‘Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures’ (OECMs): an acceptable face of protected areas that can save biodiversity?
reddmonitor.substack.com
By Simon Counsell Summary So-called ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) are included in the proposed global target to increase protected areas to thirty per cent of the planet by 2030 (‘30×30’). They can notionally involve designations such as indigenous territories and community conserved lands in order to overcome the well-documented human rights problems caused by strictly protected areas such as national parks. As such, they are being posed as the acceptable face of conservation. Whilst OECMs certainly have the potential for better reconciliation of conservation with community rights and livelihoods, this is not a given. They are still largely an unpractised conservation designation, with little track record. They could still present challenges to the lands and cultures of indigenous and other communities, who may not necessarily wish to see their territories designated primarily in terms of western concepts of conservation. The inclusion of OECMs in the 30×30 target does not provide sufficient reassurance that the target as a whole will not rely mostly on typical, exclusive and abusive forms of ‘fortress conservation’.
‘Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures’ (OECMs): an acceptable face of protected areas that can save biodiversity?
‘Other Effective Area-Based Conservation…
‘Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures’ (OECMs): an acceptable face of protected areas that can save biodiversity?
By Simon Counsell Summary So-called ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) are included in the proposed global target to increase protected areas to thirty per cent of the planet by 2030 (‘30×30’). They can notionally involve designations such as indigenous territories and community conserved lands in order to overcome the well-documented human rights problems caused by strictly protected areas such as national parks. As such, they are being posed as the acceptable face of conservation. Whilst OECMs certainly have the potential for better reconciliation of conservation with community rights and livelihoods, this is not a given. They are still largely an unpractised conservation designation, with little track record. They could still present challenges to the lands and cultures of indigenous and other communities, who may not necessarily wish to see their territories designated primarily in terms of western concepts of conservation. The inclusion of OECMs in the 30×30 target does not provide sufficient reassurance that the target as a whole will not rely mostly on typical, exclusive and abusive forms of ‘fortress conservation’.