisedandreportedbygovernments,butitraisesthecorequestionofhowdifferentOECMsshouldorshouldnotbefromprotectedareas.Amajorpartofthisquestionrelatestotheprimacyofconservationasamanagementobjective.

1.2 ConservationasthePrimaryObjective

IUCNqualifies its definition of a protected area (above) inGuidelines for ApplyingProtectedAreaManagementCategorieswithanumberofprinciples.Thefirststates:

ForIUCN,onlythoseareaswherethemainobjectiveisconservingnaturecanbeconsideredprotectedareas;thiscanincludemanyareaswithothergoalsaswell,atthesamelevel,butinthecaseofconflict,natureconservationwillbethepriority.

The Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories toMarine Protected Areas (Day et al., 2012) spell out how this principle should beappliedinthemarinecontext.Theseguidelinesspecificallystatethat:

SpatialareaswhichmayincidentallyappeartodelivernatureconservationbutDO NOT HAVE STATED nature conservation objectives should NOTautomatically be classified asMPAs [marine protected areas], as defined byIUCN.Theseinclude:

• Fisherymanagementareaswithnowiderstatedconservationaims.• Community areas managed primarily for sustainable extraction of

marineproducts(e.g.coral,fish,shells,etc.).• Marine and coastal management systems managed primarily for

tourism,whichalsoincludeareasofconservationinterest.

9

• Wind farms and oil platforms that incidentally help to build upbiodiversityaroundunderwaterstructuresandbyexcludingfishingandothervessels.

• Marineandcoastalareassetaside forotherpurposesbutwhichalsohaveconservationbenefit:militarytrainingareasortheirbufferareas(e.g. exclusion zones); disaster mitigation (e.g. coastal defences thatalsoharboursignificantbiodiversity);communicationscableorpipelineprotectionareas;shippinglanesetc.

• Large areas (e.g., regions, provinces, countries)where certain speciesareprotectedbylawacrosstheentireregion.(Originalemphasis)

1.3 Questions

• ShouldOECMsconformtoIUCN’sfirstPA-relatedprinciple,or isthisoneofthepotentialdifferencesbetweenaprotectedareaandanOECM(discussedbelow)?

• If anareameets theCBD/IUCNdefinitionofaprotectedarea,but iseither*not recognizedby thegovernmentor*thosegoverning theareaask for itnottoberecognizedasaprotectedarea,isthatareastillaprotectedareaorbetterdefinedasanOECM?Thishasbearingonthediscussion(below)aboutwhatisandisnotaPA,andthereforewhatissomething‘other’thanaPA.

• Could the areas specifically excluded by the MPA Guidance be candidateOECMs?

• DoeslookingattheCBDdefinitionofconservationandsustainableusehelpinthisregard?

1.4 ProposedIdeasandApproaches

Conforms to the firstPrinciple:One lineofthought is thatanOECMshouldbeanarea that conforms to the IUCN/CBD definition of a protected area and IUCN’sadditionalguidanceandprinciples,butiseither:

• Notrecognizedbyanationalgovernment,or• Is asked not to be designated as a protected area by those governing the

protectedarea.

TheCanadianCouncilonEcologicalAreasprocesshascometothisconclusion.InitsDecision Screening Tool for Aichi 11 Target Sites it clearly stipulates that:“Conservationofbiodiversityisexplicitlystatedastheprimaryobjective.Arangeofobjectivesmayexistforthesite,butincasesofconflict,conservationshouldprevail”(MacKinnonetal.,2015).

CCEAGuidanceonOECMs

The CCEA defined criteria for inclusion of OECMs in the Target 11 commitmentshouldbeconsistentwiththeoverallintentofPAs,withtheexceptionthattheymaybegovernedbyregimesnotpreviouslyrecognizedbyreportingagencies.(2)Theseareas should have an expressed objective to conserve nature, be long-term,generate effective nature conservation outcomes, and have governance regimes

10

that ensure effective management. A decision-screening tool was developed todefinecoretraits:

• Well-definedgeographically;• Objectives for biodiversity conservation, achieved through conservation of

biodiversityasawhole;• Conservationobjectivesmustreceivefirstprioritywheninconflictwithother

objectives;• Mechanisms by which the areas are established must have the

comprehensiveabilitytoexclude,control,andmanageallactivities likelytohave impacts on biodiversity, and must compel the prohibition ofincompatibleactivities;

• Shouldbeinplaceforthelong-term;• Mechanismsbywhichtheyareestablishedmustbedifficulttoreverse;and

ineffectyear-round.

Doesnotconform:AreOECMsareasinwhichlong-termandeffectiveconservationis resulting butwhich fall outside of the IUCN/CBDdefinition primarily due to thefactthattheydonothaveaprimaryobjectiveofconservation.

Borrini-FeyerabendandHill(2014)combinebothapproachestosuggestthatOECMsshouldinclude:

• Areaswellconservedandreasonablyexpectedtoremainsointhelongtermthatarenotrecognised,nationallyorinternationally,asprotectedareas,and

• Area-basedmeasuresofsecondaryvoluntaryconservationandancillaryconservationwithareasonableexpectationtobemaintainedinthelongterm.

In this context, Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill suggest the following definition ofOECMs:

A clearly defined geographical space where de facto conservation of natureand associated ecosystem services and cultural values is achieved andexpectedtobemaintainedinthe long-termregardlessofspecificrecognitionanddedication.(Originalemphasis)

Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill intend this formulation to give greater recognition toarea-based measures of secondary voluntary conservation, ancillary conservationwith a reasonable expectation to be maintained in the long-term, and primaryvoluntaryconservationthatrefusestheinternationaland/ornationalprotectedarealabel.2Theyprovideamatrix settingout the fourpotentialpositions they consider

2Voluntaryconservationcapturestheideathatconservationmaybeadesiredresultofgovernanceas a primary objective but also as a secondary, implicit or not fully conscious, objective. The termancillary conservation ismoreappropriatewhenconservation isafullyunintendedconsequenceofmanagingnature.

11

arising in this context of areas conservedde facto, with a reasonable expectationthatconservationwillbemaintainedinthelongterm,atA-D.

Recognisedasaprotectedareaunderinternationaldefinition

(IUCN/CBD)

Notrecognisedasaprotectedareaunderinternationaldefinition

(IUCN/CBD)

Recognisedasaprotectedareabynationallegislationand/orpolicy

A.Theareaisaprotectedareainthecountryatstakeand

internationally

B.Theareaisaprotectedareainthecountryatstake,althoughnotinternationally,whereitcouldbeconsideredaneffectivearea-based

conservationmeasure

Notrecognisedasaprotectedareabynationallegislationand/orpolicy

C.Theareaisaprotectedareainternationally,althoughnotinthecountryatstake,whereitshouldbeconsideredaneffectivearea-based

conservationmeasure

D.Theareaisnotaprotectedarea;itcouldbeconsideredaneffectivearea-basedconservationmeasure

Whatotherapproachestothisimportantissuecanbeelaborated?

2. EFFECTIVE

2.1 ProtectedArea-relatedGuidance

The term ‘effective arises in two contexts in the guidance provided by IUCN onprotectedareas,assetoutbelow.

Legal or other effective means: IUCN states that this element of the definitionmeans that protected areas must be either gazetted (that is, recognized understatutorycivillaw),recognizedthroughaninternationalconventionoragreement,orelse managed through other effective but non-gazetted means, such as throughrecognizedtraditionalrulesunderwhichcommunityconservedareasoperateorthepoliciesofestablishedNGOs.

Toachieve:IUCNguidancesuggestthatthiselementofthedefinition“impliessomelevelofeffectiveness.”Although thecategorywill stillbedeterminedbyobjective,management effectiveness will progressively be recorded on theWDPA and overtime will become an important criterion in identification and recognition ofprotectedareas.

2.2 Questions

Withregardtotheguidanceonlegalorothereffectivemeans:

• Should and if so how would the ability (in legal and actual terms) of theauthority to enact and enforce the measure (by legal or other means) beassessed?

Withregardtotheeffectivenessoftheconservationmeasure:

• OEMCsexplicitlyincludethenotionofeffectivenessintheirdefinition.Doesthismeanthat–unlikeforprotectedareasthatarejudgedaccordingtotheir

12

managementobjective(above)–OECMsshouldbejudged,firstandforemost,accordingtotheireffectiveness?

• Howshould‘effective’bedefinedinthiscontext,andhowdoesthisdovetailwith the ongoing debate about how to better measure conservationeffectiveness inprotected areas (Geldmannet al., 2013,Nolte et al., 2013;Carranzaetal.,2014)?3

• Dowemeasureeffectivenessontheabilityof thegovernancestructurestoimplementtheirmanagementplans(i.e.:*Themechanism(s)hasthepowertoexclude,control,andmanageallactivitieswithintheareathatarelikelytohave impactsonbiodiversityand*Themechanism(s)compels theauthorityto prohibit activities that are incompatible with the conservation ofbiodiversity)orbymonitoringbiodiversityvaluesintheOECM?

2.3 IdeasandProposedApproaches

In Canada, the CCEA recommendedminimum standards of effectiveness for AichiTarget11areas.

• ConsistentwiththeobjectivesoftheCBD,theProgramofWorkonProtectedAreas,andtheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011–2020,allAichiTarget11areas should be managed to achieve the conservation of ecosystems andnaturalhabitatsandthemaintenanceandrecoveryofviablepopulationsofspeciesintheirnaturalsurroundings;

• Webelievethisrequires,ataminimum,theprohibitionofindustrialorotherusesthatarelikelytosignificantlyimpactbiodiversity;and

• Notwithstanding the foregoing, management activities such as thosedescribedinPrinciplesandGuidelinesforEcologicalRestorationinCanada’sProtected Natural Areas may be appropriate in Aichi Target 11 areas ifundertaken for the purpose of biodiversity conservation (as determinedthrough a science-based, peer-reviewed decision-making process)(MacKinnonetal.,2015).

Inthiscontext,participantsalsodecidedthatforthepurposeofCBDreportingandcross-jurisdictional comparisons, “a science-based, standardized approach isessential in both terrestrial and marine realms, and should use conservationeffectivenessastheprimarymetric.”

3. AREA-BASED


IUCN guidance states that this element includes land, inland waters, marine andcoastalareasoracombinationoftwoormore.“Space”hasthreedimensions,e.g.asthentheairspaceaboveaprotectedareaisprotectedfromlow-flyingaircraftor inmarine protected areaswhen a certainwater depth is protected or the seabed isprotected but thewater above is not: conversely subsurface areas sometimes are3 See, for example, the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool:http://www.wdpa.org/me/PDF/METT.pdf

13

not protected. “Clearly defined” implies a spatially defined area with agreed anddemarcated borders. These can sometimes be defined by physical features thatmove over time (e.g. river banks) or bymanagement actions (e.g. agreed no-takezones).

3.2 Questions

• It is clearly stated that OECMs should be ‘area-based’. As with protectedareas,howwelldefinedshouldthebordersorboundariesbe?

• Couldtheybemobile,suchastoprotecticefrontsintheArcticorupwellinginseasandoceans?

• Is there aminimum ormaximum size limit, no limit or should the size bejudgedaccordingtothemanagementobjectives?

3.3 IdeasandProposedApproaches

Butchart et al. (2015) suggest that areas that might be OECMs include: locallymanagedmarine or forest areas and other indigenous and community-conservedareas, sacred sites, sustainablymanaged forestryor fisheries, andareas subject toconservation easements and land trusts.MacKinnon et al. (2015) include “certainIndigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Areas, and certain private landsdedicated to biodiversity conservation (e.g., sites owned and managed by landstrustssuchastheNatureConservancyofCanada)”butquestionwhetherareassuchfisheriesclosuresandmunicipalwater-supplyprotectionareasshouldbeincludedasOECMs.

Watson et al. also list LocallyManagedMarine Areas (LMMAs), community-basedresourcemanagementareasandvariousformsoftraditionallandusemanagementas potential OECMs, adding that “As with the rest of Aichi Target 11, this spansgovernance arrangements including public, private, community, local, indigenous,customary,andmixedarrangements.”Theyaddacautionarynote,statingthat:

Measurescouldpotentially includecontrolof invasivespecies, regulationofhunting,fisheriesmanagement,andevenavoidanceormitigationofimpactson biodiversity in sites otherwise dedicated to extractive and industrialactivities -as longas thoseactivitiesareconsistentwith retaining thesite’sbiodiversityimportance.Fromanecologicalperspective,majoruncertaintiesexist around identifying theproportionand typeofbiodiversity that canorcannotbeeffectivelyconserved inareasunderthesemanagementregimes,and thereforehow inpractice this complementsPAs topromote landscapeandseascapescaleconservation.

4. CONSERVATION


Conservation: IUCN guidance on this element of the definition states that‘conservation’referstothein-situmaintenanceofecosystemsandnaturalandsemi-natural habitats and of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings

14

and, in the case of domesticated cultivated species (as per the definition ofagrobiodiversity),4in the surroundingswhere theyhavedeveloped theirdistinctivequalities.Nature:IUCNguidancestatesthat“nature”alwaysreferstobiodiversity,atgenetic,speciesandecosystemlevel,andoftenalsoreferstogeodiversity,landformandbroadernaturalvalues.

Associatedecosystemservices:Thisreferstoecosystemservicesthatarerelatedtobut do not interfere with the aim of nature conservation. These can includeprovisioningservicessuchasfoodandwater;regulatingservicessuchasregulationof floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soilformationandnutrientcycling;andcultural services suchas recreational, spiritual,religiousorothernon-materialbenefit.

Cultural values: “Cultural values” include those that do not interfere with theconservation outcomes (all cultural values in a protected area should meet thiscriterion),includinginparticular:a)thosethatcontributetoconservationoutcomes(e.g. traditionalmanagement practices onwhich key species havebecome reliant,andb)thosethatarethemselvesunderthreat.

4.2 Questions

• How does the above protected areas-related guidance relate to OECMs?Does it include sustainable use and customary use of biodiversity (asreferencedinArticles1,2,8(j)and10(c)oftheCBD?

• ShouldthemanagementobjectivesofanOECMcoverbiodiversityasawhole,including ecosystems, species and genetic diversity? Or are single speciesobjectivesacceptable,forexample?

4.3 ProposedIdeasandApproaches

TheCCEAexploredsustainableandcustomaryuseconceptsinthecontextofTarget11andagreed:wheresustainableorcustomaryuse isanobjectiveforAichiTarget11areas(e.g.,incategoryVIorVprotectedareas),itshouldbeundertakeninawaythatisintegratedwithandbeneficialtobiodiversityconservationandataratethatdoesnotproducesignificantimpactsonbiodiversity;andlarge-scaleindustrialusesarenotappropriateinanyAichiTarget11areas.

5. MEASURES


Guidancerelatedtoprotectedareassetsoutthefollowing:

4Includeswildplantsclosely related tocrops (cropwild relatives), cultivatedplants (landraces)andlivestock varieties. Agrobiodiversity can be an objective of protected areas for cropwild relatives,traditional and threatened landraces, particularly those reliant on traditional cultural practices;and/ortraditionalandthreatenedlivestockraces,especiallyiftheyarereliantontraditionalculturalmanagementsystemsthatarecompatiblewith“wildbiodiversity”.

15

Recognised: IUCN states that protected areas can include a range of governancetypesbutthatPAswouldberecognizedinsomeway(inparticularthroughlistingontheWDPA).

Dedicated: IUCN states that this element implies specific binding commitment toconservation in the long-term, through for example: a) international conventionsandagreements,b)national,provincialandlocallaw,c)customarylaw,d)covenantsofNGOs,e)privatetrustsandcompanypolicies,andf)certificationschemes.

Managed: IUCN assumes some active steps to conserve the natural (and other)values forwhich theprotectedareawasestablished. It notes that “managed” caninclude a decision to leave the area untouched if this is the best conservationstrategy.

Long-term: IUCN guidance states that protected areas should be managed inperpetuityandnotasshort-termortemporarymanagementstrategy.Itunderscoresthat temporarymeasures, such as short-term grant-funded agricultural set-asides,rotations in commercial forestmanagementor temporary fishingprotection zonesarenotprotectedareasasrecognizedbytheIUCN.

5.2 Questions

Whatquestionsdotheabovestipulationsraisevis-à-visOECMs?Regardingthetimeframe,forexample:

• ShouldthesamestandardbeappliedtoOECMs?• Shouldthetimeframebe*inperpetuity,*long-term(whatlengthshouldthis

be)orcoulditalsobe*short-termwherethemeasureisrenewedonaregularbasis(annualforexample,suchastheHaddockboxinCanada)?

• Howhardshoulditbetoreversethemeasure?• Shouldthemeasurebeinplaceforacertaintimebeforetheareacanbe

consideredtobeanOECM?

6. RELEVANCEOFOTHERPROTECTEDAREAPRINCIPLES


IUCNguidanceincludesthefollowingprinciplesthatapplytoprotectedareas.

• Protected areas must prevent, or eliminate where necessary, anyexploitationormanagementpracticethatwillbeharmfultotheobjectivesofdesignation;

• Thechoiceofcategoryshouldbebasedontheprimaryobjective(s)statedforeachprotectedarea;

• Thesystemisnotintendedtobehierarchical;• All categoriesmake a contribution to conservation but objectivesmust be

chosenwithrespecttotheparticularsituation;notallcategoriesareequallyusefulineverysituation;

• Anycategorycanexistunderanygovernancetypeandviceversa;

16

• A diversity of management approaches is desirable and should beencouraged,as it reflects themanyways inwhichcommunitiesaround theworldhaveexpressedtheuniversalvalueoftheprotectedareaconcept;

• Thecategoryshouldbechanged ifassessmentshows that thestated, long-termmanagementobjectivesdonotmatchthoseofthecategoryassigned;

• However,thecategoryisnotareflectionofmanagementeffectiveness;• Protected areas should usually aim to maintain or, ideally, increase the

degreeofnaturalnessoftheecosystembeingprotected;• The definition and categories of protected areas should not be used as an

excusefordispossessingpeopleoftheirland.

6.2 Questions

• WhichoftheseprinciplesarerelevantorredundanttoanOECMdiscussion,andwhy?

7. RELEVANCEOFOTHERELEMENTSOFTARGET11

7.1 Target11’sotherelements

• Target11hasanumberofqualifierswithinit,namelythosehighlightedinthetext:By2020,atleast17percentofterrestrialandinlandwater,and10percentofcoastalandmarineareas,*especiallyareasofparticular importancefor biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through *effectivelyand equitably managed, *ecologically representative and *well connectedsystems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservationmeasures, and *integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.(Emphasisadded).

8.1Questions

• With reference to the literature (particularlyWatson et al., 2015), how dothesequalifiersrelatetoOECMs?

• DoesTarget11propose‘systemsofprotectedareas’-asaunit-andOECMsas an additional approach that augments those systems, or ‘systems ofprotectedareasandOECMs’?

8. GOVERNANCE


TheIUCNpublicationGovernanceofProtectedAreas:FromUnderstandingtoActionestablishesthatPAscanhavefourformsofgovernance:

1. Government:Federalornationalministryoragency,sub-nationalministryoragency,government-delegatedmanagement.

2. Shared: transboundary governance, collaborative governance, jointgovernance.

3. Private: Conserved areas established and run by private land owners, non-profitorganizations,forprofitorganizations

17

4. Indigenous peoples and local communities: Indigenous peoples’ conservedareasandterritories,communityconservedareasandterritories.

8.2 Questions

• Shouldtherebeanykindofgovernance-relatedguidanceforOECMs,suchastypesthatcanorcannotgovernOECMs.Can,forexample,anextractive(oil,gas, mining) company, a power company or a logging company govern anOECMsolongastheOECMcomplieswithalltheotherguidance?Ifnot,whynot?

18

ANNEXITERMINOLOGY

Adiscussionabout acronymsand terminologywas raisedbymembersover email.We are using the acronymOECM as a simplified version ofOEABCM.We are notusingtheterm‘conservedareas’asshorthandforOECMsasitiscurrentlydefinedinadifferentcontextas:

“…area-basedmeasuresthat,regardlessofrecognitionanddedication,andattimes even regardless of explicit and conscious management practices,achievedefactoconservationand/orareinapositiveconservationtrendandlikelytomaintainitinthelongterm.”(Borrini-FeyerabendandHill,2015)

19

ANNEXIIBIBLIOGRAPHY

Thefollowingisalistofdirectlyrelevantdocuments,categorizedtohelpTaskForcememberslocaterelevantresourcesandprovideinputs.Wewelcomeinputsbymembers.

1. CBDdocumentsrelevanttoOECMsCBD COP 5, 15-26 May 2000. Decision V/6, ʻDecision V Approachʼ in Decisions Adopted by theConference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Fifth Meeting,UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23(15-26May2000)Annex,para1.

CBD Decision VII/28 (2004). ʻProtected areas (Articles 8 (a) to (e))ʼ in Decisions Adopted by theConference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Seventh Meeting,UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/28(13April2004),ProgrammeofWorkonProtectedAreas.

CBD Decision X/2 (2010). ‘Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020’ in Decisions Adopted by theConferenceofthePartiestotheConventiononBiologicalDiversityatitsTenthMeeting.

CBDSBSTTAItem3oftheProvisionalAgenda,ʻTheIdentificationofScientificandTechnicalNeedsfortheAttainmentoftheTargetsUnderStrategicGoalCoftheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011-2020ʼUNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/2/Add.3

CBD SBSTTA 17, 6-17 October 2014. Report of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnologicalAdviceontheWorkofitsSeventeenthMeeting.UNEP/CBD/COP/12/2.

Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., and Synge, H. (1994). ʻA Guide to the Convention on BiologicalDiversityʼIUCNEnvironmentalPolicyandLawPaperNo.30,2.

2. RelevantIUCNResolutions

IUCN (2012a).WCC-2012-Res-035-EN, ʻFacilitating conservation through the establishment ofprotectedareasasabasisforachievingTarget11oftheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011–2020ʼinIUCN,ResolutionsandRecommendations.IUCN,Gland,Switzerland.

IUCN (2012b). ‘Position Paper on Protected areas’, Agenda Item 13.4. Submitted to the eleventhmeetingoftheConferenceofthePartiestotheConventiononBiologicalDiversity.

3. PapersthatdirectlyaddressOECMs

Auster, P. (2015). Can Fishery Closed Areas Be Considered OECMs (Other EffectiveConservationsMeasures) for Conservation of Biological Diversity: A Case Study From theWesternGulfofMaine(NWAtlantic).WorkingPaper.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., and R. Hill (2015). ‘Governance for the Conservation of Nature’, in G.L.Worboys,M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds.) Protected Area Governance andManagement,pp.169-206,ANUPress,Canberra.

Butchart, S.,M. Clarke, R. Smith, R. Sykes, J. Scharlemann, MHarfoot,G. Buchanan, A. Angulo, A.Balmford,B.Bertzky,T.Brooks,K.Carpenter,M.Comeros-Raynal,J.Cornell,G.Ficetola,L.Fishpool,R.Fuller, J.Geldmann,H.Harwell,C.Hilton-Taylor,M.Hoffmann,A. Joolia, L. Joppa,N.Kingston, I.May1,A.Milam,B.Polidoro,G.Ralph,N.Richman,C.Rondinini,D.Segan,B.Skolnik,M.Spalding,S.Stuart, A. Symes, J. Taylor, P. Visconti, J. Watson, L. Wood, & N. Burgess (2015). Shortfalls andSolutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets. Conservation Letters,September/October2015,8(5),329–337

CanadianCouncilonEcologicalAreas(2013).InterpretingAichiBiodiversityTarget11intheCanadianContext:TowardsConsensuson“OtherEffectiveArea-basedConservationMeasures”.SummaryandResultsCCEA.

Jonas, H. and Lucas, S. (2013). Legal Aspects of the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: A Scoping Paper.InternationalDevelopmentLawOrganization:Rome.

20

JonasH.D.,V.Barbuto,H.C.Jonas,A.Kothari,F.Nelson,2014.“NewStepsofChange:LookingBeyondProtectedAreas toConsiderOtherEffectiveArea-basedConservaitonMeasures.”PARKS20.2. IUCN:Gland.

Laffoley, D., and D. MacKinnon, 2015. A Brief Examinatioin of ‘Other Effective Area-basedConservationMeasures’andwhathteymeanforProtectedAreas’.MPANewsVolume16Number5.

Lopoukhine,N.,anddeSouzaDias,B.F.(2012). ʻEditorial:WhatdoesTarget11reallymean?ʼPARKS18(1)5.

MacKinnon,D.C.J.Lemieux,K.Beazley,S.Woodley,R.Helie,J.Perron,J.Elliott,C.Haas,J.Langlois,H. Lazaruk,T.Beechey,andP.Gray (2015).CanadaandAichiBiodiversityTarget11:understanding‘othereffectivearea-basedconservationmeasures’inthecontextofthebroadertarget.BiodiversityConservation,DOI10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1.

WatsonJ.,E.Darling,O.Venter,M.Maron,J.Walston,H.Possingham,N.Dudley,M.Hockings,M.Barnes

andT.Brooks(2015).BolderScienceNeededNowforProtectedAreas.ConservationBiology,

doi:10.1111/cobi.12645.

Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N., Dudley, N., Londono, J.M., MacKinnon, K., Redford K., andSandwith, T. (2012).‘Meeting Aichi 11:What Does Success Look Like For Protected Area Systems?’PARKS18(1)23.

4. ProtectedAreas

4.1 IUCNGuidance

Day,J.,Dudley,N.,HockingM.,HolmesG.,Lafolley,D.,Stolton,S.,andWells,S.(2012).GuidelinesforApplying the IUCN Protected Areas Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.

Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.

IUCN(1994).GuidelinesforProtectedAreaManagementCategories.Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.

Stolton, S., P. Shadie and N. Dudley (2013). IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidance on RecognisingProtected Areas and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types, Best PracticeProtectedAreaGuidelinesSeriesNo.21,Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.

4.2 Literaturediscussingthedefinition

Dudley, N., and Courrau, J. (2008). Filling the gaps in protected area networks: A quick guide forprotectedareapractitioners.TheNatureConservancy.

Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H., and Stolton, S. (2010). ʻThe revised IUCN protected areamanagementcategories:thedebateandwaysforwardʼFlora&FaunaInternational-Oryx44(4)486.

Gillespie,A.(2009).‘DefiningInternationallyProtectedAreas’.JournalofInternationalWildlifeLaw&Policy12:4229.

Govan, H., and S. Jupiter (2013). ‘Can the IUCN Protected AreasManagement Categories SupportPacificIslandApproachestoConservation.’PARKS19.1.

Phillips,A.(2004).‘TheHistoryoftheInternationalSystemofProtectedAreasCategorisation’PARKS14:34.

5. Other

[…]

6. Effective

Bertzky, B., Corrigan, C., Kemsey, J., Kenney, S., C. Ravilious, C. Besançon and N. Burgess, (2012).Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas. IUCN,Gland,SwitzerlandandUNEP-WCMC,Cambridge,UK.

21

Carranza, T., A. Manica, V. Kapos and A. Balmford, (2014). ‘Mismatches between conservationoutcomes andmanagement evaluation in protected areas: A case study in the Brazilian Cerrado’,BiologicalConservation,173.

Dudley, N., D. Baldock, R. Nasi and S. Stolton (2005). Measuring Biodiversity and SustainableManagementinForestsandAgriculturalLandscapes.PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSociety.360,457-470.

Geldmann, J, Barnes,M, Coad, L, Craigie, ID, Hockings,M & Burgess, ND (2013), 'Effectiveness ofterrestrialprotectedareas inreducinghabitat lossandpopulationdeclines'BiologicalConservation,vol161,pp.230-238.,10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018

Leroux,S.J.etal.(2010)GlobalprotectedareasandIUCNdesignations:Dothecategoriesmatchtheconditions?BiologicalConservation143:609–616.

Nelson, A. and K.M. Chomitz, (2011). ‘Effectiveness of Strict vs. Multiple Use Protected Areas inReducingTropicalForestFires:AGlobalAnalysisUsingMatchingMethods’.PLoSONE,6(8):e22722.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022722.

Nepstad,D.,S.Schwartzman,B.Bamberger,M.Santilli,D.Ray,P.Schlesinger,P.Lefebvre,A.Alencar,E. Prinz, G. Fiske, and A. Rolla, (2006). “Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks andIndigenousLands”.ConservationBiology,20(1):65-73.

Stolton,S.,andN.Dudley, (2006).MeasuringSustainableUse:Amethodtoassesstheconservationbenefits from sustainablemanagement outside protected areas and to include this information inecoregionalplanning.

7. Area-based

[…]

8. Conservation

[…]

9. Measures

[…]

10. Governance

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and R. Hill, (2015).‘Governance of nature’, in Worboys et al (eds.) (2014).GovernanceandManagementofProtectedAreas.

Borrini-Feyerabend,G.,N.Dudley,T.Jaeger,B.Lassen,N.PathakBroome,A.PhillipsandT.Sandwith(2013).GovernanceofProtectedAreas:Fromunderstanding toaction.BestPracticeProtectedAreaGuidelinesSeriesNo.20,Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.p.5.

Nolte, C., A. Agrawal, K.M. Silvius, andB.S. Soares-Filho, (2013). ‘GovernanceRegime and LocationInfluenceAvoidedDeforestationSuccessofProtectedAreasintheBrazilianAmazon’.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,110(13):4956–4961.

9.1 GovernancebyIndigenousPeoples’andLocalCommunities

Borrini-Feyerabend,G., Pimbert,M., Farvar,M.T., Kothari,A. andRenardY. (2004).SharingPower:Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic andSocialPolicy,andCENESTA,Tehran,Iran.

Borrini-Feyerabend,G.,Lassen,B.,Stevens,S.,Martin,G.,RiascodelaPena,J.C.,Raez-Luna,E.F.andFarvar,T.(2010).BioculturalDiversityConservedbyIndigenousPeoplesandLocalCommunities,ICCAConsortiumandCenestaforGEFSGP,GTZ,IIEDandIUCNCEESP,Tehran.

Das, B., Ghosh S., Lahkar, B and Kumar, C.B. 2014. in Murti, R. and Buyck, C. (ed.) Safe Havens:ProtectedAreasforDisasterRiskReductionandClimateChangeAdaptation.Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.xii+168pp.

22

Eghenter, K. (2004). Community Conserved Areas as a Sustainable ForestManagement AlternativearoundtheKayangMentarangNationalPark.WWF:Indonesia.

Kothari,A.andNeumann,A.2014. ICCAsandAichiTargets:TheContributionof IndigenousPeoples’andLocalCommunityConservedTerritoriesandAreastotheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011-20.PolicyBriefoftheICCAConsortium,no.1,co-producedwithCBDAlliance,KalpavrikshandCENESTAandincollaborationwiththeIUCNGlobalProtectedAreasProgramme.

Lovgren, S., (2003). “Map Links Healthier Ecosystems, Indigenous Peoples”. National GeographicNews.Availableonlineat:http://bit.ly/1kENKxB.

Martin,G.,delCampo,C.,Camacho,C.,Sauceda,G.E.,andJuan,X.Z.(2010).‘Negotiatingtheweboflaw and policy: Community designation of indigenous and community conserved areas inMexico.’PolicyMatters17:195-204.

Molnar, A., Scherr, S. and Khare, A. (2004).Who conserves the world’s forests: community drivenstrategies to protect forests and respect rights. Forest Trends and Eco-agriculture Partners,Washington,D.C.,USA;

Porter-Bolland, L., et al., (2011). “Community managed forests and forest protected areas: Anassessmentoftheirconservationeffectivenessacrossthetropics”.ForestEcologyandManagement,doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034.

Stevens,S.(2014).IndigenousPeoples,NationalParksandProtectedAreas:ANewParadigmLinkingConservation,CultureandRights.USA:UniversityofArizonaPress.

Working Group on ICCAs (Indonesia) (2014). Customary Territories, Community Traditions, NatureConservation:AcollectionofIndonesianStoriesandperspectivesonICCAs.

WWF (2010). ICCAs: The Role of Incentives and Rights in Promoting Good Governance inConservation.ACBDBriefingbyWWFIndonesia.

9.2 GovernancebyPrivateEntities

ArchipelagoConsultingandEquilibriumResearch(2013).PrivateProtectedAreas:InitialoutputsfromaworkshopinBristol.Stolton,S.,RedfordK.andDudley,N.(2014).TheFuturesofPrivatelyProtectedAreas.Cambridge,UK:WCMC.

Otherresources

IUCNandUNEP-WCMC(2014),TheWorldDatabaseonProtectedAreas(WDPA)[On-line].Cambridge,UK:UNEP-WCMC.Availableat:www.protectedplanet.net.

task force on other effective area- based …€¦ · conservation value or no security of...

Documents