Aichi Target 11 Areas Canadian Reporting Template for Protected Areas and Oecms

Aichi Target 11 Areas – Canadian Reporting Template for Protected Areas and OECMs / Version: June 2, 2017
BASIC INFORMATION
Name of Site / Click here to enter text. /
Designation / Click here to enter text. /
Province/Territory / Choose an item. /
Year of Establishment / Securement / Click here to enter text. /
Area (ha) / Click here to enter text. ha
Management Authority / For FPT governments: provide government, department and division/branch
Click here to enter text.
Explanation of Management Authority (optional) / Only provide description if management authority is very complex or not well understood. This is not necessary for most sites.
Click here to enter text.
Governance Type / Choose an item.
Legal Basis / mechanism(s) / Click here to enter text. /
Explanation of legal basis / mechanism(s) (optional) / Only provide description if legal basis or mechanism(s) is very complex or not well understood. This is not necessary for most sites.
Click here to enter text.
Summary of Essential / Relevant natural, social and cultural values / maximum 3-4 sentences intended to provide overall site context and connection to
in-situ conservation of biodiversity
Click here to enter text.

Part A Instructions: Assessing Effectiveness

Fill out the reporting table below using the “Decision-Screening tool for Aichi Target 11 Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs)” as a guide to assess the effectiveness of the site for the long-term conservation of biodiversity. All criteria in Steps 1 and 2 are intended to help assess whether the mechanism should be reported against Target 11. Criteria in Step 1 apply equally to both Protected Areas and "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs), while criteria in Step 2 help to distinguish between Protected Areas and OECMs.

Step 1: The following criteria apply equally to both Protected Areas and "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs)
CRITERIA: / POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS
(GREEN, YELLOW, RED) / EVIDENCE-BASED RATIONALE
Additional rationale is required to report sites that fall into “yellow” criteria but intent is equivalent to “green”
Geographical Space / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Effective Means – 1 / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Effective Means – 2 / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Long Term / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Dedicated / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Timing / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Step 2: The following criteria are intended to help assess whether the mechanism should be reported against Target 11 and also help to distinguish between Protected Areas and OECMs.
CRITERIA: / POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS
(GREEN, YELLOW, RED) / EVIDENCE-BASED RATIONALE:
Additional rationale is required to report sites that fall into “yellow” criteria but intent is equivalent to “green”
Scope of Conservation Objectives / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Primacy of Nature Conservation Objective(s) / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Governing Authorities / Choose an item / Click here to enter text. /
Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes / Choose an item. / Click here to enter text. /
Summary of Evaluation / Identify outcomes: include total # of Greens, # Yellow with sufficient rationale, # Yellow with outstanding concerns, and # Red with a summary explanation
Click here to enter text.

PART B Instructions: Protection Measures from Subsurface Resource Activity

Fill out the reporting table below using the Subsurface screening tool: “Conservation Effectiveness of Mechanisms for Managing Subsurface Resources within Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures”; as a guide to assess the effectiveness of the mechanism for managing subsurface resources.The tool and minimum reporting standards are intended to apply equally to both Protected Areas and "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs).

PART B: Effectiveness of Protection from Subsurface Resource Activity
EVIDENCE BASED RATIONALE
Mechanism for Protection / Enter the text from each column on subsurface table (columns A, B, and C) that apply to the Mechanism for subsurface protection for this site
Column A: Click here to enter text.
Column B: Click here to enter text.
Column C: Click here to enter text.
Explanation of Protection Measure (if required):Click here to enter text.
Effectiveness / Granting Rights Prevented / Exercise of Rights Prevented / Impacts Prevented
choose an item / choose an item / choose an item /
Existing subsurface resource activities or dispositions (if applicable) / Summarize existing commitments, dispositions, activities, if any, and approximate area/extent
Click here to enter text.
Evidence-based rationale / Provide summary of rationale / evidence of prevention of impacts and long-term effectiveness of mechanisms for protection from subsurface resources
Click here to enter text.
Outcome / Identify recommended interpretation of outcome from subsurface table:
Choose an item.

PART C INSTRUCTIONS: Summary and ReportingOutcomes

Include outcomes from Parts A and B, as well as the IUCN Protected Areas Management Category assignment to the reporting outcomes summary below.

Part A Outcomes: Refer to the “Applying the Tool” instructions included in the “Decision-Screening tool for Aichi Target 11 Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs)” to guide reporting outcomes for Conservation Effectiveness.

Part B Outcomes: Refer to the recommended interpretation of outcomes in the Subsurface screening tool: “Conservation Effectiveness of mechanisms for managing subsurface resources within protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”. Only those sites or portions of sites that meet or exceed the minimum standard should be considered for reported to CARTS.

IUCN Protected Areas Management Category:Use the Canadian Guidelines (or IUCN Guidelines) to determine the most applicable IUCN protected areas management category to be used in reporting Protected Areas to CARTS. Include a 1 – 2 sentence summary of rationale/criteria supporting the assigned category based on Canadian or International Guidelines. OECMsdo not have a standardized category system for reporting, and should not be assigned a Protected Areas category.

PART C: CARTS DATABASE REPORTING OUTCOMES - SUMMARY
Part A Outcome: Conservation Effectiveness / note: PAs or OECMS evaluated as ‘not effective’ should not be reported to CARTSChoose an item.
Additional notes (optional):
Click here to enter text.
Part B Outcome: Effectiveness of Subsurface Protection / Choose an item.
Additional notes (optional):
Click here to enter text.
CARTS Reporting / Site Type:Choose an item.
If “combination” please identify:Click here to enter text.
Currently reported to CARTS?: Choose an item.
Outcome: Choose an item.
Total Area (ha) to be reported to CARTS: Click here to enter text. ha
IUCN Protected Areas Management Category
(only for sites to be reported as Protected Areas, does not apply to OECMs) / Use the Canadian Guidelines (or International Guidelines) to determine the most applicable protected areas management category to be used in reporting Protected Areas to CARTS. Include a 1 – 2 sentence summary of rationale/criteria supporting the assigned category based on Canadian or International Guidelines
IUCN PA Management Category: Choose an item.
Category RationaleClick here to enter text.
Identify deficiencies that could be overcome in order to report to CARTS / What, if any, actions could be undertaken to meet the conservation effectiveness and effectiveness of subsurface protection criteria for reporting to CARTS / Target 11.
Click here to enter text.