Sub-theme 9. Conservation, environmental justice and the commons
Panel 9.12.
Other effective area-based conservation measures and commons
For nature conservation, the recognition of land commons and their users through the case-by-case framework of Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures continues the innovation, transformation and disruption of the business-as-usual models of conservation that is mostly based on ecological knowledge.
Other Effective Conservation area-based Conservation Measures are being endorsed as a way to recognise the contribution of other sectors to biodiversity protection, including those of land commons used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, to biodiversity conservation.
It is envisioned that this collaborative working in harmony with nature, local people, land commons, private sector and national institutions can contribute to the protecting 30% of the planets land and sea by 2030.
Recognising how the governance and management structures of other sectors, outside that of conservation, can led either directly or indirectly to the conservation of biodiversity is relatively simple when these structures are similar to that of conservation organisations, for example those of governments and the private sectors. However, in the case of the land commons used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, such governance and management structures may be harder to evaluate using the same values as that of other sectors that have comparable governance and management structures to the conservation sector.
This contribution to this panel will look at how the governance and management structures of land commons used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities can be integrated into Other Effective Conservation area-based Conservation Measures and what, if any, are the hurdles that need to be overcome.
1. Governance issues and recognition challenges of potential OECMs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
1CIRAD, France, 2Independent, France, 3MEDD, DRC, 4ISP Bukavu, DRC, 5ICCN, RDC, 6ANAPAC, DRC, 7FRMi, Cameroon, 8FRMi, DRC, 9FRMi, France
In situ conservation of biodiversity is based on territories created via regulatory or contractual provisions. It is only recently that a results-based approach has been put forward. The 2011-2020 Strategic Plan on Biodiversity was the first evocation of Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). In 2018, the fourteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity defined OECMs, recognizing their potential contribution to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. However, many questions arise as to the applicability of this concept in diverse national contexts.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the territories potentially eligible as OECMs include territories recognized by law such as forest conservation concessions, local community forest concessions (CFCL) or industrial forest concessions. Other areas, recognized by use, such as certain village areas or Indigenous peoples and local Communities’ Conserved Areas (ICCA) are also potentially eligible. Village land, ICCA and CFCL put rural communities at the centre of governance; in all other potential OECMs, administrations and private actors are the main actors.
Thus, one of the challenges concerns a stronger integration of rural communities. Other challenges encompass a common definition of OECMs and the establishment of a national committee for the development of OECMs including all stakeholders, especially indigenous peoples and local communities. Currently, the land tenure security demanded by rural populations is only possible through the creation of CFCLs, but the complexity of the regulations and related procedures requires skills, know-how and financial resources that are not at the reach of most of these communities.
2. Other effective area-based conservation measures in Central Africa: opportunities and threats: the case of Congo Brazzaville
SIBESD, Cameroon
With the conclusion of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2020, Target 11 on area-based conservation has seen success in expanding the global network of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). The negotiation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its future targets offers a
critical opportunity to further improve OECM coverage, improve other aspects of area-based conservation. OECMs, which is a new conservation instrument, requires a good understanding and an inventory of the opportunities, strengths and threats that the country has to facilitate its
recognition, identification and support. In this exercise, it will be important to show the difference between a protected area and an OECM, to present regulatory opportunities, opportunities related to existing sites (sacred sites, community forest, connectivity of protected areas, key areas for biodiversity…) and finally cultural opportunities because the lands managed and/or controlled by indigenous Peoples cover an area of 50,902.0 km2, of which 35,845.0 km2 falls outside of formal protected areas. Indigenous lands with a human footprint less than 4 (considered as ‘natural landscapes’) cover an area of 45,065.0 km2. it will also be important to present the threats related to governance and others.
3. Case study of a land commons in France and implications for the mutual exclusion criterion between protected areas and OECMs
University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Reaching the international 30×30 biodiversity target requires effective and long-term solutions. In order to reach it, OECMs have been proposed as areas where other means than governmental protection contribute to nature conservation. However, while OECMs are promoted as being of equal value to protected areas, they cannot be created in areas that already have a protection status. Therefore, it seems that protected areas are assumed to be more effective and long-term than OECMs. Through a case study of a land commons in France that would have the potential to become an OECM if it were not in a Parc Naturel Regional (PNR), we show that this assumption is incorrect. This PNR is created under a 15-year renewable charter at the request of local administration, has no regulatory power and cannot prohibit construction, hunting or other land use. So, while French PNRs are included as part of the calculation towards 30×30, not all of them can be considered as being effective and long-term. By contrast, some land commons have proven their long-term and effective contribution to the protection of biodiversity over centuries, but their contribution to the 30×30 target remains unrecognised if they are found inside the boundaries of a PNR. Since PNRs come and go, while land commons remain stable, we recommend that OECMs should be permitted to be created based on their contribution to biodiversity and not systematically excluded if they are found in existing protected areas.
4. Setting up OECMs to fail – a two tier system of biodiversity protection that favours short-term and less efficient conservation – The case of Mourex, a French land common.
University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Reaching the international 30×30 biodiversity goals requires effective and long-term solutions. To reach it, OECMs have been proposed as a complementary alternative to protected areas. However, while OECMs are promoted as being of equal value to protected areas, they cannot be created in areas that already have a protection status. Therefore, it seems that protected areas are assumed to be more effective and long-term than OECMs. With OECMs only seen as way to add to existing conservation estate, rather than recognising them for their own contribution to biodiversity.
Through a case study of a land commons in France that would have the potential to become an OECM if it were not in a Parc Naturel Regional (PNR), we show that this assumption is incorrect. This PNR is created under a 15- year renewable charter on the request of local administration, they have no regulatory power and cannot prohibit construction, hunting or other land use. They can be declassified either by the local administration or if the charter is not respected for instance the Marais Poitevin became a PNR in 1979 but was declassified in 1996 due to intensive agriculture, it was reclassified in 2016. So, while French PNRs are included as part of the calculation towards 30×30, not all of them can be considered as being effective and long-term. By contrast, some land commons have proven their long-term and effective contribution to the protection of biodiversity over centuries, but their contribution to 30×30 remains unrecognised if they are found inside the boundaries of a PNR. Since PNRs come and go, while land commons remain stable, we recommend that OECMs should be permitted to be created based on their contribution to biodiversity and not excluded if they are found in existing protected areas.
