Question: What are the lessons learned from MCA field projects?

Answer: Lessons learned are numerous and can be grouped into issues related to programmatic insights, planning, acquisition and approval processes, agreement terms and project implementation.

Lessons learned regarding Marine Conservation Agreements (MCAs) were drawn from Field Projects and Meetings and are provided throughout the entire toolkit. Below is a brief summary of lessons learned that will help project managers gain an initial understanding MCAs issues, obstacles and benefits.

Lessons learned can be categorized as:

Programmatic Insights
Planning
Acquisition and Approval Processes
Agreement Terms
Project Implementation

Programmatic Insights

Challenges other than Legal: Laws can be enacted that incorporate MCAs into the management of public lands, but new controversies can still arise.
Costs: The cost of implementing MCAs varies widely and thus defies generalization. Thus, MCAs, while presenting a potentially very cost-effective option for achieving habitat protection, can also require a considerable investment.
Ecotourism Constraints: Investment in conservation and in environmentally sound technologies, as well as the employment of additional staff for management and environmental education programs, raises costs considerably for ecotourism companies, making it more difficult to compete with non-conservation tourist destinations. Favorable tax treatment could encourage such investments.
Fish Protection: While MCAs can be used to protect numerous features of the ocean and coastal environment, most projects directly or indirectly protect finfish, shellfish or their habitats.
Flexibility: MCAs are flexible tools which enable them to be applied to diverse ecosystems ranging from marine turtle nesting beaches to reef fisheries. MCAs can be applied at small scales (less than five hectares) and extremely large scales (up to 400,000 sq kms). MCAs can also involve parties ranging from national governments to private landowners and indigenous communities. The key to applying MCAs in different settings lies in creativity on behalf of the implementing parties with respect to adapting the approach to the available legal mechanisms in a given setting. As a consequence, the legal mechanisms used in MCAs vary widely from country to country. The overarching lesson is that with some creativity, it is almost always possible to ground MCAs in existing legal frameworks, even in cases where legislation and property rights do not specifically address conservation issues.
Future Demand: The long-term, future demand for MCAs is uncertain. For MCA programs to succeed, organizations must make the investment to take lead roles in managing ocean and coastal lands, resources and ecosystem services. Long-term secure tenure, together with favorable political, legal and institutional environments, is needed to attract more private conservation investments in the developing world.
Hurdles: In developing countries, ambiguous regulations and wide discretionary powers of civil servants in the area of land leases, building permits, business licenses, immigration and labor laws encourage corruption, and are thus hurdles to doing business, by drastically delaying developments and increasing costs.
Local Integration: Many existing projects that show significant signs of success involve the direct participation of local communities and provide opportunities for local employment.
Project Champions: Many MCA projects came to fruition due to the perseverance, persuasive abilities, and personal relationships of forward-thinking, bold, and charismatic project leaders. Successful project leaders have been able to account for cultural, social, political, and economic issues of the local communities.
Success: Private management of in-water sites and resources can be effective and economically viable, even in a challenging political climate. Private managers have strong incentives to achieve tangible conservation goals on the ground, co-operate with local resource users, generate income, be cost-effective, and keep overheads down.

La Paz, Mexico. Photo ©The Nature Conservancy

Planning

Avoid Conflicts: To avoid user conflicts, it is easier to preserve a resource that is not being used to a major extent for subsistence or other economic endeavors by local communities. Conflicts may arise when communities and commercial commodity managers (e.g., shellfish companies) perceive that protection efforts may take prime ground out of production or physically interfere with commercial operations on adjacent sites.
Buy if Possible: In the U.S., private fee-simple ownership options often exist in ocean and coastal environments; if insurmountable obstacles to leasing public lands are expected, acquisition of private lands may be an alternative. In fact, opportunities to own large tracts of submerged land exist, but the bundle of rights that comes with the properties may or may not be strong or clear. While there may be opportunities to lease areas for restoration purposes from states, if organizations already own sufficient intertidal areas to be restored, then there may be no need to lease additional lands.
Creation not Ideal : Regulatory and proprietary agencies often do not like to approve creation projects (i.e., projects that create new habitat types where they did not historically occur). Restoration projects (i.e., projects that return previously existing habitat types to historical areas) are often preferred. Agency hesitancy to approve creation projects is particularly likely when projects displace perceived lower functioning habitat types for other, higher functioning habitat types. The other primary consideration is simply an intuitive assumption on reliability of success (if the site supported it before, it will more likely support it again).
Know Requirements: All authorization and permitting requirements should be determined during the planning process.
People and Places Matter: Organizations should think carefully about the individuals who they will be working with and what sites are targeted for acquisition. Working with the wrong individuals can delay or stop projects regardless of the projects' substantive merits.
Plan First: To the extent possible, a conceptual site management plan should be in-hand prior to approaching land and resource owners, managers, and users. Plans for sites should include monitoring and adaptive management.
Productive Use: Laws sometimes require productive use or harvest of resources for MCA sites. This will require creativity on behalf of conservation project proponents; it also may require that laws be changed.
Public Trust Doctrine: In the U.S. and potentially other countries, projects should account for the application of the public trust doctrine, which in many areas allows public access to intertidal and subtidal areas. Given this, regulatory and proprietary agencies often do not like to exclude the public (for activities such as navigation, fishing, hunting, beach walking, and general access) from intertidal and subtidal lands and resources. Though in some cases, the public can be excluded even when the intertidal and subtidal lands and resources are publicly-owned. If public exclusion is necessary but questionable, an attorney should evaluate the situation closely. In many cases, MCAs are actually supported by the public trust doctrine and many state constitutions and laws.

Acquisition and Approval Process

Adaptive Approach: Required conservation plans and approval processes need to easily allow for adaptive management and phased implementation of restoration plans. As currently designed, many projects are expected to be completely designed and permitted for the life of the project/lease.
Agency Scrutiny: Agency scrutiny of the conservation plan and MCA proposal may be great (greater than other, more traditional leasing projects). Agency resistance to conservation leasing can be addressed by creating a rigorous application, planning, and review process.
Aquatic Appraisals: External appraisal expertise may be needed to assess Fair Market Value of lands and resources. This may require special knowledge on the part of the appraiser that is not commonly held or applied within more traditional sectors of the appraisal industry (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial land valuation).
Equal Standing: Conservation proponents can and should be able to compete fairly with non-conservation project proponents for use of public lands and resources. However, certain designations and zoning may cause a proposed conservation activity (especially an exclusive one) to not compete fairly (i.e., equally) with other activities—such as navigation and transport of commerce. In some areas, including harbor areas, waterways and federally-designated navigation channels, other (non-conservation) uses may get preferential treatment.
Funding Helps: Project funding that has timelines and deliverables associated with it helps keep projects moving. Funding that goes directly or indirectly to authorizing entities to help off-set expenses can be additionally helpful.
Know the Boundaries: Good boundary descriptions and surveys prior to entering into MCAs are essential to understand exactly what areas are included. But surveying and up-front permitting requirements can be extensive, costly, and lengthy.
Know the Uses: Before negotiating the terms and conditions of MCAs, ownership, management and use of the area must be determined. This discovery process can be difficult and protracted, and require extensive legal, surveying and title expertise.
Long Process: The negotiation, acquisition, and approval process will likely take longer than expected, especially if precedent-setting. Though years of negotiations can pay off to preserve large and unique valuable tracts of intertidal land.
Perceptions versus Policy: Perceived barriers to project authorizations are often greater obstacles than the true barriers (if any) created by laws.

Agreement Terms

Bonding: Most MCA contracts will require the grantee to provide and maintain certain contract performance security instruments (e.g., bonding or letter of credit) and insurance policies for the life of the MCA. This also should be carefully considered in budget planning for the conservation project.
End of Contract Requirements: Construction, maintenance, removal and ultimate disposition of proposed improvements (if any) on the site should be carefully negotiated and documented in the terms of the MCA contract.
Liability: Liability language in MCAs can put the burden on grantees (NGOs) for actions they cannot reasonably control (e.g., illegal dumping within the site).
Performance Measures: In-water, measurable results from restoration projects can take a long time, which needs to be considered if there are performance measures explicitly described in the MCA.
Valuation: MCA contracts may (or may not) require monetary consideration in exchange for the grantee ’s encumbrance of property. If so, the terms of valuation and periodic rental adjustment should be well understood. This should be carefully considered in budget planning for the conservation project.

Project Implementation

Local Benefits: Projects can benefit local communities by generating income, employment, markets for local produce, developing new work skills, demonstrating sustainable resource management, and restocking commercial fish species in adjacent areas (spill-over).
Local Communication: Keeping local towns informed of restoration efforts through letters and minimizing conflict with local industry maintains a positive image of the project, which is beneficial to its success.
Stakeholders: Cooperation among all stakeholders is critical to ultimate success.
Standing: Conservation organizations that are signatories of MCAs have unique places at the table to work with agencies in planning for restoration and management of large areas.
Success Aids: Site management will be more successful if proposed actions are science-based, if economic and commercial interests are addressed, and if regular attention is given to effective communication with decision-makers and influential parties in the community.
Success Problems: Successful restoration of oyster reefs through MCAs may increase problems at the site. Poaching on oyster reefs is a major problem since oysters are left on the reefs and not harvested. Specifically, enforcing trespass and theft laws, catching and documenting the larceny, and proving proprietary rights are complex legal problems at the local level.
Restoration: The learning curve on in-water restoration is steep.
Research: MCAs can be a good tool to foster research partnerships.

Return to Top