Myth 8: Marine Conservation Agreements lead to bad conservation.
Fact 8: Areas managed under Marine Conservation Agreements often have more focus, staffing, funding, planning and restoration than other ocean and coastal areas.
Marine Conservation Agreements (MCAs) have shown through various Field Projects that they can successfully bring needed attention, staffing, funding and expertise to ocean and coastal sites that would otherwise not receive it. As such, in many areas MCAs drastically improve upon existing conditions of biodiversity protection. However, to truly determine the effectiveness of any conservation initiative (including MCAs), one should examine the objectives, ownership, decision-making, planning, implementation and enforcement actions taken on behalf of the effort.
The key is to resist lumping all MCAs into a single group. There are many Models, Types and Actions related to MCAs, which means they can take several different forms depending on the implementing organization, the geography and circumstances under which they occur. Careful evaluation reveals that there are successes and failures in both private and public sector marine conservation efforts. Good conservation is not guaranteed under MCAs, but neither is it guaranteed under government-established MPAs, laws and regulations. Conversely, it is possible to achieve good conservation with MCAs, MPAs, laws, and other strategies.
In some situations, MCAs can be better at capturing the full economic value of biodiversity when compared to government efforts. Also, staff working for private organizations that implement MCAs often have have better training, equipment, and salaries than their government counterparts. These same organizations can also be in better positions to conduct community outreach and habitat restoration.1 In the end, in many situations MCAs have an equal or better chance of success than government-initiated efforts.