Search

Fewer protected areas exist in the pelagic ocean than any other ecosystem on Earth. Although there is increasing support for marine protected areas (MPAs) as a tool for pelagic conservation, there have also been numerous criticisms of the ecological, logistical and economic feasibility of place-based management in the dynamic pelagic environment. Here we argue that recent advances across conservation, oceanography and fisheries science provide the evidence, tools and information to address these criticisms and confirm MPAs as defensible and feasible instruments for pelagic conservation. Debate over the efficacy of protected areas relative to other conservation measures cannot be resolved without further implementation of MPAs in the pelagic ocean.

Making decisions about managing our relationship with the environment is a daily activity for government agencies, companies, and non-government organisations (NGOs) around the world. But making good decisions is far from easy. In addition to the difficulty of navigating multiple objectives in complex socio-ecological systems, the human mind is plagued by biases that hinder our ability to make rational and effective decisions. These are the challenges that Robin Gregory and colleagues take on in Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Fortunately for all those faced with guiding environmental management decisions, the book succeeds in living up to its title; it is an accessible practitioner's guide to multiobjective decision making and group deliberation in the fields of environmental management and conservation...

The primary aim of our paper on monitoring [1] was to inspire managers to think about how they allocate resources to monitoring conservation management actions. This is precisely what Geupel et al. [2] have done in responding to our work.

Kaplan et al. support the need to consider Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as one tool in the management of pelagic threats. However, they suggest that two challenges, defining 'targeted' MPAs and enforcement, are more significant than we recognized. Using the example of skipjack tuna, the authors argue that defining 'targeted MPAs' (we assume for a particular species) can be problematic given the lack of site fidelity of some pelagic animals.

We welcome the interest generated by our recent article [1] on the use of triage principles for allocation of conservation resources in three letters featured in this issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution [2–4] and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Jachowski and Kesler [3] and Parr and colleagues [4] from the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) argue against the use of conservation triage. We consider that these authors have confused two issues: the allocation of resources currently available for conservation and decisions on how much society should spend on conservation. The first issue involves wise allocation of funds assisted by approaches such as triage and cost-efficient optimization. The second is an issue of societal values and political willingness. Conservationists fight on both fronts, but the issues should not be confused.