(SEE 9 GES reporting for the different arbitrators) objective 0 is considered unnecessary since it coincides with the main aim of the Directive: Achieve BEA in all descriptors

The minimum surface area of the seabed of the Demarcación Canaria que ha if you have suffered some sort of disturbance during the current period of evaluation is 98 million m². representing 0.02 % of the area demarcation. Because it could not be taken into account trawling, one very relevant activity for this analysis not possible determine whether or not the target is met It is proposed to maintain the objective, simplifying wording and focusing more on indicators towards the main pressures of the FD Canary Islands The indicator is too general in order to assess the objective, it proposes to amend and combine it with other relevant indicators evaluate the initiatives put in place at gear for achieving reduction of pressures. It is also proposed to include this target group C as it is clearly targeted at making activities compatible human beings with conservation marine environment

Progress was noted. Is necessary continue along this line The wording of this objective is it corresponds better to a measure. Edit wording to bring it into line with an objective, and the indicator to measure achievement can be measured of the Further divide the target into two: one aiming at the improvement of the coordination of programmes of monitoring of species and habitats, and another focus on berections and incidental catches. In the latter, in addition, it is proposed to include a explicit reference to improving follow-up of incidental catch for the fisheries sector (target proposed in the framework of the Istic seas II for Macaronesia)

Progress was noted. There are active surveillance systems in place in on the spot, however, it is envisaged to complete the monitoring of Marine Spaces Protected (PME). Surveillance systems also exist remote, such as buoys, satellites, geolocalisation of vessels, by radio (AIS) and satellite (VMS), etc. It is proposed to change the objective of focus more on the monitoring compliance rules laid down in the interest of the ecosystem protection seafarers Edit indicator to provide input information on the grade of surveillance performed, such as number of infringement dossiers, surveillance or human resources intended for the purpose

In process. Despite the fact that it is have implemented a number of actions on introduction pathways, and that the outcome of the evaluation of the Descriptor 2 proved to be Good Environmental Condition”, is considered to be that no key vectors have been addressed for introduction and translocation of non-indigenous species in the Canary Islands, such as the Biouling. See initial evaluation of D2 of the DMCAN Actions: Convention on Waters of Lakes IMO (in force since 2017) Implementation of the Regulation Community species on species IS Dredging guidelines It is proposed to maintain the objective, to continue along the same line, although you do not list the possible pathways in the objective, to shorten this and to: do not limit possibilities. An indicator should be added providing information the number or percentage of tracks and anthropogenic vectors of translocation addressed by measures acting or regulated. It is proposed it should also include this objective in the group C as it is aimed at making activities compatible human beings with conservation marine environment

Objective achieved. In accordance with Initial Assessment of D2 in the case of the Canary Islands, non-indigenous species they have not increased. decreased and do not pose a threat marine habitats It is proposed to change the target. as the eradication of is very poor invasive species complex and really in many cases cannot be addressed. SE proposes to transform it into a integrated management target covering prevention (networks of early detection) and measures of management, thus covering this objective, and C.3.6.

Results MISTIC SECAS II Birds: In general, there is not enough data to assess the target in seabird species

Results MISTIC SECAS II Mammals: For most of the assessed species, no data sufficient to assess this objective. However, the sperm whale seems not to be achieve BEA for Criterion D1C1, a collisions with ships caused by collisions with vessels

Results MISTIC SECAS II Turtles: There is not enough data for evaluate the target in species of Sea turtles.

Cannot be evaluated. No information on the indicator. There are measures such as: in RN2000, non-native species cannot be grown It is proposed that the aim be maintained, on the proposal of the experts and by the foreseeable rise of aquaculture. The indicator will be changed to "prevention measures in control programmes" as the existence of the programmes themselves is mandatory. Switch to group C

Cannot be evaluated. No information on the indicator. It is proposed to delete as it is more than an objective. The substance of the objective is retained through amendment of A.1.4.

Depending on the species. See initial evaluation of D1 of the DMCAN (Macaronesia Roof Report) It is proposed to change the target for better reflecting the balance of all the ecosystem as a whole, not only the populations of certain species

Progress was noted. It is necessary to continue along this line Spain has actively participated in MISTIC SEAS I projects, which was designed to design and test joint monitoring programmes between Spain and Portugal for turtles, mammals and seabirds in the Macaronesian region. ICCAT evaluation groups It is proposed to keep the objective with drafting changes, in order to make it more suitable for an objective, as it currently could correspond to a specific measure. It is proposed to move to type A, as it is a tool to ensure the conservation and restoration of marine biodiversity.

Objective achieved: Expert PdS workshops: 14 (Workshops and meetings with administrations and survey) Expert workshop for the design of the MIP: 21 • Dissemination: 1 workshop (by DM), • 1 Dissemination campaign (dissemination materials) • 2 CONAMAS • Education and participation projects: 7 (BIO) including INTEMARES • volunteering campaigns • meetings with sectors: 1 workshop on socio-economic analysis • public consultation of documents from the Member States: 3 • Public consultation of project results MISTIC SEAS: 2 It is proposed to keep this objective for the second cycle, so as to ensure social participation in the Member States.

Target achieved • ICES meetings: 6 • meetings meetings of the CAN Monitoring Committee: 6 • Autonomous Community meetings on marine biodiversity: 7 • Generating DMCAN data flow • Working groups: WG Biodiversity: 1 Marine cartography: 10 Descriptor 9 GT: 1 WG Seat-Data: 2 WG Technical WG Costa: 6 • Meetings with sectors: 1 workshop on socio-economic analysis It is proposed to maintain the objective, by improving the wording for the second cycle, to make further progress in the coordination of public administrations. It is proposed to add as indicator: “Number of thematic areas in which coordination initiatives are taken, compared to the previous cycle”.

Progress is being made, although not all recreational marine activities are regulated Pocket management plans: 24 It is proposed to change the target and indicator to cover all activities and uses, in line with the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive.

Progress was noted. It is necessary to continue along this line See initial evaluation of D3 in the DMCAN. It is proposed that the aim should be maintained, by improving the wording and focusing on all stocks that fall outside the scope of the BEA.

Target achieved All Member State documents are publicly available on MITECO’s website. However, it can be improved. For the second cycle, it is proposed to specify and extend the target audience, so as to improve access to information on the marine environment available to all maritime administrations and institutions, as well as to the general public.

Progress detected There are data that provide information on the professional fishing activity provided by the SGP, which could not be analysed in depth. There are also data on recreational fishing and shellfishing activities (licences, et). It is proposed to delete the target, as this information is collected, through the monitoring programmes.