1. MPA’s are a good fisheries management tool and fisheries will benefit from them    
Agree
Disagree

2. MPA’s should primarily be managed by the government
Agree
Disagree

3. Scientists are the real beneficiaries of MPA’s
MPA’s are scientifically interesting, which makes it difficult for scientists to regard proposed measures objectively
Agree
Disagree

4. Many MPAs are designed to benefit tourism and other economically powerful sectors, denying access of local communities to the "commons"
Agree
Disagree

5. Agree Disagree Size matters!
(Small island developing states will seldom successfully reconcile fisheries management with STRICT conservation (e.g. no-take reserves) since livelihood demands on productive marine areas for fisheries and competing uses are usually huge in contrast to fisheries and MPA management capacity that is usually inadequate). And also: for an MPA to be effective it will have to have a certain size – depending on goals
Agree
Disagree

6. Too many parties are involved in discussing governance of MPA’s
Agree
Disagree

7. MPA’s are only one of many tools in the toolbox for management of aquatic resources
Agree
Disagree

8. With good fisheries policy, MPA’s aren’t necessary
Agree
Disagree

9. There can not be one singular framework for MPA’s, due to different circumstances around the world
Agree
Disagree

10. MPA’s are inevitable!  
Agree
Disagree

12. In designing MPA’s, the P from Planet should be more important than People and Profit  
(Ecology has been deteriorated by human actions, and in order to restore balance, ecology (planet) should be more important)

13. FAO is the only organisation that should be allowed to give directives/frameworks for MPA’s

14. The fishing industry shouldn’t be part of the MPA discussion, since it is (partly) responsible for the problem

15. Fishermen should be part of the solution
Fishermen should be part of the solution. Without compliance nothing will be achieved!