There can be no doubt that economists have made a substantial contribution to the management of natural resources in Australia and New Zealand. Pannell et al. (2016) provide an expert assessment of this contribution across water, agriculture and marine resource management in particular. Nevertheless, as Pannell et al. also highlight, economics has not been as influential as it could have been. I want to focus on this point in my brief commentary, and the role economics has played, and should continue to play, in conservation.One reason for the lack of influence of economics on natural resource management advanced by Pannell et al. is that 'conservation-minded stakeholders are actively opposed to the consideration of economics in decision making'. There is a good deal of truth in this. Indeed, sceptical individuals invariably argue that commercial interests and conservation are always at odds; yet those who are looking for profits from natural resource management argue that conservation goals always come at the expense of economic returns. Typical examples are setting aside forests, prime pasture and sections of the ocean for noncommercial use. Commercial concerns will argue that such closures simply limit economic activity and close off not only profitability, but also vital employment opportunities. Conservationists, on the other hand, claim that such measures are only a small part of the effort needed to protect the environment, regardless of the loss to profitability.But must this always be the case? Are profits and conservation always in conflict? The answer is no. There are clear examples where the use of conservation zones in fact enhances profitability. A recent strong case comes from the use of a marine protected area (MPA) in ocean fisheries (Grafton et al. 2009). An MPA generates a resilience effect, not only biologically, but also economically. It acts as a buffer stock, where spillover effects in fish stocks from a nearby MPA can compensate for a negative shock to a fishery. This buffer stock effect can be substantial, leading not only to higher catches over time, but both a quicker return to profitability and higher sustainable profits. The more negative shocks that occur and the greater their frequency (eg think of climate change and its effect on weather patterns in a fishery), the larger will be the benefits of an MPA. Only in cases where there are no † Tom Kompas