The Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, emphasises rights-based approaches to conservation. Target 3, also known as 30X 30 of the Global Biodiversity Framework envisions achieving conservation goals through equitably governed systems of Protected Areas (PAs) and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), that recognise and integrate indigenous rights. OECMs aim to promote in-situ conservation of habitats outside of Protected Areas and can include a range of ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands with significant biodiversity. Thus OECMs can be an important means of recognising the conservation efforts of diverse actors, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities. Here we explore the context, opportunities, and challenges of OECMs in India, particularly their potential to support community-led conservation within the current legal context. We focus on the contradictions brought about by the Government of India’s claim in their Sixth National Report submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2018, that over 20% of India’s geographic area is currently under PAs, by classifying large expanses of India’s different categories of forests and wetlands as PAs under the International Union for Conservation of Nature guidelines. This development quashes the potential of OECMs to recognise conservation efforts beyond the formal PA network, in particular those of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Sethi et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: