of non-endemic species with a high emblematic value
or global conservation, like whales, dolphins, or birds.
Recently, a governmental proposal for the with-
drawal of about 56% of the species included in the
Canarian catalogue has been published (Martín-
Esquivelet al. 2005). This action was based on a
4 year monitoring and assessment project of the
conservation status of species listed in the
Catalogue. The authors concluded that in about 200
cases, while the species concerned were restricted
to only a few populations, these populations were
healthy and stable. In addition, some 40 species
previously listed as endangered were removed
from that list on the basis of changed assessments
of whether they were endemic, taxonomic clarifica-
tion of status, etc.
Although some species populations may be
healthier than was once thought, and intensive con-
servation efforts may be pulling some endangered
species back from the brink of extinction, many oth-
ers remain acutely at risk (e.g. Marrero-Gómezet al.
2003). The political imperatives within the archipel-
ago remain focused on short-term economic interests
and a model of increased tourism, development, and
urbanization. This economic model casts a dense
shadow of uncertainty over the future of the natural
resource base and biodiversity of the archipelago,
particularly of the warm, dry climate belt so popular
with European tourists. Despite the attempts to
provide legal protection for biodiversity and to
invest in environmental conservation at varying
political levels, the pressures on the natural
resources of the Canaries continue to increase
(García-Falcón and Medina-Muñoz 1999). These
pressures include efforts to reduce the protection
afforded to particular protected areas that have
potential commercial value for development.
Nonetheless, the various networks of protected area
status and the other conservation measures dis-
cussed in this section show how it is possible to tai-
lor protected area models to an insular context:
without these legal instruments, the future of many
Canarian endemic species and ecosystems would
indeed be bleak.12.3 Sustainable development on islands: constraints and remedies
The elements involved in the many case studies
discussed in this and the previous chapter are
repeated in varying combinations and with varying
emphasis for numerous other islands for which336 ISLAND REMEDIES: THE CONSERVATION OF ISLAND ECOSYSTEMS
Table 12.3 Protected terrestrial areas designated by the Canarian and European Union Natura 2000 networks on the Canary Islands (sources:
Martín Esquivel et al. 1995, Fernández-Palacios et al. 2004a).
Item Lanzarote Fuerteventura Gran Tenerife La La El Canaries
Canaria Palma Gomera Hierro
Island area (km^2 ) 846 1660 1560 2034 708 370 269 7447
Number of Canarian 13 13 32 43 20 17 7 145
network protected areas
Canarian network 350 477 666 989 250 123 156 3011
protected area (km^2 )
Additional protected area 2.9 1.5 103 10.7 116 63.4 1.3 298.8
contributed by the Natura
2000 network (km^2 )
Island area protected (km^2 ) 352.9 478.5 769 999.7 366 186.4 157.3 3309.8
Island area protected (%) 41.7 28.8 49.3 49.1 51.7 50.4 58.5 44.5
Island contribution 10.7 14.5 23.2 30.2 11.1 5.6 4.8 100
to Canarian protected
area system (%)