关键词: 生物多样性, 国土空间规划, OECMs, 自然保护兼用地, 自然共生地, 3030目标, 主流化, 就地保护

Abstract

Background & Aims: The comprehensive and effective protection of biodiversity cannot be achieved solely through protected areas. Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) can coordinate nature conservation with human utilization in a compatible manner. Establishing OECMs system is recognized as an important tool for achieving the 2030 conservation targets within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. China has not yet formally launched an OECMs system at the national level, and related research is still in the exploratory stage. How to build a national OECMs system within the context of existing protected areas and territorial spatial planning, clarify governance models, recognition systems, management mechanisms, and effectively fulfill Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, still lacks a clear working path.

Method: Responding to China’s implementation needs under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, this study conducted a comprehensive analysis of OECMs systems worldwide across three dimensions: governance models, recognition frameworks, and management mechanisms. Based on China’s current natural protected area system and territorial spatial planning framework, we proposed pathways for adapting OECMs to the Chinese context. In terms of governance models, the study made statistical analysis to identify the governance entities and conservation objectives characterizing OECMs across different countries. Regarding the recognition framework, the study focused on analyzing experiences of how countries have developed localized OECMs recognition systems based on their own land use frameworks. The findings provided reference for China to establish a dual-purpose land use system for conservation that aligns with its domestic territorial spatial planning while connecting with international OECMs standards. Concerning management mechanisms, the research examined management measure documents from 199 OECMs sites to synthesize representative management approaches across different land cover types and user groups. This offers insights for developing management protocols for potential OECMs in China and supports bottom-up implementation at various sites.

Results: In terms of governance models, among OECMs where conservation was a secondary objective or co-benefit, 65% were under collaborative governance, aligning well with the original intent of OECMs—to provide diverse stakeholders with opportunities to participate in conservation while achieving biodiversity outcomes compatible with human use. Notably, the Canadian and Japanese approaches, which centered on government-led and partnership-driven modalities, offered valuable insights for China in establishing cooperative mechanisms and mainstreaming pathways for OECMs. Regarding recognition systems, developing localized OECM frameworks—grounded in each country’s unique spatial planning and ecological management context, including clear definitions, conceptual scope, and tailored criteria—was identified highly instructive. This approach ensured that national definitions of “localized OECMs” are precise and unambiguous, clearly delineated from existing protected area systems domestically, while remaining fully aligned with international OECM standards. In terms of management mechanisms, OECMs exhibited distinct characteristics in conservation priorities, management measures, and monitoring schemes depending on land cover types and user groups. Although the limited number of documented cases has not yet yielded universally applicable models, these examples still provided practical references for designing management strategies for similar potential OECMs.

Conclusion: China should actively explore governance models, improve the in-situ conservation system, and establish flexible management mechanisms in the near future, laying the foundation for fulfilling the “30×30” target and building a continuum of “conservation-utilization” across the national territory under the vision of “living in harmony with nature”.

Key words: biodiversity, territorial spatial planning, OECMs, conservation compatible areas, nature symbiosis areas, “30×30” target, mainstreaming, in-situ conservation