Expected result

This target does not expressly describe a change, but it defines an intended end-state which clearly does not yet exist - at least in respect of the element specifying 100% coverage (“all” critical habitats and sites for migratory species being covered by the measures described).  That change is therefore implied.

Assessment of progress towards this target would require information on:

• A shared interpretation of the term “critical” (see comment below).
• The location of all critical habitats and sites for migratory species.
•  Identification of relevant area-based conservation measures that either are currently or are capable of:
  
  •       maintaining the quality of the habitats and sites;
  •       maintaining the integrity of the habitats and sites;
  •       maintaining the resilience of the habitats and sites;
  •       maintaining the functioning of the habitats and sites;
  •       doing all of the above in accordance with Aichi Target 11, which additionally seeks
    
    •     effective management;
    •     equitable management;
    •     ecological representativity;
    •     good connectivity;
    •     integration into wider landscapes and seascapes.
• The extent to which the critical habitats and sites referred to above are included in area-based conservation measures that meet the requirements listed above.
• Identification of situations among those identified above which require to be supported by environmentally sensitive land-use planning and landscape management on a wider scale.
• The extent to which the situations identified in accordance with the preceding point are actually being supported in the way described.

It would be possible to interpret the term “critical” as relating for example to a single stopover site on a migratory route that is used by an entire population of migratory animals at a stage in their migratory cycle, such that jeopardising this one site jeopardises the entire population in a way that jeopardising other sites used by only a proportion of the population at other times would not do.  Such circumstances are not documented with certainty for many migratory species, and such an interpretation would be likely to restrict unduly the application of this target.  It is accordingly proposed to interpret the term “critical” as though it referred to standards of “significance” or “importance” commonly used for example in protected area selection criteria.  Its exact meaning will therefore vary according to the particular system of area-based measures being considered at the time, and according to the scale of evaluation (national, regional, global, etc).

Clearly this is a complex target with several component parts.  Although full achievement of it can consist only of full realisation of all these parts, in practice assessments of progress are likely to need to concentrate on certain particularly tractable subdivisions of the issue.