Go to content

Day 1: Sunday April 14, 2024

Welcoming remarks

Inge Thaulow, CAFF Chair expressed the importance of advancing the understanding and focus on OECMs in the Arctic, including the Nordic countries. She highlighted the Government of Greenland's priority on following up to the global biodiversity framework and its targets, including those related to OECMs. She noted the importance of bringing Nordic countries together to share experiences and lessons learned on OECM developments. She emphasized the importance of understanding and exploring OECM concepts and Indigenous management practices to facilitate implementation of targets, especially in light of recent global agreements on biodiversity. She finally expressed gratitude to the participating organizations and attendees of this workshop and looked forward to the discussions and presentations during the workshop.

Setting the Scene

Tom Christensen, Section for Arctic Environment, Aarhus University
Tom Christensen from Aarhus University opened the first session of the workshop emphasising the key objectives of the workshop and noted in particular the synergies between the Arctic OECM project and the NCM supported Nordic OECM project. He gave a summary of the workshop context and the linkages between the projects, stating that the workshop involves collaboration between Canada, the US, and the Kingdom of Denmark, with Aarhus University leading the Nordic project. The workshop aimed to integrate the OECM Nordic project with the Arctic Council project, focusing on advancing OECM development, implementation, and assessment. Key objectives included: providing an overview of OECM criteria, methodologies, and guidance, as well as identifying differences and commonalities among countries, sharing case studies, and informing future activities. The workshop also discussed project timelines, outputs, and the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in conservation efforts. The session included presentations on various related projects, such as ecosystem status reports, marine conservation actions, and the application of Indigenous Knowledge. The workshop discussed key concepts, case studies, and more to inform future conservation efforts in the Arctic and Nordic regions. Additionally, an experimental approach involving AI assistance in drafting the workshop report is introduced for efficiency.
Ever since its establishment, environmental protection has been at the core of the work of the Arctic Council. In the Council’s founding document, the Ottawa Declaration, the eight Arctic States affirmed their commitment to protect the Arctic environment and healthy ecosystems, to maintain Arctic biodiversity, to conserve and enable sustainable use of natural resources. It does so through defined actions based on scientific recommendations.
CAFF is the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council. CAFF's mandate is to address the conservation of Arctic biodiversity, and to communicate its findings to the governments and residents of the Arctic, helping to promote practices which ensure the sustaina­bility of the Arctic’s living resources. It does so through various ,  and expert group .
The Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) is the focal point of the Arctic Council’s activities related to the protection and sustainable use of the Arctic marine environment and provides a unique forum for collaboration on a wide range of activities in this regard.
CAFF and PAME collaborate on topics of biodiversity conservation and protection in the marine environment, including on area-based conservation measures.
PAME has developed a Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). As part of this a “Pan-Arctic Network of MPAs Toolbox” develops guidance to assist Arctic States in advancing their MPA networks by providing theory and tools that can be used to assess and protect the diversity of genes, species, populations, habitats, features, and ecosystems; their inter­actions and processes; and the ability to adapt to change. This guidance is intended to inform decision-makers, practitioners, Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders involved in developing MPA networks and ecosystem-based management in the marine Arctic.

International guidance on identification, use, and performance assessment of OECMs (terrestrial and marine)

Convention on Biological Diversity

Joseph Appiott: Convention on Biological Diversity
Joseph Appiott's presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the development and integration of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). He traced the evolution of the concept, starting with its inception in 2010 with CBD's target 11, which aimed for 10% of coastal and marine areas to be conserved through protected areas and OECMs by 2020.
Despite initial slow uptake, OECMs gained recognition due to their potential to complement protected areas in achieving conservation goals. Appiott emphasized that OECMs offered an opportunity to recognize and account for biodiversity outcomes of management measures beyond traditional protected areas. He highlighted the importance of mainstreaming biodiversity into various sectors, acknowledging that conservation efforts should engage not only traditional biodiversity stakeholders but also other sectors contributing to biodiversity outcomes.
The presentation delved into the criteria for identifying OECMs, emphasizing the need for a geographically defined area governed and managed to achieve positive and sustained biodiversity outcomes. Appiott stressed the importance of assessing whether an area effectively contributed to in situ conservation, addressed existing or anticipated threats, and upheld relevant cultural, socio-economic, and other local values.
He discussed the challenges and considerations specific to marine OECMs, including the three-dimensional nature of the ocean and the importance of expert interpretation in defining the boundaries of conservation measures. Monitoring outcomes, avoiding the risk of greenwashing, and the need for context-specific and case-by-case processes were highlighted as crucial aspects of effective OECM implementation.
Overall, Appiott's presentation underscored the significance of OECMs as a tool for recognizing and enhancing biodiversity conservation efforts beyond traditional protected areas. It emphasized the need for collaboration across sectors and careful consideration of biodiversity values, threats, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of OECMs in achieving conservation goals.
Convention of Biological Diversity definition of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures
At the 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the following definition for Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures was adopted:
“other effective area-based conservation measure” means “a geographically defined 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, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values” (CBD/​COPDEC/​14/8)
Criteria for identification of OECMs (CBD/​COPDEC/​14/8)
Criterion A: Area is not currently recognized as a protected area
  • Not a protected area
Criterion B: Area is governed and managed
  • Geographically defined space
  • Legitimate governance authorities
  • Managed
Criterion C: Achieves sustained and effective contribution to in situ conservation of biodiversity
  • Effective
  • Sustained over long term
  • In situ conservation of biological diversity
  • Information and monitoring
Criterion D: Associated ecosystem functions and services and cultural, spiritual, socio-economic and other locally relevant values
  • Ecosystem functions and services
  • Cultural, spiritual, socio-economic and other locally relevant values

ICES/​IUCN presentation

Ellen Kenchington, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, ICES/IUCN presentation
Ellen Kenchington, a research scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, shared insights from a workshop conducted by ICES and IUCN on identifying OECMs and evaluating them against CBD criteria. Initially, OECMs were not recognized in global biodiversity targets, but in 2018, the CBD adopted a formal definition, emphasizing areas delivering significant biodiversity outcomes not covered by MPAs. Kenchington highlighted the flexibility of OECMs compared to MPAs, with quicker adoption and modification. She stressed their importance in maintaining ecosystem connectivity, especially in the face of climate change.
Kenchington presented case studies from the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and discussed their evaluation against CBD criteria, advising closer examination of the report from the ICES Workshop to Evaluate Long-term Biodiversity/​Ecosystem Benefits of NEAFC Closed and Restricted Areas (WKECOVME) and the ICES/IUCN FEG Workshop on testing OECM practices and strategies (WKTOPS). These case studies demonstrated the benefits of OECMs in reducing fisheries' collateral impacts and improving biodiversity. However, questions emerged during the process, such as determining sufficient evidence, evaluating different biodiversity benefits, and addressing unmanaged risks like climate change.
From an organizational perspective, Kenchington emphasized the importance of detailed preparation, including experts from relevant policy and management frameworks, and ensuring participants understand the CBD criteria. She suggested conducting multiple evaluations in one workshop to improve consistency in decision-making. As judgements are almost always required in evaluations, she emphasized transparency in the full evaluation process.
Overall, Kenchington highlighted the practical application of CBD criteria in evaluating OECMs, emphasizing their role in biodiversity conservation and the need for thorough preparation and expert collaboration in case-by-case and context-specific evaluation processes.
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 3
Conserve 30% of Land, Waters and Seas
Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.

Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, NEAFC/​NAFO

Gunnstein Bakke, Senior legal advisor, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, NEAFC/​NAFO
Gunnstein Bakke, from the Directorate of Fisheries in Norway, provided insights into the assessment and understanding of OECMs from a fisheries management perspective. He emphasized that many closures, although some of them are located south of the Arctic, are relevant to discussions about industrial fisheries within the Arctic region. Bakke highlighted the national exercise conducted in Norway, noting that the small scale fisheries in Norway may not be comparable to other small scale fisheries in the Arctic for example in relation to its importance to subsistence. Bakke mentioned that OECMs provide an opportunity for fisheries management to showcase positive effects and gain recognition for their efforts in mainstreaming biodiversity into fisheries management. He emphasized the importance of further developing fisheries regulations to maximize positive impacts on biodiversity. Bakke discussed the reporting of closures as OECMs by both the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) in 2024, focusing on sponges, corals, and seamounts. He raised questions about the deep sea and the challenges of accurately reporting measures that genuinely protect biodiversity not only creating “paper parks” where it is so deep that no fishing takes place anyway as an example. He concluded by highlighting the need for ongoing dialogues between fisheries sectors and conservation communities, including practical, effective measures to conserve biodiversity while ensuring sustainable use. All this in the context that fisheries is the only activity in the oceans that fully depends on clean, healthy and functioning ecosystems which is the main incentive to perform well in mainstreaming biodiversity,

Equilibrium Research

Nigel Dudley, Equilibrium Research
Nigel Dudley, a freelance consultant closely involved with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN WCPA), presented an overview of OECMs with a focus on their development, application in terrestrial regions, and the identification process.
He highlighted the significance of OECMs in the global biodiversity framework, particularly under Target 3, which aims to achieve 30% protection for land and sea areas. Dudley emphasized the increasing importance of OECMs due to the limited scope for expanding traditional protected areas in many countries.
The emergence of OECMs was somewhat accidental, originating from a late-night debate during the Nagoya meetings. This ambiguity initially led to confusion, but it gained momentum over time, leading to the formation of a task force by the IUCN WCPA and eventual inclusion in the global biodiversity framework.
Dudley outlined three main categories of OECMs: ancillary conservation, secondary conservation, and primary conservation. He provided examples such as military training grounds, protected watersheds, and areas where communities resist formal protected area status.
He discussed the challenges of defining and identifying OECMs, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case approach. The process involves three steps: 1) screening, 2) obtaining consent from stakeholders, and 3) rigorous identification, which can be time-consuming and complex, especially in cases involving Indigenous rightsholders, multiple land­owners, and other stakeholders.
Dudley also addressed concerns about the long-term sustainability of OECMs, acknowledging the need for clarity on what "long term" entails, especially in rapidly changing environments like the Arctic. He stressed the importance of monitoring, commitment to maintenance, and the potential for OECMs to contribute to ecosystem restoration efforts.
In conclusion, Dudley underscored the ongoing learning process surrounding OECMs and the importance of international collaboration to ensure effective conservation outcomes. He highlighted the need for discussions on adapting OECMs to changing environmental conditions and the role they can play in filling gaps in protected area networks.
IUCN definition of protected area
A clearly defined geo­graphical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (Dudley, presentation)
Identifying or establishing other effective area-based conservation measures
Types of approaches that deliver effective conservation in other effective area-based conservation measures
  1. “Primary conservation” – refers to areas that may meet all elements of the IUCN definition of a protected area, but which are not officially designated as such because the governance authority does not want the area to be recognised or reported as a protected area. For example, in some instances Indigenous Peoples may not want areas that they manage to be designated as protected areas or recorded in govern­ment protected area databases. Assuming an area meets the OECM criteria, the governance authority has the right to withhold or give its consent to the area being recognised as an OECM.
  2. “Secondary conservation” – is achieved through the active management of an area where biodiversity outcomes are a secondary management objective. For example, enduring watershed protection policies and management may result in effective protection of bio­diversity in water­sheds, even though the areas may be managed primarily for objectives other than conservation. Sites managed to provide ecological connectivity between protected areas or other areas of high biodiversity, thereby contributing to their viability, may also qualify as OECMs.
  3. “Ancillary conservation” – refers to areas that deliver in-situ conservation as a by-product of management activities, even though biodiversity con­servation is not a management objective. For example, Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands pro­tects shipwrecks and war graves. This protection has led to the ancillary con­servation of important biodiversity.
    (based on IUCN, 2019)

HELCOM

Jannica Haldin, Deputy Director, HELCOM
Jannica Haldin, Deputy Director of HELCOM, presented insights from a previous workshop and sub­sequent developments regarding OECMs in the Baltic Sea region. The presentation outlined the unique characteristics of the Baltic Sea, emphasizing its heavy anthropogenic pressure and the resulting need for robust gover­nance structures. HELCOM, as a regional sea convention, plays a central role in coordinating conservation efforts across the Baltic Sea countries.
The presentation highlighted the significance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration, emphasizing the importance of inclusive decision-making processes involving various sectors such as shipping, fisheries, and energy. Despite initial skepticism and challenges, the workshop served as a platform to raise awareness and build a shared understanding of OECMs.
Key findings from sector-specific discussions, including shipping, offshore energy, and cultural and archaeological sites, underscored both the potential and challenges associated with OECMs. While sectors like shipping and offshore energy showed potential for contributing to biodiversity conservation, challenges such as evolving industry standards and long-term impact assessment were recognized.
The presentation emphasized the need for a collaborative approach in developing a shared vision for OECMs in the region. This involves ongoing dialogue among countries at different stages of the OECM process, ensuring alignment with international guidance and standards. The development of a common understanding and decision tree for identifying OECMs provides a framework for future conservation efforts.
The presentation outlined the need for national-level implemen­tation of OECMs, supported by ongoing collaboration and know­ledge sharing among Baltic Sea countries. Integrating OECMs into existing conservation networks and addressing research and resource challenges remain key priorities for advancing marine conservation in the region.
Overall, the presentation demonstrated the progress made in raising awareness and building consensus on OECMs in the Baltic Sea region, while also highlighting the ongoing challenges and opportunities for further collaboration and action.
The question and answer period following Haldin’s presentation covered several key points. Initially, there was a discussion about the availability of workshop documents due to changes in website structure, with plans to rectify the issue. The conversation then shifted to the consideration of monitoring biodiversity and stressors in protected areas, emphasizing the importance of effective monitoring and data sharing across sectors. Additionally, there were questions about offshore energy sectors and the potential for transboundary OECMs, highlighting the need for coordinated measures across borders and sectors. The discussion also touched on the challenges of artificial structures like wind farms impacting biodiversity and the necessity for case-by-case evaluation. Haldin mentioned ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive resource on marine OECMs to address common questions and provide standardized answers. Throughout the session, there was a focus on collaboration, data sharing, and adapting measures to maximize biodiversity benefits while minimizing impacts.

Nordic and wider Arctic participating county approaches to identifying marine and/​or terrestrial OECMs

Canada

Andrea Mast, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Andrea Mast's presentation on Canada's approach to identifying and recognizing marine OECMs provided valuable insights into the country's efforts in marine conservation and Indigenous engagement. Her presentation explored the historical context, key criteria for OECM recognition, Indigenous considerations, case studies, and implications for Canadian legislation and future conservation efforts.

Historical Context and Key Initiatives

Mast began by providing historical context, noting pivotal documents and initiatives in Canada related to OECMs. In 2016, Fisheries and Oceans Canada published interim Operational Guidance for Identifying OECMs in Canada’s Marine Environment (informed by science advice provided through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat). Subsequently, the CBD's OECM definition and voluntary guidance and the final report of the National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards in 2018 further shaped Canada's approach, and in 2022 Canada published Guidance for recognizing marine OECMs, which applies to marine OECMs that are recognized by Canada’s federal government.

Domestic Guidance and OECM Criteria

The Guidance for recognizing marine OECMs (2022) interprets the international OECM definition, developed through the CBD, into a Canadian context. The guidance outlines key OECM concepts, guiding principles, and criteria for the recognition of OECMs. The criteria for OECM recognition outlined in the Guidance include requirements for the candidate OECM to be a long-term area-based measure that is spatially defined, and information on its biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs) is collected. It must also be governed and managed by relevant governing authorities in ways that provide BCBs over the long term. Canada's approach emphasizes science-based decision-making and assessment criteria to ensure robust marine conservation efforts. Mast emphasized the importance of consultation and engagement in Canada’s marine conservation efforts.

Indigenous Considerations

Mast emphasized the importance of Indigenous partners in marine conservation. Canada's domestic guidance includes provisions to respect constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights and recognize areas of spiritual, cultural, or historical importance to Indigenous Peoples. This reflects a commitment to collaborative and inclusive conservation efforts that include Indigenous Knowledge and cultural values.

Case Studies: Lull Bay and Hoeya Sound, and Disko Fan Conservation Area

The presentation highlighted two case studies exemplifying successful collaboration between relevant governing authorities (including Indigenous govern­ments), communities and stakeholders. Gwaxdlala/​Nalaxdlala (Lull Bay and Hoeya Sound), located on the Pacific Coast, demonstrates the OECM recognition of an existing Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area. The Disko Fan Conservation Area in the Eastern Arctic showcases adaptive management practices, such as adjusting fishing gear prohibitions based on identified risks to the area’s conservation objectives.

Implications for Canadian Legislation and Future Conservation Efforts

In response to questions, Mast discussed Canadian legislation related to biodiversity protection and plans for future OECM recognition. While Canada currently lacks specific OECM legislation, and area-based measures under a variety of legislation may be recognized as OECMs, Biodiversity Protection Regulations under the Fisheries Act empower the Minister to create regulations that restrict fishing activities specifically for biodiversity protection. Areas established under these regulations that meet the required criteria may be recognized as OECMs. This underscores Canada's commitment to integrating OECMs into legislative frameworks and advancing marine conservation efforts.

Conclusion

Andrea Mast's presentation underscored Canada's proactive approach to marine conservation through OECM recognition. By incorporating scientific expertise, Indigenous perspectives, and adaptive management practices, Canada aims to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation out­comes. The case studies illustrate successful collaboration and highlight the importance of partner and stakeholder engagement in marine conservation initiatives.
Biodiversity Conservation Benefits (BCBs)
A BCB is the net positive change in biodiversity or prevention of its loss, resulting from the governance decisions and management actions within an area (Government of Canada, 2022 Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures).

Norway

Eva Degré, Norwegian Environment Agency
Eva Degré from the Norwegian Environment Agency provided insights into Norway's approach to identifying and recognizing OECMs. She began by acknowledging that while discussions about OECMs in Norway had been somewhat dormant, they had gained momentum in recent years. Degré mentioned that Norway’s national biodiversity action plan and Norway’s integrated plan for the conservation of areas of special importance for marine biodiversity had highlighted the need to use legislation beyond the Nature Diversity Act to protect biodiversity effectively. She expressed hope that a further upcoming white paper on biodiversity would provide more clarity and conclusions regarding Norway's work on OECMs.
Degré outlined some of the recent tasks undertaken in Norway related to OECMs, mentioning collaboration between the Environment Agency, the Fisheries Directorate, and the Institute for Marine Research. These tasks involved examining relevant regulations, particularly in the fisheries sector, to assess their potential conservation effects. Degré explained that while Norway has not yet decided upon procedures for defining areas that can be reported as OECMs, discussions were ongoing, and the workshop provided an opportunity for further exploration.
One key aspect of the discussion was defining areas eligible for reporting as OECMs. Degré emphasized the need to consider how potential OECMs would contribute to ecological objectives and representativeness. She highlighted that Norway was exploring various frames of activity that could be relevant to OECMs.
Degré provided examples of regulations, such as those protecting coral areas and vulnerable ecosystems from impacts from fisheries, which could contribute to OECMs. She discussed the complexity of overlapping regulations and activities, including oil and gas exploration and mineral extraction, in these areas. Despite the challenges, she underscored the importance of ensuring that regulations in sum effectively protected biodiversity from human activities.
The following discussion also touched on the need for long-term considerations in regulation and monitoring. Degré emphasized that sectorial regulations should be efficient and that they must not be undermined by lack of regulations of other relevant sectors or potentially harmful activities. There were questions about the duration of regulations and the level of monitoring required, especially in remote areas where human activity was limited.
In response to questions, Degré clarified that discussions with industry typically occurred when regulations were established, with assessments of biodiversity benefits being a scientific and managerial issue. Degré emphasized the importance of monitoring in remote areas as a major challenge for OECM and OECM effectiveness—and hence their (continued) recognition—in the Arctic, because of many data poor areas, suggesting that monitoring needs to be sufficient to detect natural fluctuations in biodiversity.
Overall, Degré's presentation provided insights into Norway's evolving approach to OECMs, highlighting ongoing discussions, challenges, and considerations in implementing effective conservation measures.
Recognition of OECMs in Norway’s integrated plan for the conservation of areas of special importance for marine biodiversity
“...not only protected areas under the Nature Diversity Act, but also conservation measures under other legislation, may be identified as ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ as mentioned in Aichi target 11. To be designated as OECMs, measures must provide a sustained and effective contribution to the conservation of geo­graphically delineated areas that support valuable biodiversity.” (Meld. St. 29, 2020-2021: Norway’s integrated plan for the conservation of areas of special importance for marine biodiversity.)

Kingdom of Denmark

Palle Smedegaard Nielsen from the Ministry for Agriculture, Self-Sufficiency, Energy, and Environment, Government of Greenland
Palle Smedegaard Nielsen provided insight into the process of identifying potential OECMs in Greenland.

Political Background and Biodiversity Strategy

Nielsen began with an overview of the political background, high­lighting the connections between targets under CBD in the Global Biodiversity Framework and Greenland’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Legal Frameworks and Governance

Examples on jurisdictional frameworks that can provide regulation which could provide biodiversity benefits and lead to recognition as OECM. These legal frameworks include fisheries and mineral resource sectors. In the fisheries sector, executive orders define specific limitations on fishing gear and temporal restrictions, while in the mineral resource sector, completely separate legal frameworks covering land administration are established. Governance and jurisdictional competencies for enforcing regulations were emphasized as essential aspects of OECMs.

Screening Process and Criteria

The presentation outlined the screening process for identifying potential OECMs, which involved evaluating areas already under management and not categorized as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Criteria such as defined governance, geographic definition, and sustained contribution to biodiversity conservation are considered during the screening process.

Examples of Potential OECMS

Specific examples from the fisheries and mineral resource sectors were presented, highlighting areas such as areas restricting bottom-touching fishing gear south of Disko Bay and Melville Bay Conservation Area. These examples demonstrate how existing regulations and frameworks can contribute to the identification of potential OECMs. The need for further exploration and potential adjustments to existing areas to align with OECMs criteria was acknowledged.

Next Steps and Future Directions

The presentation concluded with a discussion of the next steps in Greenland, including an upcoming draft report and internal processes. The importance of incorporating learnings from workshops and projects, as well as political direction, was emphasized. The presentation highlighted ongoing efforts to assess and protect biodiversity values in Greenland.

Discussion and Questions

During the presentation, questions were raised regarding regulations on bottom trawling for shrimp, the applicability of guidelines to establish mines, and the disparity in identified OECMs between the east and west coasts of Greenland. Responses clarified the scope of regulations and governance measures and highlighted the influence of factors such as population density and associated activities regulated and the exclusion of certain areas from assessment.

United States of America

Elizabeth McLanahan, NOAA
Elizabeth McLanahan opened her presentation by acknowledging that she is representing the work of NOAA's marine protected area center. She addressed the fact that the United States is not a party to the CBD but emphasized the country's commitment to environmental conservation. This commitment was underscored by President Biden's executive order on tackling the climate crisis, which included domestic targets related to conserving 30% of lands and waters, aligning with the global 30 by 30 initiative.

Emphasis on Connectivity

McLanahan emphasized the importance of connectivity in conservation efforts, particularly regarding MPAs and OECMs, illustrating this concept by referencing whale migration patterns, showcasing how marine animals can move between different areas for breeding and feeding. Additionally, she mentions memorandums of understanding with other countries, such as the Dominican Republic, to address shared conservation goals and activities.

Status of Marine Protected Areas

The presentation discussed the status of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the United States. McLanahan provides statistics indicating that 26% of U.S. waters are designated as MPAs, with 3% being fully no-take zones. She presented a distribution map showing the geographic concentration of these areas, particularly around the Pacific Islands due to the presence of a Marine National Monument around Hawaii. This underscored the importance of preserving biodiversity-rich areas and highlights the United States' efforts in this regard.

Challenges and Progress on OECMs

McLanahan acknowledged that the U.S. has not yet identified any OECMs but emphasized ongoing efforts to develop NOAA's Area-based Management Characteri­zation Tool. The tool asks a guided set of questions designed to assess an area’s conservation potential and identify oppor­tunities for enhanced outcomes. The tool seeks to holistically characterize an area’s con­servation potential by docu­menting not only how a manage­ment authority works to manage the area, but how the area is managed through range of jurisdictional authorities in place. McLanahan also discussed the importance of evaluating thresholds for conservation criteria, highlighting the need for consistency in data collection and interpretation across different geographic areas.

Data Gaps and Challenges

McLanahan identified significant data gaps, particularly related to monitoring ecosystem services, which poses challenges in assessing long-term biodiversity considerations. Additionally, she noted that characterization data are not spatially consistent. Large sites present challenges in characterization due to variations across their geographic extent, leading to questions about how to assess their conservation value effectively.

Future Directions and Collaboration

In conclusion, McLanahan expressed excitement about learning from countries that have made progress in applying OECMs, especially concerning large geographic spaces with multiple uses. She emphasized the importance of collaboration and knowledge-sharing to address common challenges and improve conservation efforts globally.
In summary, Elizabeth McLanahan's presentation provided valuable insights into U.S. conservation efforts, emphasizing the importance of connectivity, collaboration, and ongoing research to address challenges and advance marine conservation initiatives.

Iceland

Snorri Sigurðsson, Icelandic Institute of Natural History
Snorri Sigurðsson from the Icelandic Institute of Natural History provided an overview of the current status of OECMs in Iceland. While Iceland has not yet established any OECMs, recent policy and legislative develop­ments have indirectly acknow­ledged the concept. However, there has been limited progress in implementation, with most marine conservation efforts focused on fishery regulations rather than dedicated conservation measures.

Current Marine Conservation Efforts

Iceland's marine conservation efforts are relatively nascent, with only about 2% of its marine area under legal protection for specific conservation goals. Most con­servation measures are driven by fishery regulations rather than dedicated MPAs. These regulations often stem from the need to manage harvested species, leaving gaps in general ecosystem mapping and conservation coverage.

Challenges and Opportunities

One of the main challenges facing marine conservation in Iceland is the fragmented knowledge of biodiversity in marine environ­ments. While there are efforts to improve biodiversity mapping, there is still a long way to go. Additionally, there is a need to align different government policies dealing with conservation issues and improve stakeholder consultation.

Recent Developments

Despite these challenges, there have been recent positive steps towards marine conservation in Iceland. The national biodiversity policy is under review to align with global biodiversity frameworks. In 2023 a working group has been established to analyze the legal and policy framework regarding marine conservation areas, with a particular focus on OECMs and to suggest necessary actions. While the group has not yet delivered its final report, there is political support for exploring the use of OECMs in marine conservation.

Identifying Potential OECMs

An important product of the working group is a description of a formal process for identification and establishment of OECMs through area-based fishing regulations. This involves evaluating current commercial fishery regulations and evaluating the potential as OECMs. The process requires a rigorous evaluation of regulations utilizing a system created from FAO, CBD and IUCN guidelines. One example is the regulation on lump fish catch, which includes closures in key biodiversity areas to address bycatch issues. These areas show promise as potential OECMs due to their limited commercial fishing activity and significant biodiversity value. Another point of note is that no formal work on terrestrial OECMs has been initiated by the government to identify terrestrial OECMs or establish a framework to do so. There was a recent MSc study from the University of Iceland that investigated opportunities for terrestrial OECMs, noting the following areas for consideration: water protection zones, cultural heritage sites, municipal spatial planning/​recreation areas, forest reserves and soil conservation areas.

Future Steps

Moving forward, Iceland aims to formalize the process of identifying and establishing OECMs. This includes completing evaluations of current regulations and engaging in stakeholder consultation. While challenges remain, such as temporal closures and deep-sea conservation, Iceland is committed to advancing marine conservation efforts and contributing to international conservation goals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Iceland's journey towards establishing OECMs in its marine environment is still in its early stages. However, recent developments and ongoing efforts indicate a growing commitment to marine conservation. By addressing knowledge gaps, aligning policies, and engaging stakeholders, Iceland aims to play a significant role in global marine conservation efforts.

Finland

Lasse Kurvinen, Metsähallitus; Penina Blanket, Finnish Ministry of the Environment
Lasse Kurvinen from Metsähallitus presented on OECMS in Finland, highlighting the ongoing progress in the country in this regard.

Establishment of OECM Working Group

In 2019, following the CBD decision in 2018, Finland formed an OECM working group (2019–2021) comprising of representatives from various agencies. The primary objectives of this group were to draft national principles for identifying OECMs, propose methodologies for data compilation, reporting, and coverage calculation, and do an initial scoping of potential OECM area types. Stakeholder engage­ment was included through theme groups and events, facilitating discussions on potential area types and biodiversity values.

Theme Group for Marine Areas

Within the OECM working group, a theme group for marine areas was established, focusing on scoping potential area types against OECM criteria. This involved assessing different area types and their biodiversity values, including stakeholder engagement through two events to gather views and insights.

Life IP Biodiversea Project

To further advance the work, Finland included a work package on OECMs into the Life IP Biodiversea project, which included scoping potential area types, assessing previous criteria assess­ments, and conducting site-specific inspections.
Finland's participation in EU projects has enabled further progress, with a focus on technical assessments and integration into national processes. The technical assessment within the Life IP project is nearing completion, with results expected to be published soon. These findings will be integrated into ongoing national processes aimed at formalizing procedures for identifying and reporting OECMs.
Kurvinen provided examples of areas assessed in Finland, including UNESCO World Heritage sites, fishing restriction areas, boating restriction areas, military areas, and landscape protection areas. Each type of area requires detailed evaluation against OECM criteria to determine its suitability.

Case Study: River Mouth Fisheries Restrictions

Kurvinen delved into the specifics of river mouth fisheries restrictions, highlighting their geographically defined zones and the need to assess potential overlaps with formal protected areas. These restrictions aim to protect migratory fish, contribut­ing to biodiversity conservation, although assessing other direct biodiversity benefits remains challenging. The case study on river mouth fisheries restrictions highlights the challenges of assessing direct biodiversity benefits and establishing monitoring mechanisms.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Governance

A critical challenge lies in establishing monitoring, reporting, and governance mechanisms for recognized OECMs. Questions around who conducts monitoring, who bears the costs, and how reporting obligations are managed require further consideration and development.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Kurvinen acknowledged the complexity of establishing OECMs and emphasized the need for clarity in terminology and processes. Despite challenges, Finland has made significant strides in identifying and assessing potential OECMs, with ongoing efforts focused on refining methodologies, engaging stakeholders and formalizing identification and reporting procedures. Despite challenges, the country remains committed to advancing marine conservation through effective OECM establishment and management, complementing formal protected areas.

Overview of Indigenous sustainable management practices, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) and other approaches to Indigenous engagement in area-based conservation

Herb Nakimayak, Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada Vice President, International

Herb Nakimayak, Vice President of ICC Canada, presented on the importance of recognizing Indigenous sustainable manage­ment practices, parti­cular­ly focusing on Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) and other approaches to Indigenous engagement in area-based conservation. Nakimayak highlighted his background representing the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Western Canada and emphasized the significance of including and fully recognizing Indigenous Knowledge into conservation efforts.
He mentioned his involvement in various organizations, including the the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) and the Ǎrramǎt project, which aims to collaborate with Indigenous groups globally. Nakimayk stressed the importance of respectful collaboration between Indigenous Peoples and government entities in conservation projects.
Nakimayak discussed several initiatives in the Inuivaliut Settlement Region, such as the FJMC Arctic Char program, which collects data on harvest and environmental indicators, including mercury and microplastics. He emphasized the role of Indigenous Knowledge holders and scientists in gathering data and developing management plans, ensuring consistency across organizations.
Additionally, Nakimayak discussed the Beaufort Sea Commercial Integrated Fisheries Management Frameworks, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region beluga harvest monitoring program (in place since 1973), the Eastern Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan, and the establishment of the Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area to protect important beluga habitat and harvesting areas. He highlighted the need for collaboration between scientists and Indigenous Knowledge holders to address conservation challenges effectively.
Nakimayak also discussed the significance of Indigenous Knowledge in scientific research, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and mutual respect. He mentioned the ongoing work on the ringed seal management plan, utilizing data to address concerns about ringed seal populations.
He also emphasized the strengths of Indigenous Knowledge and observations, which ensured continued data collection during COVID-19. The FJMC has over 30 years of data on Arctic char and ringed seal and 50 years of data on beluga. He recognized the importance of involving Indigenous youth in these activities.
In conclusion, Nakimayak expressed gratitude for sharing his insights and emphasized the importance of ongoing collaboration and dialogue in conservation efforts. He welcomed questions and further discussions on Indigenous-led conservation initiatives.

Rowenna Gryba, Inuit Circumpolar Council

Rowenna Gryba, representing Inuit Circumpolar Council, shared insights from her collaborative research efforts with Indigenous communities in Alaska, specifically in Utqiaġvik, Kotzebue, and Tikiġaq. Her presentation focussed on the use of Indigenous Knowledge in area-based conservation initiatives. Gryba's work aims to bridge the gap between Indigenous Knowledge and area-based conservation practices.

Acknowledgments and Importance of Indigenous Knowledge

Gryba began by acknowledging her co-authors, emphasizing the essential role played by Indigenous hunters in the project. She underscored the significance of Indigenous Knowledge holders, recognizing that their wisdom and expertise are foundational to the success of conservation efforts. Gryba highlighted that Indigenous Knowledge encompasses not only ecological aspects but also spiritual, cultural, and relational dimensions, which are often overlooked and not included in scientific research.

Background and Project Initiation

The motivation for Gryba's project stemmed from concerns around the listings of seals under the US Environmental Protection Agency and how to better include Indigenous Knowledge in current federal management processes. Gryba emphasized the need for greater inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge and perspectives in conservation management, highlighting the disconnect between Western scientific approaches and Indigenous understandings of ecosystems.

Indigenous Knowledge Interviews

Gryba described conducting semi-directed interviews with Indigenous hunters, focusing on their knowledge of ice-associated seals. These interviews fostered organic conversations, allowing Gryba to explore key ecological factors that were emphasized by the hunters, such as currents and winds that influence seal habitats. Gryba emphasized the importance of actively listening to and learning from Indigenous Knowledge holders, who offer invaluable insights into their relationship with the environment.

Mapping Indigenous Knowledge

Through collaboration with hunters, Gryba translated Indigenous Knowledge into spatial maps depicting important seal habitats and currents, and graphical summaries of the Indigenous Knowledge shared. The maps and graphs serve as visual representations and summaries of Indigenous Knowledge, providing an approach to visualize the intricate relationships between seals and their environment. Gryba highlighted the iterative nature of this process, with hunters actively participating in refining and correcting her interpretations, ensuring the accuracy of the maps and summaries.

Quantitative Analysis of Indigenous Knowledge

Gryba introduced a method to quantify Indigenous Knowledge, allowing for statistical characterization and use into habitat models. This approach enabled her to use Indigenous Knowledge as a sole data source in habitat models, with results showing important areas for species that includes dynamic habitat types, enriching conservation practices with diverse perspectives.

Combining Indigenous Knowledge with Satellite Data

Gryba illustrated methods developed to include Indigenous Knowledge and satellite telemetry data using Bayesian statistics. This approach allowed Gryba to use Indigenous Knowledge as informed priors and as covariates in the models, enhancing the accuracy of habitat predictions. Gryba emphasized the com­plementary nature of Indigenous Knowledge and scientific data, advocating for their combined use in conservation modeling to produce more robust, accurate, and nuanced outcomes.

Results and Implications

The combined knowledge and subsequent maps generated by Gryba demonstrated the enhanced accuracy of seal habitat predictions when Indigenous Knowledge was included with scientific data in modelling approaches. Gryba underscored the broader implications of her work, highlighting the potential of Indigenous Knowledge to fill critical data gaps and improve conservation practices. She emphasized the need for ongoing collaboration between Indigenous communities and scientific researchers to harness the full potential of co-production of knowledge in conservation efforts.

Conclusion

Gryba concluded her presentation by expressing gratitude to the Indigenous hunters for their invaluable contributions to the project. She reiterated the importance of recognizing and respecting Indigenous Knowledge as a vital resource for under­standing and managing eco­systems. Gryba called for a paradigm shift in conservation practices, advocating for greater inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to ensure more holistic and effective conservation outcomes.
The question and answer period following Gryba's presentation delved into various technical aspects and implications of her research. One attendee questioned an assumption in the research that the scale at which the people observed the animal (by coastlines or boats) accurately reflected the extent of seal habitat. Gryba responded by discussing the influence of hunters on animal behavior and the constant observations made by Indigenous communities throughout different seasons, highlighting the importance of understanding these dynamics. Another attendee expressed concerns about the rapid pace of climate change affecting the integration of Indigenous Knowledge into scientific studies. Gryba emphasized the importance of actively engaging with Indigenous Knowledge holders, including both active hunters and elders, to capture real-time observations and address shifting habitat use due to climate change.
Further discussions revolved around the significance of co-production studies, integrating Indigenous Knowledge into habitat modeling and critical habitat designation processes, and the role of Indigenous Knowledge in monitoring and assessment efforts. Attendees highlighted the value of including Indigenous perspectives in monitoring plans and emphasized the need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration between Indigenous communities, scientists, and policymakers. Overall, the discussion underscored the importance of incorporating Indigenous Knowledge in research and decision-making processes to enhance understanding and management of Arctic ecosystems in the face of climate change.
Nordic Council of Ministers I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org