differences and differences in predation and
poaching are involved. This demonstrates that the
success of translocation is not simply a function of
initial size of the translocated population.
Eradication of the feral predators, and reduction in
poaching might be the answer on Curieuse, but it is
also possible that the island is basically unsuitable
for the long-term persistence of a viable population.
Programmes based on ex situ breeding and
translocation back into the wild thus have their
place in the conservation of island endemics.
However, they have to be undertaken as part of a
highly organized, managed programme. The hap-
hazard removal of animals from the wild suppos-
edly for captive breeding in zoos may otherwise be
counter-productive. Christian (1993) notes that
although several parrots have been taken out of St
Vincent and the Grenadines for captive breeding,
there have been only three known successes, and to
date there is no evidence of any captive-bred par-
rots being returned to St Vincent for re-release.
Thus, not only is it necessary to ‘fix’ the local envi-
ronmental problems, but it is also necessary to con-
trol the ex situpart of the process.
Protected area and species protection systems: the Canarian example
The combination of high biodiversity value and
severe pressure on natural environments and biota
within the Canaries has been recognized by govern-
mental and non-governmental organizations at all
levels. For example, Birdlife International’s
Endemic Bird Areas scheme rates the islands a ‘high
priority’, and Conservation International has
recently included the islands within an expanded
Mediterranean hotspot in its 2005 revision of the
‘hotspots’ scheme (CI 2005; see Chapter 3). Under
UNESCO designation systems, the Canaries contain
four Biosphere Reserves (the islands of Lanzarote,
La Palma, El Hierro, and the south-western part of
Gran Canaria), a World Heritage site (Garajonay
National Park, in La Gomera), and one Ramsar
Convention wetland (El Matorral, Fuerteventura).
The archipelago also has four National Parks
(IUCN management category II): Timanfaya in
Lanzarote, Teide in Tenerife, Garajonay in La
Gomera, and Taburiente in La Palma, out of a
Spanish network of just 14 National Parks,
although the archipelago constitutes just 1.5% of
Spain’s land area. There are also two important
conservation networks: the Canarian ENP network
(Red Canaria de Espacios Naturales Protegidos)
and the European Union Natura 2000 network of
sites. Today, the archipelago has about 150 pro-
tected areas (Table 12.2), covering 45% of the
Canarian land area. These are impressive figures,
especially for such a densely populated and heavily
visited archipelago.
The Canarian ENP system of protected area
designation (Table 12.2) is a slightly modified
implementation of the IUCN protected areas
model. It includes both strictly protected sites
(e.g. ‘integral natural reserves’ and ‘natural monu-
ments’), and ‘rural parks’ in which conservation
and sustainable development go hand in hand
(Martín-Esquivelet al. 1995). In the latter, the
emphasis is on sustaining the rural populations and
their culture while improving livelihoods and
standards of living. Thus, the goals of species and
habitat conservation within these parks are to be
achieved within ‘cultural landscapes’ of traditional
resources use.
Although the Canarian National Parks have hith-
erto been co-managed by the state and regional
administrations, the rest of the protected area sys-
tem has been managed by each island government.
In total, the Canarian ENP network provides some
measure of protected area designation for about
40% of the land area of the archipelago, with per-
centages for each island ranging from about 30%
for Fuerteventura up to 60% for El Hierro. Together,
the large islands of Gran Canaria and Tenerife
(Fig. 12.1) contribute more than the half of the
whole protected area in the archipelago. This
Canarian network does not include protected
marine areas.
The recent establishment of the European
Union’s Natura 2000 network on the Canaries has
been used by the regional administration as an
opportunity to complement the Canarian ENP net-
work in those terrestrial habitats not previously
well-represented (mainly thermophyllous wood-
lands). Otherwise, almost all the terrestrial NaturaSOME CONSERVATION RESPONSES 333