Guidance for recognizing marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures 2022

On this page

• Acronyms
• Executive summary
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Purpose
  • 2.1 Context for practitioners
• 3 Key concepts
  • 3.1 Key Concept #1: Biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs)
  • 3.2 Key Concept #2: Effectively avoiding or mitigating risks to BCBs
  • 3.3 Key Concept #3: Lead relevant governing authority (RGA)
  • 3.4 Key Concept #4: OECM governance and management system
    • Figure 1: OECM governance and management system
    • Box 1: Comparing MPAs and OECMs
• 4 Scope
  • 4.1 Where must this Guidance be applied?
  • 4.2 Who else may use this Guidance?
  • 4.3 What types of OECMs are possible?
    • Box 2: Jurisdiction in Canada's maritime zones
  • 4.4 How do OECMs support Indigenous governments and communities?
    • 4.4.1 OECMs support Indigenous goals for marine conservation
      • Box 3: OECMs and the protection of culturally important areas and resources
    • 4.4.2 Indigenous governments as RGAs under this Guidance
    • 4.4.3 Participation by Indigenous communities in OECM recognition and management
    • 4.4.4 The importance of Indigenous knowledge in OECM decision making
• 5 OECM framework
  • 5.1 Guiding principles
    • OECM guiding principles
  • 5.2 Criteria
    • OECM criteria
• 6 Recognizing OECMS
  • 6.1 Guidance on recognizing OECMs against criteria
    • 6.1.1 Criterion A: OECM status
    • 6.1.2 Criterion B: OECM boundaries and information
      • Box 4: All about BCBs
      • Box 5: Ecosystem functions and services
    • 6.1.3 Criterion C: OECM governance
    • 6.1.4 Criterion D: OECM management
    • 6.1.5 Criterion E: OECM governance and management provide BCBs and address risks
• 7 Reporting OECMS
  • Box 6: Removal of OECM status
  • 7.1 Terrestrial or freshwater OECMs that support marine conservation
    • Box 7: Pathway to Target 1
• Glossary
• Annex 1: Alignment of 2022 Marine OECM Guidance with 2016 CSAS science advice
• Annex 2: Preliminary screening tool to identify a marine area for further consideration by an RGA
• Annex 3: The 2018 CBD definition applied in a Canadian marine context
• Annex 4: Disko Fan marine refuge case study
• References

Acronyms

BCB

Biodiversity Conservation Benefit(s)

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CPCAD

Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database

CSAS

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat

DFO

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

ECCC

Environment and Climate Change Canada

IUCN

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

MCT

Marine Conservation Target(s)

MPA

Marine Protected Area

OECM

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure

PCA

Parks Canada Agency

RGA

Relevant governing authority

Executive summary

The Government of Canada Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (Guidance) follows adoption of international voluntary guidance, including a formal OECM definition, by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2018. The CBD’s definition contains six interrelated concepts that are meant to apply to both terrestrial/freshwater and marine other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs):

A (1) geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is (2) governed and managed in ways that (3) achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the (4) in situ conservation of biodiversity with associated (5) ecosystem functions and services and (6) where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.

This Guidance interprets these CBD concepts in the Canadian context in order to provide a science-based, domestic operational policy framework with supporting guiding principles and assessment criteria for recognizing marine OECMs.

The Introduction and Purpose chapters lay out the background for marine OECMs in Canada together with a detailed rationale for this Guidance. The chapter on Key Concepts defines 4 important elements that are critical to understanding how OECMs are to be assessed. The Scope chapter establishes where this Guidance must be used, what types of marine OECMs are possible, and how Indigenous governments and communities may be involved in these conserved areas.

Chapter 5 sets out the 10 guiding principles and 5 criteria that comprise the Marine OECM Framework, while Chapter 6 provides specific guidance on the application of the criteria. The criteria are interrelated and work together to ensure that OECMs address risks posed by all existing and foreseeable activities in ways that provide a net positive change in biodiversity or prevent its loss. Chapter 7 provides information on how OECMs that meet the criteria can be reported and counted toward meeting Canada’s marine conservation targets.

While respecting jurisdictional authorities, recognized OECMs may have a wide range of primary objectives. The CBD’s outcome focus on provision of biodiversity conservation benefits makes OECMs different from marine protected areas (MPAs), but both are designed to be effective marine conservation instruments. If Canada’s oceans are to have a secure and sustainable future, both MPAs and  OECMs are necessary.

1 Introduction

OECMs are critically important sites in marine conservation. They support biodiversity values and ecosystem functions and services. They protect important species, habitats, and ecosystems. They promote cultural, community, and other important values. OECMs may be used to protect areas important for carbon sequestration and provide other adaptation and mitigation benefits as part of a nature-based solution to climate-change impacts.

OECMs add to the marine conservation toolkit and are complementary to MPAs. OECMs and MPAs work together to conserve and protect important areas in Canada’s oceans, both in themselves and as part of conservation networks where OECMs support ecological connectivity. Both are governed and managed in ways that contribute to the in situ^{Footnote 1} conservation of biodiversity by providing long-term biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs). Where MPAs have a primary conservation objective, OECMs provide BCBs, regardless of the primary objective for which the area-based measure was initially established.

Recognition of OECMs as a category of marine conservation tools occurred in 2010, at the 10^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Aichi, Japan. As a signatory to the CBD, Canada agreed to meet 20 global biodiversity targets by 2020, as articulated in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020. Aichi Target 11 states:

By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance to biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape.

Aichi Target 11 included OECMs as a way for Parties to achieve 10% marine and coastal protection but did not provide a definition or guidance on how Parties could recognize OECMs. At that time (in 2010), the CBD also did not indicate how OECMs differed from MPAs.

In 2016, to advance Canada’s progress toward meeting the 10% marine conservation target by 2020, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) provided science advice^{Footnote 2} on a suite of characteristics that could be used to determine which marine area-based measures would be likely to provide BCBs, thereby allowing them to be recognized as OECMs. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) followed the CSAS science advice in developing its 2016 Operational Guidance for Identifying OECMs in Canada’s Marine Environment. This interim Guidance was used to identify OECMs from an inventory of more than 1,000 fisheries-area closures. Approximately 30 of these existing closures were recognized as marine refuges by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard due to their OECM status under the interim Guidance.

In 2018, CBD Parties adopted Decision 14/8 Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. This decision contained an OECM definition and voluntary guidance on how to recognize OECMs, both agreed to by the Parties to the CBD. The CBD’s definition^{Footnote 3} contains six interrelated concepts that are meant to apply to both terrestrial/freshwater and marine other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs):

A (1) geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is (2) governed and managed in ways that (3) achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the (4) in situ conservation of biodiversity with associated (5) ecosystem functions and services and (6) where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.

Having already developed interim guidance on OECMs, the Government of Canada was uniquely positioned to assist in developing this CBD definition and voluntary guidance.

By 2019, additional new fisheries-area closures had been established, met the requirements under the interim Guidance, and were recognized as marine refuges. By the end of the Aichi Targets decade (December 2020), the total marine territory protected by DFO’s marine refuges was nearly 5% of the 13.9% national marine conservation achievement.

2 Purpose

A marine OECM is a policy-based status granted to an area-based measure established in law by an appropriate jurisdiction in the Pacific, Arctic, or Atlantic^{Footnote 4} ocean, that meets the science-based criteria and applies the principles outlined in this Guidance. The purpose of this Guidance is to provide a science-based, domestic operational policy framework, including supporting guiding principles and assessment criteria, for recognizing marine OECMs.

This Guidance updates and replaces the 2016 interim Guidance, Operational Guidance for Identifying OECMs in Canada’s Marine Environment. In doing so, it:

1. translates the international 2018 OECM definition and voluntary guidance^{Footnote 5}, developed through the CBD and accepted by Canada, into an accessible and clear document for use by OECM practitioners in their collaboration and engagement with partners and stakeholders
2. reflects the Canadian context, including:
   • current policies and practices^{Footnote 6} in marine conservation, such as the Government of Canada’s 2019 protection standard^{Footnote 7} for marine OECMs, and
   • the future possibility of new types of marine OECMs
3. sets out a consistent approach to recognizing federal marine OECMs that continues alignment with the 2016 CSAS science advice on marine OECMs, as described in Annex 1.

2.1 Context for practitioners

3 Key concepts

This chapter provides information on the OECM definition and its inherent concepts that will enable the reader to understand the guiding principles and how to use the criteria when assessing candidate OECMs for recognition.

Below are the 4 key concepts derived from the CBD definition that are foundational to this Guidance: BCBs, effectively avoiding or mitigating risks to BCBs, relevant governing authorities (RGAs), and the OECM governance and management system.

3.1 Key Concept #1: Biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs)

BCBs are the defining concept in this Guidance and are the means by which OECMs contribute to the in situ conservation of biodiversity.

This concept reflects the focus of the CBD Guidance on biodiversity outcomes, and is also aligned with the 2016 CSAS document, Guidance on Identifying “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” in Canadian Coastal and Marine Waters.

For OECMs that are designed for non-biodiversity reasons (e.g. protection of a cultural site such as a shipwreck), BCBs may indirectly result from governance decisions and management actions.

Criterion B2 (section 5.2) sets minimum requirements for the number and type of BCBs that must be present in an OECM. Criteria B3 and E2 (chapter 6) provide further instructions.

3.2 Key Concept #2: Effectively avoiding or mitigating risks to BCBs

On April 25, 2019, in response to recommendations from the National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards, the Government of Canada announced a new protection standard for federal OECMs, including marine refuges. This standard requires that:

Criterion E1, described in section 6.1.5, provides the basis for implementing this standard in the Guidance.

3.3 Key Concept #3: Lead relevant governing authority (RGA)

In meeting the criteria, the lead RGA must, among other responsibilities:

• lead the screening of candidate OECMs,
• coordinate ongoing governance and management of the OECM with other RGAs operating in the area, according to the risks posed by existing or foreseeable activities governed by those authorities,
• ensure that BCBs are existing or anticipated following achievement of OECM status,
• intend that the OECM remain in place for the long term (i.e. with no end date),
• involve rights holders and stakeholders to ensure an inclusive and transparent process,
• ensure the OECM meets all the criteria contained in this Guidance, and
• report the OECM through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD).^{Footnote 9}

Further guidance for the lead RGA is provided under each criterion.

Section 4.4 provides information on how Indigenous governments may be RGAs.

3.4 Key Concept #4: OECM governance and management system

An OECM typically achieves its status through the combined use of laws and non-legal tools. In cases where there is more than one RGA present in an area, an effective and adaptive governance and management system is needed to coordinate efforts to ensure that the risks posed to BCBs are avoided or mitigated effectively. This result is achieved by the totality of both governance decisions and management actions.

Text version: OECM governance and management system

Figure 1 has 5 boxes with 4 associated bubbles.

The first box (top left) describes the objective of an OECM’s governance and management system: to provide biodiversity conservation benefits for, at a minimum:

1. a benefit for an important species AND
2. a benefit for an important habitat AND
3. an additional benefit

This figure shows how this goal is achieved through the OECM’s governance and management system.

There are 4 horizontal boxes:

1. The first describes a marine OECM as having many species, habitats, and ecosystems.
2. The second horizontal box acknowledges the likelihood that there will be a range of overlapping activities that may be governed by one or more relevant governing authorities.
   • The associated bubble above lists governance rules and decisions, including:
     • statutes
     • regulations
     • licences
     • permits
     • formal agreements
   • The associated bubble below defines the concept of relevant governing authorities. They are those with the jurisdiction and legal instrument(s) needed to prohibit, limit or allow activity(ies), as well as to manage and enforce governance decisions made about and in an OECM.
3. The third horizontal box adds management actions that may be conducted by these governing authorities and others.
   • The associated bubble above lists the management actions, including:
     • programs
     • policies
     • processes
     • traditional and cultural practices
     • voluntary best practices
4. The last horizontal box brings governance decisions and management actions together as the OECM Governance and Management System that works together to effectively avoid or mitigate risks posed by overlapping activities.
   • The associated bubble below notes that the 2019 OECM Protection Standard provides a risk-based approach to overlapping activities and the effective avoidance or mitigation of their risks to the OECM.

Once an area is recognized as an OECM, the lead RGA continues its lead coordination role with other RGAs as they continue to use their own laws and other tools. The nature of risks to the BCBs, examined on a case-by-case basis, will determine the design of this coordination (i.e. the management and governance system) among RGAs, ensuring that their measure(s) continue to provide the OECM’s BCBs over the long term.

There may be cases where only one RGA is present in an area (i.e. the lead RGA). In such cases, adaptive governance and management would be conducted by that RGA to ensure that the risks posed to BCBs are avoided or mitigated effectively.

4 Scope

This chapter sets the parameters for the Guidance.

4.1 Where must this Guidance be applied?

This Guidance must be applied to all OECMs recognized currently or to be recognized in the marine environment by any federal department or agency.

In order to be recognized as an OECM, the candidate area must (within the proposed boundaries):

• meet the definition as presented through the Key Concepts in chapter 3
• align with the 10 guiding principles presented in section 5.1 and
• meet all criteria presented in section 5.2 and chapter 6

4.2 Who else may use this Guidance?

This Guidance may be applied by other RGAs within their jurisdictions and using their legal instruments to pursue OECM recognition.

Additionally, anyone can use the preliminary screening tool in Annex 2 to propose a marine area to the lead RGA for its consideration and possible full screening against all criteria in this Guidance.

4.3 What types of OECMs are possible?

OECMs could potentially include a variety of area types established in the marine environment. Examples of areas that could be recognized as an OECM may include, but are not limited to:

• protected historic sites, such as shipwrecks, that conserve the surrounding marine environment
• application of a Species at Risk Act (SARA) critical habitat prohibition by ministerial order
• fisheries-area closures
• marine mammal management areas
• Indigenous-led protection or conservation of marine areas and
• sacred natural sites or important ecological components with high biodiversity value that may be put in place with a long-term area-based measure

Box 2: Jurisdiction in Canada’s maritime zones^{Footnote 10}

Federal government

• The federal government has jurisdiction over the water column from the baseline^{Footnote 11} (e.g. generally the low-water mark) to the 200-mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and has jurisdiction over the seabed from the baseline to the edge of the continental shelf.
• On the seaward side of this baseline, the RGA would be a department or agency within the federal government.
• The federal government has jurisdiction over certain activities regardless of where they take place. Shipping, navigation, and aquatic environmental protection are examples of such activities. Federal and provincial governments may also agree to manage activities jointly.

Provincial and territorial governments

• Marine areas generally considered to be within provincial or territorial jurisdiction are the following although some exceptions may occur (e.g. in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence):
  • areas of the foreshore (i.e. the intertidal zone between the low-water mark and the high-water mark) and
  • marine waters, such as bays, so closely associated with the land that they are considered to be almost landlocked

The federal and provincial governments jointly manage resources under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Boards.

Text version: Canada's oceans estate - A description of Canada's maritime zones

Canada’s oceans estate
A description of Canada’s maritime zones

Introduction:

The intention of this paper is to provide a general description of maritime zones. It is not the object of the paper to enter into complicated scientific, technical or legal descriptions, which are often needed to fully understand some horizontal and vertical measurement characteristics and the responsibility of:

• Foreign Affairs and the International Trade Canada (DFAIT)
• Geological Survey of Canada (NRCan)
• Canadian Hydrographic Service (DFO) and
• Justice Canada on occasion

The surface area of Canada’s oceans estate is approximately 7.1 million square kilometres.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a description of maritime zones. Canada contributed significantly to the negotiation of UNCLOS and Ratified the Convention in 2003. Termed the “Constitution of the Oceans”, UNCLOS sets out the framework for areas in which states have jurisdiction and sovereign rights, which diminish as one moves away from its coast.

The main elements of this system are:

The baselines:

Measurements of areas of the sea are made from baselines. The normal baseline is the low-water line along the coast, islands, rocks and even low-tide elevations as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. Where a coast, such as Canada’s, is very irregular, straight baselines joining appropriate points on the coast may be drawn.

Basically, all marine areas seaward of the baseline are considered ‘offshore’ and all marine areas landward of the baselines are considered ‘internal waters’.

Canada’s straight baselines have been drawn using a list of reference-points permitted under UNCLOS. These are set out in regulations which were made under the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act now subsumed by the Oceans Act. The latitude and longitude of each baseline reference point is described in these regulations, and each position is related to the referenced chart from which it was derived. There are a few places along Canada’s coast where baselines have not been drawn due to international legal considerations. In these places, Canada has drawn ‘fisheries closing lines’ (Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example). The USA and the EU dispute Canada’s straight baselines enclosing the Arctic Archipelago.

Indigenous governments

• Indigenous governments may have rights over hunting, fishing and land usage, as per treaties and self-government agreements.

Local governments

• Local governments (e.g. regional or municipal) plan and regulate land use within their respective jurisdictions which may extend over nearshore areas (e.g. for construction of docks and marinas).

4.4 How do OECMs support Indigenous governments and communities?

4.4.4 The importance of Indigenous knowledge in OECM decision making

Complementary perspectives strengthen OECM recognition, management, and governance. Indigenous knowledge can offer unique insights and perspectives on the OECM’s BCBs and ways to address risks to them.

Although there is no universal definition for Indigenous knowledge, information gathered from Indigenous knowledge-holders should be integrated with science, community and historical knowledge. How Indigenous information is obtained and its composition, use, and storage should be determined by Indigenous peoples themselves. Indigenous knowledge received to support OECM decision making should be conveyed in its original form to protect its integrity.

Users of this Guidance should consult the relevant Indigenous governments and organizations to obtain and follow their guidance on this topic. In addition, there are several guidance documents to follow that are developed or under development by federal departments and agencies that provide a range of mandatory and suggested approaches to including Indigenous knowledge in decision making.

5 OECM framework

5.1 Guiding principles

The 10 guiding principles in this Framework reflect various elements of the CBD voluntary guidance that are more abstract and do not translate into measurable assessment criteria.

These principles promote national consistency in important aspects of the Guidance, such as recognition and respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights, fairness of application, and transparency. The guiding principles interpret the CBD elements in Canada’s marine context. These principles are ambitious, complex and interrelated, and should continue to be applied over time within the unique context of each OECM. Different RGAs may tailor the application of these principles to reflect their particular OECM contexts.

The following shows how the CBD voluntary Guidance is integrated into the 10 Canadian guiding principles and applied to candidate OECMs, as well as to OECM governance and management over the long term.

5.2 Criteria

The criteria in this Guidance, the guiding principles, and the CBD’s OECM definition work together so that OECMs contribute to the in situ conservation of biodiversity to the same degree as MPAs.

The following is a summary of the criteria, all of which are interrelated. Guidance on how to use them is presented in section 6.1.

6 Recognizing OECMS

Once the lead RGA, in collaboration with other RGAs (if they exist), has collected and validated all best-available information, it would be used to evaluate whether the candidate area:

• could be recognized for its OECM status because an area-based measure has already been established that adheres to the criteria under this Guidance through the existing governance decisions and management actions or
• could be established as an area-based measure (and possibly further recognized as an OECM) through changes to the existing governance decisions and management actions and/or the addition of new measure(s), according to its site-specific context

The lead RGA must use the following criteria to assess whether the area can be recognized as an OECM. Assessments must include an explanation of tools and methods designed and/or used together with their results to meet each criteria. The guiding principles outlined in section 5.1 are also applied during the assessment process and associated decision making.

6.1 Guidance on recognizing OECMs against criteria

6.1.1 Criterion A: OECM status

Intent

Criterion A ensures that area-based measures recognized as OECMs are in place for the long term, and that the OECM status does not contravene the CBD’s OECM definition and the CPCAD reporting requirements.

Guidance

To meet Criterion A, the lead RGA must ensure that:

1. The candidate OECM is recognized for the long term. Area-based measures that are year-round with no end date may be recognized as OECMs even if the measures are subject to regular renewal. The long-term nature of the measure must be demonstrated through legal or regulatory means or through a public commitment. While short-term activities (e.g. research or monitoring) may be allowed in an OECM’s governance and management system, seasonal measures themselves (e.g. seasonal fisheries-area closures) would not be considered as candidate OECMs.
2. The area is not already counted as an MPA in the CPCAD.
3. There may be some cases where one RGA has recognized the area as an OECM and another has established an MPA within or overlapping the OECM’s boundaries. In such cases, both instruments may co-exist; the overlap may be described, but the area may only be counted once toward marine conservation targets.
4. If a lead RGA has recognized an OECM that it later evolves into an MPA, the OECM’s status is removed to accommodate the new MPA status and its contribution to meeting marine conservation targets.
5. If a lead RGA evolves an MPA into an OECM, the law establishing the MPA is repealed to accommodate the new OECM status and the OECM’s contribution to meeting marine conservation targets.

6.1.2 Criterion B: OECM boundaries and information

Intent

Criterion B ensures that the area is defined and comprehensive information is collected to support OECM assessment under Criteria C, D, and E.

Guidance

To meet Criterion B, the lead RGA must ensure to:

1. B1. Accurately map boundaries and clearly and comprehensively document them by identifying and describing:
   • latitude and longitude boundaries and
   • the depth to which restrictions extend, where necessary, in cases where there are different activity restrictions by vertical zone
2. B2. Use best-available knowledge to identify and document:
   • at a minimum, existing or anticipated BCBs (whether direct or indirect) for:
     • (1) an important species AND
     • (2) an important habitat AND
     • (3) an additional benefit
   • the BCBs’ location and ecological importance.

   The presence of existing BCBs in the candidate OECM would be verified and demonstrated through existing knowledge, including from monitoring activities.

   Anticipated BCBs in a candidate OECM could be identified and documented using best-available knowledge, and the information used to infer that governance decisions and management actions in the area would provide a net positive change in biodiversity or prevent its loss. Anticipated BCBs may take several years after the OECM has been recognized to be verified and documented through monitoring activities.

   When assessing a candidate OECM against B2, use best-available knowledge and take into account the following to understand the significance and strength of the BCBs:
   • Are there rare, threatened, or endangered species and/or habitats in the proposed area, including those assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) or listed under SARA?
   • Does protecting the habitat provide benefits to numerous species?
   • What role does the protected species play in the ecosystem and food webs?
   • Does protecting the habitat or ecosystem support climate change adaptation or mitigation?
   • Does the area contribute to meeting a conservation network objective, for example, by providing for connectivity between sites?
3. B3. Collect and document the governance decisions and management actions that provide the BCBs.
4. B4. Collect and document, using best-available knowledge, including scientific, Indigenous, local and community knowledge, where available:
   • ecosystem functions, that may be associated with the BCBs and with the OECM more generally, and
   • ecosystem services, such as cultural, spiritual, social, economic, and other values associated with the area

6.1.3 Criterion C: OECM governance

Intent

Criterion C ensures that the OECM is governed by authorities with the jurisdiction and legal instruments to make and enforce decisions that provide BCBs over the long term. In doing so, these authorities recognize and respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and UNDRIP, and involve others.

6.1.4 Criterion D: OECM management

Intent

Criterion D ensures that the RGAs undertake management actions that, in combination with the governance decisions, provide BCBs over the long term.

OECM management is participatory and may support rights holders’ and stakeholders’ conservation priorities and other values.

6.1.5 Criterion E: OECM governance and management provide BCBs and address risks

Intent

Criterion E ensures that the OECM’s governance decisions and management actions provide long-term BCBs (under criterion B) by effectively avoiding or mitigating risks from existing or foreseeable activities in the area. It is through continual provision of BCBs over the long term (i.e. with no end date) that the OECM contributes to in situ biodiversity conservation.

RGAs may make decisions that allow time bound activities, such as monitoring, within the long-term OECM, where these activities do not pose a risk to the provision of BCBs.

Long-term monitoring of the OECM is needed to determine OECM effectiveness in providing BCBs and avoiding or mitigating risks. This monitoring should, where feasible, include changes caused by activities occurring outside of the OECM and impacts caused by climate change. BCBs may take many years to be provided. As a result, decisions and actions may need to adapt over time to respond to new science and information, including data gathered through monitoring as it becomes available.

Ecosystem functions and services, such as cultural, spiritual, social, economic, and other relevant values associated with the area continue to inform governance decisions and management actions over time.

7.1 Terrestrial or freshwater OECMs that support marine conservation

Portions of OECMs that are recognized in terrestrial and/or freshwater areas may extend into the marine environment. These portions support marine conservation outcomes and provide BCBs; however, they do not need to be assessed separately under this Guidance if they meet national OECM guidance developed under the Pathway to Target 1. These areas may be reported as marine OECMs since the Pathway approach also complies with the CBD Guidance.

Glossary

Adaptive management

Adaptive management is an ongoing and iterative process of improving management policies and practices through a cycle of applying new knowledge gained through learning based on monitoring and evaluation, as well as reflecting changes in policies and practices.

Area-Based Measure

Any spatially defined measure implemented to achieve one or more objectives. Not all area-based measures are necessarily MPAs or OECMs, but all MPAs and OECMs are area-based measures.

Biological diversity (Biodiversity)

Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. (CBD 1992)

Biodiversity conservation benefit (BCB)

A biodiversity conservation benefit may also be referred to as a biodiversity outcome under the CBD. 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. One or more BCBs can directly result from implementing measures in an area to protect species, habitats, or other components of the ecosystem. Measures implemented for a different purpose may result in indirect BCBs. BCBs contribute to the in situ conservation of biodiversity. The term BCB and its definition are consistent with the 2016 CSAS science advice and the CBD’s OECM definition.

Candidate OECM

A candidate OECM is an area-based measure established in marine waters by a lead RGA that may be assessed by the lead RGA according to the criteria in this Guidance in order to be recognized as an OECM. Guiding principles in this Guidance also apply to a candidate OECM.

Conserved areas

“Conserved areas” include areas that may satisfy the criteria for “other effective area-based conservation measures.” (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019)

Cultural and spiritual values

These include recreational, religious, aesthetic, historic, and social values related to tangible and intangible benefits that nature and natural features have for people of different cultures and societies. (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019)

Ecosystem

A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. (CBD 1992)

Ecosystem approach

A strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. (CBD 2004; National Framework for Canada’s Network of MPAs, 2011)

Ecosystem functions

An ecosystem function or process is an intrinsic ecosystem characteristic whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity. Ecosystem functions include decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and energy. Ecosystem functions are critical to the proper operation of the ecosystem.

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are processes occurring within an ecosystem that provide benefits to humanity. Ecosystem services can be divided into provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services.

Important habitat

An important habitat is one that has  biodiversity conservation value. Important habitats may:

• be unique and/or rare
• support climate change adaptation and mitigation, including carbon sequestration
• provide refuge for species affected by climate change
• have special importance for the life-cycle of a species
• have importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat
• be vulnerable, fragile, or slow to recover
• have comparatively higher biological productivity or diversity
• be in a highly natural state
• be listed in conservation network objectives

Important species

Species may be considered important for a variety of resource or cultural reasons. Important species include those that are:

• ecologically significant, including keystone species
• depleted or rare
• species of social or cultural importance
• listed in conservation network objectives

In situ conservation of biodiversity

The conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings, and in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive characteristics. (CBD; Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada’s Response to the UN CBD, 1995)

Local

Related to the OECM by proximity, use, or affiliation. In this Guidance, “local” is used in the following ways:

Local communities

communities and/or stakeholders adjacent to (or within) the OECM, or others with an interest in and knowledge of the area.

Local governments

regional or municipal governments adjacent to (or within) the OECM that may be considered as RGAs and may participate in OECM governance and management.

Local knowledge

scientific, Indigenous, or anecdotal information or knowledge specific to the OECM held by communities and stakeholders with an interest in the area.

Locally relevant values

cultural, spiritual, socio-economic elements important and significant to local Indigenous communities, other communities, marine resource users, or others with an interest in the area. These values are often intangible.

Long term

Long term, relative to the establishment of an area-based measure recognized as an OECM as well as OECM governance and management, means that there is obvious intent (e.g. through legal or regulatory means or through a public commitment) to maintain compliance with this Guidance and therefore OECM status year-round, with no end date.

Marine Protected Area (MPA)

A clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019; National Framework for Canada’s Network of MPAs, 2011)

Marine refuge

A marine refuge is one type of OECM. In the Canadian context, it is a fisheries-area closure established under the Fisheries Act that meets the criteria in this Guidance and is recognized as a marine OECM by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Nature-based solutions (for climate change)

Actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits. (UN Environment Assembly of the UN Environment Program, Resolution 5, adopted March 2022)

OECM governance and management system

The OECM governance and management system is the totality of governance rules and decisions (such as statutes, regulations, licences, permits, or formal agreements) and management actions (such as programs, policies, processes, traditional and cultural practices, and voluntary best practices) that co-exist within a given OECM. These decisions and actions prohibit, limit, allow, or manage activity(ies) in order to ensure that risks to the OECM’s BCBs posed by these activities are effectively avoided or mitigated.

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure (OECM)

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 2018 voluntary guidance)

Proponent(s)

Anyone proposing a marine area for consideration as either a candidate OECM (where an area-based measure is already in place) or as an area needing a measure to conserve biodiversity (which could then be considered for OECM recognition) . Proponents could include federal, provincial or territorial governments; Indigenous governments, communities or individuals; local communities; industry associations, coastal landowners, or any interested stakeholder.

Protected area

A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (IUCN 2008)

Rights holder

In this Guidance, “rights holder” generally refers to Indigenous peoples whose rights are laid out in s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and further defined in the Fisheries Act, 2019 (ss. 2.3, 2.4), and in other federal statutes.

Under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, oil and gas licences may confer some rights to licence holders.

Coastal landowners may possess property rights which may need to be considered according to each candidate OECM’s boundary.

Stakeholder

People and organizations who are involved in or affected by an action or policy and can be directly or indirectly included in the decision-making process. Stakeholders may be local [i.e. adjacent to (or within) the OECM] or have an economic, environmental, or social-cultural interest and knowledge of the area without physically residing  there.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

UNDRIP is a comprehensive international human rights instrument on the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world. It affirms and sets out a broad range of collective and individual rights that constitute the minimum standards to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and to contribute to their survival, dignity and well-being.

In Canada, UNDRIP received Royal Assent and came into force on June 21, 2021. This Act provides a roadmap for the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples to work together to implement the Declaration based on lasting reconciliation, healing, and cooperative relations.

Annex 1: Alignment of 2022 Marine OECM Guidance with 2016 CSAS science advice

The 2016 science advice obtained through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) processis one of the key foundational elements for this Guidance. The advice notes that a candidate OECM’s contribution to the net positive change in biodiversity or prevention of its loss is likely stronger when there are more species, habitats and other ecosystem features that directly or indirectly benefit from the area-based measure(s) in place.

The advice states that when assessing a candidate OECM’s contribution to biodiversity conservation, first consideration should be given to whether the area has clearly defined boundaries and will be in place for the long term.

Other considerations include:

• the candidate OECM’s management objective, size, and level of protection
• how risks in adjacent marine areas are managed
• the degree to which important and diverse habitats are protected within the area and
• the degree to which OECMs are “connected” to one another (e.g. protecting a species’ feeding habitat in one area, and protecting that same species’ breeding habitat in a different area)

The following comparison identifies the principal ways that this Guidance incorporates the CSAS advice.

Annex 2: Preliminary screening tool to identify a marine area for further consideration by an RGA

This tool provides a vehicle for proponents to document attributes related to a marine area proposed for further consideration as either a candidate OECM (where an area-based measure is already in place) or as an area needing an area-based measure to be established (which could then be considered for OECM recognition). Proponents are expected to use best-available information and knowledge in answering the five tests. The tool does not fulfill the requirement for the detailed assessment needed to determine whether all criteria in this Guidance are met. Lead RGAs would be responsible for developing a more detailed assessment tool that reflects the criteria, as well as the jurisdiction and law under which the area-based measure was established.

Annex 3: The 2018 CBD definition applied in a Canadian marine context

The following outlines how the 6 elements of the CBD’s OECM definition are applied through this Guidance, reflecting a Canadian marine context.

Annex 4: Disko Fan marine refuge case study

The following case study provides an overview of how the criteria in this Guidance are met by the Disko Fan Conservation Area (DFCA) marine refuge. This OECM occupies an area of 7,485 km2 in southern Baffin Bay in Canada’s Eastern Arctic, and was recognized as a marine refuge in 2017.

The area now known as the DFCA was originally established as a fisheries-area closure in 1998, via Fisheries Act licence conditions and Variation Orders (Criterion B1). The fisheries-area closure was designed to minimize impacts on the winter food source and overwintering habitat for narwhal by restricting certain forms of Greenland halibut fishing. After research surveys discovered coral concentrations in the area, DFO closed the area to all Greenland halibut fishing using bottom-contact gear in 2008.

In 2016, the fisheries-area closure was considered for potential OECM status under DFO’s 2016 interim OECM criteria, at which time it was determined through a risk assessment that due to its use of bottom-contact gear types, northern shrimp fishing posed a risk to coral concentrations located at shallower depths. As a result, the fisheries-area closure was adjusted in 2017 to include a zone prohibiting northern shrimp fishing, and this zone (which prohibits all forms of bottom-contact fishing) was subsequently recognized by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard as an OECM, known as the DFCA marine refuge.

The DFCA marine refuge is a fisheries-area closure established to support long-term conservation of narwhal overwintering habitat and winter food source, as well as provide protection for globally unique, high-density bamboo coral (Keratoisis sp.) forests (Criterion A). There are several anticipated BCBs provided by the DFCA marine refuge, including benefits for the 3 narwhal stocks that use the area in the winter and various coral concentrations.

Additional benefits are anticipated by promoting habitat complexity and the structural integrity of long-lived species (corals) and other species dependent upon this habitat. Conservation of sensitive benthic areas will support identified species at risk in the region (e.g. wolffish) as well as commercially important species (e.g. Greenland halibut and northern shrimp) and marine mammals which use the structural habitat for various life stages. (Criterion B2). The prohibition on bottom-contact gear use within the marine refuge prevents anthropogenic activities that pose a risk to the BCBs (Criterion B3).

By minimizing impacts of bottom-contact gear types on narwhal overwintering habitat and food, DFCA helps to support cultural values held by Inuit communities and organizations that rely on Baffin Bay narwhal for subsistence harvest. DFCA also provides ecosystem services by supporting the Greenland halibut and northern shrimp populations. Fishing for these species provides employment and royalty payments for several Nunavut communities (Criterion B4).

DFO is the lead RGA managing Canada’s fisheries and has jurisdiction over fishing prohibitions in this OECM (Criterion C1). In the Eastern Arctic, commercial marine fisheries are managed as described in the Nunavut Agreement which sets out a co-management framework for wildlife and resource management within and outside the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA). For example, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) makes fisheries management decisions inside the NSA, and provides recommendations for decisions outside the NSA to the Minister of DFO. NWMB decisions and recommendations as accepted by the Minister, are incorporated into relevant Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (Criteria C1 and C2). Conservation measures that enhance the sustainability of narwhal stocks, such as DFCA, are also supported by Nunavummiut (Criterion C3). DFO worked closely with partners and stakeholders in the development of the DFCA, including through a Working Group established in 2017 under the Eastern Arctic Groundfish Stakeholder Advisory Committee (EAGSAC) (Criterion C3).

The DFCA has been evaluated for compliance, science and fishery management objectives, with plans for assessments to inform continued and adaptive management strategies for the long-term (Criterion D1 and Criterion E2). Stakeholder advisory committee meetings are held to share information, review management measures, and provide recommendations for future management and monitoring needs. Ongoing discussions and joint public outreach projects with DFO and stakeholders allow for further collaboration and promotion of the work accomplished on DFCA, as well as other marine refuges established in Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, and Hatton Basin (established jointly with DFO Newfoundland and Labrador region) (Criterion D2).

While it is too early to demonstrate the contributions of the DFCA marine refuge to providing BCBs, governance and management of the marine refuge have been successful in mitigating the primary risk in the region by prohibiting bottom-contact fishing activities within the boundaries of the marine refuge. At the same time, additional management strategies and a continuing review of all commercial and scientific licences within the area are ensuring that existing or foreseeable activities in the area, including vessel and tanker traffic, and research activities, do not pose a risk to the area’s BCBs (Criterion E1 and E2). DFO is committed to ensuring that the DFCA marine refuge continues to meet domestic and international OECM standards, provide BCBs, and support the ecosystem services and cultural values associated with the aggregations of globally unique corals, sensitive benthic habitat, and narwhal overwintering habitat found within the boundaries of the area (Criterion E3).

References

Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (2022). https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/national-wildlife-areas/ protected-conserved-areas-database.html

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (2016). Guidance on identifying “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” in Canadian coastal and marine waters (Report 2016/002). https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_002-eng.html

CBD (2018). Voluntary guidance on the  integration of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures into wider land- and seascapes and mainstreaming across sectors to contribute, inter alia, to the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2016). Operational guidance for identifying ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in Canada’s marine environment. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/4069060x.pdf

IUCN (2019). Recognizing and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures. Protected Area Technical Report No 3. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PATRS-003-En.pdf

National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards (2018). Final Report. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40727191.pdf