"OECMs can broaden conservation beyond protected areas but risk diluting the 30x30 target." Critically examine India's I-OECM Guidelines 2026 in this light.

Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted at COP-15 in December 2022 [2], aims to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030 ("30x30"). Two kinds of area count towards it: protected areas and OECMs (other effective area-based conservation measures). OECMs are areas outside formal protected areas that are managed to deliver lasting biodiversity outcomes [3]. India released its I-OECM Guidelines 2026 at CBD COP-17 in Yerevan [1]. They are a real step forward, but only if they reward results rather than hectares.

How the Guidelines broaden conservation

• Recognise effort that already exists: they acknowledge that conservation also happens on community, sacred and private lands [1], such as sacred groves and community-managed forests.
• Designation based on criteria: a site qualifies only if it meets conservation criteria and governance requirements [1].
• Inclusive route to 30x30: OECMs count towards Target 3 without creating new exclusionary reserves [3]. This reduces land-use conflict.
• Fit with equity: Target 3 requires respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) [3]. Community-governed OECMs suit this requirement.

Risk of diluting the target

• Conservation on paper: area is easy to count, but outcomes are hard to verify. Existing land could be relabelled to raise India's percentage while nothing changes on the ground.
• Loose sustainable-use test: Target 3 allows use only if it is "fully consistent" with conservation outcomes [3]. If this test is applied loosely, extractive land uses could qualify.
• Gaps in consent: if FPIC is not recorded, the OECM label could weaken community control, which goes against Target 3's equity requirement [3].
• Verification capacity: checking outcomes site by site needs sustained monitoring, which local biodiversity bodies may not yet be equipped to do.

Way forward

• Report outcomes for each site (species, habitat condition), not just the area covered.
• Record FPIC for every OECM that involves communities.
• Review sites regularly and remove those that do not deliver.

Overall, the I-OECM Guidelines bring overlooked community and private conservation into India's 30x30 effort, but the headline number can rise faster than real conservation. Holding them to the Environment Minister's own test, which judges progress by outcomes and not by "areas identified" [1], would make OECMs a genuine addition to protected areas. It would also help India meet Target 3 in a way that is both effective and equitable, consistent with Article 48A.