 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
The Role For Marine Reserves In Fisheries Conservation: Searching For Common Ground By Felicia Coleman While many of us in the scientific and conservation communities agree that marine reserves can generate a variety of ecological, economic, and sociological benefits, there is considerable debate surrounding the wisest policies for establishing reserves and what benefits they might realistically produce. Even an opportunistically sited reserve could have conservation benefits, but in which circumstances is this likely to be true? Discussions on where to put them and how large they should be are just two of the contentious issues. To these we can add the important issue of their actual role in the larger management arena. While there are compelling data supporting the effectiveness of reserves, the limitations of existing data and existing reserves is apparent, particularly relating to overflow of adults or larvae from closed areas to surrounding waters. The debate about reserve design has recently focused on the issue of how large reserves should be and how that areal coverage should be distributed spatially, particularly relating to the 20% solution.1 If this solution continues along its current path of building political momentum, then the question of which 20% becomes critically important. To some extent, that will depend on the management need, on the species in question, and on the habitat requirements of the community in which that species lives. For instance, migratory species or species whose critical habitat requirements change over their lifetime may find little benefit in a 20% coverage. In fact, larger reserves may be required, particularly if there are no other accompanying regulations. The degree to which fishing effort displaced from closed areas then concentrates outside of reserve boundaries will play a key role in determining the minimum effective reserve percentage. The reality is that new empirical information on marine reserves is substantially hindered by how few real, no-take reserves exist, particularly in the United States. In fact, recent inventories of places considered by managers to be protected include very few areas that actually provide protection, regardless of their size. The problem is exacerbated by our lack of baseline information for evaluating the effects of fishing and other anthropogenic pressures. What we are forced to accept as a baseline is the fished condition and what we evaluate as an effect is "recovery" from fishing pressure within a marine reserve closed to extractive use. Further, where real closed areas exist, the baseline (pre-closure) information is poor. Existing reserves are for the most part too small and ill-designed to provide scientifically defensible support that they enhance fishery productivity outside of their boundaries. There is a tremendous value of reserves, however, that has not been particularly well articulated by the scientific community. That is, their value in supporting stock assessments by facilitating better estimates of both natural and fishing mortality. Improved information about mortality rates can reduce both management error and management cost and clearly could help alleviate controversies between fishers and managers and among competing fishery interests. Viewing marine reserves as tools for developing improved stock assessments and more effective management strategies shifts the focus of the debate away from the potential for reserves to promote stock enhancement -- although evaluation of this effect is critical. Where it focuses attention is on improving fisheries science, which clearly is reason enough for promoting their use. Felicia Coleman is a marine ecologist at Florida State University. While her research focuses on the ecology of reef fishes, she is particularly interested in the intersection of science and policy.
|