4.1. Conclusions
PHCs in Fiji are capable of providing pre-harvest and harvest benefits primarily for low to moderately vulnerable species. However, closing PHCs for just 1 year in most cases will provide little long-term benefit to fishers and is not sufficient for the recovery of pre-harvest benefits required for sustainability of the harvest regime. Identification of the precise harvest regimes for sustainability of the PHC strategy will require studies over large temporal scales (i.e. decades) that integrated variable harvesting regimes, as seen with long-term studies of marine reserves (McClanahan and Humphries, 2012; Russ and Alcala, 2004, 2003). However, PHCs are already extant across the Western Pacific, where smallscale fisheries are often essential for food security and livelihood, meaning these communities cannot afford such delays in management advice to help sustain these fisheries. Alternative methods such as population modelling that uses the empirical data currently available may provide further insight into the management of PHCs. While continued studies are important, we recommend that PHCs are closed to fishing for greater than 1 year, with a strong recommendation for 3 years or more to increase the potential for short-term ecological benefits and long-term sustainability of small-scale fisheries, and that highly vulnerable species are protected from harvests. It is also important that PHCs are used in conjunction with conventional fisheries management strategies,which will promote the recovery of coral reef fisheries (MacNeil et al., 2015). Similarly, we recommend that permanent, no-take marine reserves are used for conservation of biodiversity (Costello and Ballantine, 2015), given that PHCs are unlikely to provide long-term conservation benefits. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.038.