Conference News

Conference Delivers Scientific Consensus

An expert panel has concluded that marine reserves should be considered in the broader context of the development of ecosystem-based fishery management in the U.S. The group found that marine reserves have important objectives for ecosystem conservation and protection of marine biodiversity in addition to whatever benefits they may have for achieving fishery management objectives.

These conclusions came after a dozen top scientists presented results of the most up-to-date research on the effects of marine reserves on the behavior of fish and fishermen at a Consensus Conference on Integrating Marine Reserve Science and Fishery Management June 7-9 in Long Beach, California.

The National Fisheries Conservation Center convened the meeting to bring together modelers, ecologists, fishermen, stock assessment scientists and other analysts to try to produce a more integrated theoretical basis for designing, managing and monitoring marine reserves as part of the fishery management system. Dr. Don Boesch, president of the Center for Environmental Science at the University of Maryland chaired the meeting, which drew more than 100 participants from as far away as Alaska and the Caribbean.

Those attending the meeting as observers affirmed the use of the consensus format for resolving the tough questions surrounding marine reserve science and urged NFCC to extend the format to other contentious fishery management debates.

Boesch, an internationally known marine ecologist, was joined on the review panel by Mike Beck, The Nature Conservancy; Bob Cowen, University of Miami; Susan Hanna, Oregon State University; Patrick J. Sullivan, Cornell University; Steve Murawski, NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center; and Daniel Suman, University of Miami.

Brock Bernstein, president of NFCC, said the idea of the consensus conference came from his observation that discussions about the use of marine reserves in fisheries management reflected a surprising disconnect between two groups of scientists: marine ecologists working on reserve theory, and stock assessment scientists familiar with the existing management system.

Bernstein said the scientists had different views about what ecological processes dominated, how data should be interpreted, and what modeling approaches to use. “These largely unexplored disagreements limited fruitful dialogue, precluded the development of more sophisticated management tools, and, all too frequently, allowed advocacy from all sides to dominate policy-making,” he said.

The results of the consensus conference will be used by NOAA Fisheries and the NOAA MPA Center in a two-year series of workshops aimed at producing peer reviewed papers and policy integration on marine reserve science issues. The first workshop is planned for this fall.

The specific questions the conference took on can be found on this website by clicking the link “Questions.”

Experts who presented evidence on the questions were Steve Palumbi, Stanford University; Mark Hixon, Oregon State University; Loo Botsford, University of California, Davis; Rod Fujita, Environmental Defense; Richard Allen, New England fisherman; Andy Rosenberg, University of New Hampshire; Vidar Wespestad, Resource Analyst International; Ken Frank, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Jon Kurland, Alaska Region, NOAA Fisheries; and Arne Fuglvog, Petersburg Alaska Vessel Owner’s Association. Dennis Heineman of The Ocean Conservancy and Steve Gaines of University of California, Santa Barbara joined the presenters to field questions from the Review Panel and audience. Their presentations are available to download from this site by clicking the link to “Resources.”