Myth 9: It sets a bad precedent for private organizations to assume the responsibilities of land and resource owners, managers and users through Marine Conservation Agreements.

Fact 9: Marine Conservation Agreements allow private organizations to legitimately assist land and resource owners, managers and users with their management responsibilities.

Marine Conservation Agreements (MCAs) have allowed private organizations to legitimately augment and complement the efforts of land and resource owners, managers and users for several decades. This is not a New undertaking nor are the Actions taken out of the norm. In fact, it is commonly accepted that private organizations acquire and protect terrestrial sites; MCAs simply apply this form of assistance to ocean and coastal environments.

The concern is that MCAs set a precedent by which it will become impossible to obtain conservation for free. However, truly free conservation is extremely rare, and will become even rarer as countries reach the limits to the amount of area they are financially or politically able to place under formal protection. Moreover, even when countries create formal protected areas, this is not free. In recent years Gabon and Madagascar provide examples of governments that, at the urging of conservation organizations, took bold steps to place additional terrestrial areas under protection, but with an explicit expectation that the international community assist with financing of protected area management. The number of protected areas around the world with no or very poor management clearly illustrates the limitations of free conservation. In addition, many priority areas for conservation are home to marginalized human populations who depend on the natural resource base. To expect such communities to provide free conservation services hardly seems reasonable, and setting a precedent whereby they reap unambiguous, concrete benefits from conservation efforts can only be seen as a positive.1

In essence, there are two fundamental reasons private organizations may want to aid land and resources owners, managers and users (especially governments) with their marine conservation roles through MCAs: 1) the responsible entities need assistance, or 2) the responsible entities may not be performing as private organizations desire.

• Owners, managers and users need assistance: Government agencies are notoriously understaffed and under-funded for the broad and geographically wide responsibilities they often hold. As a result, in some situations government agencies (and other owners, managers and users) may simply not have the capacity to completely fulfill their conservation missions. The ability of private organizations to enter into MCAs and bring needed staffing, funding, and expertise to specific areas or to focus on specific resources can prove invaluable to owners, managers and users.
• Owners, managers and users not performing: In some cases, private organizations may believe that land and resource owners, managers and users are not meeting their conservation missions for reasons other than capacity. In these situations, there may be political, procedural, or philosophical reasons (among others) why organizations disagree on how the entities are fulfilling their conservation responsibilities. These situations provide opportunities for private organizations (especially ocean and coastal-related organizations) to obtain responsibility for ensuring conservation success through MCAs. As opposed to serving in roles as advocates, policy advisors, agency watchdogs, educators, or scientists, private organizations can use MCAs to acquire or manage interests in lands, resources and ecosystem services and subsequently implement conservation activities first-hand.

Return to Top