Recognition without protection risks becoming 'paper conservation'. Discuss with reference to OECMs and the KM-GBF Target 3.

Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), known as "30x30", counts Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) alongside Protected Areas. CBD Decision 14/8 defines an OECM as an area outside a Protected Area that achieves "positive and sustained long-term outcomes" for in-situ conservation [2]. India's I-OECM Guidelines, 2026 give such sites recognition but no legal protection [1]. So the risk of paper conservation is real, but it can be managed.

Why recognition may stay on paper

• Additionality gap: recognition must not alter existing activities or governance [1]. India can move from 27% to 30% by counting areas it already has, without conserving any new land [1].
• No legal shield: recognition gives no protected status and does not change an area's legal status [1]. A grove or tank in the path of a mine or road can simply be dropped from the list.
• Infrequent monitoring: sites are assessed only once every five years [1]. A degraded site may stay on the count until the next review.
• Self-certification: the NBA decides, MoEFCC authorises, and the same system reports sites to the global database through UNEP-WCMC [1]. No independent body verifies them.
• Thin local capacity: NBA support to all State Biodiversity Boards and UT Councils in 2025-26 was only Rs 6.09 crore [5].
• Global stakes: COP-17's first global review found the world off track on the KM-GBF targets [3]. Inflated figures would hide this.

Why OECMs still matter

• Rights-compatible: ownership and rights do not change, so the displacement seen with exclusionary Protected Areas is avoided [1].
• Credit for community conservation: sacred groves, irrigation tanks and seasonal fishing closures are formally recognised [1].
• Testing outcomes: a GEF-8 project (USD 60.79 mn) will pilot the Guidelines in six landscapes and seascapes [1].
• A route to legal protection: in Godavarman (2024 INSC 997), the Supreme Court directed Rajasthan to survey and notify its Orans (sacred groves) [4]. Recognition can be a first step towards notification.

Way forward

• Publish a public scorecard for each site against the CBD criteria.
• Bring in third-party verification.
• Keep a single state register linked to forest and Community Reserve notifications, so land is neither double-counted nor dropped.
• Fund Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) as the custodian answerable for each site.

OECMs bring community conservation into India's 30x30 effort without dispossessing anyone. To be more than paper conservation, recognition needs measurable outcomes, outside verification and a path to legal safeguards. That would give effect to Articles 48A and 51A(g) and SDG 15, and India's 30% would mean conserved land, not just counted land.