Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very happy to read this article, to allow me understand what is about OECM in Australia, which I am sure would be hot and great topic for ecosystem management, addressing global environmental challenges. In the article, you talked a bit about Canada and few other countris, However,  if you can talk OECM in Australia standing in the global perspective, relative to the European countries, and developing countries, like Africa, and China, India. which would improve your article looking like an academic journal article.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. As noted we did briefly touch on the limited number of other countries that have explored what land uses/tenures might be considered OECMs. However, the purpose of this article was not to compare and contrast with other countries, it was to explore what types of land use might qualify as OECMs at an Australian continental scale.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are congratulated on producing a well-written manuscript

Areas requiring reconsideration/editing/augmenting are:

Line 50, "the new the Australian"

Line 56, "deliberative" - is there not a simpler, more understandable word - particularly given that the readers may not have a thorough command of the English language?

Line 183, "National Reserve System Program (NRSP) are considered protected areas [...]" is not substantiated. This observation, therefore, needs to be expanded to answer the proverbial 'how and why'. 

Line 191-192, "leases considered as 191 privately protected areas and apply directly" As above, it is difficult to appreciate this statement or appreciate its accuracy. Hence some discussion is needed on the criteria that need to be met for a piece of land/sea to be considered (from a legal perspective) as a protected area. For instance, many countries have specific laws providing for the establishment and management of protected areas.

Paragraph line 203 - 208, It would be useful (particularly for a non-Australian audience) to include an example.

Line 260, "Nature Repair Market", is country-specific, and hence its context needs to be explained at this point in the manuscript and not toward the end of the manuscript.

Line 276 a comma is needed after 'paper' and again after the reference '(DCCEEW 2023)'.

Line 301 "3.1.1. Defence lands" 'defence' has a different meaning or use in other contexts (e.g. defence against tidal surges). It is, thus, recommended that this heading be reworded to bring clarity, e.g. National Defence Agency Lands.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used is of a high standard.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for these important points. We have addressed each below

Line 50, "the new the Australian"

Response: corrected, thank you

Line 56, "deliberative" - is there not a simpler, more understandable word - particularly given that the readers may not have a thorough command of the English language?

Response: We agree and have restructured the sentence to read: “This has been based on considered policy and programs that recognised the importance of different underlying rights, tenure and ownership across public, private and indigenous land (Commonwealth of Australia 1996; JANIS 1997; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2005, 2009).”

Line 183, "National Reserve System Program (NRSP) are considered protected areas [...]" is not substantiated. This observation, therefore, needs to be expanded to answer the proverbial 'how and why'. 

Response: We have edited this sentence to more clearly state the contract between the Australian Government and the NGO clearly states this to be the case. We have also added an additional reference outlining the legal case for this. It now reads: “Pastoral leasehold lands purchased by conservation Non-government Organisations (NGOs) with funding from Australia’s National Reserve System Program (NRSP) are considered protected areas, as explicitly stated in the legal contract between the Australian Government and the NGO (Fitzsimons 2006; Fitzsimons 2015).”

Line 191-192, "leases considered as privately protected areas and apply directly" As above, it is difficult to appreciate this statement or appreciate its accuracy. Hence some discussion is needed on the criteria that need to be met for a piece of land/sea to be considered (from a legal perspective) as a protected area. For instance, many countries have specific laws providing for the establishment and management of protected areas.

Response: This is an astute observation and highlights the exploration that still needs to take place in defining privately protected areas and OECMs on private land. However, if the primary purpose of an NGO holding a pastoral lease was for conservation, and if the lease did allow for conservation as a primary purpose and it was documented in the lease, then this would far more likely to be classified as a privately protected area based on primary purpose. We have restructured the sentence and added this justification

“If pastoral leases did allow this to occur and it could be clearly documented in the lease, there could be a case for conservation NGOs holding such leases to have those leases considered as privately protected areas and included as part of the National Reserve System or, failing that, apply directly to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre  for recognition and inclusion in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (Bingham et al. 2017, 2019, 2021; Mitchell et al. 2018a), based on the primary purpose being conservation and legal recognition of that purpose.”

Paragraph line 203 - 208, It would be useful (particularly for a non-Australian audience) to include an example.

Response: We have added an extra line pointing readers to numerous examples of area-based conservation linking protected areas in Australia and restructured the paragraph to read: “The third example “where connectivity can be achieved between existing protected areas, but the connecting land has a primary purpose not compatible with protection” may be an appropriate approach for prioritizing effort towards the identification and recognition registration of OECMs. Various forms of area-based conservation have been shown to connect existing protected areas in Australia (Fitzsimons et al 2013). However, to qualify as an OECM these areas would still need to meet the principles of an OECM, including sustained conservation outcome over the long term and maintenance of their conservation value.”

Line 260, "Nature Repair Market", is country-specific, and hence its context needs to be explained at this point in the manuscript and not toward the end of the manuscript.

Response: To explain it in detail here would interrupt the flow so we have instead pointed the reader to the section later in the document where it is dealt with in more detail by adding “(see section 3.4.6 below).”

Line 276 a comma is needed after 'paper' and again after the reference '(DCCEEW 2023)'.

Response: done

Line 301 "3.1.1. Defence lands" 'defence' has a different meaning or use in other contexts (e.g. defence against tidal surges). It is, thus, recommended that this heading be reworded to bring clarity, e.g. National Defence Agency Lands.

Response: this is a good suggestion and we have changed the heading accordingly

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Manuscript ID: conservation-2886221

Title: Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Australia: key considerations for assessment and implementation

Authors: James A. Fitzsimons, Thalie Partridge and Rebecca Keen

 

 

First of all, congratulations to the authors, this is a very nice article, complex work. Nowadays, in the age of global threats, the work aimed at preserving biodiversity, is certainly noteworthy.

Australia, in its ambition to create a comprehensive, adequate, representative protected area system, has taken an expansive approach, by actively incorporating private and Indigenous lands in addition to public land into the protected area network for the past 30 years.

 Protected areas should have biodiversity conservation as a primary objective while OECMs are required to show an effective contribution to in-situ conservation of biodiversity regardless of their main objective.

Management goals and activities must be coordinated with biodiversity. The most important guidelines are conservation, management and restoration. Coordination of territorial protection, protection against invasive species and reduction of fire risk is a priority.

The historical and experiential knowledge of the country's indigenous people is also incorporated into the treatment guidelines.

The article’s main strength is that it collects, organizes, and compares the elements of the difficult-to-comparable conservation tools as well. This is a very complex and forward looking summary. It uses extremely versatile approaches.

During the implementation, numerous forums and consultations must be held with local farmers. I consider one of the shortcomings of the article to be that it does not place enough emphasis on planned communication.

The other, even more important thing, in my opinion, is the system of restrictions and financial compensations. Local farmers and land tenants can only be successfully involved in biodiversity conservation programs if they derive visible and perceptible benefits for themselves. Environmentally friendly farming methods often involve additional costs, which farmers have to pay. This must be taken into account during planning.

 

Further remarks and minor mistakes in the order of the text:

The abstract is good, concise and understandable.

I recommend entering new keywords, because the current ones can all be found in the title, for example „OECM; other effective area-based conservation measures”.  This way the new, changed keyword will help others find the article.

This „30x30” it is not clear what this refers to.

 

in line 61.: IPAs and PPAs: the explanation of the abbreviations must be given at the first mention

 

Author Response

First of all, congratulations to the authors, this is a very nice article, complex work. Nowadays, in the age of global threats, the work aimed at preserving biodiversity, is certainly noteworthy. Australia, in its ambition to create a comprehensive, adequate, representative protected area system, has taken an expansive approach, by actively incorporating private and Indigenous lands in addition to public land into the protected area network for the past 30 years. Protected areas should have biodiversity conservation as a primary objective while OECMs are required to show an effective contribution to in-situ conservation of biodiversity regardless of their main objective. Management goals and activities must be coordinated with biodiversity. The most important guidelines are conservation, management and restoration. Coordination of territorial protection, protection against invasive species and reduction of fire risk is a priority. The historical and experiential knowledge of the country's indigenous people is also incorporated into the treatment guidelines.The article’s main strength is that it collects, organizes, and compares the elements of the difficult-to-comparable conservation tools as well. This is a very complex and forward looking summary. It uses extremely versatile approaches.

Response: thank you for this assessment

During the implementation, numerous forums and consultations must be held with local farmers. I consider one of the shortcomings of the article to be that it does not place enough emphasis on planned communication.

Response: We agree and have added the following line to section 4.3.3. Management obligations for OECM landowner:s: “During discussions with managers of land that might be considered potential OECMs, transparently explaining the expectations and obligations of being recognised as an OECM will be essential.”

The other, even more important thing, in my opinion, is the system of restrictions and financial compensations. Local farmers and land tenants can only be successfully involved in biodiversity conservation programs if they derive visible and perceptible benefits for themselves. Environmentally friendly farming methods often involve additional costs, which farmers have to pay. This must be taken into account during planning.

Response: We agree and have addressed this broadly under 4.3.4 Resourcing OECMs

Further remarks and minor mistakes in the order of the text:

The abstract is good, concise and understandable.

Response: thank you

I recommend entering new keywords, because the current ones can all be found in the title, for example „OECM; other effective area-based conservation measures”.  This way the new, changed keyword will help others find the article.

Response: We have added some additional keywords but retained "OECM and other effective area-based conservation measures" as they are the main subject of the article and thus appropriate to retain

This „30x30” it is not clear what this refers to.

Response: we have now expanded this to read ‘30x30 protection target’

in line 61: IPAs and PPAs: the explanation of the abbreviations must be given at the first mention

Response: Thank you for picking this up - we have now spelt these out

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I have read through the author's explanations on my comments and I am happy with them.   

 

Based on this I am happy to recommend the manuscript be published.  Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used is of a high standard.

Author Response

Thank you