Lessons learned from screening potential other effective area‐based conservation measures

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are sites that deliver effective biodiversity outcomes irrespective of their management objectives. These areas are widely expected to play an important role in efforts to protect 30% of Earth by 2030. Despite general guidance to support screening sites against the formal criteria to be OECMs, progress recognizing sites has been limited. To advance the ability to identify OECMs, we developed a questionnaire that translates the components of the broad formal guidance into statements that experts can use to screen potential OECMs. Twenty-eight local experts used the questionnaire to evaluate a large global sample of 81 sites. Most sites evaluated were largely in good condition and had the potential to achieve conservation outcomes, but none met the criteria to be considered OECMs. The most common challenges are related to threat management, adequate resourcing, and the ability to demonstrate that governance and management are achieving effective and sustained conservation outcomes. Based on the formal International Union for Conservation of Nature guidance, sites that only partially meet the relevant criteria remain candidate OECMs. Our questionnaire provides a nuanced way to assess OECMs that can help identify what support sites need to meet the necessary criteria. With effective long-term conservation outcomes unable to be demonstrated for so many important conservation areas, our findings raise important questions about how to ensure area-based conservation promotes positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2025-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70148
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lessons learned from screening potential other effective area‐based conservation measures

Carly N. Cook, Kirk A. Olson, Jorge Parra, Madhu Rao et al.
1 citations
Conservation Biology
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
1.11
article

Lessons learned from screening potential other effective area‐based conservation measures

Carly N. Cook, Kirk A. Olson, Jorge Parra, Madhu Rao, Valeria Falabella, Alex Diment, Christian Barrientos, A. Boveda, Hedley S. Grantham, Deo Kujirakwinja, Stéphane Ostrowski, Peter J. Clyne, Vanessa Rathbone, Lovy Rasolofomanan, Vardhan Patankar, Matthew Linke
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are sites that deliver effective biodiversity outcomes irrespective of their management objectives. These areas are widely expected to play an important role in efforts to protect 30% of Earth by 2030. Despite general guidance to support screening sites against the formal criteria to be OECMs, progress recognizing sites has been limited. To advance the ability to identify OECMs, we developed a questionnaire that translates the components of the broad formal guidance into statements that experts can use to screen potential OECMs. Twenty-eight local experts used the questionnaire to evaluate a large global sample of 81 sites. Most sites evaluated were largely in good condition and had the potential to achieve conservation outcomes, but none met the criteria to be considered OECMs. The most common challenges are related to threat management, adequate resourcing, and the ability to demonstrate that governance and management are achieving effective and sustained conservation outcomes. Based on the formal International Union for Conservation of Nature guidance, sites that only partially meet the relevant criteria remain candidate OECMs. Our questionnaire provides a nuanced way to assess OECMs that can help identify what support sites need to meet the necessary criteria. With effective long-term conservation outcomes unable to be demonstrated for so many important conservation areas, our findings raise important questions about how to ensure area-based conservation promotes positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity.

Conservation Biology
Bush Heritage Australia (AU), Wildlife Conservation Society (US), Cornell University (US), Belize Zoo (BZ), UNSW Sydney (AU), Wildlife Conservation Society Argentina (AR), Wildlife Conservation Society Democratic Republic of the Congo (CD), Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership (MG), Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia (ID), Wildlife Conservation Society Congo (CG), Wildlife Conservation Society Laos (LA), Wildlife Conservation Society India (IN), Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
1.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.