WADA-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 2. Once introduced, alien species are components of ecosystems that can be evaluated by means of condition indicators, but in terms of good environmental status they should be considered as a pressure on native ecosystems. Thus, what will guarantee good environmental status in relation to this descriptor will be the absence of pressure, that is, the absence of alien species. However, given the irreversibility of the great majority of processes of establishment of alignant species, it is not possible to consider the BEA as the absence of alignant species. For this reason, the criteria associated with the descriptor are oriented on the one hand towards maintaining the status quo, that is to say, to reducing the rate of new primary introductions and limiting the expansion of those already established, which reduces the possibility of negative impacts, and on the other hand refers to the direct evaluation of these impacts. For the same reason as mentioned above regarding the irreversibility of the invasions, these impact indicators should give an account of the temporal evolution of the degree of negative impact, and consider that the BEA is achieved by reducing the rate of increase of these impacts.
br />According to what was explained in the previous section, in the sense that alien species are in fact a pressure that threatens the good environmental status of ecosystems, the BEA should not be defined as the result of a particular state of alien species, but rather as a function of the state of native biotas. In fact, the BEA in relation to descriptor 2 consists of the achievement of the BEA with respect to descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (integrity of the bottoms). In addition, taking into account the characteristic of pressure on the marine environment that involves the algae species, a second characteristic of the BEA can be established in reference to the minimization of pressures. Therefore, the Good Environmental Status of descriptor 2 is defined in these two facets
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 4. Due to the scarcity of information on this descriptor in the Canary Islands Marine Demarcation, it has been decided to define Good Environmental Status in a qualitative way.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 5. According to the DMEM, Good Environmental Status (GES) with respect to eutrophication is achieved when “human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, massive algae blooms and oxygen deficit in deep waters”. It is clear that minimizing the effects of eutrophication occurs when the impact of nutrients released from ocean sources remains below a threshold that does not produce effects on the marine environment. This maximum threshold will depend on the characteristics of each area (hydrographic conditions, currents, ecosystem structure, etc.). Therefore, it should be defined specifically for each area of study within the Demarcation. In the evaluation presented in the previous section, areas of relatively homogeneous productivity have been defined, which are therefore expected to present a high degree of sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.
In practice, it is not possible to quantitatively define, with the available data, that maximum threshold of nutrient load. Alternatively, we propose to evaluate the eutrophication in the coastal areas of the Demarcation by comparison with the open sea areas. According to this evaluation, it is possible to define a BEA for each of the indicators (or group of indicators) in the terms shown in Table 5.6. As can be seen, the definition includes two complementary criteria for defining the EA for each group of indicators: time trends and reference values.
The indicators of Descriptor 5 are hierarchically structured, so that only if a trend towards an increase in nutrient concentration is detected, not linked to hydrological variability, quantifiable effects on the concentration of chlorophyll or phytoplankton communities attributable to contamination can be expected. However, similarly to what was done for Criterion 3.1, a definition of the BEA can be suggested for Criterion 3.2:
"The BEA corresponds to SSB/SSBMSY being ≥1 for at least 50% of the stocks and not {;0. 6 for no stock."
The value 0.6 is the result of 1/1.6, being 1.6 the value used in the definition of the BEA for Criterion 3. 1.
In an analogous way, the current state in relation to the BEA could be measured in a scale of 0 to 1, with the value 0 corresponding to the worst situation and 1 corresponding to the BEA, by means of the formula:
max[ 0 , 1 – proportion of red stocks – max{0, 0. 5 – proportion of stocks in green} When there is no SSBMSY (or precautionary biomass) reference point, it is not possible to work on the basis of columns 1 & 2 of Table 3.4. In that case, it would be possible to work with columns 3 and 4 of the table, which use the average of the biomass over the whole period,7)-T(T,B, instead of BMSY. The advantages of working with columns 3 and 4 over using columns 1 and 2 are that all stocks with main or secondary indicators are considered in the calculation and that the interpretation is consistent among them. However, it is very important to note that a value of 1 in this case would not necessarily correspond to the BEA, since the analysis is not based on BMSY but on the historical values of the B.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 6
In none of the habitats is currently available adequate information on its extent and / or status. The spatial and methodological limitations do not allow to define at this time the BEA (Good Environmental Status) of the habitats as a quantitative value or point. Therefore, the definition of Good Environmental Status should not be the reference level established in the evaluation of the state, but a positive trend towards that level or stability, since in many cases the reference level is impossible to achieve (loss of irreversible habitat, high social costs, long-term time scale of recovery processes, etc.). On the other hand, the concept of Good Environmental Status must take into account the sustainable use of the seas and a level of human activity that is compatible with the conservation of marine ecosystems, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. Therefore, the BEA cannot be assimilated to the reference level, but must take into consideration other factors.

WADA-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 2. Once introduced, alien species are components of ecosystems that can be evaluated by means of condition indicators, but in terms of good environmental status they should be considered as a pressure on native ecosystems. Thus, what will guarantee good environmental status in relation to this descriptor will be the absence of pressure, that is, the absence of alien species. However, given the irreversibility of the great majority of processes of establishment of alignant species, it is not possible to consider the BEA as the absence of alignant species. For this reason, the criteria associated with the descriptor are oriented on the one hand towards maintaining the status quo, that is to say, to reducing the rate of new primary introductions and limiting the expansion of those already established, which reduces the possibility of negative impacts, and on the other hand refers to the direct evaluation of these impacts. For the same reason as mentioned above regarding the irreversibility of the invasions, these impact indicators should give an account of the temporal evolution of the degree of negative impact, and consider that the BEA is achieved by reducing the rate of increase of these impacts.
br />According to what was explained in the previous section, in the sense that alien species are in fact a pressure that threatens the good environmental status of ecosystems, the BEA should not be defined as the result of a particular state of alien species, but rather as a function of the state of native biotas. In fact, the BEA in relation to descriptor 2 consists of the achievement of the BEA with respect to descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (integrity of the bottoms). In addition, taking into account the characteristic of pressure on the marine environment that involves the algae species, a second characteristic of the BEA can be established in reference to the minimization of pressures. Therefore, the Good Environmental Status of descriptor 2 is defined in these two facets
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 4. Due to the scarcity of information on this descriptor in the Canary Islands Marine Demarcation, it has been decided to define Good Environmental Status in a qualitative way.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 5. According to the DMEM, Good Environmental Status (GES) with respect to eutrophication is achieved when “human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, massive algae blooms and oxygen deficit in deep waters”. It is clear that minimizing the effects of eutrophication occurs when the impact of nutrients released from ocean sources remains below a threshold that does not produce effects on the marine environment. This maximum threshold will depend on the characteristics of each area (hydrographic conditions, currents, ecosystem structure, etc.). Therefore, it should be defined specifically for each area of study within the Demarcation. In the evaluation presented in the previous section, areas of relatively homogeneous productivity have been defined, which are therefore expected to present a high degree of sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.
In practice, it is not possible to quantitatively define, with the available data, that maximum threshold of nutrient load. Alternatively, we propose to evaluate the eutrophication in the coastal areas of the Demarcation by comparison with the open sea areas. According to this evaluation, it is possible to define a BEA for each of the indicators (or group of indicators) in the terms shown in Table 5.6. As can be seen, the definition includes two complementary criteria for defining the EA for each group of indicators: time trends and reference values.
The indicators of Descriptor 5 are hierarchically structured, so that only if a trend towards an increase in nutrient concentration is detected, not linked to hydrological variability, quantifiable effects on the concentration of chlorophyll or phytoplankton communities attributable to contamination can be expected. However, similarly to what was done for Criterion 3.1, a definition of the BEA can be suggested for Criterion 3.2:
"The BEA corresponds to SSB/SSBMSY being ≥1 for at least 50% of the stocks and not {;0. 6 for no stock."
The value 0.6 is the result of 1/1.6, being 1.6 the value used in the definition of the BEA for Criterion 3. 1.
In an analogous way, the current state in relation to the BEA could be measured in a scale of 0 to 1, with the value 0 corresponding to the worst situation and 1 corresponding to the BEA, by means of the formula:
max[ 0 , 1 – proportion of red stocks – max{0, 0. 5 – proportion of stocks in green} When there is no SSBMSY (or precautionary biomass) reference point, it is not possible to work on the basis of columns 1 & 2 of Table 3.4. In that case, it would be possible to work with columns 3 and 4 of the table, which use the average of the biomass over the whole period,7)-T(T,B, instead of BMSY. The advantages of working with columns 3 and 4 over using columns 1 and 2 are that all stocks with main or secondary indicators are considered in the calculation and that the interpretation is consistent among them. However, it is very important to note that a value of 1 in this case would not necessarily correspond to the BEA, since the analysis is not based on BMSY but on the historical values of the B.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 6
In none of the habitats is currently available adequate information on its extent and / or status. The spatial and methodological limitations do not allow to define at this time the BEA (Good Environmental Status) of the habitats as a quantitative value or point. Therefore, the definition of Good Environmental Status should not be the reference level established in the evaluation of the state, but a positive trend towards that level or stability, since in many cases the reference level is impossible to achieve (loss of irreversible habitat, high social costs, long-term time scale of recovery processes, etc.). On the other hand, the concept of Good Environmental Status must take into account the sustainable use of the seas and a level of human activity that is compatible with the conservation of marine ecosystems, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. Therefore, the BEA cannot be assimilated to the reference level, but must take into consideration other factors.

WADA-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 2. Once introduced, alien species are components of ecosystems that can be evaluated by means of condition indicators, but in terms of good environmental status they should be considered as a pressure on native ecosystems. Thus, what will guarantee good environmental status in relation to this descriptor will be the absence of pressure, that is, the absence of alien species. However, given the irreversibility of the great majority of processes of establishment of alignant species, it is not possible to consider the BEA as the absence of alignant species. For this reason, the criteria associated with the descriptor are oriented on the one hand towards maintaining the status quo, that is to say, to reducing the rate of new primary introductions and limiting the expansion of those already established, which reduces the possibility of negative impacts, and on the other hand refers to the direct evaluation of these impacts. For the same reason as mentioned above regarding the irreversibility of the invasions, these impact indicators should give an account of the temporal evolution of the degree of negative impact, and consider that the BEA is achieved by reducing the rate of increase of these impacts.
br />According to what was explained in the previous section, in the sense that alien species are in fact a pressure that threatens the good environmental status of ecosystems, the BEA should not be defined as the result of a particular state of alien species, but rather as a function of the state of native biotas. In fact, the BEA in relation to descriptor 2 consists of the achievement of the BEA with respect to descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (integrity of the bottoms). In addition, taking into account the characteristic of pressure on the marine environment that involves the algae species, a second characteristic of the BEA can be established in reference to the minimization of pressures. Therefore, the Good Environmental Status of descriptor 2 is defined in these two facets
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 4. Due to the scarcity of information on this descriptor in the Canary Islands Marine Demarcation, it has been decided to define Good Environmental Status in a qualitative way.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 5. According to the DMEM, Good Environmental Status (GES) with respect to eutrophication is achieved when “human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, massive algae blooms and oxygen deficit in deep waters”. It is clear that minimizing the effects of eutrophication occurs when the impact of nutrients released from ocean sources remains below a threshold that does not produce effects on the marine environment. This maximum threshold will depend on the characteristics of each area (hydrographic conditions, currents, ecosystem structure, etc.). Therefore, it should be defined specifically for each area of study within the Demarcation. In the evaluation presented in the previous section, areas of relatively homogeneous productivity have been defined, which are therefore expected to present a high degree of sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.
In practice, it is not possible to quantitatively define, with the available data, that maximum threshold of nutrient load. Alternatively, we propose to evaluate the eutrophication in the coastal areas of the Demarcation by comparison with the open sea areas. According to this evaluation, it is possible to define a BEA for each of the indicators (or group of indicators) in the terms shown in Table 5.6. As can be seen, the definition includes two complementary criteria for defining the EA for each group of indicators: time trends and reference values.
The indicators of Descriptor 5 are hierarchically structured, so that only if a trend towards an increase in nutrient concentration is detected, not linked to hydrological variability, quantifiable effects on the concentration of chlorophyll or phytoplankton communities attributable to contamination can be expected. However, similarly to what was done for Criterion 3.1, a definition of the BEA can be suggested for Criterion 3.2:
"The BEA corresponds to SSB/SSBMSY being ≥1 for at least 50% of the stocks and not {;0. 6 for no stock."
The value 0.6 is the result of 1/1.6, being 1.6 the value used in the definition of the BEA for Criterion 3. 1.
In an analogous way, the current state in relation to the BEA could be measured in a scale of 0 to 1, with the value 0 corresponding to the worst situation and 1 corresponding to the BEA, by means of the formula:
max[ 0 , 1 – proportion of red stocks – max{0, 0. 5 – proportion of stocks in green} When there is no SSBMSY (or precautionary biomass) reference point, it is not possible to work on the basis of columns 1 & 2 of Table 3.4. In that case, it would be possible to work with columns 3 and 4 of the table, which use the average of the biomass over the whole period,7)-T(T,B, instead of BMSY. The advantages of working with columns 3 and 4 over using columns 1 and 2 are that all stocks with main or secondary indicators are considered in the calculation and that the interpretation is consistent among them. However, it is very important to note that a value of 1 in this case would not necessarily correspond to the BEA, since the analysis is not based on BMSY but on the historical values of the B.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 6
In none of the habitats is currently available adequate information on its extent and / or status. The spatial and methodological limitations do not allow to define at this time the BEA (Good Environmental Status) of the habitats as a quantitative value or point. Therefore, the definition of Good Environmental Status should not be the reference level established in the evaluation of the state, but a positive trend towards that level or stability, since in many cases the reference level is impossible to achieve (loss of irreversible habitat, high social costs, long-term time scale of recovery processes, etc.). On the other hand, the concept of Good Environmental Status must take into account the sustainable use of the seas and a level of human activity that is compatible with the conservation of marine ecosystems, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. Therefore, the BEA cannot be assimilated to the reference level, but must take into consideration other factors.

WADA-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 2. Once introduced, alien species are components of ecosystems that can be evaluated by means of condition indicators, but in terms of good environmental status they should be considered as a pressure on native ecosystems. Thus, what will guarantee good environmental status in relation to this descriptor will be the absence of pressure, that is, the absence of alien species. However, given the irreversibility of the great majority of processes of establishment of alignant species, it is not possible to consider the BEA as the absence of alignant species. For this reason, the criteria associated with the descriptor are oriented on the one hand towards maintaining the status quo, that is to say, to reducing the rate of new primary introductions and limiting the expansion of those already established, which reduces the possibility of negative impacts, and on the other hand refers to the direct evaluation of these impacts. For the same reason as mentioned above regarding the irreversibility of the invasions, these impact indicators should give an account of the temporal evolution of the degree of negative impact, and consider that the BEA is achieved by reducing the rate of increase of these impacts.
br />According to what was explained in the previous section, in the sense that alien species are in fact a pressure that threatens the good environmental status of ecosystems, the BEA should not be defined as the result of a particular state of alien species, but rather as a function of the state of native biotas. In fact, the BEA in relation to descriptor 2 consists of the achievement of the BEA with respect to descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (integrity of the bottoms). In addition, taking into account the characteristic of pressure on the marine environment that involves the algae species, a second characteristic of the BEA can be established in reference to the minimization of pressures. Therefore, the Good Environmental Status of descriptor 2 is defined in these two facets
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 4. Due to the scarcity of information on this descriptor in the Canary Islands Marine Demarcation, it has been decided to define Good Environmental Status in a qualitative way.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 5. According to the DMEM, Good Environmental Status (GES) with respect to eutrophication is achieved when “human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, massive algae blooms and oxygen deficit in deep waters”. It is clear that minimizing the effects of eutrophication occurs when the impact of nutrients released from ocean sources remains below a threshold that does not produce effects on the marine environment. This maximum threshold will depend on the characteristics of each area (hydrographic conditions, currents, ecosystem structure, etc.). Therefore, it should be defined specifically for each area of study within the Demarcation. In the evaluation presented in the previous section, areas of relatively homogeneous productivity have been defined, which are therefore expected to present a high degree of sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.
In practice, it is not possible to quantitatively define, with the available data, that maximum threshold of nutrient load. Alternatively, we propose to evaluate the eutrophication in the coastal areas of the Demarcation by comparison with the open sea areas. According to this evaluation, it is possible to define a BEA for each of the indicators (or group of indicators) in the terms shown in Table 5.6. As can be seen, the definition includes two complementary criteria for defining the EA for each group of indicators: time trends and reference values.
The indicators of Descriptor 5 are hierarchically structured, so that only if a trend towards an increase in nutrient concentration is detected, not linked to hydrological variability, quantifiable effects on the concentration of chlorophyll or phytoplankton communities attributable to contamination can be expected. However, similarly to what was done for Criterion 3.1, a definition of the BEA can be suggested for Criterion 3.2:
"The BEA corresponds to SSB/SSBMSY being ≥1 for at least 50% of the stocks and not {;0. 6 for no stock."
The value 0.6 is the result of 1/1.6, being 1.6 the value used in the definition of the BEA for Criterion 3. 1.
In an analogous way, the current state in relation to the BEA could be measured in a scale of 0 to 1, with the value 0 corresponding to the worst situation and 1 corresponding to the BEA, by means of the formula:
max[ 0 , 1 – proportion of red stocks – max{0, 0. 5 – proportion of stocks in green} When there is no SSBMSY (or precautionary biomass) reference point, it is not possible to work on the basis of columns 1 & 2 of Table 3.4. In that case, it would be possible to work with columns 3 and 4 of the table, which use the average of the biomass over the whole period,7)-T(T,B, instead of BMSY. The advantages of working with columns 3 and 4 over using columns 1 and 2 are that all stocks with main or secondary indicators are considered in the calculation and that the interpretation is consistent among them. However, it is very important to note that a value of 1 in this case would not necessarily correspond to the BEA, since the analysis is not based on BMSY but on the historical values of the B.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 6
In none of the habitats is currently available adequate information on its extent and / or status. The spatial and methodological limitations do not allow to define at this time the BEA (Good Environmental Status) of the habitats as a quantitative value or point. Therefore, the definition of Good Environmental Status should not be the reference level established in the evaluation of the state, but a positive trend towards that level or stability, since in many cases the reference level is impossible to achieve (loss of irreversible habitat, high social costs, long-term time scale of recovery processes, etc.). On the other hand, the concept of Good Environmental Status must take into account the sustainable use of the seas and a level of human activity that is compatible with the conservation of marine ecosystems, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. Therefore, the BEA cannot be assimilated to the reference level, but must take into consideration other factors.

WADA-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 2. Once introduced, alien species are components of ecosystems that can be evaluated by means of condition indicators, but in terms of good environmental status they should be considered as a pressure on native ecosystems. Thus, what will guarantee good environmental status in relation to this descriptor will be the absence of pressure, that is, the absence of alien species. However, given the irreversibility of the great majority of processes of establishment of alignant species, it is not possible to consider the BEA as the absence of alignant species. For this reason, the criteria associated with the descriptor are oriented on the one hand towards maintaining the status quo, that is to say, to reducing the rate of new primary introductions and limiting the expansion of those already established, which reduces the possibility of negative impacts, and on the other hand refers to the direct evaluation of these impacts. For the same reason as mentioned above regarding the irreversibility of the invasions, these impact indicators should give an account of the temporal evolution of the degree of negative impact, and consider that the BEA is achieved by reducing the rate of increase of these impacts.
br />According to what was explained in the previous section, in the sense that alien species are in fact a pressure that threatens the good environmental status of ecosystems, the BEA should not be defined as the result of a particular state of alien species, but rather as a function of the state of native biotas. In fact, the BEA in relation to descriptor 2 consists of the achievement of the BEA with respect to descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial species), 4 (food webs) and 6 (integrity of the bottoms). In addition, taking into account the characteristic of pressure on the marine environment that involves the algae species, a second characteristic of the BEA can be established in reference to the minimization of pressures. Therefore, the Good Environmental Status of descriptor 2 is defined in these two facets
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 4. Due to the scarcity of information on this descriptor in the Canary Islands Marine Demarcation, it has been decided to define Good Environmental Status in a qualitative way.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 5. According to the DMEM, Good Environmental Status (GES) with respect to eutrophication is achieved when “human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, massive algae blooms and oxygen deficit in deep waters”. It is clear that minimizing the effects of eutrophication occurs when the impact of nutrients released from ocean sources remains below a threshold that does not produce effects on the marine environment. This maximum threshold will depend on the characteristics of each area (hydrographic conditions, currents, ecosystem structure, etc.). Therefore, it should be defined specifically for each area of study within the Demarcation. In the evaluation presented in the previous section, areas of relatively homogeneous productivity have been defined, which are therefore expected to present a high degree of sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.
In practice, it is not possible to quantitatively define, with the available data, that maximum threshold of nutrient load. Alternatively, we propose to evaluate the eutrophication in the coastal areas of the Demarcation by comparison with the open sea areas. According to this evaluation, it is possible to define a BEA for each of the indicators (or group of indicators) in the terms shown in Table 5.6. As can be seen, the definition includes two complementary criteria for defining the EA for each group of indicators: time trends and reference values.
The indicators of Descriptor 5 are hierarchically structured, so that only if a trend towards an increase in nutrient concentration is detected, not linked to hydrological variability, quantifiable effects on the concentration of chlorophyll or phytoplankton communities attributable to contamination can be expected. However, similarly to what was done for Criterion 3.1, a definition of the BEA can be suggested for Criterion 3.2:
"The BEA corresponds to SSB/SSBMSY being ≥1 for at least 50% of the stocks and not {;0. 6 for no stock."
The value 0.6 is the result of 1/1.6, being 1.6 the value used in the definition of the BEA for Criterion 3. 1.
In an analogous way, the current state in relation to the BEA could be measured in a scale of 0 to 1, with the value 0 corresponding to the worst situation and 1 corresponding to the BEA, by means of the formula:
max[ 0 , 1 – proportion of red stocks – max{0, 0. 5 – proportion of stocks in green} When there is no SSBMSY (or precautionary biomass) reference point, it is not possible to work on the basis of columns 1 & 2 of Table 3.4. In that case, it would be possible to work with columns 3 and 4 of the table, which use the average of the biomass over the whole period,7)-T(T,B, instead of BMSY. The advantages of working with columns 3 and 4 over using columns 1 and 2 are that all stocks with main or secondary indicators are considered in the calculation and that the interpretation is consistent among them. However, it is very important to note that a value of 1 in this case would not necessarily correspond to the BEA, since the analysis is not based on BMSY but on the historical values of the B.
AMA-ES-SD-CAN: DESCRIPTOR 6
In none of the habitats is currently available adequate information on its extent and / or status. The spatial and methodological limitations do not allow to define at this time the BEA (Good Environmental Status) of the habitats as a quantitative value or point. Therefore, the definition of Good Environmental Status should not be the reference level established in the evaluation of the state, but a positive trend towards that level or stability, since in many cases the reference level is impossible to achieve (loss of irreversible habitat, high social costs, long-term time scale of recovery processes, etc.). On the other hand, the concept of Good Environmental Status must take into account the sustainable use of the seas and a level of human activity that is compatible with the conservation of marine ecosystems, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. Therefore, the BEA cannot be assimilated to the reference level, but must take into consideration other factors.

La eutrofización, la extracción selectiva, u otros efectos derivados de las actividades humanas, ocurren a unos niveles que no ponen en riesgo el mantenimiento de las relaciones tróficas existentes.

AVES: Para el conjunto de la red de IBA marinas dentro de la Demarcación,las estimas numéricas se mantendrán lo suficientemente elevadas como para mantener los criterios de IBA en por lo menos un 85% de los casos. Se entiende por “casos” la interacción entre especie y espacio. Es decir, cada especie que cumple criterios en una IBA dada representa un caso, independientemente de si esa especie cumple criterios en otra IBA (si la especie cumple criterios en 3 IBA, se trata como 3 casos independientes).

Se mantiene la productividad y la abundancia de los grupos tróficos principales  de modo que se garantiza la perpetuidad de las cadenas tróficas, y de las relaciones predador-presa existentes. Los procesos naturales de control bottom-up y top-down funcionan eficientemente regulando la transferencia de energía de las comunidades marinas.

Las poblaciones de las especies seleccionadas como predadores en la cima de la cadena trófica  se mantienen en unos valores que garanticen su mantenimiento en el ecosistema y de las relaciones predador-presa existentes.

AVES (Bulweria bulwerii, Calonectris diomedea borealis, Pelagodroma marina, Oceanodroma castro). Las estimas numéricas (en las IBAs marinas más relevantes), agrupadas por periodos de 3 años, no deben ser significativamente inferiores al 75% de los valores actuales por lo menos para en el 85% de los casos.Se entiende por “casos” la interacción entre especie y espacio.

%

numero de ejemplares (media de 3 años)

Estado actual

Estado actual

La presente demarcación fue estudiada mediante tres enfoques, por un lado la revisión bibliográfica de la localización y tamaño de las colonias de cría, por otro lado la realización de censos en el mar en campañas oceanográficas, así como el marcado de aves reproductoras mediante dispositivos de seguimiento remoto (Arcos et al., 2009). La información referida a las colonias cubre toda la demarcación, pero en la mayoría de los casos es fragmentada y antigua. Además, como las especies seleccionadas en esta demarcación pertenecen a los Procellariiformes, especies que suelen criar en zonas de difícil acceso (acantilados, islotes, etc.), dentro de huras, grietas e intersticios no visibles desde el exterior, y que visitan las colonias de noche, normalmente las estimas poblacionales son inexactas y en gran medida dependientes de la metodología empleada (Gregory et al., 2004). A nivel temporal, la información para las colonias es muy dispar, siendo en todos los casos muy fraccionada y/o imprecisa como para poder establecer tendencias. En cuanto a la escala espacial de la información aportada en este documento referente a la distribución en el mar de las especies seleccionadas dependió en gran medida de las posibilidades de embarque en campañas oceanográficas, no existiendo ninguna que cubra de forma homogénea todo el ámbito de estudio. Aún así, en 2007 se llevaron a cabo dos campañas específicas para el censado de aves que cubrieron relativamente bien el ámbito marino en las cercanías del archipiélago. La información aportada por los estudios de seguimiento remoto es más representativa en este sentido, pero se limita a una especie bien muestreada, la pardela cenicienta, con datos más fragmentados para el petrel de Bulwer. La información temporal es aún más limitada que en el caso de las colonias de cría, ya que no ha habido prospecciones sistemáticas a escala regional, y sólo recientemente se han realizado algunas campañas, en la mayoría de los casos cubriendo sólo algunas zonas de la demarcación (Arcos et al., 2009). La información resultante debe considerarse como un punto de partida para futuras evaluaciones.

La presente demarcación fue estudiada mediante tres enfoques, por un lado la revisión bibliográfica de la localización y tamaño de las colonias de cría, por otro lado la realización de censos en el mar en campañas oceanográficas, así como el marcado de aves reproductoras mediante dispositivos de seguimiento remoto (Arcos et al., 2009). La información referida a las colonias cubre toda la demarcación, pero en la mayoría de los casos es fragmentada y antigua. Además, como las especies seleccionadas en esta demarcación pertenecen a los Procellariiformes, especies que suelen criar en zonas de difícil acceso (acantilados, islotes, etc.), dentro de huras, grietas e intersticios no visibles desde el exterior, y que visitan las colonias de noche, normalmente las estimas poblacionales son inexactas y en gran medida dependientes de la metodología empleada (Gregory et al., 2004). A nivel temporal, la información para las colonias es muy dispar, siendo en todos los casos muy fraccionada y/o imprecisa como para poder establecer tendencias. En cuanto a la escala espacial de la información aportada en este documento referente a la distribución en el mar de las especies seleccionadas dependió en gran medida de las posibilidades de embarque en campañas oceanográficas, no existiendo ninguna que cubra de forma homogénea todo el ámbito de estudio. Aún así, en 2007 se llevaron a cabo dos campañas específicas para el censado de aves que cubrieron relativamente bien el ámbito marino en las cercanías del archipiélago. La información aportada por los estudios de seguimiento remoto es más representativa en este sentido, pero se limita a una especie bien muestreada, la pardela cenicienta, con datos más fragmentados para el petrel de Bulwer. La información temporal es aún más limitada que en el caso de las colonias de cría, ya que no ha habido prospecciones sistemáticas a escala regional, y sólo recientemente se han realizado algunas campañas, en la mayoría de los casos cubriendo sólo algunas zonas de la demarcación (Arcos et al., 2009). La información resultante debe considerarse como un punto de partida para futuras evaluaciones.