Why Have No-Take Marine Protected Areas? - University of Miami

American Fisheries Society Symposium 42:185-193,2004 @ 2004 by the American Fisheries Society

Why Have No-Take Marine Protected Areas? JAMES A. BOHNSACKl Southeast Fisheries Science Centel; NOAA Fisheries, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149, USA

JERALDS. AULT University of Miami, RosenstielSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries,4600 RickenbackerCauseway,Miami, Florida 33149, USA BILLY CAUSEY Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Post Office Box 500368, Marathon, Florida 33050, USA Abstract.-Although the title of this symposiumimplied a focus on fully protected marine areas,most presentationsactually dealt with a range of traditional "marine protected areas" or "marine managedareas" that offer less than "full" resourceprotection. Somepresentations noted a backlash against establishing no-take reserves.Here we provide 17 reasons why there is a strong scientific, management,and public interest in using no-take marine reserves to build sustainablefisheries and protectmarine ecosystems.We also discusssomeunderlying technical and philosophical issuesinvolved in the opposition to their usage.

ing and other extractive useswith limited exceptions for researchand educationby permit(Ballantine 1997). Marine protected areasare used increasingly to man- Becauseof the many different terms that have been age marine resources,but they often mean different used to describemarine reserves,the terminology is things to different people,basedprimarily on the level oftenconfusingto both scientistsandthe public. Comof protection they provide. The World Conservation mon term~ used to describe marine reservesinclude Union defined marine protectedareas(MPAs) as "any no-take areas,nonconsumptiveareas,fishery reserves areaof the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with (PDT 1990), marine ecological reserves,sanctuary its overlying water and associatedflora, fauna, his- preservationareas(USDOC 1996), researchnatural torical and cultural features,which has beenreserved areas (Brock and Culhane 2004, this volume), fully by law or other effective meansto protect part or all protectedareas(RobertsandHawkins 2000),andsancof the enclosedenvironment" (IUCN 1994; Kelleher tuary, outside the USA. Closing areas to fishing has long been widely 1999). In the USA, Presidential Executive Order 13158provided a similar definition: "any areaof the practiced in fishery management in historical and marine environment that has been reserved by Fed- modemtimesto protectcritical habitat,restoredepleted eral, State, territorial, tribal or local laws or regula- species,and protect vulnerable stocks at spawning tions to provide lasting protection for part or all of the aggregationsites (e.g.,Bevertonand Holt 1957).Most natural and cultural resourcestherein." Under these closures,however,have beeneither seasonal,applied broad definitions, a wide variety of sitescould becon- only to specific species,or have beenlimited to restrict certaindestructive or wasteful fishing methods. sidered as MPAs. We focus on "marine reserves,"here defined as Rarelyhaveareasbeenpermanentlyclosedto all types marine protectedareaspermanentlyclosedto all fish- of fishing. Modem fisheriesinterestin marinereserves began in the 1980sas a way to both protect marine ecosystembiodiversity andbuild sustainablefisheries (PDT 1990; Bohnsack 1996; Bohnsack and Ault

Introduction

186

BOHNSACKETAL.

1996). This interest has acceleratedafter failures of fishing "rights" of recreational anglersas expressed traditional fishery effort and size control measuresto in the proposedFreedomto Fish Act (Lydecker 2004, supportsustainablefisheries and preventcollapsesof this volume). fisheries and coastalecosystems(Ludwig etal. 1993; Here, we present reasons why there is a high Russ 1996; Botsford et a1. 1997; Jackson 1997; degreeof scientific, management,andpublic interest Guenetteet al. 1998; Pauly etal. 1998,2002; Jackson in using permanentno-take protection compared to etal. 2001; Christensenetal. 2003; Myers and Worm using "multiple-use" zoning or other traditional fish2003; Rosenberg2003). ery managementmeasures.Our intent is to clarify the Marine reserve implementation remains a rare issuesin the continuing debate on appropriateuse of and controversial measuredespite support from nu- marinereservesandspatialmanagementin marinefishmeroustheoretical and empirical studies (Johnsonet ery and conservationmanagement. a1. 1999; Murray et al. 1999; Fogarty et al. 2000; Roberts et a1. 2001; Halpern and Warner 2002; Results Halpern 2003) and reviews that call for their expanded application in resource management (PDT 1990; NRC 1999,2001; Roberts and Hawkins 2000; PefDlanent, no-take marine reserves have certain Ward et al. 2001; Pew Oceans Commission 2003; unique qualities with potential benefits that are not Pauly 2004, this volume). In responseto the rare use necessarilyprovided by other types of marine proof marine reserves,161 academic scientists took the tectedor managedareas.Below we describe17unique unusual stepof issuing a signed consensusstatement attributes of marine reservesroughly organized into supportingthe specific useof no-takemarine reserves categoriesunderfundamental,scientific,and manageat the 2001 annual meeting of the American Asso- mentconsiderations. ciation of Science (NCEAS 2001). Widespreadconcerns over marine resource protection in the USA Fundamental Considerations resulted in Presidential Executive Order 13158, which seeksto inventory and assessexisting MPAs (1) High Level of EcosystemProtection (U.S. Office of the Federal Register 2000), and the Fishing is a known major threat to marine populaadoption of a goal to protect 20% of U.S. coral reefs tions and ecosystems(Dayton etal. 1995; Pauly etal. with marine reservesby 2010 by the U.S. Coral Reef 1998,2002,2003). By removing fishing, no-take reTask Force (USCRTF 2000). The two largest U.S. servespotentiallyprovide a high level of resourcepromarine reserve networks were established only re- tection by eliminating threats from directed take of cently in Florida and California. Two ecological re- targeted organisms, bycatch mortality of nontarget serves covering 280 km2(151 nautical mi2) in the organisms,and habitat damage from fishing activiTortugas region of the Florida Keys National Ma- ties.1n an endlessgradationbetweentotally openand rine Sanctuary were established in 2001 (USDOC2000). completelyclosed,marinereservesprovidea high level A contiguous 87-km2 (47-nautical-mi2) no- of protection but not total protection. They do not, for take researchnatural areawas also approved for Dry example, directly protect againstregional pollution, Tortugas National Park but has not yet been imple- climate change,natural disturbance,or human disasmented (Brock and Culhane 2004, this volume). ters (Jamesonet al. 2002). Other provisions can be Most recently, 10 reservescovering 244.5 km2(132 added that provide higher levels of resourceprotecnautical mi2)in the Channel Islands, California, were tion, such as prohibiting touching, diving, research, established in 2002 (McArdle et al. 2003). or even human entry, but with potential social and Application of marine reserves has been con- economic costs in terms of reduced benefits from troversial and has generateda backlash at times by nonextractiveactivities. thosewho favor continueduseof othertraditional fishery managementactions (Shipp 2003) or multiple-use (2) Potential Ecological IntegrityBecause MPAs with only limited restrictions (Agardy et al. no-take marine reservesprotect all species,h 2003; Clark 2003). Some concerns are that marine and populations impacted by previous fish-ing reservesmay not be effective for biological (Carr and can eventually recover and restore ecological inReed 1993) or other reasons (Jamesonet al. 2002); tegrity to reflect "natural" ecosystemstructure andfu could be counter productive to conservation for soPermanentprotection allows ecological incial reasons(Agardy et al. 2003); and could threaten tegrity to ultimately persistin reserves.

WHY HA VB No- T AKE MARINE PROI'ECI'ED AREAs ?

187

(3) Precautionary Approach

(7) EnhancedNonextractive HumanUses

The precautionary approach can be stated simply: when in doubt, be cautious. In practice, if you don't have a complete understanding about the functioning and dynamics of natural systems or their management, then some resources should be withheld from exploitation until a complete understanding is obtained (Bohnsack 1999a). Lauck et al. (1998) demonstrated how marine reservescan mitigate the effects of uncertainty associated with fishery exploitation.

By separatingincompatible activities and protecting someareasfrom fishing and depletion,no-takereserves can supportnonextractive uses that have ecological, social, genetic,economic,educational,scientific, recreational, aesthetic,spiritual, and wilderness importance (Bohnsack 1998). They can diversify the economy by providing new social and economic opportunities. This is especially important for activities that require high resource quality. Otherwise, only thoseactivities thatdependon depletedor low quality resourcescan persist.

(4) Shifted Burden of Proof Compared to other types of managed areas,marine reserves shift the burden of proof from proving that fishing causesan adverseimpactto proving that it does not (Dayton 1998). The result is that, in reserves, managementfocus shifts from a risk-prone approach, in which actions are taken only afterresourceimpacts are demonstrated,to a more risk-averse approach,in which resourcesare protected until it can be demonstrated that an activity is not harmful. (5) Existenceand Future Value Marine reserveshelp protectexistencevalue for people who do not directly use resourcesand for future generations. Aldo Leopold (1949) noted that we cannot prevent the alteration, management,and use of resources,but we needto affirm their right to continued existence,and in some places, their continued existencein a natural state.His biotic ethic requireshuman obligation,responsibility,and self-sacrificeto preserve ecosystemsfor presentand future generations.This mantraneedsto be adoptedfor effective management of marine ecosystems. (6)I~reased Public UnderstandingandAppreciation Marine reservesprovide opportunities for quality formal education at the primary, secondary,and graduatelevels. With public access,they also provide better public understandingand appreciationof marine ecosystemsand marine reserves and the importance of effective resource management. Pauly (1995) described the shifting baseline problem in which each generationdevelops lower expectationsaboutnatural resources based on its own direct experience with depletedresources.Marine reserves with public access offer an opportunity to reversethis trend by restoring areas with more natural and healthy ecosystems. They also provide citizens an opportunity to directly observethe effectivenessof resourcemanagement and understandits importance by comparingreservesto surrounding areas.

(8) Better ResourceProtection Unlike many other measures,there are no legal ways to avoid or circumvent the no-take provision which offers the possibility of better overall resourceprotection than do othermeasures.Trip limits andbag limits for a recreational fishery, for example, are popular conservationmeasures,but their effectivenesscan be circumventedby making more fishing trips. Similarly, the effectivenessof gearrestrictionsandminimum size limits can be negatedby increasedfishing effort. Marine reservesalso offer betterresourceprotection becausethey buffer againstchangesin total effort or fishing practices in surrounding areas.

ScientificConsiderations (9) Objective Criterion The no-extractioncriterionprohibiting any activity that intentionally removes organisms or habitat is objective and easyto determineascomparedto many other criteria that are subjective or difficult to define. Allowing "limited extraction" in a multiple-use MPA, for example,is problematic becausethere is no clear definition of what "limited" means.Accurately determining a level of extraction that is "not hannful" to a population or an ecosystemis difficult and mostly unknown. Also, monitoring or controlling the amount of take is not practical in mostcases. (10)Simplicity Compared to other criteria, it is easy to determine whetheran activity is extractive or not andfundamentally simpler to explain than why some users are allowed to remove resources and not others. Note, nonextractive,is not the sameas,nor should it be confused with, nonconsumptive. Nonextractive recreational diving, for example,could be consideredconsumptiveasthe resultof repeatedcontactanddamage to the benthos. Allowing diving and other

188

BOHNSACKETAL.

nonextractiveuseswithin marinereservesassumesthat their impacts are eithercontrollable or have muchless significantimpactthanfishing. If not,additionalprotective measuresmay be necessaryto confine, reduce, eliminate, or mitigate thosenonextractiveimpacts. In the Florida Keys, for example,divers are also prohibited from touching coral as an addedprotection. One suggestionis to call these "kapu zones,"after the Hawaiian word "kapu" (meaning"do not touch" or "forbidden"; Bohnsack 2000a). Kapu was historically used in Hawaii to protect marine areas.

Management Considerations

(14) Public Acceptance . Although large land areas in the United Stateshave beenprotected from hunting and other extraction for well over a century, few aquatic areashave received similar protection. This fact that protected areasare widely usedand acceptedon land suggeststhat similar protections could be applied and accepted in the sea.The fact that they have not yet been widely applied in the oceancanbe attributed in part to a historicallack of understanding and awarenessof marine (11) Control Sites ecosystems,mistakenbeliefs thatmarineresourcesare One of the most important tools in scienceis the ex- unlimited andimperviousto humanimpacts,and what perimental control, in which the influence of a vari- some considerinalienable rights to fish anywhere. When high levels of protection are necessary, able is either controlled for or eliminated. By eliminating fishing, marine reservesprovide control sites marine reservesmay causeless social and economic disruption and receive better public acceptancethan to objectively evaluate the effects of extractive impactson marine ecosystems.They alsoprovide a com- other measuresthatprovide a similar level of resource parative basis for assessingthe effectivenessof vari- protection(unlessthe closedareahappensto be a preous fishery managementmeasuresin surrounding ar- dominantlyfavorite fishing area).Marine reserves,for eas. Without control sites, it is almost impossible to example,becomean attractive alternative whencomscientifically addresslargerquestionsabout how much pared to closing down a fishery entirely or severely resource can be removed from a marine ecosystem reducing bag limits, increasing minimum size limits, and still maintain the biological productivity, persis- andrestricting the numberof participants.Potentially, reservescould allow more people to participate in a tence,and ecological integrity. fishery than would otherwise be possiblebecauseto(12) Distinguish betweenNatural andAnthropogenic tal fishing mortality is less if some areasare highly Disturbance protected (Bohnsack2000b). Scientistsand managersoften needto distinguish betweenchangescausedby naturalversusanthropogenic (15) Simplified Enforcement events. Without marine reserves,environmental sig- As a managementtool, reservescan potentially simnals can become hopelesslyconfounded with fishing plify enforcementby making violations easierto deimpacts.Observedhigherabundanceof exploited spe- tect. Since the act of fishing is a violation, it is not cies in no-take reservescomparedto similar habitats necessaryto obtain, identify, or measurecatch.Violain surrounding areas,for example,indicates that fish- tions can be detected by surface, aerial, or satellite surveillance,using a variety of technology and vessel ing is the primary factor influencing the observeddifferences and has more impact on those speciesthan monitoring systems.Becausepermanentno-takeproother anthropogenicforcing factors suchas regional visions apply to all species,there may be less public pollution. In contrast, data showing no differences confusionandbettercompliancethan if differentclosed betweenreservesand surroundingareasmay indicate areaswere establishedfor individual speciesin multhatregional factors (either natural or anthropogenic) tiple-speciesfisheries. Establishing different seasons or closedareaswith overlapping or conflicting boundare more important influences on populations. aries for eachspeciescould be much more confusing ( 13) Increased Scientific Knowledge and Under- and impractical. standing The legal authority to close significant areasto Marine reservescan facilitate the elucidation of natu- fishing and technological meansto monitor compliral processesand enhancescientific knowledge and ance and ensure enforcementhave advanced in reunderstanding of marine ecosystems by providing cent decades.The legal authority changed with the comparativeareaswith minimal human disturbances. widespreadexpansionof national exclusiveeconomic Certainscientific experimentsandobservationsinvolv- zones in 1977 (Bohnsack 1996). Technological ading biodiversity, behavior, and ecosystemprocesses vances in navigation, surveillance,and vesseltrackcan only be conducted in reserves. ing, as well asa new emphasison homeland security,

WHY HA VB No-TAKE

MARINE

PROI'ECI'ED AREAs?

189

make monitoring and enforcementof marine reserves be examinedusing marine reserves.From a managemore practical. ment perspective,marine reservesare attractive because they potentially provide a win-win conserva(16) Direct Fishery Benefits tion alternative that offers a high level of ecosystem Marine reservespotentially can provide many direct protection while providing fishery benefits and enfishery benefits (Bohnsack 1998). The five most imhancing and diversifying nonextractive human uses. portant benefits follow. Reserves can reduce the Much, however,remains to be learned because chances of overfishing by providing refuges from the scienceof marine reservesis new and most existpopulation exploitation. Compared to having all areas exploited under one set of regulations, reserves ing reservesare rare, small, recently established,"limpotentially can provide greater fishery yields in the ited to few habitats,or cover only very small porti9ns long-term by having a larger and more dependable of the total managedarea (Pauly 2004, this volume). supplyof eggsandlarvaedispersedto fishing grounds. Becausethey are rare,more needto be implemented Reserves can also potentially increase yield from if they areto provide anything more than a token role spillover, where animal emigration exports biomass in protecting marine biodiversity. Becausemarine refrom reservesthrough to surroundingfishing grounds servesarerare and recently established,few scientific (PDT 1990; Roberts et al. 2001). Reservesalso can studies exist (Halpern and Warner 2002; Halpern provide insuranceto sustainablestocksby potentially 2003), leaving many questionsand uncertainty conaccelerating stock recovery following natural distur- cerning their application to biodiversity and fishery bance,human accidents,managementerrors,or years protection. More researchis neededto addressquesof poor stock-recruitment (PDT 1990). Finally, they tions concerning individual reserve size, total nummaybe the only measurethatcan effectively preserve ber, location, total area,and habitats that need to be stockgenetic structure from detrimentaleffects of se- included to be truly effective. In addition, more replilective fishing practices (Conoverand Munch 2002). catedresearchis needed,especiallyat largerandmore ecologically relevant spatial and temporal scales,to (17) 1ndirectFishery Benefits addressquestionsof costsand benefits,effectiveness, Fishery stock assessmentand managementmodels and necessarydesign features for reserve networks. dependonobtainingaccurateestimatesof critical popu- Many questionsremainunresolvedconcerningsocial lation parametersof growth, natural mortality, and fe- and ecological impacts of fishing displacement,apcundity. If all areasare subjectedto fishing, measur- plications to highly migratory species,and social acing theseparametersand gaining an essentialunderceptance,compliance, and enforcement. Thus, constanding of trophic and habitat relationships,recruit- siderable scientific interestexists in establishing rement variations, behavior,and population responseto servesin di,fferentregions and habitatsand underdifenvironmental variability are difficult, if not impos- ferent biological, oceanographic,and physical envisible, to obtain. Marine reservescan potentially benronments as well as in different social and economic efit fisheries indirectly by allowing somecritical popuenvironments. lation dynamic and fishery parametersto be estimated Even though they prohibit fishing, marine reindependentof fishery influences with a rigorous samservesdo not conflict with "multiple-use MPAs" bepling design (Ault et al. 2002). causethey createor enhancemanykinds of activities within and outside their boundariesthat conflict with fishing. When embeddedin larger MPAs suchas the Discussion and Conclusions Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary,for example, The main priority of pennanent no-take marine re- they also supportmultiple human usesby separating servesis to protect biodiversity: ecological structure incompatible activities and increasing total resource and function at the genetic, species,community, sea- protection. A belief that fishing and other human acscape,and ecosystemslevels (NRC 2001). Their use tivities can be practiced simultaneously in all areas hasgeneratedconsiderablescientific,management, and without conflict is becoming far lessrealistic considpublic interestbecausethe no-extraction provision is ering growing human population demands and the simple andobjective and offersa high levelof resource intensity of resource usage. Likewise, allowing all protection that can potentially restore and maintain areasto be exploited with "limited restrictions" deecological integrity in areas with minimum human mandsa high level of knowledge and human control disturbance.Many scientific questionscan bestor only that at presentis essentiallynonexistent.

190

BOHNSACKETAL.

Despiteoffering manypotential benefits,marine reserves have generated considerable opposition (Norse et al. 2003; Shipp2003). Most oppositionhas focused on technical issuesaboutthe applicability of reservesto different speciesand habitats,proof of fishery benefits, and the quantifying of design features (number, size, location, spacing,boundary configurations,and total areacovered)for individual reserves and networks (Carr and Reed 1993; Botsford et al. 2001). Other issuesinvolve enforcement,impacts of displacing fishing on people and resourcesoutside of reserves (Bohnsack 2000b), and how to incorporate reservesinto comprehensivemanagementprograms (Jamesonet al. 2002). Some opposition simply reflects resistenceto changing the statusquo becauseit createswinners and losers. Fishers,who effectively have had historical accessto the entire ocean,can be expectedto aggressivelyoppose anychangesthat restrict that access (Lydecker 2004, this volume). Although this is not a scientific issue, such shifts are common and routinely handled by political and governmentinstitutions. Philosophical oppositionhasreceivedlessattention but ultimately may be more important than the technical issues.While much attention has focused on economic costs and benefits, for example, relatively little attentionhas beenpaid to conflicts caused by wide differences in conservationethics (Callicott 1992; Bohnsack 2003). As Leopold (1949) recognized,economicsis not an ethic, and basing management decisions solely on economic self-interest is unwise. Inevitably, it leadsto failure becauseelements without economicvalue eventually will be eliminated to the detriment of the economic parts. Leopold's biotic ethic led to a shift in managementemphasisfrom "sustained production of resources or commodities, to a recognition thattrue sustainedyield requirespreservation of the health of the entire system" (Leopold 1949). Much of the current controversy over marine reservesappearsto be a result of philosophical failures to recognize that people are part of marine ecosystems, that limits to human usage exist, and that human well-being is dependenton maintaining ecosystem health. Protecting marine biodiversity and maintaining sustainablefisheries are not mutually exclusive problems. A key philosophical issueinvolves humandominance. Can marine ecosystemsbe manipulated and controlled at will and, if so, should all areasbe exploited? Marine reserve application is based,in part, on a simple premise that if protected from human interference,nature has evolved to take care of itself.

This premise conflicts with the top-down "command and control" engineering approachesthat attempt to control complex human and ecological systems (Holling and Meffe 1996). This human control view is reflected in concerns that some resourcesmay be underutilized in terms of total yield and, therefore, wastedby using marinereserves.An extremeexample of this thinking is the position thatmarine reservesare not "management" tools becausethey do not involve active human manipulation. Another issueis the philosophical dichotomy between fisheries and ecosystemmanagementperspectives. In fisheries,marine reservesare usually considereda "tool" to be used independentlyof other fishery managementoptions (Norse et al. 2003; Shipp 2003) and not as part of an integrated managementsystem (Norse etal. 2003).The assumptionis thatfisheriesare independentof biodiversity and ecosystemmanagement.In an ecosystemperspective,fishery productivity is directly derivedfrom ecosystembiodiversity,andthe two mustbe managedtogether.Thus, muchof the conflict betweenecosystemand fishery managementis an artifactof separatingthesetwo functions.We give three examplesthat elucidatethis philosophicalconflict: the amount of area neededfor marine reserve networks, the displacementof fishing effort by marine reserves, andthe currentefforts to shift fisheriesfrom single-speciesto ecosystem-based management. First, considerableangsthas beengeneratedover questions concerning how much area should be included in marine reserve networks. Proponents of marine reservesusageargue that substantialportions of marine environments need reserve protection (Bohnsacket al. 2002; Pauly etal. 2003; PewOceans Commission 2003), but they generate considerable criticism whenattemptingto applyprincipalsas guidelines using areapercentages(Agardy etal. 2003;Norse et al. 2003; Shipp2003). The critics are correct in that no one percentagewill apply to all ecosystemsor areas.However,the samecritics ignore the fact thatthere is a need for a minimum percentageand that no biological, social,or economictheory existsshowing that all areasshould beexploited. Thus,while there should be agreementthat fixed percentagesof reserve area will not apply to all marine ecosystems,there should also be agreementthatthere is no supportfor zero asa percentage either. Ideally, adaptive management shouldbe usedto [me-tune protectionto specific habitats and areas(Walters 1986; Murray etal. 1999). Second,marinereservesare oftencriticized for not directly addressinghumanand environmentalimpacts of fishing effort displacementto areasoutsidereserve

WHY HA VB No-TAKE MARINE PROrECrEDAREAs?

boundaries

(Norse

et al. 2003). This problem

is not a

ments. This

191

research was partially

failure of marine reserves per se but a failure to include

National

Oceanic

marine reserves as part of comprehensive

(NOAA)

Coastal Ocean Program

resource man-

agementstrategies.Despiteclaimsbysomeopponents,

gram

we know of no statements

Reef Ecosystem

that marine

will solve all fishery problems. lem, effort controls

If overfishing

and other traditional

sures are also needed, including quotas, limited

reserves alone is a prob-

fishery mea-

size limits, bag limits,

Grant

tional Unit

NA17RJ1226,

South Floiida

the NOAA

Cooperative

H500000B494,

Pro-

Caribbean the Na-

Ecosystem

the National

Reserach Center, and the NOAA

by the

Administration

Study Grant NA170P2919,

Park Service Grant

supported

and Atmospheric

Studies Undersea

Coral Reef Program.

entry, closed seasons, gear restrictions,

and closed areas for specific fisheries (Bohnsack 2000b). If these other fishery measures are not effective, larger

References

proportions of habitats may need to be closed. Relying solely on no-take protection, however, may reduce options and flexibility for optimizing social andeconornic benefits (Murra et al. 1999).

Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater,. M. P. Cro~by, J. Day, P. K. Dayton, R. Kenchrngton, D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P. A. Murray, J. E. Parks, an,d L. Peau.

fishery

eas. Aquatic

approach using

proactive spatial and ecosystem-based management (Bohnsack 1999b). Although many practical details still need to be worked out to make this shift operational, at the theoretical level it requires integrating fiISh ery an d ecosystem consl .d erations. .NMFS-SEFSC-487. ...ne, ..In conclusIon, no-take marIne re~er:es ~e pnmaThey

that are more

than simply sequestering populations in no-take areas (Norse et al. 2003) or providing just another fishery management tool (Norse et al. 2003). Fundamentally, reserves ..naInlCS

precautionary ..'. protection

future

use

approach

that

benefits

generations.

knowledge,

a simple,

ecosystem-based,

and

to offer a high level of resource present

Marine

understanding,

human

reserves

actiVIties

increase

and appreciation

acceptance.

We suggest that advancmg

management

requires

R.

a

Acknowledgments ...rine We thank W. J. Ballantine, W. J. Richards, R. L. Shipp, for providing

critical

fisher-

~d

S. J. Holt.

,

fish

F. sh 1

Series

'

enes

II,

an

O~

Kapu

~e

dy-

MinIstry

of

F.IS hery I nves ti.-

d Fuuu, --.J

volume

J. 2000a.

1,957.

populations. XIX,

London.

zones.

MPA

News

Bohnsack, J. A. 1996. Maintenance and recovery of fishery productivity. Pages 283-313 in N. V. C. Polunin and C. M, Roberts, editors. Tropical reef fis~eries. Chapman and Hall, Fish and Fisheries Senes 20, London. Bohnsack, J. A. 1998. Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries of Science

com-

management.

Australian

Journal

23:298-304.

Bohnsack, J. A. 1999a. Incorporating no-take rine reserves into precautionary management

maand

st~ck assess.m~nt. P~ges. 8-16 i~ V. R.o Restrepo, edItor. ProvIdmg scIentific advIce to Implement th Ste preca Fu~ohnary capprOach .under evens

commodities to sustaining functional ecosystems, and incorporating marine reserve concepts and networks into comprehensive marine resource management.

reviewer

world

1(5):5-6.

fundamental part of marine ecosystems, shifting the focus of fishery management from resources as mere

and an anonymous

J. H.,

Agn .culture gation,s

people

and sustaining

of exploIted

Bohnsack,

the SCIence of

considering

Beverto~,

and

of marine

Developing

ies resources: the state and management, 2nd world fisheries congress proceedings. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.

human

ecosystems and their management by offering a high and objective level of protection and a scientific basis for assessing human impacts and management effectiveness. Reserves potentially can simplify enforcement, be fi fi h . d all hi .d bli ne t IS enes, an eventu y ac. eve WI ~ pu c resource

Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. P. Beumer, editors.

MagnUSOn-

marine

W ...0J 1997 " N take". marIne reserve ne tsupport fisheries. Pages 702-706 in D. A.

works

M

bIodiversIty.

qualities

.

A. Meester, J. Luo, J. A. Miller. 2002. Baseline fish st?ck assessment for TechnIcal Memorandum

anagement

ecosystem

and quantitative

J. S., S. G. Smith, G. Bohnsack, and S. L. multispecies coral reef Dry Tortugas. NOAA

Ballanti

and Freshwa-

the

to protect

offer qualitative

Ault,

Marine

13:353-367.

d

nly mtended

Conservation:

ter Ecosystems

an

and reactive

to a more precautionary

onservation

shift from sIngle-species

management

Dangerous targets? Unresolved Issues and ideological clashes around marine protected ar-

a philo-

ery

sophical

..2003. of m.anne reser:ves represe~ts

IS

.y ~d,.use

Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/ SPO-40. Bohnsack, J. A. 1999b. Ecosystem management, mareserves, and the art of airplane maintenance. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute

50:304-311.

192

BOHNSACKET AL.

Bohnsack,J. A. 2000b.A comparisonof the shortterm Guenette, S., T. Lauck, and C. Clark. 1998. Marine reserves: from Beverton and Holt to the present. impactsof no-takemarine reservesand minimum Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8:1-:-21. sizelimits. Bulletin of Marine Science66:615-650. Bohnsack,J. A. 2003. Shifting baselines,marine re- Halpern, B. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecoserves,and Leopold's biotic ethic. Gulf and Carlogical Applications 13:Sll7-137. ibbean Science 14(2):1-7. Bohnsack,J. A., and J. S. Ault. 1996. Management Halpern, B. S., and R. R. Warner. 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects Ecology Letstrategiesto conservemarine biodiversity. Oceanters 5:361-366. ography 9:73-82. Bohnsack, J. A., B. Causey, M. P. Crosby, R. G. Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural reGriffis, M. A. Hixon, T. F. Hourigan,K. H. Koltes, source management. Conservation Biology J. E. Maragos, A. Simons, and J. T. Tilmant. 10:328-337. 2002. A rationale for minimum 20-30% no-take protection. Pages615-619 in Proceedingsof the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 1994. Guidelines 9th International Coral Reef Symposium. Indofor protected area management categories. IUCN, nesian Institute of Sciences, Society for Reef Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Studies, Indonesia. Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Petersen. Jackson, J. B. C. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16:S23-S32. 1997. The managementof fisheries and marine Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. ecosystems.Science 177:509-515. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Botsford,L. W., A. Hastings,and S. D. Gaines.2001. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. Dependenceof sustainabilityon the configuration P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lang, H. S. Lenihan, of marine reservesand larval dispersaldistance. J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. Ecology Letters 4:144-150. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical overBrock, R., andB. Culhane.2004.The no-takeresearch fishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosysnatural area of Dry Tortugas National Park tems. Science 293:629-638. (Florida): wishful thinking or responsible planning? Pages67-74 in J. B. Shipley,editor.Aquatic Jameson, S. C., M. H. Thpper, and J. M. Ridley. 2002. The three screen doors: can marine "protected" protected areas as fisheries managementtools. areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin American Fisheries Society, Symposium 42, 44:1177-1183. Bethesda,Maryland. Callicott, J. B. 1992.Principal traditions in American Johnson, D. R., N. A. Funicelli, and J. A. Bohnsack. 1999. The effectiveness of an existing estuarine environmentalethics: a surveyof moral valuesfor no-take fish sanctuary within the Kennedy Space framing an American ocean policy. Ocean and Center, Florida. North American Journal of FishCoastal Management17:299-325. eries Management 19:436--453. Carr, M. H., and D. C. Reed. 1993.Conceptualissues relevantto marine harvestrefuges:Examplesfrom Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. International Union for the Conservation temperatereef fishes. CanadianJournal of Fishof Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzereries and Aquatic Sciences50:2019-2028. land, and Cambridge, UK. Christensen, V., S. Guenette, J. J. Heymans,C. J. Lauck, T., C. W. Clark, M. Mangel, G. R. Munro. 1998. Walters,R. Watson,D. Zeller, and D. Pauly.2003. Implementing the precautionary principle in fishHundred-yeardecline of North Atlantic predatory eries management through marine reserves. Ecofishes. Fish and Fisheries4:1-14. logical Applications 8(Supplement 1):S72-S78. Clark, J. R. 2003. Letter to the editor. MPA News Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford 5(1):6. University Press, London. Conover, D.O., and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncerfisheriesyields over evolutionarytime scales.Scitainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: ence297:94-96. lessons from history. Science 260:17-18. Dayton,P. K. 1998.Reversalof the burdenof proof in Lydecker, R. 2004. How the organized recreational fisheries management.Science 279:821-822. fishing community views aquatic protected areas. Dayton, P. K., S. F. Thrush, M. T. Agardy, and R. J. Pages 15-19 in J. B. Shipley, editor. Aquatic proHofman. 1995. Environmentaleffects of marine tected areas as fisheries management tools. Amerifishing. Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshcan Fisheries Society, Symposium 42, Bethesda, water Ecosystems5:205-232. Maryland. Fogarty,M. J., J.A. Bohnsack,andP.K. Dayton. 2000. Marine reservesand resourcemanagement.Pages McArdle, D., S. Hastings, and J. Ugoretz. 2003. California marine protected area update. California Sea 283-300 in C. Sheppard,editor. Seas at the milGrant College Program, University of California lennium: an environmentalevaluation.Pergamon, Publication T-051, La Jolla. Elsevier, NewYork.

WHY HA VB No-TAKE

MARINE PROI'ECI:ED AREAS ?

193

Murray, S. N., R. F. Ambrose,J. A. Bohnsack,L. W. ment in the U.S. southernAtlantic. Snapper-grouBotsford,M. H. Carr,G. E. Davis,P.K. Dayton,D. per plan developmentteam report for the South Gotshall, D. R. Gunderson, M. A. Hixon, J. Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil. NOAA Lubchenco,M. Mangel,A. MacCall,D.A. McArdle, Technical MemorandumNMFS-SEFC-261. J. C. Ogden,J. Roughgarden,R. M. Starr, M. J. Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's living Tegner,and M. M. Yoklavich. 1999. No-take reoceans:chartering a course for sea change. Pew servenetworks: protectionfor fishery populations OceansCommission,Arlington, Virginia. and marine ecosystems.Fisheries24(11):11-25. Roberts,C. M., J. A. Bohnsack,F. Gell,J. P. Hawkins, Myers, R. A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine redepletion of predatory fish communities. Nature serves on adjacentfisheries. Science294:1920(London) 423:280-283. 1923. NCEAS (National Centerfor Ecological Analysis and Roberts,C. M., and J. P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully proSynthesis).2001. Scientific consensusstatement tectedmarine reserves:a guide. EndangeredSeas on marine reserves and marine protected areas. Campaign, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, American Associationfor the Advancementof SciD.C., and University of York, ~K. ence. Available: www.nceas.ucsb.eduiconsensus Rosenberg,A. A. 2003. Managingto the margins:the overexploiationof fisheries.Frontiers in Ecology (March 2004). Norse,E. A., C. B. Grimes,S. R. Ralston,R. Hilborn, and the Environment 1(2):102-106. J. C. Castilla, S. R. Palumbi, D. Fraser, and P. Russ,G. R. 1996.Fisheriesmanagement:whatchance Karieva. 2003. Marine reserves:the best option on coral reefs? NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly for our oceans?Frontiers in Ecology and the EnJuly 1996:5-9. vironment 1(9):495-502.NRC Shipp, R. L. 2003. A perspectiveon marine reserves (National ResearchCouncil). 1999. Sustaining as a fishery management tool. Fisheries marine fisheries.National Academy Press,Wash28(12):10-21. ington, D.C.NRC USCRTF(U.S. Coral Reef TaskForce).2000. The na(National ResearchCouncil). 2001. Marine protional actionplanto conservecoralreefs.USCRTF, tected areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosysWashington,D.C. tems. National AcademyPress,Washington,D.C. USDOC. (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2000. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline Strategy for stewardship: Tortugas ecological syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and reservefinal supplementalenvironmentalimpact Evolution 10:430. statement/final supplementalmanagementplan. Pauly,D. 2004. On the need for a global network of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administralarge marinereserves.Abstractonly. Page63 in J. tion, National Ocean Service,Office of National B. Shipley,editor.Aquatic protectedareasas fishMarine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, Maryland. eries managementtools. American Fisheries SoAvailable: www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/ ciety, Symposium42, Bethesda,Maryland. FinalFSEIS.pdf(March 2004). Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. U.S. Office of the Federal Register.2000. Executive 1Yedmers,and R. Watson. 2003. The future for Order 13158 of May 26, 2000 on marine profisheries. Science 302:1359-1361. tected areas. Federal Register 65(105):34909Pauly,D., V. Christensen,J. Dalsgaard,R. Froese,and 34911. F. Torres.1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Walters,C. J. 1986.Adaptive managementof renewScience279:860-863. able resources.MacMillan Publishing Company, Pauly,D., V. Christensen,S. Guenette,T. J. Pitcher,U. NewYork. R. Surnaila,C. J. Walters,R. Watson,andD. Zeller. Ward, T. J., D. Heinemann,and N. Evans.2001. The 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. role of marine reservesas fisheries management Nature (London) 418:689-695. tools: a review of concepts,evidenceand internaPDT (Plan DevelopmentTeam). 1990. The potential tional experience. Bureau of Rural Sciences, of marine fishery reservesfor reef fish manageCanberra,Australia.