Australia Grapples With New Draft National OECM Framework That Falls Short of Conservationists’ Expectations

Cecilia Riebl — ILCN Regional Rep. for Australasia

In nations across the world, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are taking on new urgency, as nations race to fulfill their commitments to protect 30 percent of land and water territory by 2030. The Australian Government does not yet recognize OECMs, but is in the process of developing guidelines and an implementation framework to do so. The tool could be instrumental to the region’s ability to deliver on its promises to the world, as Australia must protect another 60 million hectares (about 150 million acres) by the end of the decade to reach its goals. 

The term OECM first appeared in 2010, defined loosely by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in its Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Since then, conservationists have been experimenting with and honing the concept in hopes of it becoming a robust and well-recognized tool for private and civic land conservation. In 2018, the CBD decided on a formal definition (see Box 1.)  and, today, examples are emerging in practice around the world.  

Box 1. OECMs are defined by the CBD as geographically defined areas other than protected areas, which are 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.

While OECM sites are not formal protected areas, they achieve conservation outcomes either as a primary, secondary, or ancillary objective for the management of the land. An example of an ancillary objective is the coincidental protection of habitats, such as water supply catchment areas protected for water-quality purposes, even though biodiversity conservation is not a management objective.

Already, about 22 percent of Australia’s landmass falls within formally designated protected areas in its world-leading National Reserve System. These include publicly owned national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, and privately owned lands protected in perpetuity by on-title conservation covenants.

OECMs present an opportunity for Australia to give greater recognition to areas that are important for biodiversity where formal protected area designation is not possible or supported. This may enable governments to recognize Indigenous land management in circumstances where dedication as a protected area is not desirable or appropriate. It may also open the door to recognizing initiatives that manage land for purposes other than conservation, but achieve conservation outcomes nonetheless. The Patho Plains in Victoria is a good example of this, supporting the critically endangered Plains wanderer in the last remaining native grasslands in the State, while also supporting livestock grazing.

As nation states work to interpret and apply OECMs within their legal systems, some challenges are emerging. Australia’s draft National OECM Framework identifies principles to guide OECM recognition and implementation arrangements and provides a site assessment tool. These principles are considered broadly aligned with global guidance, but some conservation experts are raising concerns.

Among these are the relatively short duration for which OECMs would ensure conservation under the national framework and the resulting risk that imposes on Australia’s existing policies.

The draft OECM framework currently suggests that an “intention” over a 25-year period to deliver biodiversity outcomes is sufficient to meet the test for an OECM. By contrast, the International Union for Conservation of Nature stated that, to satisfy the “sustained long term” test, the site in question “should be expected to be ongoing and for the long term”.

As outlined by Fitzsimons et al in a paper exploring Australia’s approach to OECMs, this would generally require “a long-term legal agreement that would bind future owners to manage [the area] in a way that maintained or improved biodiversity”. The paper explains that, regardless of the sincerity of a landholder’s intent to maintain biodiversity, changes in circumstance and ownership can occur rapidly and threaten subsequent management schemes if legal obligations to conservation are absent.

A second and related concern is that the 25-year minimum timeframe will undermine established Australian policy for requiring protected areas to be secured in the long term, defined as a minimum of 99 years. Framed this way, OECMs can be clearly distinguished from areas that are intended to be temporary in nature, or for which there is no evident long-term commitment.

Other nations such as Canada have made expectations for OECM permanence clear. In 2021, Canadian governments released a decision support tool meant to help assess the fit of areas for OECM status. The document states that “the intended effectof the criterion is that the area is permanently protected or conserved” and that the mechanism “is not easily reversed”. 

Thus, it would appear more in keeping with protected area policy in Australia to adopt an approach that is not tied to intention at all, but rather to a reasonable expectation that the land management activities continue. This approach would ensure that OECMs follow the land and not the landholder, which is in line with their status as an area-based, and not landholder-based, mechanism.

At minimum, as experts have outlined, OECMs should be secured by a binding legal agreement; ensure there is a staged long-term intention or willingness for renewal of the OECM; and require a management plan that includes monitoring across time and reporting to national authorities. Without these aspects, there is a risk of perverse outcomes, including lack of trust in OECMs or their integrity, and a risk of existing Protected Area policies being sidelined in favor of a watered-down regime.