By Mere Takoko

Gisborne, New Zealand – May 26, 2025

 

As nations across the globe intensify their efforts to achieve ambitious worldwide biodiversity targets, including the "30x30" initiative, a powerful but controversial conservation tool is gaining significant traction: Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs). Whilst designed to recognise and support vital conservation efforts occurring outside traditional state-designated protected areas, OECMs present a critical juncture. They hold immense potential to revolutionise the world's understanding and valuation of Indigenous stewardship, or conversely, to inadvertently perpetuate historical colonial patterns under new branding.

​

Originally conceptualised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), OECMs aim to formally acknowledge conservation outcomes from diverse sources, including culturally significant sacred sites, traditional customary fishing closures, and Indigenous-managed forests. Ideally, these measures could serve as a crucial mechanism to affirm and directly fund Indigenous-led biodiversity protection, crucially without necessitating land handovers or unwanted state intervention.

Indigenous Peoples, though comprising just 5% of the global population, are recognised as stewards of an extraordinary 37% of Earth’s remaining biodiversity and over 40% of its intact ecosystems. Formal recognition through OECMs could provide powerful leverage to strengthen their existing land claims, safeguard ancestral territories from destructive external development, and offer direct, much-needed support for robust community-led governance structures.

​

However, a significant and alarming "catch" threatens this promise.

​

There is a growing trend where numerous governments and non-governmental organisations are unilaterally labelling Indigenous territories as OECMs without first securing Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). This practice constitutes a clear and direct violation of established international human rights standards. Furthermore, communities are frequently burdened with increased bureaucratic demands to qualify for OECM designation, including the submission of complex plans, detailed biodiversity data, and comprehensive reports—all often required in technical language and frameworks that are inherently incompatible with Indigenous knowledge systems and governance. Crucially, mere designation as an OECM currently does not automatically confer legal recognition of Indigenous land and marine rights or provide binding protection from external interference or development pressures.

​

"Without clear and robust safeguards, OECMs risk becoming just another expedient way for states to superficially meet international conservation targets, whilst effectively side-lining the very people who have served as the most effective protectors of biodiversity for generations," stated Dr. Mere Takoko, CEO of the Pacific Whale Fund.

​

The Pacific Whale Fund champions a genuinely Indigenous-led solution, distinct from BINGO-led approaches: the Moananui Sanctuary. This initiative advances ocean conservation through innovative legal, financial, and cultural approaches, fundamentally championing the recognition of whales as legal persons and establishing marine sanctuaries rooted in ancestral knowledge, ensuring clear FPIC and UNDRIP provisions are met for achieving Indigenous land and marine tenure. Critically, the Moananui Sanctuary will provide dedicated funding for Indigenous-led initiatives, directly supporting communities to enact their own traditional customs and practices for conservation without external state or BINGO (Big International NGO) intervention. This offers a distinct and empowering model compared to the top-down approaches often seen with OECMs.

​

The Path Forward: Decolonising Conservation

Indigenous leaders and their allies worldwide are issuing a resolute call for the complete decolonisation of conservation practices. They are demanding the implementation of Indigenous-designed criteria for genuine conservation efforts, legally binding consent processes that truly respect self-determination, clear legal recognition of customary tenure, and sustainable funding models that flow directly to communities, bypassing often inefficient or culturally inappropriate intermediaries.

As momentum for the global 30x30 target continues to accelerate, the implementation and governance of OECMs will undeniably emerge as a key battleground for the future of conservation. The international community faces a stark choice: will these powerful tools be genuinely utilised to support and empower Indigenous sovereignty and their invaluable stewardship, or will they devolve into yet another bureaucratic checkbox on a fundamentally colonial conservation agenda?