Questions to be Considered at Consensus Conference

As part of the overall process, a planning committee of scientists, researchers, managers, conservation advocates and fishermen met to frame six specific questions for the conference and to identify candidates to make formal presentations and sit on the review panel at the conference.

In addition to defining the six questions below, the committee noted the importance of the use of marine reserves as a conservation tool for the maintenance and/or restoration of species diversity, unique habitats, and key ecosystem functions, and the potential link between conservation and fishery benefits. However, consideration of designs appropriate for meeting these objectives at this time is beyond the scope of this particular effort, which is focusing specifically on the use of marine reserves as a fisheries management tool. As a next step, it would be useful to explore designs capable of simultaneously meeting both conservation and fishery management objectives.

Bullet points under many of the questions are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.


1. Introductory review: What is the current state of knowledge of the potential biological, social, and economic consequences, both positive and negative, of marine reserves? e.g., through effects on, among others,:
• resilience of populations of exploited species
• variation in yield over time
• multi-species management
• habitat protection
• ecosystem services
• protection of ecosystem structure and function
• insurance against environmental “surprise” or management failure

2. Circumstances: Under what circumstances could marine reserves be an effective fishery management tool?

a. For any given fishery, what characteristics of that fishery determine the appropriate mix of management tools? e.g.:
• ecological
• social
• economic
• cultural
• political
• management capacity

b. How might marine reserves help or hinder the achievement of fishery management objectives?

3. Integration and context: How could marine reserves be integrated with existing fishery management tools (e.g., data collection and assessment, effort control, quotas, rotating spatial closures, other types of MPAs)?

a. Under what circumstances could marine reserves enhance or detract from conventional management approaches? e.g.:
• changes in benefits or costs (e.g., to fishermen)
• relative management overhead costs (e.g., public management costs)
• efficiency (broadly conceived)
• hedging risk
• conventional management has not been used successfully (for whatever reason)

b. How would the use of marine reserves affect the application of conventional management and stock assessment? e.g.:
• increased concentration of effort outside reserve boundaries
• single-species nature of conventional stock assessment vs. multi-species nature of reserves
• incorporating reserves’ impacts on spawning biomass, larval production, recruitment, and spillover into stock assessment methods
• adjustment of stock assessment methods to account for spatial heterogeneity introduced by reserves

4. Design: What general approaches to reserve design would meet fisheries objectives, taking into account social, economic, biological, and environmental factors, such as:

• location
• spatial extent
• duration of closure
• configuration (e.g., networks)
• currents and other oceanographic features (e.g., regime shifts)
• larval sources and sinks
• Life histories of exploited species, including dispersal and spillover potential
• fishermen’s behavior

(understanding that we are not looking for a design manual for all potential objectives but rather for rules of thumb)

5. Uncertainty: What are the sources and magnitudes of uncertainty associated with marine reserves and conventional management approaches, and what are the implications of these for practical application of reserve design tools as an integrated part of the larger fishery management system?

6. Evaluation and monitoring: What monitoring actions are needed to evaluate the results of marine reserves as a fishery management tool?