Australia’s plan to rely on Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) to meet its biodiversity protection targets could have troubling implications, a paper has said, as the government mulls making these areas eligible for biodiversity crediting.

The study, led by researchers at US-headquartered non-profit The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and published in the journal Conservation, warned that the lack of differentiation between the contribution that OECMs and protected areas make to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) could lead to “potentially perverse outcomes”.

“In the Australian context, including areas that make no reference to biodiversity conservation in management arrangements for area-based conservation targets seems perverse, considering the difficulty in assessing the likelihood of maintaining biodiversity in the long term in the absence of such a reference,” the paper said.

“In addition, monitoring the effectiveness of OECMs is highlighted in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines as being needed, and the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation plan will be critical to ensure that sites deliver conservation outcomes.”

OECMs are defined as areas where nature is conserved despite it not being their primary purpose, such as public parks and research forests. Although they originally appeared in the 2010 Aichi biodiversity framework, IUCN defined them for the first time in 2015.

Last month, Australia released its draft guidelines on OECMs, with the government looking to include these areas in its efforts to protect at least 30% of the country’s land and sea by 2030, as required by target 3 under the GBF.

While international guidelines, and existing Australian government policy, specify that ‘long-term protection’ equates to at least 99 years, the draft Australian text on OECMs suggested that just 25 years of intention to achieve biodiversity outcomes is enough for those lands to count for the 30×30 target.

“Both protected areas and OECMs require long-term protection on biodiversity outcomes, respectively, by their very definition,” James Fitzsimons, senior advisor at TNC who co-authored the paper, told Carbon Pulse.

“Proposals that suggest long-term equates to an intent for 25 years for OECMs seem at odds with the definition of this term,” Fitzsimons said.

“Some draft principles for OECMs in Australia need to be modified to reflect global guidance and intent for OECMs,” the paper said.

The draft guidelines on OECMs released by the Australian government.

OECMs could also be eligible to generate credits under Australia’s recently legislated Nature Repair Market (NRM), which seeks to establish a domestic biodiversity credit market.

Under Australia’s Nature Repair Act, passed in Dec. 2023, biodiversity protection must be ensured for a 100-year period, in addition to the original 25-year agreement.

According to Fitzsimons, the change was made after stakeholders suggested a 25-year timeframe did not stack up as contributing to 30×30 targets.

OVERRELIANCE RISKS

Under the GBF agreement, governments may count OECMs towards their national conservation targets, provided that the areas are registered in the global OECM database.

However, critics warned against the risk that governments extensively hinge on OECMs to reduce the efforts needed to meet their goals.

“Within Australia, this has the potential to create some perverse outcomes that will need to be considered as policy is developed. Considering the ambitious targets of 30×30, there could be a temptation to count as many conservation activities outside of protected areas as possible as OECMs to meet the 30×30 target in the least cost and/or least effort way,” the paper said.

“If a primary motive for governments to recognise OECMs is their contribution to meeting Australia’s domestic 30×30 target, once classified as an OECM, would this lessen the priority for declaring that site a protected area in future?”

The Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA), the peak body for private land conservation, recently proposed that at least 29% of the 30% protection target be made up of protected areas.

In January, a separate paper estimated that OECMs could contribute up to one million hectares of land towards Germany’s 30×30 target, and urged national authorities to agree on uniform criteria regarding how these areas are recognised, monitored, and reported.

OECMs already play a crucial role in Japan’s strategy to meet the GBF target. Companies funding these areas earn “biodiversity support certificates”, which can be used for reporting requirements under the Taskforce on Nature-based Financial Disclosures recommendations.

By Sergio Colombo – sergio@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***