Mr. Richard Cronin:

One of the key issues coming out of the advisory report, and it is something in respect of which we have started discussions with stakeholders like members of the fishing community and our colleagues in other countries, is how we will integrate other effective area-based conservation measures into our suite of marine protected areas. This might sound semantic but it is very important to think about it. One group is calling for no take zones while another is looking for fisheries closures. We have the fishing community looking for fisheries closures and maybe the environmental pillar looking for no take zones. They both want the same thing. They both want to protect biodiversity and believe that fishing in some locations should not happen. They might have different reasons for believing and wanting it but they both want the same thing. It is very important that as we come up with these other effective conservation measures, where we are going to put them and where they need to be from a scientific point of view, that we make sure they actually deliver for us. When I explain this work to others and all the different acronyms floating around, I say that if you are living in the sea, you do not really care what the space in which you are living is called as long as your life cycle is protected. You do not care whether it is called a marine protected area, a well-managed space or another effective conservation measure. Your population and stock must have the protection they need from human activity to be able to exist now and into the future and recover if necessary.