Developing OECMs (Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures)

Q1- Clarifying whether consent is needed before the area can be recognised as OECM?

Answer: Yes

Q2- How would the consent work for Biosphere reserves with many landowners involved?

Answer: These are the type of issues that we are going to discuss in the in-person meeting. We also aim to run different land use types through the model and try to see what can be changed to address the issues. We recognise the role of Biosphere reserves in biodiversity conservation so discussions should be made on how to recognise clusters of BRs as OECMs. Mark Metzger is hosting a workshop with European Biopheres and  the IUCN European Biosphere working group in June to understand how other countries and Biopsheres are considering OECMs. 

Q3- More of a comment...the principle of what OECMs can achieve is clear, the devil will be in the detail of what's in / out and particular issues of permanence, level of "uplift" required and how all this will be measured. Answers to these questions will dictate the integrity of the intervention (real, perceived). These are all questions we wrestle with in the private investment space so happy to chip-in from that side.

Answer: Absolutely. And this will be considered in detail in the June workshop.

Q4- Ecological representation – We should make sure that all different habitat types are represented. If some habitat types not come through voluntarily, it is important to include them through designation

Answer: Agree. There are always be PA designations where necessary. This is going to be an adaptive process so it will be constantly reviewed.

Q5- How to ensure the permanency of the agreements and the rights of the tenants etc? Are we going to use the existing tools or are we going to bring new laws? 

Answer: It doesn’t mean permanent, but long-term. We will have to explore different processes but we should go back and adapt as we go along. 

Q6- A public register can be set up to make all the contracts publicly available to make sure the agreements connected to each land is visible by public

Q7- If agri-environment or forestry grant schemes recognise OECMs for example the land get extra points for being OECM etc, it would be useful to use those schemes. Could parts of a land holding be recognised as OECM or should be all of it? Flexible approach is important

Answer: Agree that we should have flexible approach. Yes, OECM can only be applied to part of the land.

Q8- How do you make sure that we are not re-inventing the wheel? Do we learn from other countries? particularly need to align incentives whilst they are being reviewed anyway.

Answer: We are part of the ongoing discussion with JNCC and the other three nations to make sure that we are aligned. We also keep up-to-date with the OECM advancement in Europe and globally. We are also linked in to international thinking on OECMs through a High Ambition Coalition Task Force for 30x30.

Q9- Interested to learn more about the thinking behind establishing regional groups - particularly as we have a Regional Land Use Partnership in the South of Scotland 

Q10- Will OECMs require proactive work to restore biodiversity? or could it be adequate to avoid negative forces (e.g. pollution, unbalanced predation, intensive management), thereby allowing biodiversity to self-generate?

Answer: The IUCN Criteria say active management isn’t necessary  - what is necessary is a 'management system' being in place that would allow for positive management if it became needed due to a new pressure. An absence of negative drivers could be considered as effective management

Q11- Can you clarify what scale we expect OECMs to operate at? I'd always assumed (probably wrongly) that we're talking about landscape scale (I think because of the phrase area based). But would the approach accept small parcels of land too?

 I'm just thinking about how to ensure / maximise the effectiveness of OECMs.

Answer: There is no cut-off with regards to size but the existing criteria/guidance does talk about sites needing to be of sufficient size to maintain the important biodiversity values for which the site is recognised - so very small sites that are very vulnerable to surrounding landscape change/land use change may need to have this considered as part of any assessment. 

Large scale makes sense for many habitats like native woodland and upland heathland. But also bearing in mind some habitats can only potentially occupy relatively small areas eg calaminarian grassland and seabird colonies. 

Q12- IUCN criteria is applicable more for intact ecosystems. However in Scotland we have degraded habitats that we should focus on raising the biodiversity in. Therefore we should focus on ecosystem functionality. Suggesting Scottish Land Commission to be invited to this working group (ACTIONED)

Q13- Management of OECMs down the line. Would OECMs add extra complexity to the management? Such as limiting what the land managers can do with the land?

Answer: No. Management plans should state how they manage the land.

Q14- Some of the lands we manage, fit all IUCN criteria. Are we going to add to the IUCN criteria?

Answer: No additional criteria. We just need to make sure they are fit for Scotland.

Q15- Interested to learn how OECMs will recognise existing effort - many land managers have undertaken considerable work over time - acknowledgement of best practice?

Q16- Developers are aware of the opportunities OECMs bring to biodiversity conservation. Should we be concerned that a large amount of land will be taken away from renewables sector due to OECM recognition? How development will be affected if the sites are OECM?

Answer: There are no means to stop renewables development on OECMs. But depending on the impact, the OECM maybe removed from the site until it starts delivering for biodiversity again. We should look at win-win opportunities.

Q17- In terms of landscape scale also - Bearing in mind also we wouldn’t want to exclude or discourage well managed land if neighbouring estates were not meeting OECM criteria. Biodiversity net gain may be a helpful principle in terms of the OECM to renewable energy situation.

Q18- How 30x30 and Nature Networks (NNs) interact? 

Answer: We need to continue to make sure they are aligned. NNs connecting the protected areas and OECMs (30x30 sites).

Q19- The IUCN guidelines say that an OECM may include land, freshwater or marine ecosystems. Is marine on the table for discussion? Increased connectivity between how terrestrial and marine are managed for biodiversity can only be a positive?

Answer: The focus of this group will be the terrestrial/freshwater environment but I think there is no problem in raising points to be considered that would affect both the terrestrial and marine environment. We can make sure these are fed to marine colleagues looking at the 30x30 target in Scotland's seas. (Actioned; alongside continued engagement NatureScot marine colleagues joined in-person workshop)

Q20- Are there opportunities to provide input if we can’t attend the in-person workshop?

Answer: Yes. 

Summary of Outputs     

Held in Perth in June 2024, 30 people from over 20 organisations attended a full-day in-person workshop to discuss the IUCN criteria for Other Effect Area Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) and their application in Scotland. 

The core principles of OECMs, that unlike protected areas, their primary objective does not need to be for biodiversity but that through integrated land management they are still able to deliver positive sustained outcomes for biodiversity, was not a focus of discussion. Similarly, the importance of consent being required for recognition of sites was also taken as given. 

The below summarises the workshop outputs, identifying key points needing clarification/changes or fine tuning, required for drafting OECM criteria for Scotland that will work for our diverse communities, sectors and land use.

We are immensely grateful for the input of all the working group members who contributed both on the day and to the summary of key points given below. 

Criteria A and B-i - Not a Protected Area and geographically defined   

Workshop summary

Summary of points raised about Geographically defined boundary:

•           Flexibility must be built in to allow the moving of boundaries should circumstances require.   

•           Clarity needed on whether the boundary should be defined based on habitat, ownership, management control/scheme/system etc. 

•           Further explanation needed for when multiple landowners are involved

Action needed

These criteria were broadly accepted in their current state. NatureScot to ensure definition is clear and that there is a simple way for people to provide geographic information on the boundaries of sites

Criterion C-iii- In-situ conservation of biological diversity

Criterion description: As with protected areas, OECMs must be confirmed to support important biodiversity values. 

Workshop summary

General notes

•           The criteria should be aspirational. Perhaps using the right language and emphasising on halt/reverse loss of nature, uplift and biodiversity enhancement will help achieve this.

•           Whilst there was not agreement/time for in depth conversation on whether “intent + management + monitoring” is enough to satisfy this criterion, or the biodiversity objectives must be met as well, there was a clear desire to emphasise the importance of the ‘process’. 

•           It was generally agreed that the sub-criteria require thresholds   to decide when an area has the potential to be in the pipeline and when it has reached the point to qualify for OECMs. (Noted this could conflict with the emphasis on focusing on management/processes and principles)

•           In addition to thresholds, trajectory is also an important consideration. If improvement can be demonstrated through monitoring, this would strengthen the argument for the area meeting OECM criteria.

•           It is important to have several case studies for various types of OECMs to provide clarity and support uptake. One suggestion was that sub-categories for OECMs (such as integrated land management, conservation, restoration, rewilding etc) could help with this clarity.

•           It was suggested that word ‘conservation’ in this criterion might not reflect an intent for a dynamic way forward.

•           Ecosystem functionality is missing in the seven sub-criteria and functionality should be defined and included.   There was no consensus on the scale of the OECMs.   While it was emphasised that OECMs should be large scale to support wider ecosystems and ecosystem functionality and the importance of encouraging cross-boundary collaborations, it was also noted that smaller stepping stone approach is more practical and a network of connected OECMs can deliver equal important biodiversity values.

Flexibility of criteria

•           It is important to embrace a certain level of uncertainty and flexibility when it comes to biodiversity values to:

o          Allow and recognise changes that happen within ecosystems

o          Allow regional and local flexibility (e.g., species, habitats or ecosystems under-represented in a particular area)

o          Allow room for improvement in OECMs   and recognition that the biodiversity values of the sites may, intentionally, change over time.

•           Lists or tools should be there to help inform but not dictate inclusion (i.e. Red List, Priority species/habitats lists, CivTech and CreditNature tools etc) 

Restoration

•           Considering the importance of restoration in the Scottish context, where most natural habitats are in some way degraded, any biodiversity criteria used must be able to recognise restoration.

•           A clear definition of what ‘restored’ is and when it is effective would be of help.   

•           Considering that restoration often occurs over significant timescales, clarity needed on when such sites would be considered to meet the threshold to qualify for OECMs with a clear management and monitoring regime in place. 

Biodiversity values 1,4,5,6

Description of biodiversity values:

1.         Rare, threatened or endangered species and habitats, and the ecosystems that support them, including species and sites identified on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Red List of Ecosystems, or national equivalents.

4. Significant population or extent of range-restricted species or ecosystems in natural settings.

5. Important species aggregations, including during migration or spawning.

6. Ecosystems especially important for species life stages, feeding, resting, moulting and breeding.

Summary of points raised: 

•           Considering that these sub-criteria are already covered by our Protected Areas suite, it’s best to focus more on the other sub criteria

•           Ensure that ‘Vulnerable’ is also included in sub-criteria (e.g., sub criterion 1)

•           Ensure that habitat and wider ecosystem are the focus even when the value is focused on species 

•           It was highlighted that there are issues with the data   and therefore mapping is not a very reliable tool:

o          Data deficiency for some species

o          International datasets not providing national picture

o          Lists are not updated regularly

•           Identifying expansion areas to already good/protected habitats is a good and reliable approach

Biodiversity value 2 - Representative Natural Ecosystems

The general consensus was that this sub criterion, as it stands, may not be useful for Scotland due to most areas in some way being human-modified and, most examples that might qualify under this criteria already being covered under an alternate criteria. There were suggestions that:

•           Wording could be changed to ‘typical’ or ‘recovering’ or, 

•           Replaced with a different and more relevant sub-criterion to allow room for future/potential improvement

Definition of ‘Natural Ecosystems’

•           Important to include semi-natural ecosystems in Scottish context

•           Emphasis on naturalness may miss opportunities for the future (e.g. urban sites or post industrial sites)

•           Some important habitats (such as all ancient woodlands) should be recognised regardless of their size.

Definition of ‘Representative’

•           The word ‘representative’ is not well defined and should be clarified using below:

o          List of ecosystems in Scotland

o          Geographic/regional or ecological?

o          Temporal (how far in the past or future)

•           Targets should be established for different habitat types, with possible incentives for under-represented habitats within the 30x30 suite

•           Striving for representativeness should not however be a barrier to good work. Overrepresented habitats should not be discouraged.

Biodiversity value 3 - Areas with a high level of ecological integrity or ecological intactness, which is characterised by the occurrence of the full range of native species and supporting ecological processes. These areas will be intact or being restored under the proposed management regime.

Measuring intactness   

•           There is a need to define intactness indicators and minimum standards, suggestion to use what is already available such as a simplified version of SSSI criteria.

•           It was emphasised that scoring and data-driven thresholds are not useful and the focus should be on effective management and processes. This conflicts with the view above.

•           Measuring intactness should be scalable and affordable

Who should measure intactness?

•           Umbrella organisations such as NatureScot, SEPA

•           Tools developed (e.g. by CivTech and CreditNature, NARIA  )

Ecosystem condition/health is more important than intactness   

•           It’s more important to focus on ecological functionality and removing pressures rather than intactness. 

•           It is important to note that some/many of our current Protected Areas are not intact.

•           Highly modified habitats can still offer positive biodiversity values and should be recognised.

Issues with ‘full range of native species’

•           “full range of native species” is not realistic. The biodiversity value should be updated to have proxies for it (e.g. national, regional, local)

Biodiversity value 7 - Areas of importance for ecological connectivity or that are important to complete a conservation network within a landscape (or seascape).

How to define and measure connectivity

•           Prioritise areas that connect designated sites

•           Stay away from the traditional views of connectivity and not be too reliant on mapping exercises. Both mosaic and similar habitats are fine.

•           Focus on intent rather than perfect connectivity and define minimum acceptable conditions.

Collaboration and links to other work streams

•           Clear ties to Nature Networks 

•           Encourage clusters of OECMs (e.g. different landowners, RLUPs) for better connectivity (e.g. around river basins) or merge them all into one where possible.

•           ‘Bigger’ and ‘better’ (as well as more connected)

•           Focus on expanding around designated areas 

On ‘quality’, the importance of connectivity may mean that habitats on sites providing important connectivity within a landscape or between sites may, at the point of recognition, be of lower quality than for other sites that were not also providing significant connectivity .

Action needed

Whilst there was consensus in some areas across the range of biodiversity values, in others there is a need for greater clarity or consideration. Supplementary guidance to the OECM criteria, especially the concept of at what point in time/restoration a site can be recognised, i.e. considered ‘important for biodiversity’.

Given the likely key role of sites undergoing some form of restoration to OECMs the relationship between restoration, individual biodiversity values, any form of pipeline and ‘delivery for biodiversity’ requires clarity.

Similarly, both ecosystems and ecosystem functionality were considered key considerations across multiple qualifying biodiversity values and require much clearer definitions. Finally, given there is no limits on OECM size, more clearly articulating size important considerations need to feature in supplementary guidance. 

Criteria B-ii, B-iii and C-ii - Governance and Management:

Workshop summary

Criterion B-ii – Legitimate governance authorities

•           General emphasis on simplifying governance and acknowledging the changes as we progress.

•           Make sure that we encourage local communities as the long-term custodians of the land to engage, noting that they are generally under-represented in Scotland.

Good governance

•           Use existing good governance practices and guidance (such as Scottish Land Commission guidance) focus on transparency, trust and equitable distribution of benefits.

•           Provide support through umbrella organisations in the form of funding, training or intervention to establish good governance structures

•           Use case studies to share good governance practices as well as failure

•           Shared governance or peer-led governance to encourage building networks between OECM leads and spread resource needs.

Consent

•           Acknowledge the complexity and potential issues arising when tenant farmers and crofting communities are involved. It was recommended that:

o          The interaction between tenancy agreements and crofting legislations and their interaction with OECM-related practices , likely governance focussed, require clarifying to avoid unintended exclusion.

o          Use best practices as examples such as Wildlife Estates Scotland’s accreditation for tenants governance structure

o          Considering the large scale of landscape-scale projects such as DMG, RLUPs and Biosphere reserves, and the large number of landowners involved, getting consent from all landowners is not realistic or easily achievable. For those projects, the focus should be on one or a cluster of landowners and not all. 

Criterion C-ii – Sustained over long term 

•           The group agreed that OECMs must have a long-term assurance with the general consensus being a minimum of 25 years.   

•           It was agreed that existing long-term funding contracts and processes can be utilised for the assurance to avoid duplication and encourage simplicity of admin process. However, there are issues that need to be considered:

o          Where OECM term overruns the funding contract term 

o          Where the land is sold/changed hands (in this case the funding contract continues, but could this be applied to OECMs due to voluntary nature of them?)

o          Agreed that break-out clauses in any novel contracts would be needed, this may jeopardise long-term assurance but is a fair risk.

•           There are existing mechanisms that could be used for long-term assurance such as conservation burdens etc. There was no consensus on any one of these approaches being the one ‘correct’ path and no call for any specific approach being mandated. 

Criterion B-iii – Managed (recognising that the primary purpose of the sites management for OECMs does not need to be for biodiversity)

Use of existing mechanisms

•           Where possible, the existing mechanisms should be recognised and used. This will  help simplify processes, provide more alignment and added value. Examples given included: Woodland/Peatland code, management agreements, UKWAS, Farming with Nature, Peatland Action (support and funding), Grants, Agricultural reform programme

•           It would be useful to have a list of approved mechanisms.

•           It was highlighted that some existing mechanisms do not provide the assurance that is required for OECMs or for some, the objectives are in conflict with OECM objectives. Therefore, it is important that careful consideration taken when assessing them.

Collaborative governance and management

•           Encourage collaborative management for OECMs to join up. This requires the management plans to match up, however this is not the case in some sectors (like public sector)

Management plans

•           Acknowledging that standardised format for management plans not possible due to different land use types

•           Agreeing that any type of management plan that is acceptable for OECMs should:

o          Whilst the objectives over an area will be   for long term  , management plans should be able to be reviewed/renewed periodically recognising the need for flexibility and ability to be adaptive especially considering climate change. 

o          Have intermittent management effectiveness monitoring/review periods in it for adaptability

o          Meet maximum acceptable herbivore pressure

Other processes/proxies   for accreditation (note: summary provided below is taken from discussions on ‘Process’)

•           There was a lot of discussion around the potential use of proxy accreditation or agreements that are already in use and that may be able to help streamline the OECM recognition process. 

•           It was recognised that not all of these would be able to be used as a direct replacement for OECM recognition but that there is the potential to examine this issue in more detail or to make changes to them in order to ensure alignment with OECM requirements where possible and appropriate.

•           Some examples of potential proxy accreditation/management agreements that were raised were:

o          Pasture for life

o          WES

o          CreditNature

o          Urban accreditation mechanisms

•           If considering the use of such proxies, there is a need to be mindful that this simplifies the system and does not accidentally create more complexity. 

•           The use of proxies should not prevent any recognition/accreditation process created bespoke for OECMs also being designed to be as simple and accessible as possible. 

Action needed

It’s clear there are many existing structures of governance and management in use which could streamline the recognition of OECMs. A more detailed stocktake of existing accreditation schemes/land use plans – undertaken with the relevant bodies – is needed to clearly identify correlations and any additions that would be needed to use them as a proxy. 

Similarly, a summary, alongside recommendations for any additions needed, of existing means of long-term assurance will be created to allow for ease of implementation.

Criteria C-i and C-iv - Effectiveness and Monitoring:

Workshop summary

The overall approach to monitoring

•           The primary purpose of monitoring should be to inform management.

•           Monitoring should be flexible and adaptable, not constrained by existing Protected Area monitoring, but maintaining a high level of integrity; working for funding/ finance/ the market (e.g., CreditNature approach).

•           Monitoring should be able to demonstrate long-term trends and change   

•           A summary of the results of biodiversity monitoring should be stored and shared at the national level.

•           Monitoring should reflect the ecosystem approach, where there is a move away from monitoring species, this must not come at the cost of surveillance of species populations/health at the national level.

•           A tool or toolbox of recognised and agreed monitoring methods/approaches for each biodiversity value/ criteria.

•           Multiple monitoring methods should be acceptable for use, depending on scale (both temporal and geographic), including those utilising appropriate technology and methods e.g., Earth Observation and citizen science.

•           There is recognition additional resource is needed for monitoring (and implementation of any recommendations).

Effectiveness

•           Effective management will be achieved through evidence in two parts;

o          Of an adaptive management system being in place, and actively carried out (through the monitoring of activity),

o          Once appropriate, the biodiversity value in question is not in decline (through the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem health)

•           Monitoring of outcomes, to inform on effectiveness, would need to be flexible enough to account for expected or unexpected change e.g. primary objective/biodiversity value change.

Who should do the monitoring?

•           There is already a lot of monitoring underway, and every effort should be made to align with, and utilise, these to reduce duplication. 

•           Generally, there was a desire for monitoring to be the responsibility of the OECM owner/manager, or trusted partner (at the governance level), but there would need to be resources available to reduce the burden. 

•           A hybrid approach to monitoring with NatureScot having a role was not ruled out; this may take the form of support for non-NatureScot led monitoring and the need for auditing. 

Metrics and baselines   

•           It is likely there will be multiple metrics that will be applicable/useful to OECMs

-           There is a need to complete a stocktake of existing metrics or monitoring methods    (e.g., Cairngorms Nature Index, Woodland Ecological Condition, ASNW, SG Biodiversity Metrics Guidance (in development), CreditNature NARIA framework and Ecosystem Condition Index (ECI)) and their appropriateness of use against biodiversity values so there is clarity on their applicability. 

•           Wherever existing baseline or monitoring activities can be used, they should be when looking to establish a baseline for confirmation of the biodiversity value and the monitoring of the OECM. There is a need to complete a stocktake of existing metrics or monitoring methods and their appropriateness of use against the biodiversity values.

Broader Monitoring of the Process, OECMs Approach and Reporting

•           National level monitoring of the effectiveness of the overall OECM process, including the funding mechanisms

•           Wherever possible data should be stored centrally and where possible shared publicly.   

Action needed

There is a need to better understand existing ‘in-sector’ or ‘in-scheme’ monitoring requirements so it can be clearly laid out where they would already suffice for monitoring needs or what additional monitoring might be required to make sure OECMs kept as simple and efficient as possible.

The role of NatureScot and ‘Delivering Healthy Ecosystems’ approach within monitoring for OECMs needs to be clarified and presented.

The relative strengths and risks of monitoring focussed on management effectiveness versus outcomes needs to be better summarised to allow for a proposed position. 

Process:

Workshop summary

Simplifications and streamlining

•           Streamline the process to make it as simple and straightforward as possible, whilst ensuring the desired outcomes and integrity of the process/OECM recognition are not compromised  . 

•           To ensure we reach 30x30 we need to be quick which will require being brave and open to taking risks. This can be helped by using existing accreditations/ pipelines to streamline the process. For example, sites where the primary objective is biodiversity, such as, Scottish Rewilding Alliance sites or areas where biodiversity outcomes are at their core e.g., Wildlife Estate Scotland sites and Nature Restoration Fund projects. 

•           The process should not be onerous on the applicant, with no direct costs for application for recognition and ideally with support in place (e.g. by partner/umbrella organisations, accreditation providers or NatureScot etc.) for those who lack resource and/or capacity.

Pipeline

•           A supportive process that provides feedback and avoids leading to a binary yes/no.

•           Further thinking needed regarding restoration sites and at what point they meet the biodiversity value and therefore move from pipeline projects to recognised OECMs. There is a balance to be had between recognising action benefiting biodiversity versus counting OECMs before they can demonstrate that they achieve at least one biodiversity value.

Flexibility and applicability

•           IUCN criteria need to be tailored to the Scottish context to ensure it works for our people and nature

•           The process in which a site remains recognised as an OECM needs to remain flexible enough to allow for adaptive management 

•           In the ethos of the bottom up approach, the process needs to encourage and facilitate involvement of communities in the identification and establishment of OECMs where they don’t have landownership. 

Transparency/Integrity

•           There was no agreement over the need for independent representation (i.e. beyond NatureScot and/or Scottish Government) in any assessment panel. 

•           There needs to be oversight of the overall effectiveness of the 30x30 approach to ensure it is delivering improvements for biodiversity across the board.

Action needed

Options for a site registration proforma (simple word/excel document and/or online portal) to be investigated and chosen. Likely to be simple document early on with online portal – to help streamline process – an aspiration. 

 A simple flow diagram, with illustrative ‘worked examples’ needed to allow for ease of understanding.

How do we market/communicate OECMs?

Workshop summary

•           Highlighting the importance of communicating the benefits of OECMs to landowners/land managers as being critical for the uptake.

•           It is important for OECMs to have a name suitable for Scotland and NOT acronyms and to ensure that the name is about enacting positive change for the future and not a nod to the past or monitoring the status quo. Suggestions provided   were:

o          Nature30 sites

o          Nature positive areas

o          Habitat recovery areas

o          Nature Recovery areas

o          30x30 sites/areas

Action needed

Whilst incentives for OECMs are not included in the criteria for recognition, they featured heavily in the group discussions. Financial mechanisms should be in place to incentivise change and to ensure longevity. Clearly articulating the links to both public and private finance that may be associated with OECMs is needed. 

A simple narrative, aided by illustrations, to accompany OECM work will be developed to allow for people to better engage with the efforts. Resources to be made freely available for us by anyone.

We need a clear, simple and resonant name for OECMs that reflects the criteria and to complement Protected Areas and welcome suggestions from the group in this respect.

As part of this narrative/vision for what 30% looks like incorporating ‘representativeness’, whilst respecting required flexibility, will be needed.