Beyond Protected Areas: How OECMs Are Reshaping Conservation Economics and Power in Southern and Eastern Africa

The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022 established a global target to conserve 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030 (Source 1: [Primary Data]). Central to achieving this "30x30" goal is the formal recognition of "Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures" (OECMs). Defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as geographically defined areas other than Protected Areas that deliver long-term biodiversity conservation, OECMs represent a significant policy evolution (Source 2: [Primary Data]). A 2024 report by the ICCA Consortium and The Forest Trust (TFT) analyzing Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa frames OECMs as a double-edged instrument, posing both significant risks and potential benefits for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) (Source 3: [Primary Data]). This shift is not merely ecological but constitutes a fundamental reconfiguration of conservation’s political economy, creating a new calculus of asset recognition, financial flows, and power dynamics.

The OECM Paradigm: A New Asset Class for Global Biodiversity Accounting

The operational definition of an OECM transforms a "geographically defined area" into a standardized unit for global biodiversity accounting. The framework’s flexibility allows areas under diverse governance—including by IPLCs, private entities, or government bodies—to be counted toward the 30x30 target where formal Protected Area designation is politically or economically untenable (Source 4: [Primary Data]). This creates a new, quantifiable conservation asset class. The UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) serves as the global monitor for these assets, validating and listing OECMs, thereby integrating them into the international environmental accounting system (Source 5: [Secondary Data]). The economic logic is clear: OECMs formalize and make legible community-led stewardship to the global conservation market, potentially unlocking access to biodiversity finance. The underlying transaction is the exchange of recognized conservation outcomes for technical and financial resources.

The Double-Edged Sword: Risk-Benefit Calculus for Indigenous and Local Communities

For IPLCs, the OECM designation presents a structured portfolio of potential benefits and embedded risks. The benefit stream includes formal recognition of long-standing stewardship, which can serve as a tool to strengthen land and resource tenure claims. Furthermore, designation may act as a gateway to technical support and financial resources previously reserved for state-managed Protected Areas (Source 3: [Primary Data]).

Conversely, the risk portfolio is substantial. The primary hazard is "conservation capture," whereby community efforts are enrolled into global targets without robust Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The ICCA Consortium/TFT report identifies specific risks: the undermining of land and resource rights, the imposition of external conservation models, and the internalization of management costs by communities without a commensurate flow of benefits (Source 3: [Primary Data]). As Simangele Msweli of the ICCA Consortium notes, the tool requires appropriate implementation to respect rights and ensure a fair share of benefits (Source 6: [Primary Quote]). The core tension is whether the economic value generated for global biodiversity accounting will be extracted from communal lands or result in equitable, localized return.

The Power Dynamics of Governance: Who Controls the OECM Designation?

The potential of OECMs for empowerment or extraction hinges on governance control. The multi-country analysis reveals varying state-community power relations. In Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa, the process for identifying, designating, and reporting OECMs remains largely under state authority, despite the areas themselves being community-governed (Source 3: [Primary Data]). The involvement of legal advocacy groups like Natural Justice underscores the ongoing contestation over these procedures (Source 7: [Secondary Data]).

The governance gambit lies in the framework's inherent flexibility. While it allows for community-led governance of the area itself, the power to define what qualifies as an "effective" conservation measure and to formalize the designation often rests with national authorities. This can create new, complex layers of administration rather than decentralizing control. The critical juncture is the interface between global policy, national implementation, and local sovereignty, where the terms of recognition are negotiated and power is ultimately exercised.

Deep Audit: OECMs as a Locus of Future Tenure and Market Contention

The trajectory of OECM implementation will establish precedents with long-term consequences for land tenure and environmental markets. The framework creates a new frontier for commodification, where the conservation outcomes on communally held lands become discrete, tradable units. This formalization invites both impact investors seeking verifiable outcomes and entities interested in leveraging conservation for other purposes, such as carbon or biodiversity offsetting. The risk of tenure contestation is heightened, as formal recognition of conservation value may increase external interest in influencing or controlling the designated land.

Future contention will likely focus on the contractual nature of OECM agreements, the metrics for "effectiveness," and the distribution of financial proceeds. The system’s sustainability depends on the resolution of a fundamental asymmetry: IPLCs often bear the permanent opportunity costs of conservation restrictions, while financial and political benefits may be intermittent or captured by intermediaries.

Neutral Projection: Integration, Scrutiny, and Evolving Standards

The integration of OECMs into the global conservation architecture is inevitable, given the numerical imperative of the 30x30 target. The market and regulatory prediction is for a rapid increase in OECM designations across Africa, driven by donor and government priorities. This will be accompanied by the development of specialized verification consultancies and financial products tailored to OECM-related outcomes.

Concurrently, scrutiny from IPLC networks, human rights organizations, and independent researchers will intensify, leading to pressure for stronger safeguards. The evolution of third-party certification standards for "rights-based OECMs" is a probable market response, creating a tiered system of recognized areas. The long-term industry impact will be determined by whether OECMs catalyze a redistribution of conservation finance and authority toward local stewards or simply expand the footprint of global environmental accounting without disrupting existing power and economic imbalances. The outcome will be decided not by policy intent but by the granular details of implementation, legal recognition, and benefit-sharing mechanisms on the ground.