We propose that covering 10% of the world oceans with no-take reservesis a reasonable middle ground between social and scientific concerns. Specifically, we note that this is the most conservative coverage amount that has been shown to result in a considerable ecological benefit. We contend that providing a clear and explicit goal is important in several respects: Firstly, it provides concrete target around which a reasonable and expedient timeline can be structured (Ballatine 1991). Secondly, a well-defined goal provides reassurance that the goal is not to eventually close off the entire ocean (Ibid). In other words, this proposal is a commitment to an "upper bound" unless clear evidence indicates 10% is not enough. In this way, we seek to minimize the impacts of the proposal on human culture and economics, while strongly emphasizing that non-trivial investment today is needed for the sake of the future.
In addition, we acknowledge that such a proposal for Marine Reserves must be part of a broader, global effort for improved sustainability in fisheries and in general. It is essential that Marine Reserves be used in conjunction with more traditional management methods, such as gear restrictions, quotas, etc. (Hyperlink to EXTERNAL SOLUTION PAGES, i.e TECHNOLOGY). Such a system would zone a much larger proportion of the oceans as MPAs, with varying degrees of protection, with the No-Take Reserves acting as the core of the system. Modeling by Guenétte, et. al (2000) has provided strong evidence that substantial benefits can be derived from relatively small closed areas (between 10-20% of the study area), but only as long as they are strategically located and augmented by other management methods. Real-world experience with existing marine reserves has confirmed that the most convincing evidence of large-scale ecological benefit begins to appear when at least 10% of a given ocean area is protected (Gell & Roberts 2003).
As for acceptability, consider that around 11.5% of global surface area currently falls under some type of state-designated protection (UNEP 2006). These data imply that a comparable level of coverage for the oceans is not an unrealistic target. Even considering that the coverage by each country is uneven, there is clear global precedent for conservation, with diverse regions such as Central America, East Asia, Southern Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America all exceeding the global average (UNEP 2006). Given the proper motivation through education, social development programs, and the like, it is very conceivable that this 10% proposal could become broadly acceptable (Ballantine 1991).