Clarifying ‘long-term’ for protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs): why only 25 years of ‘intent’ does not qualify

The concept of ‘long-term’ is a key part of the definitions of both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). Draft principles for OECMs in Australia developed by the Australian Government propose a minimum period for OECMs of 25 years, where a landholder is not able to commit to in-perpetuity conservation. The proposal suggests this is consistent with IUCN Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas. As authors of the Guidelines for Privately Protected Areas we contend however that Australia’s proposed OECM guideline suggesting 25 years of “intention” to deliver biodiversity outcomes is ‘long-term’ is not supported by IUCN guidelines. Furthermore for protected areas, Australia has a long-established definition of ‘long-term’ – specifically a minimum timeframe of 99 years is required if permanent protection is not possible – embedded in both national policy and legal agreements. As national governments rapidly seek to define OECMs in response to the raised ambitions of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, there will be increasing interest in what counts towards Target 3. Ultimately, more land managed for conservation is good and all forms of area-based conservation should be encouraged. However, not all forms of area-based conservation qualify for inclusion in Target 3. Long-term intent and outcomes are fundamental, as outlined in the definitions of protected areas and OECMs.