Developing OECMs (Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures)

NOTE: NatureScot, for the development of OECMs in Scotland, are actively working with stakeholders to shape how they will work. During early 2025 NatureScot are piloting the criteria and approach to OECM recognition developed with the OECM Working Group with a number of sites across Scotland. The findings from this piloting will feed back into OECM development and may lead to changes in questions and supporting guidance. As such this is currently a draft document. 

30 by 30 is a global initiative aiming to ensure at least 30% of land and sea that is important for nature is safeguarded and effectively conserved and managed by 2030. 

At its heart this is about ensuring there is the space and conditions to allow nature to thrive. But it is also about recognising these places can deliver multiple additional benefits for society. Places that are great for nature can also help us address climate change by delivering flood protection, capturing carbon, supporting pollinating insects that are vital for food production, and they can even deliver renewable energy. These areas can provide food and materials, recreation, enjoyment and huge benefits to our health and wellbeing. 

30 by 30 is about recognising, celebrating and supporting land management that does and will continue to deliver great long-term outcomes for nature and people. It will be achieved through a combination of new and existing Protected Areas as well as new approaches called ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ or OECMs.

Achieving 30 by 30

30 by 30 presents an opportunity to improve our approach to area-based conservation. As outlined in the Framework for 30 by 30 in Scotland we need to ensure these areas are ecologically diverse and representative of key habitat types and are species-rich. They must support natural processes and be able to demonstrate resilience to negative pressures such as environmental changes driven by climate change and invasive non-native species. This means a shift in focus from preserving the state of an area as it was at a certain point in time, to a more forward-looking approach supporting biodiversity, and wider society to adapt to the changes ahead and to thrive.

We will adapt our approach to existing Protected Areas, learning from experience and ensuring they deliver maximum value for nature. These will be complemented by OECMs, which will safeguard similarly important areas for nature but just do it in a different way. Unlike Protected Areas, OECMs will not have statutory protection, but instead will be subject to long-term assurances through other mechanisms, such as contractual agreements, title conditions or other commitments to be managed in such a way that they are important for biodiversity. 

OECMS in Scotland

OECMs will safeguard a diverse range of ecosystems and include areas managed to support ecosystem resilience, connectivity, restoration, ecosystem function and services. This is a bottom-up or ‘opt-in’ approach that recognises land management that will deliver great things for biodiversity.

To decide how OECMs will work in Scotland, a set of criteria has been designed. These criteria have been based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidance, to ensure they align with international approaches, and informed by a group of stakeholders in Scotland, to tailor them to the Scottish context. At their simplest OECMs are areas of land that are; 

• Not an existing protected area
• Managed in a way that has positive outcomes for biodiversity
• Subject to a long-term (typically at least 25 years) assurance that they will continue to be managed to deliver for biodiversity.
• Recognised with the informed consent from the landowner

The full criteria for land to be considered as an OECM is provided here. Anyone with land that might meet these criteria can apply for it to be recognised as an OECM. 

As well as recognising effective stewardship of our nature-rich areas, and their contribution to a global commitment for biodiversity, being recognised as part of 30 by 30 should provide a route to attracting financial incentives (whether private or public) to further support and recognise effective management. 

Unlike Protected Areas, OECMs do not have statutory protection and therefore do not have enforced regulation. Instead, the emphasis is on OECM governance authorities meeting agreed and voluntary management commitments in the long-term. If it becomes evident that the land is not being managed effectively with benefits for biodiversity, then the site will no longer receive recognition as an OECM. 

Assessment Process

The recognition process of OECMs aims to be as simple as possible whilst remaining robust to maintain confidence in their continued importance for biodiversity. 

Landowners or managers will use a self-assessment form to explain how their site meets each of the OECM criteria. These applications will then be considered and reviewed by a panel before receiving confirmation of recognition. NatureScot are committed to supporting landowners, managers, local communities, private companies or public bodies through the process. We will develop our approach initially through a pilot programme over the next 6 months and continue to adapt it moving forward to ensure that it is effective and responds to users’ needs. 

Please find here a link to the guidance on the criteria, and the form for applying for OECM recognition. Both will continue to be improved as we pilot the approach to OECM site recognition over the coming months.

NOTE: NatureScot, for the development of OECMs in Scotland, are actively working with stakeholders to shape how they will work. During early 2025 NatureScot are piloting the criteria and approach to OECM recognition developed with the OECM Working Group with a number of sites across Scotland. The findings from this piloting will feed back into OECM development and may lead to changes in questions and supporting guidance. As such this is currently a draft document.

Introduction

The 30 by 30 target, to ensure 30% of the world’s terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas are effectively conserved and managed by 2030 through ecologically representative, well connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), was agreed at the UN Biodiversity Summit in 2022. 

The Scottish Government has committed to achieving this target; being delivered through our existing Protected Areas[1], as outlined in the 30 by 30 Framework,  alongside OECMs. 

OECMs are a fresh approach to recognising biodiversity conservation in Scotland. In their simplest form, OECMs are defined areas that are put forward by landowners/managers as being managed effectively, in such a way that produces benefits for biodiversity that are secured in the long-term. They are being introduced to complement our existing protected areas and help recognise the safeguarding, restoration and enhancement of some of Scotland’s most nature rich areas. These two complementary approaches to biodiversity conservation will each play an equally important role in achieving 30 by 30. 

To decide how OECMs will be recognised in Scotland, a set of criteria has been designed. This criteria has been based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidance to ensure it aligns with international approaches, and informed by the OECM Development Working Group, consisting of a variety of stakeholders, to tailor it to the Scottish context. 

Over the winter of 2024 and spring of 2025 NatureScot will work with a number of sites to pilot the criteria. This will inform a revision of the criteria and supplementary guidance by summer 2025.

This document provides the guiding principles and supporting information for recognising OECMs. 

What is an OECM? 

An ‘other effective area-based conservation measure’ (OECM) is an internationally approved means to recognise the safeguarding of biodiversity over a specified geographic area. A site recognised as an OECM will have effectively managed objectives for the restoration, conservation or enhancement of biodiversity that may be delivered through or alongside complementary but non-conservation objectives. The management of the site will be committed to maintaining the conservation outcomes in the long term. 

Like Protected Areas, OECMs will deliver in-situ conservation of biodiversity, but are distinct in that they are not under statutory protection and may not have biodiversity conservation as their primary objective of the site. 

Examples of sites recognised as OECMs that do not have conservation management as their primary objective might be sites managed for energy production with secondary conservation objectives, or where conservation objectives are met as a result of the primary objective e.g. defence or water catchment management. 

Recognition as an OECM is voluntary and, although they are recognised on the basis of assured long-term management, consent can be withdrawn or reviewed if circumstances change, including after it has been formally recognised.

Biodiversity values 

The biodiversity that OECMs will support or enhance is of equal importance to that of traditional protected areas but with broader representation. 

By delivering effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity OECMs can contribute to ecologically representative and well-connected conservation systems, integrated within wider landscapes, and in doing so, generate a range of positive conservation outcomes, such as: 

• Conserving important ecosystems, habitats and wildlife corridors;
• Supporting the recovery of threatened species;
• Maintaining ecosystem functions and securing ecosystem services;
• Enhancing resilience against threats; and
• Retaining and connecting remnants of fragmented ecosystems within developed landscapes.

Recognition 

Being recognised as an OECM is determined by a voluntary assessment against the criteria. This assessment will cover aspects including biodiversity values, management and effectiveness, long-term commitment, governance and being geographically defined. To be recognised as an OECM a site needs to meet all the criteria. 

Recognition as an OECM is not a ‘stepping-stone’ towards designation as a protected area. However, where a landowner wishes to have their land formally designated as a protected area, NatureScot are available to assist.

Why seek recognition as an OECM? 

There are many different reasons why someone may wish to seek recognition for their land as an OECM including:

• Formal acknowledgement, and internationally recognised accreditation, of a landowner’s effective management resulting in biodiversity conservation
• An enhanced ability to attract investment and funding to support management from public and private sources
• Recognition of different approaches to conservation including integrated land management that demonstrates high value biodiversity outcomes in addition to other objectives (e.g. food, materials, tourism, improving water quality, flood risk management etc.)

Assessment 

NatureScot will be actively seeking to assist those interested in recognition, providing support and guidance with the process. Assessment will check that a site meets the requirements of all the criteria. The full list of criteria and details on each are found in this document. 

Being voluntary, assessment is never imposed, and a self-assessment tool will be made available. The assessment evidence will be reviewed by a panel with periodic reporting to assess ongoing effectiveness.

Piloting of sites between the winter of 2024 and spring of 2025 will help develop understanding and guidance, producing a simple and easily understood self-assessment form to capture the necessary supporting evidence. Wherever possible existing information (e.g. pre-held biodiversity data or management plans and monitoring arrangements) will be used. 

Managed and effective  

OECMs must have management that effectively benefits biodiversity in place and regular monitoring carried out by the landholder/manager or a suitable third party acting with consent on behalf of the landholder. Given the long-term nature of OECMs, management arrangements must be adaptive, periodically reviewed based on the results of the monitoring, and be able to respond to emerging threats and pressures.

Where existing monitoring is in place the results can be used to demonstrate management effectiveness. NatureScot will work with owners/managers of OECMs where there is no existing monitoring, or it does not provide sufficient information, and support the plugging of any gaps.

Reporting

Once recognised as an OECM, sites will be eligible to contribute to the national and global 30 by 30 target and their boundaries will be reported on in the appropriate national and international databases (SiteLink and World Database of OECMs). 

Periodic monitoring reporting will be required to NatureScot in line with the sites agreed monitoring cycle (which does not need to be annual) to ensure the effectiveness of ongoing conservation of the biodiversity values. Changes in site status will be reported in the above databases. 

OECM Recognition Criteria in Scotland

1. The site is not a protected area

A site cannot be both a Protected Area and an OECM. Therefore, the below cannot also be recognised as OECMs: 

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
• Special Protected Areas (SPAs)
• Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
• Ramsar sites
• National Nature Reserves (NNRs)

For the purpose of 30 by 30, National Parks are not recognised as qualifying protected area types. Therefore, areas within them can still be recognised as OECMs provided they meet all the criteria and are not already designated as protected areas (See 30x30 Framework for more info). 

2. The site is geographically defined

The boundary of an OECM must be clearly mapped and cover the area over which there is consent and agreement for management. There is no minimum or maximum size, but the size must be sufficient to achieve the long-term conservation of the identified biodiversity values. Small intensively managed areas with limited conservation value such as field margins, roadside verges, hedgerows, or firebreaks will not qualify. The boundary can be defined by ecosystem type limits (e.g. woodland, heathland), geographic or identifiable features on the ground, customary or administrative boundaries. 

The boundary can cover part of a holding, a whole holding, parts or whole areas of land under different ownership or control, or areas combined, under multiple different ownerships.

It is recognised that small changes to boundaries are commonplace. Minor changes to site boundaries will be recorded but will not automatically trigger reassessment of the site. 

The current approach for OECMs only covers terrestrial areas which includes inland waters and coastal areas.  

3. The site is of importance for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity values

OECMs will have documented biodiversity values for which the area is considered important. The biodiversity values may change over time, whether due to design or external factors. Adaptive management approaches will be used to ensure that the site continues to deliver against one or more of these values in the long-term. 

The site must support, or be effectively managed to deliver, at least one of these listed biodiversity values:

• Rare, vulnerable, threatened, or endangered species, habitats and the ecosystems that support them
• Near natural or recovering ecosystems that are under-represented in protected area networks
• A high level of ecological integrity or intactness, including areas under restoration
• Significant populations of range-restricted species or ecosystems
• Important species aggregations and life stages, such as feeding, moulting, breeding, spawning, and migration
• Areas of importance for ecological connectivity

Restoration sites

Not all damaged or degraded ecosystems will meet the biodiversity value requirements above. Sites with restoration as an objective, that demonstrate effective management, secured for a suitable timeframe to deliver the desired biodiversity values from the area, are likely to meet the criteria. Sites degraded to the point that ecosystem function and biodiversity values have been lost will not qualify prior to making significant progress towards restoring biodiversity values. 

Such restoration efforts must address the cause of the original degradation and biodiversity loss and employ long-term adaptive management to safeguard against future threats. 

Where restoration is needed over the majority of a site, it may be the case that at the point of the site being formally recognised as an OECM it is not immediately reported towards the 30 by 30 target. In such cases NatureScot will help work with those involved to ensure that there is confidence that sites will deliver the values above and understand or refine objectives and any monitoring necessary. Such monitoring will be able to provide assurance that the desired outcomes are on track to be met, enabling the OECM to begin counting towards the 30 by 30 target.

4. The site has a legitimate governance authority

Good governance is vital to allow sites to be effective and provide sustained benefits for biodiversity. The following governance authority types are recognised and acceptable by themselves or in combination as shared governance: government bodies, private individuals/companies or organisations (including charities), local communities. 

Consent

Consent confirms that the governing authority, local communities, and (as appropriate) other rights-holders have agreed to full assessment and then recognition as an OECM. Where the governing authority is not the landowner it must have the informed written consent of the landowner. Where the entity (organisation/group/individual) leading the assessment is not the governing authority or the landowner the informed written consent of the governing authority and/or landowner must be provided. 

As assessment and recognition as an OECM is voluntary it can only happen with consent and agreement. This includes consent across multiple landowners to be recognised as an OECM where applicable. This consent can be withdrawn at any time and the site would cease to be recognised as an OECM. 

Mandate

The governance authority must have the necessary authority, consent and right to make decisions on the overall management and use of the site. This must ensure the authority to govern activities that impact biodiversity conservation outcomes, and their intention must be to manage and control present and future threats to biodiversity. This applies whether biodiversity outcomes are a primary, secondary or ancillary objective. 

5. The governance and management of the site is expected to be sustained long term

All sites will demonstrate a clear and secure long-term commitment to the continuation of the sites management arrangements that are delivering in-situ biodiversity conservation outcomes.

This will be supported by a means of long-term assurance such as contractual agreements, title conditions or other effective means of assuring long-term commitment, in place for least 25 years. Many sites will be secured for much longer periods or in perpetuity and this is strongly encouraged.

A list of existing mechanisms to provide long-term assurance of at least 25 years will be included in the guidance and continually updated as other mechanisms become available e.g. carbon codes and credits, planning conditions or obligations, and management agreements, where they exceed 25 years. NatureScot will look to work with those keen to explore recognition as an OECM to find the means of securing long-term assurance which works best for them.

Ancillary and secondary sites may already have suitable long-term protections applied as a by-product of their primary objective (e.g. MOD Defence areas or water catchment protections). 

6. The site is managed, and evidence is available that the management of the site is effective in delivering positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity conservation 

Management: Whilst conservation of biodiversity does not have to be the primary objective of the site or its management there must be a direct causal link between the area’s overall objective and management and the in-situ conservation of biodiversity over the long-term. ‘Managed’ can include a deliberate decision to leave the area untouched. 

Where the site has management for alternate objectives, biodiversity objectives must not be compromised, and the surrounding areas should not be negatively impacted. In certain circumstances OECMs may be considered where there are both positive and negative outcomes for biodiversity, but the overall outcome must be positive.  

OECMs will have documented objectives for the restoration, conservation or enhancement of biodiversity values on the site (see Criteria 3). They will also have documented management arrangements, regardless of their primary purpose, which are responsible for conservation of this biodiversity. This includes sites where the management decision is to leave the area untouched, with such sites still requiring a management system that would allow emerging risks or pressures to be identified, and a management response to be implemented. 

Documented site management (that may be an existing management plan or statement) should include:

1. The biodiversity values for which the site is important
2. The conservation objectives
3. Known threats (including onsite and offsite/landscape scale pressures such as herbivore pressure)
4. The detailed management measures that address the known threats and pressures or the biodiversity conservation/enhancement measures where threats and pressures are not currently present
5. Recognition and involvement of all relevant authorities, rightsholders and stakeholders responsible for management
6. Detail on how monitoring results will be evaluated, to allow appraisal of existing management against the targets for biodiversity and to enable adaptive management

Management arrangements should be dynamic, adaptive and responsive and reviewed periodically (at a minimum every 5 years) to allow flexibility for adapting and responding to changing circumstances and allowing threats and pressures to be effectively identified and responded to (such as climate change). 

Collaborative management is strongly encouraged, being integrated with the wider landscape and neighbouring protected or conserved areas and Nature Networks where possible. Collaborative management must be clearly demonstrated where there is mixed governance and partnership working.

The integration and management of OECMs through Rural Land Use Partnerships (RLUPs) and Local Place Plans could be an effective means of promoting strong collaboration and representation.

Monitoring: OECMs must have appropriate monitoring to ensure they are effective. Site owners or managers can undertake their own monitoring or may already be carrying this out. However, there needs to be confidence that this monitoring is robust and reliable, informing management and appropriately aligned to the biodiversity values of the site. 

At the most basic level, monitoring will need to be able to demonstrate that the management proposed is taking place and that it is being effective at reducing pressures on the site and delivering the desired outcomes for nature.     

NatureScot are developing a new approach to protected area monitoring, called Delivering Healthy Ecosystems (DHE) (See Annex I), which participants may wish to consider, and NatureScot staff can discuss if and how this approach could be applied to their site.

Annex I: Monitoring for Delivering Healthy Ecosystems

The monitoring for Delivering Healthy Ecosystems (DHE) approach is currently under development within NatureScot and will be updated to reflect any necessary changes. 

The components necessary to allow assessment under the DHE approach are:

1. The monitoring plan must detail baseline conditions, known pressures and threats, the site’s potential for recovery using science based local information, and state the desired outcomes and goals
2. Management targets and actions should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound)
3. Monitoring must directly measure the management targets using consistent and reliable methods that allow tracking of changes over time
4. Monitoring should address nature recovery where pressures have been reduced (e.g. is the grazing pressure reduction delivering nature recovery and addressing the site goals?)
5. Site monitoring should identify emerging pressures and threats, which can inform management strategies as needed
6. There should be high confidence there will be enough resources for ongoing management, reporting, and monitoring throughout the life of the OECM.
7. Aggregated reporting should be publicly available, high-quality, and follow the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), ensuring that data is easy to use and meets robust quality assurance standards
8. Reporting should be consistent and guide future management and monitoring efforts, recognising that monitoring needs may change over time
9. It is important to establish clear governance and accountability for ecological performance at the site

Piloting OECMs Criteria in Scotland 

It is important to make sure the recognition process for OECMs is as simple and enabling as possible. To allow for assessment and recognition of sites as OECMs, a proforma has been made to guide people to provide the relevant information. 

NatureScot staff are keen to assist any site that wishes to be recognised as an OECM with this but regardless, the proforma should be clear enough that people have the choice to apply themselves without help if they prefer. 

To test and improve the proforma it is important to work through it with a selection of sites that represent the broad array of land uses and ownerships that may wish to be recognised as OECMs. Doing so will allow us to improve the supporting guidance and identify where pre-existing information exists that can be used, removing unnecessary duplication etc. 

Where at the end of the piloting process a site meets the OECM criteria then it will be possible for them to be formally recognised and begin to contribute towards Scotland’s 30 by 30 target. As OECMs can only be recognised by consent, this is not a requirement and no one taking part in piloting will be expected to do so if they do not wish to. 

Piloting process

The piloting of the process is quite simply a guided filling in of the proforma with a series of touch points between NatureScot 30 by 30 team and the governing body/individual for the potential OECM. The process should take no longer than a month and require no more than three meetings. 

Meetings can take place virtually, at your place of work/on site or at a NatureScot office. The team would also love the opportunity to be able to visit the potential site and hear more about the work you’re doing.

Piloting timeline

Initial warm up meeting (1-2hrs); short meeting to discuss/answer any questions over the piloting process. We would like you to have read over the proforma prior to this meeting so first impressions on clarity etc can be captured by the 30 by 30 team. Focus in on the criteria to be discussed in more detail at the next meeting. There is no expectation you will have tried to fill in the proforma.

[Two-week gap]

Week 2 meeting (Criteria 1, 2 and 3) (2-3hrs); An opportunity to discuss your thinking around Criteria 1, 2 and 3 and whether or not you already have suitable information available to you to answer these/demonstrate how you would fulfil the criteria. Once again there is no expectation you will have tried to fill in the proforma. If you have existing material/documentation that you think you would use for these Criteria, and are able to share this with the 30 by 30 team member you’re working with prior to the meeting this would be helpful in getting the most from the meeting. 

[Two-week gap]

Week 4 meeting (Criteria 4, 5 and 6) (2-3hrs); A repeat of meeting two but for Criteria 4, 5 and 6. As with the previous meeting the 30 by 30 team will be looking to learn from you where there is a lack of clarity in what is being asked for as well as learn more about how easy (or onerous) demonstrating alignment with any of the criteria is for your site or your sector more broadly. 

Next steps 

For the OECM proforma

At the end of the process we will collate the feedback and learning from working with you, and a number of other pilot sites, and the 30 by 30 team will use this to improve the OECM proforma and publish a Version 2. 

As an entirely new approach to area-based conservation in Scotland we believe this proforma/supporting guidance will be iterative/continue to develop over the next year but this early input should ensure that the first version we publish is as user-friendly as possible.

NatureScot will also be working internally to look at options for an online-proforma, that supports potential applicants for recognition as an OECM and automates any aspects of the process that it can/reduces the burden for potential applicants. The learning from this piloting exercise will help to inform this work. 

For your site

If at the end of the piloting your site meets the OECM criteria and you would like to have it formally recognised we will continue to work with you to allow for this to happen. The intention is that by March/April 2025 we (with Ministerial approval and support) would be able to recognise the first suite of OECMs.

If through the piloting process it’s found that there are currently some criteria that your site does not align with, but you are keen to explore further how these could be overcome, then the 30 by 30 team would be equally as keen to work with you going forwards to see how these can be resolved. The learning from this would, in and of itself, be incredibly valuable. 

Finally, if at the end of the process you do not wish to engage any further/have your site recognised as an OECM this is entirely acceptable. Any feedback as to why you may not wish to continue would be much appreciated however. 

Useful Contacts

30 by 30 central mailbox – 30x30@nature.scot

30 by 30 team 

Joshua Lawton (Perth based) – joshua.lawton@nature.scot 

May Shirkhorshidi (Edinburgh based) -  may.shirkhorshidi@nature.scot

Mhairi Stewart (Inverness based) – Mhairi.stewart@nature.scot 

Christian Christodoulou-Davies (Inverness based) – Christian.christodoulou-davies@nature.scot

Further Information 

Information on OECMs and the development of them in Scotland can be found on the NatureScot web page 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.