Just intent and for only 25 years should not qualify as long-term conservation

The Australian Government has committed to conserving 30% of our land and water areas by 2030 under the Convention on Biological Diversity. In addition to national parks and Indigenous Protected Areas, other areas that are managed for purposes that result in long-term conservation of biodiversity (termed ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ or OECMs) can also be counted.

According to Biodiversity Councillor James Fitzsimons from The Nature Conservancy, “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 global biodiversity conservation targets. Long-term outcomes are fundamental.”

The definition of long-term conservation therefore becomes important to determining what areas can be counted toward the target and to ensure that meeting the target achieves what it intended to.

A recent article in the journal Parks led by Dr Fitzsimons highlights a concerning proposal by the Australian Government to water down the definition of ‘long-term’ conservation at odds with internationally accepted guidelines set by the IUCN, and undermine the intent of the target.

The Australian Government is proposing that an ‘intent’ to managed an area for just 25 years qualifies as an OECM and to our 30x30 targets.

Australia has a long-established practice of using at least 99 years for ‘long-term’ if permanent protection is not possible. Locked in conservation for at least 99 years would be a far more appropriate definition and ensure that areas counted in our targets genuinely contribute to the conservation of biological diversity.