OECMs offer a rights-compatible pathway to India's 30x30 commitment. Critically examine in light of the I-OECM Guidelines, 2026.

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) are areas outside legally protected areas that still conserve biodiversity in its natural habitat over the long term. India released its I-OECM Guidelines, 2026 at CBD COP-17 in Yerevan [1]. They aim to raise conserved area from about 27% to the 30% set by KM-GBF Target 3 [2]. The Guidelines respect community rights by design, but they do not yet show that recognised sites deliver real conservation.

Why the pathway respects rights

• No change in ownership or legal status: recognition gives no protected status and leaves existing activities unchanged. This avoids the displacement and access curbs that come with Protected Areas [2].
• Credit for community conservation: sacred groves, community irrigation tanks, seagrass beds and areas closed to fishing for part of the year can be recognised [2].
• Bottom-up entry: Panchayats and BMCs can apply directly, and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) must validate applications within 30 days [2].
• Livelihoods continue: fisheries and tanks keep running. A GEF-8 project worth USD 60.79 mn will test the model in six landscapes and seascapes [2].

Where it falls short

• Weak additionality: Criterion 4 keeps conditions on the ground as they are. The rise from 27% to 30% could therefore come from relabelling existing land, with no new conservation. This is the risk of "paper conservation".
• Recognition without protection: nothing in the Guidelines can stop a road or mine on a recognised grove. In Godavarman (2024 INSC 997), the Supreme Court directed Rajasthan to survey and notify its sacred groves (Orans), which points towards legal protection instead [3].
• Weak local capacity: the NBA is still working to make BMCs functional. Its total support to all SBBs and UT Councils in 2025–26 was only Rs 6.09 crore [4]. Applications may therefore come mostly from government departments, not communities.
• Self-certification: the NBA decides, MoEFCC authorises, and the same ministry reports sites to the global database. No outside body checks them, and sites are reviewed only once every five years [2].
• Thin core funding: the GEF grant is just USD 6.65 mn. The rest of the project depends on co-financing [2].

On rights, the Guidelines do well; on proving conservation outcomes, they remain untested. The way forward is to publish a scorecard for each site against the CBD criteria, invite independent reviewers to check a sample of sites, and keep one SBB land register linked to forest and Community Reserve notifications. BMCs also need funding before they are expected to apply. With these steps, 30x30 can meet both Article 48A and NBSAP Target 3 by protecting people's rights and nature.