# Conserved areas: Obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities for successful implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in France

Anna Stier, Erwan Cherel, Joachim Claudet, Laure Debeir

► To cite this version:

Anna Stier, Erwan Cherel, Joachim Claudet, Laure Debeir. Conserved areas: Obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities for successful implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in France. People and Nature, inPress, 10.1002/pan3.70102. hal-05208124

HAL Id: hal-05208124

https://hal.science/hal-05208124v1

Submitted on 12 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Conserved areas: Obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities for successful implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in France

Anna Stier<fnref n="1" />

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Erwan Cherel<fnref n="1" />

Joachim Claudet<fnref n="2" />

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Laure Debeir<fnref n="1" />

**Correspondence**

Anna Stier
Email: anna.stier@laposte.net

**Funding information**

Office Français de la Biodiversité;
Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de
la Cohésion des Territoires

Handling Editor: Nibedita Mukherjee

**Abstract**

1. Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are a promising tool to conserve biodiversity in human-dominated land- and seascapes, but their implementation still raises some challenges. Addressing those challenges is necessary to ensure potential OECMs are well-designed, fitted to the local social-ecological context and effective at delivering long term in situ biodiversity conservation outcomes.

2. Here, based on a literature review, semi-structured interviews, an expert workshop and four case studies, we assessed obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities that OECMs present to biodiversity conservation and to the maintenance of core social values in France.

3. We show that successful implementation processes should adapt international standards and values to local social-ecological contexts, be evidence-based and participative, and be prioritized towards sites and actions already identified in existing action plans. Implementation processes can be hindered by a general lack of understanding of opportunities of OECMs, by the impossibility of a one-size-fits-all approach, by resource limitation, and if costs are inequitably borne by local and Indigenous communities. There is a risk of creating implementation processes that would be either too simple or too complex, dominated by some stakeholders, and which do not consider protected areas or include technical mistakes. Opportunities include better integration of OECMs with protected area processes, assessment of past successes and failures in biodiversity conservation and resource use management, and easier stakeholders' engagement in biodiversity stewardship.

4. Success of OECM implementation in France largely depends on the consideration of these elements. To do so, we recommend following some general principles of scientific, participatory and inclusive approaches and promoting interdisciplinary research. This could raise chances to create processes and procedures that will benefit nature and people, including in other contexts and countries.

**KEYWORDS**

conservation, conservation strategy, convention on biological diversity, policy, protected areas

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 Comité français de l'UICN and The Author(s). *People and Nature* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Comité français de l'Union Internationale pour la Conservation de la Nature, Montreuil, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Paris, France</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Other effective conservation measures (OECMs) appeared in 2010 in Objective 11 of the Aichi Targets, and their official definition in 2018 at the COP 14 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018). Technical guidelines were published in 2019 by IUCN (IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019) to help Parties in applying and following their progress towards Objective 11. Those guidelines and the COP 14 text suggest an assessment on a case-by-case basis of individual sites against a series of criteria, by adapting in a flexible way the steps of pre-identification of sites, screening their potentiality of fitting main criteria and final assessment after former consent of site management authorities and rights holders before their recognition and integration in the ProtectedPlanet database. Since then, some countries have initiated an implementation process to their national contexts. The ProtectedPlanet database contained, in February 2025, 303,313 protected areas (including 16,502 marine areas), representing 8.34% of oceans' surface and 16.44% of terrestrial surface worldwide, against 6466 conserved areas (including 202 marine areas; but see Claudet et al., 2022), increasing the previous coverages of respectively 0.11% and 1.18% (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2025).

OECMs root in findings that some protected areas struggle to achieve efficiency and equity (Dudley et al., 2018; Gurney et al., 2021; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2021; Wauchope et al., 2022), and in the fact that 56% of the world's land surface is subject to low impact uses without systematically having a conservation objective, while covering more key biodiversity areas than there are in spaces considered as 'wild' (Gurney et al., 2021). Management by local and Indigenous communities overlaps with 80% of biodiversity and 25% of the planet's surface (Jonas & Jonas, 2018), but in 2018, 82% of protected areas were managed by States, 0.6% by local communities. OECMs, recognizing effective conservation outside formally designated protected areas and regardless of objectives, are thought to contribute to filling this gap, refocussing on conservation efficiency and equity, and reintegrating areas that had been excluded. Indeed, some evidence suggests that reported OECMs already contribute to better coverage of otherwise unprotected Key Biodiversity Areas and of the governance types that are underrepresented in protected areas (Jonas et al., 2024).

However, implementation could have collateral consequences, depending on the context. Indeed, first studies have shown that positive consequences of implementation are non-guaranteed and could lead to difficulties and challenges (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Claudet et al., 2022; Dudley et al., 2018; Gurney et al., 2021; Jonas et al., 2014, 2017; Lemieux et al., 2019, 2022). The concern about a potential lack of positive outcomes has also been expressed outside the scientific community, in particular by representatives of Indigenous peoples and local communities' organizations (The ICCA Consortium, 2022), later backed by research that showed that the majority of reported OECMs are governed by government agencies, for now not supporting the first expectation that they would enable better recognition of Indigenous peoples and local communities' governances (Jonas et al., 2024). Indeed, other research (Claudet

et al., 2022) has shown that in 2022, reported marine OECMs encompassed mostly 'closed to bottom-contact fisheries (trawl, traps, and longlines), with no regulation of fishing in the water column' in Canada, areas without 'any specific regulations implemented that make them different from adjoining waters' in Colombia, Ramsar sites 'unlikely to meet OECM criteria' in the UK, 'Sites of Biological and Environmental Importance (SIBE) or Permanent Hunting Reserves' with most sites being data-deficient even if some could meet OECM criteria in Morocco, 'Locally managed MPAs (LMMPAs) established under the Fisheries Code or Local Government Code [...], along with MPA Networks or MPA Alliances, Critical Habitat Areas, or Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs)' in the Philippines with a majority as point features without geographical boundaries and some of the polygon features that could potentially meet OECM criteria, and buffer waters around a marine-protected area of an UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve in South Africa, that could meat the criteria if regulations were to be implemented, which was not the case at that time. This shows that areas might fail to consider their long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes. However, so far, no study has detailed the actual challenges, possible benefits (i.e. opportunities) and negative outcomes (i.e risks) as a basis for an adaptation of the concept to a specific national context, to support a country progress in a way that enables future OECMs to fulfil their promise.

Here, we identify those for future implementations of OECMs in France using a literature review, interviews, workshops and case studies. We additionally included legally binding, institutional and other perceived constraints (i.e. obligations) that eventually frame and shape any policy-making and thus influence the three preceding concerns. Given the complexity of nature conservation in the French context, where several administrative layers overlap and most of the biodiversity is localized in its oversea territories spread over diverse geographies and cultural specificities, we hope to provide insights to strategically design future implementations of OECMs. Our methods and results might also inform similar incentives elsewhere, at times when numerous countries and regions are asking the question of how to adapt the OECM concept to their conditions (Choi et al., 2022; Estradivari et al., 2022; Himes-Cornell et al., 2022; Jonas et al., 2017; Matallana-Tobón et al., 2018; Petza et al., 2023; Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2021).

# 2 | METHODS

## 2.1 | Study area

French biodiversity distribution in species and habitats, stewardship and administration as well as threats and conservation efforts are complex and diverse due to its specific geography, history and administrative organization. Indeed, metropolitan France, which spreads from the Mediterranean to the North Sea and over several mountains, encompasses in itself four of the five European biogeographic regions and 80% of European ecosystems (Ministère
de la Transition écologique, 2022). But 13 overseas territories that include islands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean, as well as continental South America and several peri-Antarctic islands, represent 18% of the Republic's lands and 4% of the population, and are administrated under various specific statuses, from equivalents of metropolitan regions to semi-autonomous and autonomous territories. They concentrate 84% of the Republic's biodiversity (Ministère de la Transition écologique, 2022): the insular aspect of most of them leads to high endemism and the Amazonian region covered by French Guiana to high species numbers, resulting in the fact that, for example, 98% of vertebrates and 96% of vascular plants are overseas (as 1 ha of French Guianese forest can host more than 300 tree species, more than there are species for whole Europe) (Ministère de la Transition écologique, 2025). Even if the specificities of each territory are to be considered while analysing national biodiversity conservation and threats data that can vary widely according to groups and regions, past analysis efforts show that from about 16,000 species assessed (about half from metropolitan, half from overseas France), nearly 17% are threatened according to the national Red List (UICN Comité français, OFB, & MNHN, 2024). The five biodiversity threats identified by the French Biodiversity Office (Observatoire national de la biodiversité, 2025) have risen in the past years: direct destruction and fragmentation of habitats (only 20% of natural habitat types of community interest have a favourable conservation status), destruction of wild species, pollution, climate change and invasive species. In metropolitan France, great declines were identified these past years in rural areas, specifically in agricultural landscapes and built environments compared to other habitats, as shown by the loss of 2% of common bird species abundances in forests against 33% in built and 36% in agricultural habitats, due to agricultural intensification, homogenization of landscapes and the use of pesticides (Observatoire national de la biodiversité, 2025). The State has led several initiatives to tackle biodiversity loss, comprising area-based measures and biodiversity protection expenses have doubled in the last 20 years (Service des données et études statistiques, 2023). To date, 24% of French oceans are marine protected areas; however, the objective to have at least 2% of metropolitan lands under high regulatory protection has not been attained with the current 1.54%, stagnating since the 1990s (against 34% of terrestrial overseas lands), even though other less regulatory protected area categories have risen, such as the Natura 2000 framework (Observatoire national de la biodiversité, 2025; Service des données et études statistiques, 2023).

France is concerned by several emerging OECM discussions, as its marine and overseas territories are covered by the RedParques South American network initiatives and tools (Sofrony, 2020) and pan-Mediterranean fisheries discussions, for example, and most of its territories by decisions taken at the European Union level, such as the 2030 biodiversity strategy (Commission Européenne, 2020) and European criteria and recommendations (Commission Européenne, 2022). At national level, OECMs do not appear in the National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (Ministère de la Transition

écologique, 2022) or its action plan (Ministère de la Transition écologique, 2023), but they do in the National Strategy for Protected Areas 2030 (Ministère de la Transition écologique & Ministère de la mer, 2021b) and its 2021-2023 action plan (Ministère de la Transition écologique & Ministère de la mer, 2021a). However, the role OECMs could play in French territories is still to be clarified according to these documents.

## 2.2 | Analytical framework

Research in nature conservation, environmental and geographical areas through social sciences has shown that the so-called 'expert' and 'local' views on subjects tend to differ or even generate stakeholders' conflicts, and that an integration of 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches that are usually used to work with each of these categories is advantageous as it tends to produce more appropriate decisions and processes (Bhave et al., 2014; Fraser et al., 2006; Girard et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2017; Semeraro et al., 2020; Stier et al., 2012). Experts are usually individuals, organizations or institutions that are considered to be carrying scientific, technical, administrative or institutional knowledge and power, typically academics or decision-makers. The top-down approach stands for a process where an imposed model or framework is first assessed by these experts to then adapt it to local contexts. Local perceptions and needs are held by individuals or communities, typically citizens, who are users of a geographical area or a natural resource, for example, and who would be directly impacted by the choices of decision-makers. The bottom-up approach stands for a process that first characterizes experienced realities of communities and involves directly concerned people and stakeholders in the creation of a framework or decision, mainly via participatory methods. Combining experts and decision-makers' with local perceptions ensures scientific validity, institutional support and recognition of local values and needs, which is critical for future OECM frameworks that are to function from site to international levels. However, integrating those approaches and different stakeholder categories does not necessarily create consensus; it is more a means to enable in-depth analysis of contradictions and complex situations, a tool enabling the confrontation of diverse views and types of knowledge.

OECMs are a concept first created and negotiated at an international level, which adaptation is led by French national institutions and organizations, to be able to identify and evaluate local site-level areas. We used these three geographic-institutional levels as an analytical framework (Table 1) to assess stakeholders' views. For each level, specifically adapted methods were implemented: bibliography, international and national expert interviews and an expert workshop (top-down approach), as well as interviews and workshops with three existing French site categories and the governing authorities of one site (bottom-up approach). Even if France is politically and institutionally divided into regions, including responsibilities and actions in the biodiversity conservation sector, we did not include
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Analytical framework.</caption><thead><tr><th>Level</th><th>Link to OECM site</th><th>Type of knowledge/ perceptions</th><th>Stakeholder types</th><th>Personal OECM experience</th><th>Methods implemented</th><th>Utility of methods</th><th>Approach</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>International</td><td>--</td><td>Expert</td><td>International organizations and researchers, foreign national institutions</td><td>Yes</td><td><ul><li>Review of documents and events</li><li>Interviews (9 people)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Identify and describe official and validated experts' views in published scientific and institutional documents and public events</li><li>Do not limit to public opinions but try to collect feedback from experts through personal dialogue and specific questions</li><li>Provide the appropriate context for new opinions and views to emerge through group interactions</li></ul></td><td>Top-down</td></tr><tr><td>National</td><td>-</td><td>Expert</td><td>Researchers, conservationists, national institutions and nonprofit representatives</td><td>No</td><td><ul><li>Review of documents and events</li><li>Interviews (12 people)</li><li>1 workshop (18 people)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Identify and describe official and validated experts' views in published scientific and institutional documents and public events</li><li>Do not limit to public opinions but try to collect feedback from experts through personal dialogue and specific questions</li><li>Provide the appropriate context for new opinions and views to emerge through group interactions</li></ul></td><td>Top-down</td></tr><tr><td>Regional/territorial</td><td>+</td><td>Expert/local</td><td>Regional/territorial institutions and administrations</td><td>No</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>Local/site</td><td>++</td><td>Local</td><td>Site managers, representatives of site management categories</td><td>No</td><td>Participatory tools (4 case studies, 15 people)</td><td><ul><li>Collect the views of those on which choices of decision-makers will be directly reflected</li><li>Contextualize the results of the top-down approach</li><li>Provide the appropriate context for new opinions to emerge during open discussions and test implementations of OECM evaluation tools</li></ul></td><td>Bottom-up</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: The table displays the categories of OECM concerned stakeholders and their proximity to a potential OECM site. The top-down approach was implemented through the review of documents and events and 9 interviews of international experts for the international level, and a workshop and 12 interviews with national conservation experts for the national level. The bottom-up approach was implemented with representatives of 3 site categories and 1 specific site.
this stakeholder category as such for two reasons: (1) at the date of the research, they were not included in the OECM adaptation process led by the State, (2) due to time and resource constraints, it was not possible to include all the levels, and we hypothesized that regional views would be the ones that would have the most chances to overlap national or local opinions and influence the results the least. Additionally, most national experts had a territorial background, including overseas from different regions, which enabled them to cover territorial aspects.

Data were collected in two parallel ways: (1) identification and coding of items of challenges, risks, opportunities and obligations, and (2) notetaking of anything seeming of value or importance, guided by a set of broad questions, issues and open discussions, using an inductive research strategy, a method particularly adapted to new subjects where very little is known, and whose purpose is to generate a hypothesis or theory based on the cumulated data gathered with no particular intent (Newing, 2011).

To identify and ask for elements of each category, the following common-sense definitions were used, adapted by the authors from the French dictionary (Larousse en ligne, 2021):

**Obligation:** Duty, constraint imposed by moral rules, social laws; imperative—but also Necessity imposed by any binding situation.

**Difficulty:** All the points that pose a problem—but also Obstacle to overcome.

**Risk:** Possibility, probability of a fact, an event, considered as an evil or damage—but also Danger, probable inconvenience.

**Opportunity:** Occasion, auspicious opportunity.

This study was carried out by the French Committee of IUCN, which no ethics approval process involved due to the absence of any ethics committee. However, all the participants gave their verbal consent when recorded, and to the use of data by the French Committee of IUCN for analysis and publication. We chose oral consent to encourage trust and equity between all participants, as well as participation of people from diverse backgrounds and degrees of ease with technical and academic research. It was also verbally consented that any cited sentence, opinion or item that could be identified as belonging to a person or an organization, would be submitted to the concerned persons for approval. There are no such items in the manuscript.

## 2.3 | Top-down approach

We first searched for published institutional international or French documents concerning OECMs, as well as for research articles mentioning past analysis of one or more of our four categories. Sources were added as research went on, either because they were referenced in one document or because they were recommended by one of the interviewees (see below), the process being stopped when no new item was collected, leading to a plateau of cumulated data. We reviewed 21 documents in total, the first half comprising the first

CBD text, its declination at the European Union and French ministry levels, the IUCN International and French Committee reports and recommendations, the second half being research articles (a list of data sources used for this analysis are provided in the Data sources section). Additionally, five events of OECM-related sessions at international conservation congresses and one workshop of the French Committee of IUCN that took place in 2021 were analysed and integrated into the review, via records or direct participation of the authors (see Supporting Information for more details on the events). Those were identified by opportunity, spontaneously cited by the interviewees (see below) as interesting resources for analysis. We also conducted seven in-depth interviews with nine experts of international and national level from four countries representing different world regions (North America, South America, Africa and Asia) where OECMs were under implementation process or already implemented. These interviews, based on voluntary participation of interviewees and of about 2-h length, were conducted via video calls, recorded and entirely transcribed. At the time when the research was conducted, there were no European countries sufficiently advanced to be able to share their experiences, as far as the authors were informed. The interviewees were representatives of international organizations and national institutions of countries with OECM experience. They were identified and contacted via three means: (1) We searched on the ProtectedPlanet database for the countries where OECMs had already been reported and for the respective contacts, (2) through the IUCN International network for contacts of people who would have been involved in the international process of creation of the OECM concept and (3) asked at each interview for any contacts of persons involved in the current international management or adaptation of the tool to any national context. Subsequently, 12 French national experts were interviewed. The interviewees were French researchers in nature conservation or environmental social sciences, representatives of nonprofits and governmental institutions. They were identified and contacted in three phases. First, presentations of the research were held at meetings of the expert commissions and working groups of the French Committee of IUCN (protected areas, overseas territories, sea and coast, forest, mountain), with an open invitation for an interview for any member of those groups, and a call to identify any other person who seemed important to the participants to be contacted. Also, specific expert members were identified as important to be interviewed by each commission coordinator, and subsequently directly contacted. Finally, at each interview held, the interviewee was invited to list any other person who might be important to be contacted on this subject. Those interviews were implemented via phone or video calls, which did not enable systematic recordings; therefore, the items were directly written down by note-taking. All the interviews were semi-structured and typically unfolded as follows: a first mutual presentation of OECMs and the research vs. the person's experience, then a free discussion and questions around the four categories of obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities. Finally, a half-day expert workshop was organized on 4 February 2022 with 18 participants. Those differed from the previously interviewed experts and comprised two external
persons, two representatives of the French Biodiversity Office, and staff and experts from the French Committee of IUCN Protected Area Commission, Ecosystems Commission (including its Sea and Coast, Forest and Mountain working groups), Overseas Territories Group, as well as its Politics and Business Program. The event was recorded and analysed for any spontaneously cited new item fitting the categories. It also produced a first list of suggestions for the bottom-up approach.

## 2.4 | Bottom-up approach

The list of suggestions produced at the workshop (see above) led to two parallel approaches: discussions with three French site categories representatives, and a participative approach with one case study site. As items spontaneously emerged, they were recorded by note taking. The three French already existing site typologies were ‘cantonnements de pêche’—an area-based fisheries restriction tool lead by the State, ‘unités de conservation génétique forestière’—an area-based genetic diversity conservation tool for forestry tree species lead by the national institute for agriculture and environmental research, and ‘obligations réelles environnementales’—a legal binding tool between land properties and nature conservation organizations with a national network lead by the federation of natural area conservatories. These categories were chosen because they were already in a process of recognition of their managements with the French Biodiversity Office. The following approach was implemented for each: (1) presentations of OECMs vs. the concerned category; (2) check of other possible tools, as protected areas, before deciding if an OECM recognition might be accurate; (3) screening technique using the general international criteria of OECMs; and (4) detailing of needs and constraints for stakeholders and ideas of actions to be integrated to an implementation process of the OECM concept to France. Finally, a communal section in the Lozère region in Central France was voluntary to implement an evaluation test of their site using the OECM criteria as case study site. In June 2022, a field mission was organized, comprising a site visit and a participative auto-evaluation workshop with five members of the syndicate that manages the site, and two anthropologists. We used participatory mapping, interviews, open-ended questions and brainstorming sessions.

## 2.5 | Data analysis

### 2.5.1 | Generation of consolidated lists of perceptions

After the end of the top-down approach, a first matrix was set up (Figure 1), with the exact transcriptions or notes taken from each source, cut down to ‘items’ (expressions, sentences) classified in each of the four categories. We identified 24 items for obligations, 99 for challenges, 124 for risks and 371 for opportunities. These items were

cross-checked and grouped into clusters of similar meanings. Each cluster was given a standardized ‘title’ that would stand for all its items. Then, these clusters were grouped again into sub-categories under each category. This new structure served as a final presence/absence matrix, where 1 stood for the citation of a standardized item by a source, and 0 for its non-expression. We used this matrix to conduct a saturation analysis to identify if adding new sources was producing new clusters (de Sardan, 1995; Newing, 2011). It appeared that a theoretical saturation had been reached for the experts' perceptions (Table S1). Then, the items of the four case studies were checked against the final matrix, and it appeared that no new information was added by the bottom-up approach and the local / site-level views and perceptions.

### 2.5.2 | Further analysis of structuration and other characteristics of perceptions

In order to identify how sources think about OECMs and whether any underlying patterns exist that could help to understand experts' and local perceptions, about or outside of the four categories we were primely interested in, we regularly revised and searched for recurrent information and logical connections between statements by reviewing all the transcriptions and notes taken, trying to see through ‘floating observation’ if something else was ‘going on’ that might be important to our sources (de Sardan, 1995; Moussaoui, 2012; Pétonnet, 1982).

# 3 | RESULTS

## 3.1 | Perceived obligations

We identified 20 obligations, belonging to five areas (Figure 2). According to sources, the implementation process and future procedures should conform to already existing international guidelines, show solidarity, equity and respect according to the CBD text, be scientific (by integrating research results and approaches from ecology and social sciences) and participatory (by focussing on negotiation, consultation and full and effective participation of all stakeholders), and be implemented at multiple geographical levels (overlapping or not administrative or institutional levels), with a focus on Overseas Territories. Finally, they should implement key actions such as benchmarking, case studies, a national analysis and promote positive cases, particularly of the integration of Indigenous peoples and communities. According to sources, this meant testing tools and methods with and for community and Indigenous site managers, in contrast to tests that would be carried out on those sites. This could be exemplified by the difference between setting up projects with governance authorities from the start according to their needs and interests, co-deciding on phases and methods, and setting up test projects that provide methods and tools that will then be applied on community sites, but without involving them from the start.
## First matrix

<table><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Source type</th><th>Source</th><th>Obligations</th><th>Challenges</th><th>Risks</th><th>Opportunities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dd/mm/yyyy</td><td>Document<br>Event<br>International interview<br>National interview</td><td>Title of source or name of interviewee</td><td>Transcriptions or notes</td><td>Transcriptions or notes</td><td>Transcriptions or notes</td><td>Transcriptions or notes</td></tr><tr><td>01/02/2019</td><td>Document</td><td>Title</td><td>"sentence 1"<br>"sentence 2"</td><td></td><td>"sentence 3"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10/11/2021</td><td>International interview</td><td>Name</td><td>"sentence 4"<br>referring to<br>sentence 1</td><td>"sentence 5"</td><td>"sentence 6"<br>"sentence 7"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12/11/2021</td><td>Document</td><td>Title</td><td>"sentence 8"</td><td>"sentence 9"</td><td>"sentence 10"<br>"sentence 11"</td><td>"sentence 12"</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 1) Grouping of items in clusters of similar meaning

<table><thead><tr><th>Title 1</th><th>Title 2</th><th>Title 3</th><th>Title 4</th><th>Title 5</th><th>Title 6</th><th>Title 7</th><th>Title 8</th><th>Title 9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sentence 1</td><td>Sentence 2</td><td>Sentence 8</td><td>Sentence 5</td><td>Sentence 3</td><td>Sentence 6</td><td>Sentence 10</td><td>Sentence 11</td><td>Sentence 12</td></tr><tr><td>Sentence 4</td><td></td><td></td><td>Sentence 9</td><td></td><td>Sentence 7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 2) Grouping of clusters in sub-categories of subjects

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Obligations</th><th colspan="2">Challenges</th><th colspan="2">Risks</th><th colspan="2">Opportunities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sub-category 1</td><td>Sub-category 2</td><td>Sub-category 3</td><td>Sub-category 4</td><td>Sub-category 5</td><td>Sub-category 6</td><td>Sub-category 7</td><td>Sub-category 7</td></tr><tr><td>Title 1</td><td>Title 3</td><td>Title 4</td><td>Title 5</td><td>Title 8</td><td>Title 6</td><td>Title 7</td><td>Title 9</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Final matrix

<table><caption>FIGURE 1 Process of data analysis to combine all collected items for each of the four categories after the top-down approach. The bottom-up approach did not add any new clusters of information.</caption><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Source type</th><th>Source</th><th colspan="3">Obligations</th><th colspan="2">Challenges</th><th colspan="3">Risks</th><th colspan="2">Opportunities</th></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="3">Sub-category 1</td><td colspan="2">Sub-category 2</td><td colspan="3">Sub-category 3</td><td colspan="2">Sub-category 4</td><td colspan="2">Sub-category 5</td><td colspan="2">Sub-category 6</td><td colspan="2">Sub-category 7</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="3">Title 1</td><td colspan="2">Title 3</td><td colspan="3">Title 4</td><td colspan="2">Title 5</td><td colspan="2">Title 8</td><td colspan="3">Title 6</td><td colspan="2">Title 7</td><td colspan="2">Title 9</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>01/02/2019</td><td>Document</td><td>Title</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>10/11/2021</td><td>International interview</td><td>Name</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>12/11/2021</td><td>Document</td><td>Title</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.2 | Perceived challenges

We identified 28 challenges belonging to eight areas (Figure 3). First, a concern was that the nature conservation sector is experiencing a local and global governance crisis, meaning a lack of trust due to inequitable conservation outcomes and misfunctioning of decision-making systems, leading to insufficient success of biodiversity policies, which is an obstacle to the creation and implementation of new concepts and tools like OECMs. Being a new concept, it is little tested or implemented and tends to be vague if the conservation community lacks hindsight, tools and standards. This could lead to confusion, hindering proper implementation. Also, this implementation was perceived as requiring fundamental changes in conservation concepts and methods, for example in the way protected areas are planned, the consideration and relationships with social aspects and human rights, or the redefinition of concepts such as 'conservation'

or 'natural'. The diversity of local, territorial and sectoral contexts, of governances and ecological systems (which differ in functioning or in jurisdictions, as between terrestrial and marine), were perceived as an obstacle for effective global discussions. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) were considered of particular concern, as community managements are de facto disadvantaged due to their cultural specificities and own governance complexity, often combined with a lack of financial resources and technical skills that are necessary for scientific approaches. IPLC governance was considered to be often subject to internal changes and external pressures, hindering the implementation of assessment criteria and methods over time. It was suggested that the methodology may not work with these systems due to Western administrative, scientific and technical criteria and formats, making site managers unable to provide the 'evidence' requested for site recognition. This difficulty was identified during the bottom-up phase of this study with sites
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Obligations to follow for a future implementation process of OECMs. They are considered a necessary step for a successful adaptation to the French context.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Challenges for a future implementation process of OECMs. They are considered necessary to overcome for a successful adaptation to the French context. Nb: there is no chronology or link between categories.</figcaption></figure>

that do not fall into the IPLC category, and it could therefore be a broader obstacle. More generally, it was of concern that sites that do not have sufficient funding would be disadvantaged for the implementation of recognition procedures, and that the general lack of

resources in the nature conservation sector, where dedicated long-term funds are scarce, could be a difficulty as OECMs would require additional resources to be implemented in a relevant and efficient way. Sources found that the lack of resources could be even more
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 Risks and opportunities for a future implementation process of OECMs. Risks are considered as necessary to avoid and opportunities to be seized for a successful adaptation of the OECM concept to the French context.</figcaption></figure>

challenging as technical difficulties are already arising, such as the complexity of tools, data confidentiality, long-term effectiveness, or the clear definition of indicators and thresholds (such as the 'important biodiversity' that sites will have to prove). The geographical overlapping with protected areas appeared to be an issue in several situations. Finally, a main concern was the current perceived lack of international verification of databases, a verification that was considered to exist only theoretically, as the States own the responsibility to report 'what they want', especially because the OECM criteria of Annex III have not been formally adopted at the CBD which makes the concept easier to be misused.

## 3.3 | Perceived risks and opportunities

We identified 17 risks that can be classified into four categories, and 16 opportunities classified into three categories (Figure 4), in no order of priority, but in a possible chronological order. Concerning risks, if the necessary means, whether financial or human, are not provided or if the recommended principles are not followed, there could be risks to 'bulldoze' the implementation process, that is moving forward fast, in an aggressive or forceful way, which could create risks during procedures once they are put in place, especially when they do not include protected areas, are too simplistic or too complex or dominated by a fraction of stakeholders, or make technical mistakes. Finally, this could lead to a risk of 'bad results'. Indeed, it was considered possible that conserved areas could for example reinforce inequities, recognize too easily sites that do not correspond to the definition or on the contrary exclude interesting sites, and thus lead to a degradation of standards and reduction of the effectiveness of the conservation network.

On the contrary, if the implementation process is really participatory, based on effectiveness, equity, conservation results, and on already existing methods to be adapted, it was found to positively impact future procedures, which could be designed as networks with protected areas and as diagnostic tools for sites, be based on recognition (of what already exists, of modes of governance that already work, etc.), and provide the necessary support to stakeholders. All this was thought to lead to positive outcomes, such as effective sites with a real biodiversity value, beneficial collateral effects, encouragement of good practices, a more representative site network, a more effective conservation system and a synergy between human rights, diversity, and biodiversity conservation. Then, OECMs could address biodiversity degradation and contribute to achieving the post-2020 Target 3 and a new vision of humanity and the biosphere.

### 3.3.1 | Functional links and cascading effects

We identified that the previously possible chronological order of elements came from the fact that risks and opportunities were functionally connected by logical links, generating and reinforcing mutually from the implementation process to the procedures, the sites and systemic levels, through four causal chains for risks and three for opportunities (Figures 5 and 6).

First, if the procedure does not consider protected areas, by its implementation on sites that are already planned to be recognized as protected areas, or by diverting funding previously dedicated to protected areas. This could contribute to avoid the creation and extension of protected areas and could be reinforced by an overly simple OECM recognition procedure, whose objective is to achieve surface targets by applying permissive criteria in order to count a maximum
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5 Functional risk generation from the implementation of OECMs to French context. An inappropriate implementation process was considered to lead to an inadequate procedure that (1) is too simple while not considering protected areas, (2) is dominated by some stakeholders, (3) is too complex or (4) generates technical mistakes during its implementation, potentially leading to negative consequences at site and systemic levels. Nb: items and linkages drawn from the sources.</figcaption></figure>

of sites in a minimum of time. Institutions could then turn to 'easy' and large areas, but not necessarily to those with biodiversity value. At site level, this could lead to trade-offs between recognition as a protected versus conserved area, a search for coverage without conservation effectiveness, demotivation (especially once the surface target is reached) and a dilution of resources in sites of little importance for biodiversity. In the long term, this could diminish the effectiveness and coherence of the conservation site network while increasing the recognition of 'everything and anything', leading to locally and globally irrelevant OECMs, reducing the credibility of the concept.

Second, if the procedure is too permissive and dominated by stakeholders who could 'do what they want', and if a policy of rapid accounting is put in place, this could result in a hijacking

by the State or industrialists, in favour of their sites. The concept might ultimately be used for the only recognition of areas that have resources and are comfortable with procedures in general. At the same time, a dominated procedure could set arbitrary objectives and criteria. The combination of these two aspects could result in an inappropriate classification into 'good' and 'bad' conservation stakeholders, using a gradient that does not correspond to the essence of OECMs, nor to their intended articulation with protected areas, as well as result in an increase in institutional regulations and influences, although already existing management was intended to be 'only' recognized. At site level, this could discriminate IPLCs and any local or culturally specific approach. This discrimination could be reinforced by resource dilution, since IPLCs often have the least means at their disposal, and it could
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6 Functional opportunity generation from the implementation of OECMs to French context. An appropriate implementation process was seen as leading to an adequate procedure that (1) includes protected areas, (2) recognizes diversity while determining what can be enhanced and (3) supports stakeholders, potentially having positive consequences at site and systemic levels. Nb: items and linkages drawn from the sources.</figcaption></figure>

increase inequity and power relations, whereas the concept was initially created for the opposite purpose.

Third, if the procedure is too complex, by an exacerbated bureaucracy with no added value, criteria that are too strict or by focusing too much on biodiversity elements, this could crush the site managers under an administrative and technical burden. If objectives are also imposed out of the blue—and therefore incomprehensible or without added value for local stakeholders, sites may not benefit from OECM recognition or even draw more disadvantages. The concept could then be rejected by site managers, preventing site recognition, which could lead to the exclusion of areas of biodiversity interest.

Finally, if the procedure creates implementation mistakes, through a difference between the planned procedure and its application, lack of verification of evaluations or differences in application

philosophy between different stakeholders, this could result in poor identification, evaluation and monitoring, and inconsistencies in the procedure application, methods and tools at site level. In the long term, this could have a negative impact on biodiversity and governance, especially if local stakeholders have an additional administrative burden, meaning less time and resources dedicated to the management of their sites, inappropriate methods that create confusion, or that even modify management in a direction ultimately deleterious for conservation.

By resulting in irrelevant OECMs, increased inequity, exclusion of interesting areas or even negatively impacting biodiversity, all these four causal chains and their large-scale effects were found, at the systemic level, to possibly lead to a lowering of biodiversity standards, a reinforcement of the nature/culture dichotomy, less efficiency of site networks and confusion between targets. The resulting conservation
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

system would not tackle biodiversity degradation or could even con-
travene the original essence of Aichi Target 11.

On the contrary, some decisions taken from the very start could
have three beneficial cascading effects (Figure 6). First, if the pro-
cedure includes protected areas by standardizing, formalizing and
extending the understanding and reporting to the State of all con-
served and protected areas, this was not spontaneously cited as hav-
ing direct consequences at site level, but thought to allow benefits
at the systemic level by generating landscape approaches and the
protection of high biodiversity value areas that are threatened or
whose management could be at risk, supporting an ecologically rep-
resentative and connected site network.

Second, if the procedure combines the recognition of the exist-
ing and a diagnosis that highlights the points that could be improved,
sources reported that this could support management in an appro-
priate way. Indeed, recognizing the efforts that are made outside
protected areas and that contribute to the objective (of Aichi 11),
also means recognizing various new stakeholders, tools, governance
and management, including possibly some IPLCs and customary
management. At site level, this could increase pride and account-
ability, contributing to the maintenance of these areas and of their
management, which could even be improved after a diagnostic ap-
proach—that needs to be freely decided by the managing authorities
and should not lead to deleterious rather than beneficial changes
(see previous part on risks). In the long term, through awareness-
raising towards ‘good’ practices, this was associated with the con-
servation of socio-ecosystems (and not only of what is said to be
‘natural’) and long-term conservation, creating a coherent and effec-
tive network of areas (especially if the network is representative and
connected with protected areas, see opportunities) and increasing
its resilience to climatic, socio-economic and political changes. An
effective and resilient site network was found to enhance the ef-
fectiveness of the global conservation system (which goes beyond
area-based conservation).

Third, if the procedure provides financial, legal and institutional
support for the stakeholders, it was identified to support man-
agement, as a possible ‘extra layer of protection’ for sites against
threats, or as a means of developing conservation-compatible econ-
omies. It was also thought that these support mechanisms could
improve links between local sites and stakeholders with the State,
possibly resolving problems or conflicts with some sectors, or sup-
port the recognition of territorial rights (e.g. those from IPLCs). In the
long term, support meant for the sources the possibility to diversify
the modes of governance, management and conservation results
and thus to stop the exclusion of sites that are effective in terms of
conservation, by increasing their legitimacy. This was perceived as a
possible lever to overcome some of the current issues the IPLCs are
facing, to increase respect of and support for diversity, making the
overall approach more equitable and just and contributing to a con-
servation system that promotes a synergy between human rights
and conservation.

These three causal chains were thought to possibly result in a
conservation system that could tackle biodiversity degradation,

contribute to the achievement of Target 11, contribute to the im-
plementation of Target 3 of the post-2020 global framework, and
contribute to the establishment of a new vision of human/biosphere
relations.

3.3.2 | ‘The double dilemma’

We identified an underlying pattern in discourses about risks and opportunities: without denying the diversity and complexity of local situations, the sources were in tension between two theoretical future OECM site stakeholder categories (e.g. representatives, managers, governing authorities). Even though they might be described as caricatural, they represent possible real site or stakeholder situations (Figure 7).

First, there would be ‘proactive stakeholders’ (term of the authors,
taken from no source), characterized by their interest to be recog-
nized as OECMs for an improvement of public image and reputation,
and their possession or ability to access the necessary technical
means and skills to apply evaluation procedures to their advantage.
A consequence considered as automatic risk would be to recognize
sites with only a slight—or even absent—added biodiversity value, and
to drifts of the ‘greenwashing’ or ‘everything and anything’ types.
OECMs and results would make no sense or be detrimental to con-
servation objectives. The logical solution, considered spontaneously,
was a complexification of procedures, with stricter criteria, evidence
of biodiversity value and of effective management to be provided,
to avoid the risks mentioned above and to branch off towards an
opportunity to get results that make sense and serve the cause of
biodiversity conservation. In contrast, there would be ‘reluctant
stakeholders’, with no technical means or expertise to implement a
procedure and no access to information, or no knowledge at all of the
concept and its frameworks. The risk would be that they do not en-
gage in a procedure, and if they do so, the application for recognition
would have a high probability of being rejected. OECMs and results
would then simply be absent: conserved areas would not be recog-
nized or abandoned. The logical solution, considered spontaneously,
was to facilitate the procedure, with flexible methods and tools and
assistance for sites, to avoid the risks mentioned above and to branch
off towards results that encourage and support stakeholders.

These findings are in tension between two a priori contradic-
tory instructions. First, the solution to complexify vs. to facilitate
the procedures creates a fairness dilemma: 'how do we ensure that
everyone can have equal opportunities'? Second, the pursuing of re-
sults that serve the cause vs. encourage the stakeholders creates a
dilemma of relevance and effectiveness: "how do we keep proce-
dures relevant to objectives while being effective for all"? Indeed,
complexifying a procedure would increase the risks for reluctant
stakeholders and vice versa: Each solution for one category could
exacerbate the problem for the other. These categories are obvi-
ously fictitious and two extremes of a continuous gradient. Most
real cases could rather fall into intermediate positions and borrow
one or the other of their characteristics. Nevertheless, simplification
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7 The double dilemma that emerges from the need to have OECMs useful for conservation by complexifying site recognition, while encouraging stakeholders by facilitating site recognition. Guarantee fairness for all and conservation effectiveness simultaneously seemed difficult to the sources, as they induce contradictory solutions.</figcaption></figure>

helps to reflect on foresight: which consequence(s) for which stakeholders(s) when choosing a methodology, a governance, or tools? Could we imagine a procedure that solves both dilemmas?

4 | DISCUSSION

OECMs originated in a need to complement protected areas for better recognition of other governances while enhancing an overarching area-based biodiversity conservation system. However, their implementation has been somewhat slow, regaining recent interest with the post-2020 Target 3 '30×30'. Research and OECM reporting in several countries have shown that benefits are non-guaranteed and that some negative outcomes also exist, calling for a way to identify challenges, risks and opportunities as well as means to enhance chances for countries to implement the concept on their territories in a way that OECMs reach their first goals.

We reviewed the literature, conducted international and national in-depth interviews of experts, held a workshop and case studies to reveal two key findings for the French context: (1) functional causal chains of risks and opportunities are generated by a combination of actions that go back to following or not following the moral obligations set at the international level and to providing the necessary means; and (2) the future outcome could depend on the concrete

management of a double dilemma about the way to guarantee said equity and efficiency simultaneously.

Our first key finding is that both perceived potential risks and opportunities appear to root in providing (or not) the necessary means, financial or human resources, in order to work through an implementation process that thoroughly follows (or not) moral obligations such as adaptation to several geographical levels and local contexts, be really participative from the start, focusing on equity of procedures and outcomes, particularly for local communities and stakeholders, and conducted hand in hand with ecological and social science research. There is a risk of creating implementation processes that would be either too simple or too complex, dominated by some stakeholders, that do not integrate the existence, needs or creation of new protected areas or make technical mistakes.

Our second key finding is that even if the willingness and resources are there to achieve efficiency and equity at the same time, these two goals call for methods and decisions that seem contradictory and lead to opposite effects. Called fairness and effectiveness in the sources' expressions, if not resolved, OECMs would tap into the weakness that protected areas have been criticized for in literature and that they were intended to address in the first place, meaning simultaneous equity and conservation efficiency.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Not surprisingly, both findings can be linked to difficulties the conservation community is currently facing, such as a general lack of funding for biodiversity conservation (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Jonas et al., 2021), discrimination of IPLCs (Jonas et al., 2017; The ICCA Consortium, 2022), unfair outcomes and malfunctioning of policies and decision-making systems that have created a lack of trust and a 'governance crisis' of the sector (Brockington et al., 2006; Hampton-Smith et al., 2024), as well as its trouble to consider social aspects (Dudley et al., 2018). It is therefore essential that conservationists and researchers acknowledge those aspects and work with potential levers to overcome them.

The absence of regional level stakeholders in this study remains a potential bias, calling for further studies including regional/territorial institutions and administrations in the French context.

Our analytical framework based on a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches as well as geographical levels as a factor to classify stakeholders into categories could be a system that could be applied broadly in other contexts and countries. However, there might be differences in administrative or political organizations of States that need to be considered while determining how to group stakeholders, maybe resulting in slightly different frameworks. We would recommend starting from a broad stakeholder analysis first, to then operate groupings that fit a specific national reality, maybe resulting in geographical levels but maybe in other logical clusters that would make more sense. The four categories of items could be reused as well, and our existing lists of items per category as a checklist to compare different national results.

The double dilemma that emerged during this study makes some research results, as the underrepresented IPLC governances (Jonas et al., 2024) or the 'blue washing' effects described for various marine OECMs (Claudet et al., 2022), appear under a new light. These situations could be newly analysed by using the double dilemma as an analytical framework to see whether it could explain how they came about, or even as a basis for a process to enhance them.

## 5 | THE WAY FORWARD

Similar contemporary research shows that views of international experts fit our results regarding possible positive impacts of OECMs, as well as risks and challenges (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Cook, 2023; Maini et al., 2023). We have shown that local stakeholders also share those opinions. Thus, avoiding OECM misuse and ensuring that they will effectively tackle biodiversity loss and secure community and locally adapted management, are now the two most important goals for the conservation community. A recent study outlined five general recommendations as steps to take to reach that goal (Gurney et al., 2021): (1) show that they work, (2) strengthen existing local governance, (3) secure funding, (4) agree on metrics and (5) include them in other environmental agreements. While studies are flourishing worldwide with the aim to screen national, regional or sectoral frameworks to facilitate surface target achievements (Choi

et al., 2022; Estradivari et al., 2022; Himes-Cornell et al., 2022; Jonas et al., 2017; Matallana-Tobón et al., 2018; Petza et al., 2023; Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2021), we think that, even if this is surely meaningful as a first step, it might have the potential to slide down the risky side of cascading events as well as the double risk 'green-washing' and 'no action' of our double dilemma, as it has been already reported for some cases (Claudet et al., 2022; Jonas et al., 2024; Lemieux et al., 2022). Attention must be paid by the scientific and conservation community, so that the 'achievement of percentage-protected targets [does] not overshadow the overarching biodiversity outcomes to which the target is meant to contribute' (Carroll & Noss, 2022). Indeed, new policies 'cannot simply be mapped onto the landscape or transferred', and systematically undergo nonlinear processes of interpreting, which result in new re-assemblages, mobilities and reshaping of policies, sometimes creating 'frictions' between elements (Wilkie, 2023). These frictions between international guidelines and local contexts induce 'transformations of both local and global policy forms'. The shape taken by those transformations depends on how the implementation processes are constructed, which stakeholders undertake which roles or guide the conversations, as well as on how local policy-assemblages are pre-structured before the processes. As a result, we recommend adding a 6th step: pay attention to the dynamics and politics involved in decision-making, as they 'play a determining role in shaping outcomes' (Wilkie, 2023).

### 5.1 | Policy recommendations

OECMs being designed for recognition and not the creation of new regulations, and focalizing on non-State governances, they hold the opportunity for a development in French metropolitan rural and agricultural areas where the current biodiversity loss and several anthropic activities take place at the same time, as well as for overseas territories where IPLC governances still lack recognition.

We recommend inspiring and basing any future national or local adaptation process of OECMs to France on the results of this study, as a starting point. As several characteristics of the concept and the conservation system that it could generate were identified, they can be used as a first diagnosis. This could be done by using:

* the perceived obligations to orient future actions,

* the opportunities flowchart to identify which strategies would be coherent for different expectations,

* risk factors as an analytical framework for any suggested future action to enhance chances of success,

* current challenges as an inspiration to design strategies from the start with better chances to overcome them,

* the double dilemma as a core element of guidance and discussion,

* any result in a flexible way, as a guideline for discussions. Indeed, as territorial levels were not included in the research and the technical review was not exhaustive, the results should not be used as a prescription to simply follow. Combining our results with
insights drawn from the territorial level and specifically overseas territories would be a critical step.

For these next French steps, but also for any implementation process beyond France, we recommend:

* creating multi-angle approaches combining knowledge of landowners, managers, government, industry, civil society and academics from different disciplines—mainly ecological and social sciences,

* using case studies at site or regional levels as frames for action, as they have already shown their value in other countries (Echeverri et al., 2021; Marnewick et al., 2021; Santamaria et al., 2021),

* implementing an approach that is truly participatory and inclusive, by avoiding bulldozing or putting aside key stakeholders, tricky or complex questions. This can be done by providing the necessary means—including financial, time and human resources, and ensuring open mindedness of administrative, scientific and politic organizations. One of the key aspects would be to design future site assessment and recognition methods and procedures by including from the start both conservation experts and site managers and rights holders, as this could be one possible way to overcome the 'double dilemma' of fairness and effectiveness,

* that States and different government bodies, depending on the countries' administrative and political organization, provide the means and guarantee that the first recommendations above are implemented. The guarantee should be concrete proof of equity and representativeness that can be shared publicly, and of space for iterative processes that welcome constructive criticism. A possible way could be to identify all stakeholders concerned by each action to be taken, and to collectively define the governance and organization of its implementation.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Anna Stier and Laure Debeir designed the research; Anna Stier performed the research and analysed the data; all co-authors contributed to the manuscript, revised the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to the 21 international and national respondents who participated in the in-depth interviews, the 18 participants at the workshop as well as the leaders, managers and representatives of the four case studies for their involvement and contributions.

## FUNDING INFORMATION

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work has benefitted from its publication from a grant managed by Office Français de la Biodiversité and Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de la Cohésion des Territoires.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are available in Dryad Digital Repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.s4mw6m9jm.

## ORCID

Anna Stier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0596-1161

Joachim Claudet https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-1061

## REFERENCES

Alves-Pinto, H., Geldmann, J., Jonas, H., Maioli, V., Balmford, A., Latawiec, A. E., Crouzeilles, R., & Strassburg, B. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation. *Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation*, *19*, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004

Bhave, A., Mishra, A., & Raghuwanshi, N. (2014). A combined bottom-up and top-down approach for assessment of climate change adaptation options. *Journal of Hydrology*, *518*, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.039

Brockington, D., Igoe, J., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. *Conservation Biology*, *20*(1), 250–252.

Carroll, C., & Noss, R. F. (2022). How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes. *Conservation Biology*, *36*(4), e13869. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13869

Choi, C., Shi, X., Shi, J., Gan, X., Wen, C., Zhang, J., Jackson, M. V., Fuller, R. A., & Gibson, L. (2022). China's ecological conservation redline policy is a new opportunity to meet post-2020 protected area targets. *Conservation Letters*, *15*(2), e12853. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12853

Claudet, J., Ban, N. C., Blythe, J., Briggs, J., Darling, E., Gurney, G. G., Palardy, J. E., Pike, E. P., Agostini, V. N., Ahmadia, G. N., Campbell, S. J., Epstein, G., Estradivari, Gill, D., Himes-Cornell, A., Jonas, H. D., Jupiter, S. D., Mangubhai, S., & Morgan, L. (2022). Avoiding the misuse of other effective area-based conservation measures in the wake of the blue economy. *One Earth*, *5*(9), 969–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.08.010

Commission Européenne. (2020). *Ramener la Nature dans nos vies. Stratégie de l'UE en faveur de la biodiversité à l'horizon 2030. Communication de la Commission au Parlement Européen, au Conseil, au Comité Economique et Social Européen et au Comité des Régions*. (COM(2020)380–Communication). www.eumonitor.eu; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380

Commission Européenne. (2022). *Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations—Commission staff working document*. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/system/files/2022-01/SWD_guidance_protected_areas.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018). *Decision adopted by the conference of the Parties to the convention on biological diversity*. 14/8. *Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures*. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

Cook, C. N. (2023). Progress developing the concept of other effective area-based conservation measures. *Conservation Biology*, *38*, e14106. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14106

de Sardan, J.-P. O. (1995). La politique du terrain. Sur la production des données en anthropologie. *Enquête. Anthropologie, Histoire, Sociologie*, *1*, 71–109. https://doi.org/10.4000/enquete.263
Dudley, N., Jonas, H., Nelson, F., Parrish, J., Pyhälä, A., Stolton, S., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). The essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. *Global Ecology and Conservation, 15*, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424

Echeverri, J., Cely-Gomez, A., Zafra-Calvo, N., Gonzalez, J., Matallana-Tobon, C., Santamaria, M., & Galan, S. (2021). Short communication: Application of site-level assessment of governance and equity (SAGE) methodology to a candidate OECM: Andaki municipal natural park, Caqueta, Colombia. *Parks*, 27(1), 85-90.

Estradivari, Agung, M. F., Adhuri, D. S., Ferse, S. C. A., Sualia, I., Andradi-Brown, D. A., Campbell, S. J., Iqbal, M., Jonas, H. D., Lazuardi, M. E., Nanlohy, H., Pakiding, F., Pusparini, N. K. S., Ramadhana, H. C., Ruchimat, T., Santiadji, I. W. V., Timisela, N. R., Veverka, L., & Ahmadia, G. N. (2022). Marine conservation beyond MPAs: Towards the recognition of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in Indonesia. *Marine Policy*, 137, 104939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104939

Fraser, E., Dougill, A., Mabee, W., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 78(2), 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009

Girard, C., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Rinaudo, J.-D., Pagé, C., & Caballero, Y. (2015). Integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches to design global change adaptation at the river basin scale. *Global Environmental Change*, 34, 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.002

Gurney, G. G., Darling, E. S., Ahmadia, G. N., Agostini, V. N., Ban, N. C., Blythe, J., Claudet, J., Epstein, G., Estradivari, Himes-Cornell, A., Jonas, H., Armitage, D., Campbell, S. J., Cox, C., Friedman, W. R., Gill, D., Lestari, P., Mangubhai, S., McLeod, E., ... Jupiter, S. D. (2021). Biodiversity needs a very tool in the box: Use OECMs. *Nature*, 595, 646-649. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02041-4

Hampton-Smith, M., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. E. (2024). A systematic review of equity perceptions and outcomes in marine conservation. *Biological Conservation*, 289, 110395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio-con.2023.110395

Himes-Cornell, A., Lechuga Sánchez, J. F., Potter, C., McKean, C., Rice, J., Friedman, K. J., Garcia, S. M., & Fluharty, D. L. (2022). Reaching global marine biodiversity conservation goals with area-based fisheries management: A typology-based evaluation. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 9, 932283. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.932283

IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs. (2019). *Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures*.

Jonas, H., Ahmadia, G. N., Bingham, H. C., Briggs, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Cariño, J., Chassot, O., Chaudhary, S., Darling, E., DeGemmis, A., Dudley, N., Fa, J. E., Fitzsimons, J., Garnett, S., Geldmann, J., Golden Kroner, R., Gurney, G. G., Harrington, A. R., Himes-Cornell, A., ... von Weizsäcker, C. (2021). Equitable and effective area-based conservation: Towards the conserved area paradigm. *Parks*, 27(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-1HJ en

Jonas, H., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H., Kothari, A., & Nelson, F. (2014). New steps of change: Looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures. *Parks*, 20(2), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.HDJ en

Jonas, H., Bingham, H., Bennett, N., Woodley, S., Zlatanova, R., Howland, E., Belle, E., Upton, J., Gottlieb, B., Kamath, V., Lessmann, J., Delli, G., Dubois, G., Ahmadia, G., Claudet, J., Cook, C., Deza, J., Grorud-Colvert, K., Gurney, G., ... Ruiz, L. (2024). Global status and emerging contribution of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) towards the '30 x 30' biodiversity target 3. *Frontiers in Conservation Science*, 5, 1447434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1447434

Jonas, H., Lee, E., Jonas, H., Matallana-Tobon, C., Sander Wright, K., Nelson, F., & Enns, E. (2017). Will «other effective area-based conservation measures» increase recognition and support for ICCAs? *Parks*, 23(2), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-2HDJ en

Larousse en ligne. (2021). https://larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais

Lemieux, C. J., Gray, P. A., Devillers, R., Wright, P. A., Dearden, P., Halpenny, E. A., Groulx, M., Beechey, T. J., & Beazley, K. (2019). How the race to achieve Aichi target 11 could jeopardize the effective conservation of biodiversity in Canada and beyond. *Marine Policy*, 99, 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.029

Lemieux, C. J., Kraus, D. T., & Beazley, K. F. (2022). Running to stand still: The application of substandard OECMs in national and provincial policy in Canada. *Biological Conservation*, 275, 109780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109780

Maini, B., Blythe, J. L., Darling, E. S., & Gurney, G. G. (2023). Charting the value and limits of other effective conservation measures (OECMs) for marine conservation: A Delphi study. *Marine Policy*, 147, 105350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105350

Marnewick, D., Stevens, C., Jonas, H., Antrobus-Wuth, R., Wilson, N., & Theron, N. (2021). Assessing the extent and contribution of OECMs in South Africa. *Parks*, 27(1), 57-70.

Matallana-Tobón, C., Santamaría, M., Areiza Tapias, A., Solano, C., & Galán, S. (2018). Rethinking nature conservation in Colombia: A case study of other effective area-based conservation measures. *Parks*, 24, 89-98. https://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PARKS-24-SI-Matallana-Tobon-et-al-10.2305-IUCN.CH..2018.PARKS%E2%80%9024%E2%80%90SICLM.en_.pdf

Ministère de la Transition écologique. (2022). *Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité 2030*.

Ministère de la Transition écologique. (2023). *Stratégie nationale biodiversité/classeur des fiches mesures*.

Ministère de la Transition écologique. (2025). *Stratégie nationale biodiversité 2030 - La stratégie dans les Outre-mer*. https://biodiversite.gouv.fr/la-strategie-dans-les-outre-mer

Ministère de la Transition écologique, & Ministère de la mer. (2021a). *Plan d'actions 2021-2023. Stratégie Nationale pour les Aires Protégées 2030*. Biotope Edition et Communication.

Ministère de la Transition écologique, & Ministère de la mer. (2021b). *Stratégie nationale pour les aires protégées 2030*. Biotope Edition et Communication. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/DP_Biotope_Ministere_strat-aires-protegees_210111_5_GSA.pdf

Moussaoui, A. (2012). Observer en anthropologie: Immersion et distance. *Contraste*, 36(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.3917/cont.036.0029

Newing, H. (2011). *Conducting research in conservation*. *Social science methods and practice*. Routledge.

Nilsson, A., Bay-Larsen, I., Carlsen, H., van Oort, B., Bjorkan, M., Jylhä, K., Klyuchnikova, E., Masloboev, V., & van der Watt, L.-M. (2017). Towards extended shared socioeconomic pathways: A combined participatory bottom-up and top-down methodology with results from the Barents region. *Global Environmental Change*, 45, 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.001

Observatoire national de la biodiversité- Indicateurs. (2025). https://naturefrance.fr/indicateurs

Pétonnet, C. (1982). L'observation flottante. L'exemple d'un cimetière pasien. *L'Homme*, 22(4), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.3406/hom.1982.368323

Petza, D., Amorim, E., Ben Lamine, E., Colloca, F., Dominguez Crisóstomo, E., Fabbrizzi, E., Fraschetti, S., Galparsoro, I., Giakoumi, S., Kruse, M., Stelzenmüller, V., & Katsanevakis, S. (2023). Assessing the potential of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for contributing to conservation targets: A global scoping review protocol. *Open Research Europe*, 3, 118. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16116.1
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., Sánchez-Espinosa, A., & Abdul Malak, D. (2021). Potential contribution of OECMs to international area-based conservation targets in a biodiversity rich country, Spain. *Journal for Nature Conservation*, 62, 126019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126019

Santamaria, M., Cely-Gomez, A., Matallana-Tobon, C., Echeverri, J., Galan, S., & Rey Rodero, D. (2021). *Otras medidas efectivas de conservación basadas en áreas (OMEC): Guia para su identificación, for-talecimiento y reporte en Colombia*. Fundación Natura y Proyecto Regional Áreas Protegidas Locales.

Semeraro, T., Nicola, Z., Lara, A., Cucinelli, F., & Aretano, R. (2020). A bot-tom-up and top-down participatory approach to planning and de-signing local urban development: Evidence from an Urban University Center. *Land*, 9(4), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040098

Service des données et études statistiques. (2023). La biodiversité en France – Synthèse des connaissances en 2023. https://www.stati-stiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/la-biodiversite-en-france-synthese-des-connaissances-en-2023

Sofrony, C. (2020). *Otras medidas efectivas de conservación basadas en área—Omec en Latinoamérica y el Caribe: Perspectivas de conservación más allá de las áreas protegidas*. Proyecto IAPA – Visión Amazónica. Unión Europea, Redparques, WWF, FAO, UICN, ONU Medio Ambiente.

Stier, A., Lax, J., & Krug, J. (2012). Setting up locally appropriate ecolog-ical criteria and indicators to evaluate sustainable forest manage-ment in Dinh Hoa District (northern Vietnam). In *Sustainable forest management—Case studies* (pp. 203–218). InTech. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224852905

The ICCA Consortium. (2022). *Indigenous Peoples, local communities and area-based conservation targets*. https://www.iccaconsortium.org/2022/03/16/oecm-lbo-brief/

UICN Comité français, OFB & MNHN. (2024). *La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France: 16 ans de résultats*. https://uicn.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/bilan-16-ans-liste-rouge-france.pdf

UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2021). Protected Planet Report 2020. Online. https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/

UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2025). *Global statistics; The world database on protected areas (WDPA)/The world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM)*, Online. www.protectedplanet.net

Wauchope, H. S., Jones, J. P. G., Geldmann, J., Simmons, B. I., Amano, T., Blanco, D. E., Fuller, R. A., Johnston, A., Langendoen, T., Mundkur, T., Nagy, S., & Sutherland, W. J. (2022). Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. *Nature*, 605, 103–107. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5794511

Wilkie, R. D. (2023). Bringing big ideas to the ground: Policy mobilities and frictions in the translation of international guidance on other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in Kenya. https://doi.org/10.7488/ERA/3657

DATA SOURCES

List of references analyzed for the top-down approach.

Alves-Pinto, H., Geldmann, J., Jonas, H., Maioli, V., Balmford, A., Latawiec, A. E., Crouzeilles, R., & Strassburg, B. (2021b). Opportunities and challenges of other ef-fective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation. *Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation*, 19, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004

Blandin, P., Marage, D., Barnaud, M., Benest, G., Carrez, S., Ducarme, F., Garnero Morena, C., Gosselin, F., Livoreil, B., Rogel, J.-P., & Simon, L. (2021). L'avenir du vivant. Nos valeurs pour l'action. Comité Français de l'UICN, Groupe de Travail Ethique. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03318438/document

Comité Français de l'UICN. (2021). COP15: Des engagements à confirmer pour une stratégie mondiale de la biodiversité ambitieuse. Communiqué de Presse.

Commission Aires Protégées, Comité Français de l'UICN. (2021). *Feuille de route 2021-2023 de la Commission Aires Protégées du Comité Français de l'Union Internationale pour la Conservation de la Nature*.

Commission Européenne. (2020b). *Ramener la Nature dans nos vies. Stratégie de l'UE en faveur de la biodiversité à l'horizon 2030*. Communication de la Commission au Parlement Européen, au Conseil, au Comité Economique et Social Européen et au Comité des Régions. (COM(2020)380-Communication). www.eumonitor.eu, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018b). *Decision adopted by the conference of the Parties to the convention on biological diversity*. 14/8. Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

Dudley, N., Jonas, H., Nelson, F., Parrish, J., Pyhälä, A., Stolton, S., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018b). The essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, 15, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424

Groupe de travail sur les AMCE de la CMAP-UICN. (2020). *Reconnaissance et sig-nalement des autres mesures de conservation efficace par zone* (UICN). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PATRS.3.fr

Gurney, G. G., Darling, E. S., Ahmadia, G. N., Agostini, V. N., Ban, N. C., Blythe, J., Claudet, J., Epstein, G., Estradivari, Himes-Cornell, A., Jonas, H., Armitage, D., Campbell, S. J., Cox, C., Friedman, W. R., Gill, D., Lestari, P., Mangubhai, S., McLeod, E., ... Jupiter, S. D. (2021b). Biodiversity needs avery tool in the box: Use OECMs. *Nature*, 595, 646–649. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02041-4

Jonas, H., Ahmadia, G. N., Bingham, H. C., Briggs, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Cariño, J., Chassot, O., Chaudhary, S., Darling, E., DeGemmis, A., Dudley, N., Fa, J. E., Fitzsimons, J., Garnett, S., Geldmann, J., Golden Kroner, R., Gurney, G. G., Harrington, A. R., Himes-Cornell, A., ... von Weizsäcker, C. (2021b). Equitable and effective area-based conservation: Towards the conserved area paradigm. *Parks*, 27(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-1HJ.en

Jonas, H., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H., Kothari, A., & Nelson, F. (2014b). New steps of change: Looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures. *Parks*, 20(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.HDJ.en

Jonas, H., & Jonas, H. (2018). *Global agreement on « conserved areas » marks new era of conservation (commentary)*. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/12/global-agreement-on-conserved-areas-marks-new-era-of-conservation-commentary/

Jonas, H., Lee, E., Jonas, H., Matallana-Tobon, C., Sander Wright, K., Nelson, F., & Enns, E. (2017b). Will « other effective area-based conservation measures » increase recognition and support for ICCAs? *Parks*, 23(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-2HDJ.en

Jonas, H., & MacKinnon, K. (2015). *Task force on other effective area-based conservation measures*. Discussion paper: Framing the issues.

Jonas, H., & Sandwith, T. (2019). *Towards recognising, reporting and supporting OECMs: Report of the fourth expert meeting of the IUCN-WCPA Tas Force on other effective area-based conservation measures*. IUCN.

Lemieux, C. J., Gray, P. A., Devillers, R., Wright, P. A., Dearden, P., Halpenny, E. A., Groulx, M., Beechey, T. J., & Beazley, K. (2019b). How the race to achieve Aichi target 11 could jeopardize the effective conservation of biodiversity in Canada and beyond. *Marine Policy*, 99, 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.029

Ministère de la Transition écologique, & Ministère de la mer. (2021b). *Plan d'actions 2021-2023. Stratégie Nationale pour les Aires Protégées 2030*. Biotope Edition et Communication.

Ministère de la Transition écologique, & Ministère de la mer. (2021b). *Stratégie nationale pour les aires protégées 2030*. Biotope Edition et Communication. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/DP_BiotopeMinistere_strat-aires-protegees_210111_5_GSA.pdf

The ICCA Consortium. (2022). *Indigenous Peoples, local communities and area-based conservation targets*. https://www.iccaconsortium.org/2022/03/16/oecm-lbo-brief/

UICN. (2021a). *Motion 095—Reconnaitre et soutenir d'autres mesures de conservation efficaces par zone et faire rapport à leur sujet. Congrès mondial de la nature*. https://www.iucncongress2020.org/fr/motion/095
UICN. (2021b). Motion 101—Fixer des objectifs de conservation par zone en se fondant sur ce dont la nature et l'homme ont réellement besoin pour prospérer. Congrès mondial de la nature. https://www.iucncongress2020.org/fr/motion/101

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**Table S1.** Cumulation table of challenge, risk and opportunity items during the top-down approach.

**How to cite this article:** Stier, A., Cherel, E., Claudet, J., & Debeir, L. (2025). Conserved areas: Obligations, challenges, risks and opportunities for successful implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in France. *People and Nature*, *00*, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70102