National, regional and international governance arrangements and agreements affecting migratory species and their migration systems have improved significantly, making relevant policy, legislative and implementation processes more coherent, accountable, transparent, participatory, equitable and inclusive.

 

Note: Reference to governance “affecting” migratory species here indicates that this is not limited only to conservation governance, but extends to other levels/sectors that may also have an effect.

 

Expected result

It is first assumed here that “governance arrangements and agreements affecting migratory species and their migration systems” can be readily identified and listed at national, regional and international levels.  Responsibility for doing that will divide between authorities at each of these levels.

Arrangements and agreements specifically directed at the conservation (or management, or exploitation) of migratory species and their migration systems will obviously be relevant; but so too will be any other arrangements or agreements, perhaps directed at a different sector altogether, which nevertheless directly or indirectly “affect” migratory species or their migration systems.

Arrangements or agreements relating specifically to development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes (including on livelihoods) should however not be considered here because they are covered separately by Target 2.  Arrangements or agreements relating specifically to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) should also not be considered here because they are covered separately by Target 13.

The target appears to suggest that first the relevant arrangements and agreements should improve in some (unspecified) way, and then this will lead to an increase in coherence, accountability, transparency, participation, equitability and inclusiveness.  It would however be more practical to assume that the improvement being sought consists of greater coherence, accountability, etc in the relevant policies, legislation and implementation processes.  No benchmark standards of coherence, accountability etc are in common use, and moving to adopt any such standards would raise considerable definitional challenges.  Assessing the change expected by this target is therefore inevitably going to be a matter of qualitative value-judgment.

The target does however in this case explicitly expect a change to be visible; and moreover it cannot simply be fulfilled by achieving improvements, but instead the improvements must be “significant”; so the magnitude of the change is important.

A - Outreach, promotion and uptake of the Plan

  • CMS Communication Strategy (under development)

E - Resourcing for biodiversity (including human, technical and financial resources)

Section to be completed soon

F - Monitoring and evaluation, including indicators, milestones and feedback to the sub-targets, as well as headline measures of success by which overall success of the SPMS may be judged