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. This 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 planning, clarify governance models, recognition systems, and management mechanisms, and effectively fulfill Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, still lacks a clear working path. 

Method: The study responds to China’s implementation needs under the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”, conducting 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, it proposes pathways for adapting OECMs to the Chinese context. In terms of governance models, statistical analysis was employed 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. This provides 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 is a secondary objective or co-benefit, 65% adopt collaborative governance, which aligns 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 center on partnership-driven implementation of OECMs, offer valuable insights for China in establishing cooperative mechanisms and mainstreaming pathways for OECMs. Regarding recognition systems, developing localized OECMs frameworks—grounded in each country’s unique spatial planning and ecological management context, including clear definitions, conceptual scope, and tailored criteria—is highly instructive. This approach ensures 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 exhibit 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 provide useful 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” commitment 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, 3030 targets, mainstreaming, area-based conservation