Content uploaded by Georgina Gurney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Georgina Gurney on May 26, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
Available online 16 November 2022
0308-597X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Charting the value and limits of other effective conservation measures
(OECMs) for marine conservation: A Delphi study
Bani Maini
a
,
*
, Jessica L. Blythe
a
, Emily S. Darling
b
,
c
, Georgina G. Gurney
d
a
Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada
b
Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine Program, Bronx, NY, USA
c
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
d
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Convention on Biological Diversity
Delphi study
Marine biodiversity
Marine conservation
Other effective area-based conservation mea-
sures (OECMs)
ABSTRACT
Other effective conservation measures (OECMs) will play an important role in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework as a way for governments to achieve “30 ×30” (30% protection of land and oceans by 2030).
However, the policy tool remains relatively new, is expanding from multiple perspectives, and requires clari-
cation. We conducted a Delphi study – a structured technique designed to elicit the insights of a panel of experts –
to chart the value and limits of OECMs for marine conservation. Results of the Delphi reveal a high degree of
consensus on several core areas of this emerging policy tool. Experts agreed that OECMs can advance equitable
and effective conservation. Realizing these opportunities will require strengthening local and Indigenous rights
and prioritizing principles of social equity. The panel also agreed on ve key challenges, ranging from ensuring
that the burden to prove effectiveness does not fall to local communities to securing adequate resources to
support OECMs. In contrast, no consensus was reached on how to measure the effectiveness of OECMs, high-
lighting the need to develop shared monitoring guidelines. Taken together, these ndings outline a clear policy
and research agenda to support the contributions of OECMs towards equitable, effective, and enduring
conservation.
1. Introduction
This is a decisive year for global biodiversity. Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are in the nal stages of
negotiating the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework [6]. Intended
to succeed where the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 has
fallen short [9], the stakes could not be higher [22]. Parties to the CBD
are calling for transformative change to address biodiversity loss [6].
The negotiations present a unique global policy juncture to re- imagine
global biodiversity goals, including the need for achieving biodiversity
outcomes and equitable and effective management [9,14,31].
With other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs)
rapidly gaining attention in conservation policy, this policy tool looks
set to play an important complement to protected areas in the next
decade of biodiversity conservation [6,18,24]. Dened formally in
2018, an OECM is a “geographically dened area other than a Protected
Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and
sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of
biodiversity” [23]. OECMs are different from protected areas in that
OECMs do not need to have biodiversity conservation as a primary
objective to deliver the effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity
[24]. This policy tool can be used to recognize new or existing man-
agement that sustains biodiversity, including, for example, areas
managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, such as
sheries-management areas [11].
While OECMs have the potential to advance equitable and effective
marine conservation [18], the concept remains relatively new and re-
quires clarication and practical guidance. In addition, prominent
global groups including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are
currently negotiating OECM guidelines, meaning the concept continues
to evolve from multiple perspectives [4,13,23].
Important questions remained to be answered: What are the core
opportunities presented by the inclusion of OECMs in the post-2020
framework? What are the key challenges or constraints confronting
OECMs in practice? How can policy-makers best identify, recognize,
* Correspondence to: 32 Tysonville Cir, Brampton, ON L7A4A6, Canada.
E-mail addresses: bm19oj@brocku.ca, banimaini4@gmail.com (B. Maini).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105350
Received 19 January 2022; Received in revised form 28 September 2022; Accepted 17 October 2022
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
2
support, and report OECMs to ensure they deliver equitable and effective
conservation in the long-term?
This paper aims to contribute to the negotiation, and subsequent
implementation, of OECMs as a complementary tool to protected areas
to meet global biodiversity objectives. Using a Delphi study, we syn-
thesize the perspectives of 18 interdisciplinary scientists, practitioners,
and policy-makers on the value and limits of OECMs for marine con-
servation. Results from this study indicate that there is high expert
consensus on the promise of OECMs to support equitable and effective
marine conservation undertaken by a more diverse set of actors. In
addition, experts agreed on ve key challenges that policy-makers must
strive to overcome. However, no consensus was reached on how to
measure the ‘E’ for effectiveness of OECMs. For policy-makers, results
suggest that the development of shared guidance on overcoming mul-
tiple challenges, including how to measure effectiveness, is an urgent
priority. We hope that this study will serve as a basis for future research
and development of OECM guidelines.
2. Methods
To understand the value and limits of OECMs for marine conserva-
tion, we employed a Delphi study [28]. The Delphi study is a structured
technique designed to build expert consensus on complex policy issues,
which has been applied in conservation research (e.g., [32,38]). We
adopted the Delphi method as the main aim of this study was to move
toward consensus on the value and limits of OECMs for marine conser-
vation, while minimizing social pressures or biases. The Delphi
approach allows for anonymous collection of responses from the par-
ticipants, therefore, eliminating biases such as groupthink, halo effect,
egocentrism, and dominance [34]. In addition, the Delphi method is
suitable in the context of this research as it can increase the under-
standing of less understood topics and generate new insights on
emerging topics [34].
We identied expert panelists using a non-probability sampling
method [41]. We invited all twenty-six members of the Coastal Out-
comes working group (https://snappartnership.net/teams/coastal-out
comes/), funded under the Science for Nature and People Partnership
(SNAPP) program, to participate in the study via email. We purposefully
recruited participants via the SNAPP Coastal Outcomes working group
to elicit expertiz from a highly diverse group of marine conservation
actors. More than half of the expert panel is comprised of marine con-
servation policymakers and practitioners, who work for some of the
world’s leading international conservation and development organiza-
tions, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the In-
ternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Wildlife
Conservation Society, and RARE. The remainder of the panel is
comprised of interdisciplinary academics with training in a broad range
of marine and coastal disciplines, including marine ecology, conserva-
tion biology, geography, resource management, and sustainability sci-
ence, among others. Members of the expert group work in Africa,
South-East Asia, North America, the Caribbean, and Europe. Together,
the panel holds decades of experience in engaging with the ecological,
social, and institutional factors that shape marine conservation pro-
cesses and outcomes. The expert panels have authors hundreds of pub-
lications on marine conservation, demonstrating their knowledge and
experience over the years. In total, 18 experts participated in this study.
The literature indicates that between 10 and 15 experts are recom-
mended for Delphi studies [34]. As the rounds progressed, the number of
participants dropped, which is commonly observed in Delphi studies
[34]. In this study, 14 experts participated in Round 2, while Round 3
recorded participation from 8 experts.
The experts participated in three rounds of the Delphi study hosted
by the Qualtrics survey platform (https://www.qualtrics.com/). Despite
a growing literature on OECMs [1,10,11], key questions remain
regarding the opportunities and challenges associated with the identi-
cation, recognition, reporting, and supporting of OECMs, particularly
in the context of marine conservation. To elicit specialist perspectives on
these areas, experts were asked to respond to three open-ended ques-
tions in Round 1:
1. What are the key opportunities created by the recognition of marine
OECMs as counting towards Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) percent area targets?
2. What are the key challenges associated with the implementation of
marine OECMs?
3. How should the “effectiveness” of marine OECMs be evaluated and
reported, and by whom?
Responses to the survey were recorded anonymously and coded. The
coding process involved open and axial coding, where similar responses
were grouped together as themes emerged and assigning labels or codes
[42]. Inter-researcher verication added rigor to the qualitative
analysis.
Through this process, we developed a list of 65 statements in
response to the three research questions.
In Round 2 of the Delphi study, experts were asked to establish the
importance of the statements identied in the rst round on a 5-point
Likert scale. A central part of Delphi data analysis involves the move-
ment toward consensus and the retention of items in the subsequent
round. Following other published Delphi studies [35], we used a 75%
cut-off criterion, which indicates that more than 75% of experts ‘agreed’
or ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement. Only statements that met the 75%
cut-off criterion were retained for Round 3.
Round 3 of the Delphi process sought to move toward consensus on
the importance of each retained statement. In the nal round, members
of the expert panel were asked to evaluate the level of importance that
they assigned to each statement in Round 2, reect upon the importance,
and decide whether they would like to retain their original response or
adjust it.
3. Results
In Round 1, experts generated a list of 28 key opportunities created
by the recognition of marine OECMs. Of the opportunities identied, 20
were unique and retained for ranking in Rounds 2 and 3. By Round 3,
consensus was achieved for 60% (n =12/20) of the key opportunities
(Fig. 1; Table S1). According to the expert panel, marine OECMs can
promote more equitable and effective marine conservation. Opportunities
with consensus include:
1) The recognition and inclusion of existing local marine manage-
ment (e.g., locally managed marine areas (LMMAs), community-
based resource management (CBRM)),
2) The recognition and inclusion of more diverse forms of
conservation,
3) Increased support for OECMs by national governments,
4) Increased collaboration between conservation, sheries, local,
and Indigenous actors,
5) Strengthened customary tenure rights,
6) More holistic assessment of the full extent of marine conservation
efforts,
7) Increased access to conservation resources (e.g., funding,
enforcement),
8) The achievement of conservation outcomes in areas outside of
MPAs,
9) Greater engagement of sheries departments in conservation,
10) The inclusion of new actors in marine conservation,
11) Sharing of the costs and benets of conservation across a wider
group of actors, and
12) Greater balance between achieving biodiversity benets and
human well-being.
B. Maini et al.
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
3
Next, experts identied 32 key challenges associated with marine
OECMs. Of the challenges identied, 23 were unique and retained for
ranking in Rounds 2 and 3. By Round 3, consensus was achieved for 22%
(n=5/23) of the key challenges (Fig. 1; Table S2). According to the
expert panel, key challenges for marine OECMs include:
1) Assuring that the burden to prove effectiveness does not fall to
already under-resourced local and Indigenous communities,
2) Mobilizing sufcient resources to support the recognition and
reporting of OECMs,
3) The relative lack of understanding of OECMs in comparison to pro-
tected areas,
4) Ensuring that OECMs are not misused to reduce marine conservation
regulations, and
5) Ensuring social safeguards to minimize harm to new groups’ liveli-
hoods, cultures, and norms as they engage with global conservation
targets.
Panelists identied 13 approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of
marine OECMs, all of which were unique and retained for ranking. No
consensus was achieved on how to evaluate marine OECMs (Fig. 2;
Table S3). The range of proposed evaluation approaches included a
range of ecological indicators (e.g., sh biomass and coral cover) and
social indicators (e.g., local support and equity in the management of the
area). Experts also highlight the importance of using quantitative and
qualitative data, drawing on expert opinion and empirical data, and
integrating multiple knowledge sources to evaluate the effectiveness of
marine OECMs.
Fig. 1. Perspectives of a panel of international marine experts (n=18) on key opportunities and challenges associated with identifying, recognizing, reporting, and
supporting marine OECMs. Bold font signies statements for which consensus was reached (dened as >75% of experts ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’).
B. Maini et al.
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
4
Finally, experts identied 9 actors, or groups of actors, who should
be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of marine OECMs. All
nine were all retained due to their uniqueness. By Round 3, consensus
was achieved for 56% (n=5/9) of the actors who should be responsible
for evaluating the effectiveness of marine OECMs (Fig. 2; Table S4). The
panel agreed that OECMs should be evaluated by:
1) The OECMs’ managers or owners (e.g., local communities),
2) Multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder partnerships,
3) NGOs that support OECMs,
4) Government agencies in partnership with NGOs and/or applied ac-
ademics with technical expertize, and
5) Government agencies in partnership with communities.
4. Discussion
Our goal in this paper is to assist Parties to the CBD in interpreting
and operationalising Decision 14/8 and to contribute to a growing body
of best practice around OECMs [11,18,25]. Three key results arose from
our Delphi study of experts, which have important implications for
conservation policy and practice. First, we found consensus on twelve
opportunities that OECMs present to promote equitable and effective
conservation. Second, the conservation experts reached consensus on
several key challenges for operationalizing the OECM policy tool. Third,
no consensus was reached on how to measure the ‘E’ for effectiveness of
OECMs. We discuss each nding here in turn.
First, our results suggest that OECMs offer multiple and signicant
opportunities to support equitable conservation. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, experts in this study agreed that the OECM tool provides op-
portunities to recognize existing and diverse forms of local management
as part of global conservation efforts. To realize this potential, the pro-
cesses for recognizing OECM must strengthen local governance systems,
including tenure rights, rather than displace or erode them [18]. Indeed,
much of the world’s biodiversity is found within Indigenous territories
(ceded and unceded), and guaranteeing Indigenous rights of
self-determination on these lands is essential [14].
Respecting human rights and upholding local and Indigenous values,
knowledge, and institutions are increasingly recognized as crucial to
global conservation efforts [24]. Strengthening local and customary
rights will require new policy guidelines advocating for rights-based
conservation approaches. Their development can draw on existing
guidelines, such as ‘Conservation with Justice’ [17] and ‘The Voluntary
Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries’ [12,39].
Supporting diverse, inclusive, and equitable marine conservation
through OECMs will also require that the conservation community pri-
oritize social equity [37] across its three key dimensions of recognition
(e.g., [30]), distribution (e.g., [19]) and procedure (e.g., [36]). Formal
commitments to social equity now characterize most major conservation
policies and conventions (e.g., [5]). Yet, a long history of displacement
and exclusion in the name of conservation indicates there is still much
work to be done to mainstream equity in marine conservation [2,3]. To
ensure that policy commitments to equity translate into practice, global
policy organizations, like the CBD and IUCN, should ensure that policy
frameworks, including the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework, include
considerations of social equity, provide guidance to national govern-
ments and other groups to operationalize equity principles [20], and
include indicators of equity in monitoring and evaluation (e.g., [33,44]).
Experts in this study also agreed that marine OECMs present
important opportunities to support effective biodiversity conservation.
Our study highlights the potential for OECMs to attract increased sup-
port and resources for marine conservation. For example, sheries co-
management or community-based sheries management initiatives
could apply for conservation funding that may have been previously
unavailable to them. Experts also agreed that OECMs could contribute to
more holistic assessments of the full extent of marine conservation ef-
forts. In this way, OECMs, which by denition must be effective [24],
present an opportunity to refocus targets around conservation outcomes
as opposed to percent coverage targets [18]. Finally, experts highlighted
the opportunity for OECMs to support the achievement of effective
conservation in areas outside of marine protected areas. This nding
aligns with the extensive literature demonstrating the importance of
drawing on diverse management strategies to realize marine biodiver-
sity outcomes [8].
Our second key nding highlights ve core challenges that policy-
makers and the conservation community should strive to overcome.
First, experts agreed that the burden to demonstrate effectiveness
Fig. 2. Perspectives of a panel of international marine experts (n=18) on how to measure the ‘E’ for effectiveness of OECMs and who should be responsible for
measuring effectiveness. Bold font signies statements for which consensus was reached (dened as >75% of experts ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’).
B. Maini et al.
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
5
presents a signicant challenge. Ensuring that this responsibility does
not fall to local communities will require innovative methods. Mobi-
lizing big data could be used to complement - and to alleviate the burden
of – local and resource intensive monitoring [26]. For example, remote
sensing data can be used to measure changes in marine biodiversity
[27].
However, technological monitoring methods are also resource
intensive and might be inequitable accessible to countries that do not
have the resources to deploy them [15]. A cost- sharing mechanism
should be explicitly integrated into the post-2020 framework [15]. For
example, nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in the Paris
Agreement could serve as a model for equitable distribution of the re-
sponsibility for monitoring effectiveness, where wealthy nations shoul-
der the majority of the costs.
Experts highlighted the need to mobilize sufcient nancial and staff
resources to support marine OECMs as a second key challenge. Avoiding
resource shortfalls is critical because the ecological outcomes of MPAs
are often hindered by inadequate budget and staff resources [16].
Averting this challenge will require increased investments in marine
conservation [18], potentially looking beyond traditional conservation
funders to support from international development agencies and
multi-lateral development banks, among others.
A third key challenge is the lack of awareness about OECMs in
comparison to protected areas. To help mainstream the concept, policy-
makers should include OECMs in other global environmental agree-
ments, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN
treaty on marine biodiversity for the high seas [18]. The draft moni-
toring framework for the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework, which
documents the linkages between the Post-2020 Framework and the
SDGs, is a welcome start in this direction [7].
Fourth, experts in this study raised the concern that countries could
purposefully manipulate OECMs to meet quantitative area-based targets
in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework [1,40]. Canada, for
example, has been criticized for providing insufcient evidence of the
conservation effectiveness of more than 50 sheries closures that were
classied as OECMs [29]. Policy-makers can help avoid this risk by
prioritizing the development of guidelines for measuring effectiveness.
A fth challenge identied by the expert panel is the need for social
safeguards to prevent harm to local and Indigenous communities as they
engage with global conservation targets. This reects a key concern
currently being voiced about OECMs, that they could lead to land or sea
grabs by external actors [18], as has sometimes been the case with
protected areas (e.g., [21]). As noted previously, new policy guidelines
will be required to ensure that OECMs strengthen local governance,
secure tenure rights, and do not erode self-determination through
imposition of external worldviews via global conservation frameworks
[18].
Finally, while Delphi experts reached consensus on who should
monitor effectiveness (including local managers, governments, NGOs
and partnerships among them), experts reached no consensus on how to
measure effectiveness. This nding suggests there is much work for the
global conservation community on monitoring and evaluation of OECM
outcomes. For example, developing shared guidelines to measure
effectiveness of OECMs through monitoring will be essential to ensure
that sites deliver conservation outcomes [43]. The Global Database on
Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME) was developed as
the ofcial repository for reporting effectiveness to the CBD, yet it
currently only contains data on whether an assessment of management
effectiveness has been undertaken, with no information about other
critical variables such as nancial or staff capacity or biodiversity out-
comes [15,16]. Combining remote sensing data and eld observations to
measure biodiversity outcomes could be a useful way to share the
burden of monitoring between local communities and national or in-
ternational organizations [15].
Importantly, experts agreed that multiple actors need to engage in
evaluation, highlighting the need for transdisciplinary knowledge co-
production to develop evaluation processes and for collaborative ap-
proaches to undertaking evaluation [18].
We employed a Delphi study to generate consensus around the value
and limits of OECMs in marine conservation. Before concluding the
article, we would like to highlight several limitations of this approach.
First, one of the limitations of Delphi studies is the relatively small
sample size [34]. This study, for example, synthesized the perspectives
of 18 experts. Going forward, we recommend that similar studies be
conducted with other expert groups to incorporate broader perspectives
on the role of OECMs in marine conservation. A second limitation of
applying the Delphi method for conservation research is that the
consensus-based nature of the approach can lead to a diluted version of
the preferred option(s). As the Delphi rounds progress, members of the
group may inadvertently align with the majority viewpoint [34]. In
addition, future studies might consider face-to-face discussion after
anonymous iteration since this process can lead to greater accountability
and corroboration of study outcomes [34].
5. Conclusion
As we enter what is arguably the most important decade for biodi-
versity conservation, supporting equitable and effective protected and
conserved areas is essential. Drafts of the Post-2020 Biodiversity
Framework suggest that OECMs will play an increasingly important role,
along side protected areas, in the conservation toolkit going forward. In
this context, understanding the value and limits of OECMs for conser-
vation is timely and important. We nd that experts agree on the value
of OECMs for promoting equitable and effective marine conservation.
Realizing these opportunities will require strengthening local and
Indigenous rights and prioritizing principles of social equity, particu-
larly to ensure appropriate consent for OECM recognition. Second, ex-
perts agreed on ve key challenges for OECMS, ranging from ensuring
that the burden to prove effectiveness does not fall to local communities
to securing adequate nancial and human resources to support OECMs.
Finally, no consensus was reached on how to measure the ‘E’ for effec-
tiveness, suggesting that concerted efforts to develop shared or common
set of guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of OECMs is a priority
for the conservation community. Taken together, these ndings outline
a clear policy and research agenda to support the contributions of
OECMs towards equitable, effective, and enduring conservation in a
post- 2020 world.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bani Maini: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft. Jessica L. Blythe: Conceptualization, Meth-
odology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Emily S.
Darling: Conceptualization, Software, Visualization, Writing – review &
editing. Georgina G. Gurney: Conceptualization, Writing – review &
editing.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the expert panel for participating in this research.
Thank you to the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
(NCEAS), the Wildlife Conservation Society, and The Nature Conser-
vancy for funding the Coastal Outcomes working group of the Science
for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) program, which allowed
authors to discuss this work. Georgina G. Gurney recognizes support
from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Early Career Fellow-
ship Grant (Grant no. DE210101918) and the ARC Centre of Excellence
for Coral Reef Studies. Emily S. Darling was supported by Bloomberg
B. Maini et al.
Marine Policy 147 (2023) 105350
6
Philanthropies’ Vibrant Oceans Initiative and the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105350.
References
[1] H. Alves-Pinto, J. Geldmann, H. Jonas, V. Maioli, A. Balmford, A.E. Latawiec,
B. Strassburg, Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based
conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation, Perspect. Ecol.
Conserv. 19 (2) (2021) 115–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004.
[2] D. Armitage, P. Mbatha, E.K. Muhl, W. Rice, M. Sowman, Governance principles for
community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2 (2) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160.
[3] N.J. Bennett, L. Katz, W. Yadao-Evans, G.N. Ahmadia, S. Atkinson, N.C. Ban,
A. Wilhelm, Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation, Front.
Mar. Sci. 994 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.711538.
[4] N. Bhola, H. Klimmek, N. Kingston, N.D. Burgess, A. van Soesbergen, C. Corrigan,
M.T. Kok, Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future
biodiversity policy, Conserv. Biol. 35 (1) (2020) 168–178, https://doi.org/
10.1111/cobi.13509.
[5] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), CBD/COP/DEC/14/2, Scenarios for the
2050 Vision for Biodiversity, Montreal: CBD, 2018. 〈https://www.cbd.int/decis
ions/cop/14/2〉.
[6] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-
2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-
2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, 2020. Available online: 〈https://www.cbd.in
t/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf〉,
(Accessed 31 August 2021).
[7] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework: Scientic and Technical Information to Support the Review of the
Updated Goals and Targets, and Related Indicators and Baselines—Proposed
Indicators and Monitoring Approach for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal,
Canada, 2020, p. 29. Available online: 〈https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-24/p
ost2020-monitoring-en.pdf〉, (Accessed 25 October 2021).
[8] N.M. Dawson, B. Coolsaet, E.J. Sterling, R. Loveridge, N.D. Gross-Camp,
S. Wongbusarakum, K.K. Sangha, F.J. Rosado-May, The role of Indigenous peoples
and local communities in effective and equitable conservation, Ecol. Soc. 26 (3)
(2021), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319.
[9] S. Díaz, J. Settele, E.S. Brondízio, H.T. Ngo, M. Gu`
eze, J. Agard, C.N. Zayas,
Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019.
[10] D. Diz, D. Johnson, M. Riddell, S. Rees, J. Battle, K. Gjerde, J.M. Roberts,
Mainstreaming marine biodiversity into the SDGs: the role of other effective area-
based conservation measures (SDG 14.5), Mar. Policy 93 (2018) 251–261, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.019.
[11] N. Dudley, H. Jonas, F. Nelson, J. Parrish, A. Pyh¨
al¨
a, S. Stolton, J.E. Watson, The
essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big
bold conservation targets, Glob. Ecol. Conserv. (2018) 15, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424.
[12] FAO, Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the
Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, 2015. Available online at:
〈http://www.fao.org/3/i4356en/i4356en.pdf〉, (Accessed 7 September 2020).
[13] FAO, Other Effective Conservation Measures, COFI/2020/Inf.15.3, 2020. Available
online at: 〈http://www.fao.org/3/ne670en/ne670en.pdf〉, (Accessed 9 September
2021).
[14] S.T. Garnett, N.D. Burgess, J.E. Fa, ´
A. Fern´
andez-Llamazares, Z. Moln´
ar, C.
J. Robinson, I. Leiper, A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous
lands for conservation, Nat. Sustain. 1 (7) (2018) 369–374, https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6.
[15] J. Geldmann, M. Deguignet, A. Balmford, N.D. Burgess, N. Dudley, M. Hockings, J.
E. Watson, Essential indicators for measuring site-based conservation effectiveness
in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, Conserv. Lett. 14 (4) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12792.
[16] D.A. Gill, M.B. Mascia, G.N. Ahmadia, L. Glew, S.E. Lester, Barnes, H.E. Fox,
Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally,
Nature 543 (7647) (2017) 665–669, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708.
[17] T. Greiber, M. Janki, M. Orellana, A. Savaresi D. Shelton, Conservation with
justice: a rights-based approach, IUCN Environmental Law and Policy Paper 71,
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2009.
[18] G.G. Gurney, E.S. Darling, G. Ahmadia, V. Agostini, N. Ban, J. Blythe, S.D. Jupiter,
Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use OECMs, Nature 595 (2021) 646–649,
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02041-4.
[19] G.G. Gurney, S. Mangubhai, M. Fox, M. Kim, A. Agrawal, Equity in environmental
governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in co-
management of marine commons in Fiji, Environ. Sci. Policy 124 (2021) 23–32,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022.
[20] C.C. Hicks, A. Levine, A. Agrawal, X. Basurto, S.J. Breslow, C. Carothers, P.S. Levin,
Engage key social concepts for sustainability, Science 352 (6281) (2016) 38–40,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4977.
[21] G. Holmes, What is a land grab? Exploring green grabs, conservation, and private
protected areas in southern Chile, J. Peasant Stud. 41 (4) (2014) 547–567, https://
doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.919266.
[22] IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), IUCN Views on the
Preparation, Scope and Content of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework,
Version 15 December 2018, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2018.
[23] IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs, Recognising and Reporting Other Effective
Area-based Conservation Measures, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2019. 〈DOI: 10.230
5/IUCN.CH.2019.PATRS.3.en〉.
[24] H.D. Jonas, G.N. Ahmadia, H.C. Bingham, J. Briggs, S.H.M. Butchart, J. Cari˜
no,
O. Chassot, C. von Weizs¨
acker, Equitable and effective area-based conservation:
towards the conserved areas paradigm, Parks 27 (1) (2021) 71–84, https://doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27–1HJ.en.
[25] H.D. Jonas, E. Lee, H.C. Jonas, C. Matallana-Tobon, K.S. Wright, F. Nelson, E. Enns,
Will ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ increase recognition and
support for ICCAs, Parks 23 (2) (2017) 63–78, https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.
ch.2017.parks-23-2hdj.en.
[26] L.N. Joppa, B. O’Connor, P. Visconti, C. Smith, J. Geldmann, M. Hoffmann, N.
D. Burgess, Filling in biodiversity threat gaps, Science 352 (6284) (2016) 416–418,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3565.
[27] A. Knudby, S. Jupiter, C. Roelfsema, M. Lyons, S. Phinn, Mapping coral reef
resilience indicators using eld and remotely sensed data, Remote Sens. 5 (3)
(2013) 1311–1334, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5031311.
[28] J. Landeta, Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (5) (2006) 467–482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2005.09.002.
[29] C.J. Lemieux, P.A. Gray, R. Devillers, P.A. Wright, P. Dearden, E.A. Halpenny,
K. Beazley, How the race to achieve Aichi Target 11 could jeopardize the effective
conservation of biodiversity in Canada and beyond, Mar. Policy 99 (2019)
312–323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.029.
[30] A. Martin, B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N.M. Dawson, J.A. Fraser, I. Lehman,
I. Rodriguez, Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition, Biol.
Conserv. 197 (2016) (2016) 254–261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.03.021.
[31] S.L. Maxwell, V. Cazalis, N. Dudley, M. Hoffmann, A.S. Rodrigues, S. Stolton, J.E.
M. Watson, Area-based conservation in the twenty-rst century, Nature 586 (7828)
(2020) 217–227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z.
[32] E. Mcleod, B. Szuster, J. Hinkel, E.L. Tompkins, N. Marshall, T. Downing,
P. Rubinoff, Conservation organizations need to consider adaptive capacity: why
local input matters, Conserv. Lett. 9 (5) (2016) 351–360, https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12210.
[33] C. Moreaux, N. Zafra-Calvo, N.G. Vansteelant, S. Wicander, N.D. Burgess, Can
existing assessment tools be used to track equity in protected area management
under aichi target 11? Biol. Conserv. 224 (2018) 242–247, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.005.
[34] N. Mukherjee, J. Huge, W.J. Sutherland, J. McNeill, M. Van Opstal, F. Dahdouh-
Guebas, N. Koedam, The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation:
applications and guidelines, Methods Ecol. Evol. 6 (9) (2015) 1097–1109, https://
doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387.
[35] R. Plummer, D. Armitage, Charting the New Territory of Adaptive Co-management:
A Delphi Study, Geography and Environmental Studies Faculty Publications, 2007,
p. 6. 〈http//scholars.wlu.ca/geog_faculty/6〉.
[36] C. Ruano-Chamorro, G.G. Gurney, J. Cinner, Advancing procedural justice in
conservation, Conserv. Lett., 2022 (accepted).
[37] K. Schreckenberg, P. Franks, A. Martin, B. Lang, Unpacking equity for protected
area conservation, Parks 22 (2) (2016) 11–26, https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
CH.2016.PARKS-22-2KS.en.
[38] M.J. Selinske, F. Fidler, A. Gordon, G.E. Garrard, A.M. Kusmanoff, S.A. Bekessy, We
have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact
on biodiversity, Conserv. Lett. 13 (5) (2020), e12721, https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12721.
[39] R.L. Singleton, E.H. Allison, P. Le Billon, U.R. Sumaila, Conservation and the right
to sh: international conservation NGOs and the implementation of the voluntary
guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale sheries, Mar. Policy 84 (2017)
22–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.026.
[40] D.M. Spalding, I. Meliane, N. J. Bennett, P. Dearden, P.G. Patil, R.D. Brumbaugh,
Building towards the marine conservation end-game: consolidating the role of
MPAs in a future ocean, Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (S2) (2016)
185–199, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2686.
[41] C. Teddlie, F. Yu, Mixed methods sampling, J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (1) (2007)
77–100, https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430.
[42] M. Williams, T. Moser, The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative
research, Int. Manag. Rev. 15 (1) (2019) 45–55. 〈http://www.imrjournal.org/upl
oads/1/4/2/8/14286482/imr-v15n1art4.pdf〉.
[43] S. Woodley, H. Locke, D. Laffoley, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith, J. Smart, A review
of evidence for area-based conservation targets for the post-2020 global
biodiversity framework, Parks 25 (2) (2019) 31–46, https://doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.CH.2019.PARKS-25-2SW2.en.
[44] N. Zafra-Calvo, U. Pascual, D. Brockington, B. Coolsaet, J.A. Cortes-Vazquez,
N. Gross-Camp, N.D. Burgess, Towards an indicator system to assess equitable
management in protected areas, Biol. Conserv. 211 (2017) (2017) 134–141, doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.0141/19/2022; 9/28/2022; 10/17/2022.
B. Maini et al.
