Myth 11: Marine Conservation Agreements should only be applied to ocean and coastal areas threatened by degradation or that are already degraded.

Fact 11: Marine Conservation Agreements can justifiably be applied to pristine ocean and coastal areas that are not threatened by degradation as well as those area that are threatened or already degraded.

Organizations may choose to apply Marine Conservation Agreements (MCAs) to pristine ocean and coastal sites that are not threatened with degradation or to sites that are already threatened and degraded. The question of which type of area to prioritize is centered on the concept that there is no need to protect something unless it is currently targeted for development or has already been degraded. However, there are justifiable reasons to prioritize pristine, unthreatened sites over threatened sites.

• Change happens: Coastal populations and pressures are constantly increasing; lands, resources and ecosystem services not threatened today will inevitably be threatened in the future. Protecting sites before they are threatened decreases the likelihood of the sites being threatened in the future.
• Less expensive: In most cases, it is less simply expensive to protect pristine areas than it is to spend time and money restoring and subsequently protecting degraded areas. Sites not targeted for development also decrease project costs since the time it takes to reach agreements is shorter, the public review process may be shorter, and there is less likelihood that costly analyses (such as cost-benefit assessments) will be needed.
• Quicker: Since the controversy, resistance, and competition are less at sites that are not targeted for another use, the time it takes to reach agreements and implement protection is often shorter.


Tropical overwater structures, Moorea Hotel, French Polynesia. Photo ©Heike Schroeder

• Less controversial: It is less politically and publicly controversial to protect areas not targeted for use by other interests; making proposed MCA projects more easily accepted. Local development projects can increase tax bases, improve businesses, and provide facilities or goods to the public. Consequently, MCA projects that interfere with local development are often met with resistance. On the other hand, if it is simply a matter of maintaining the protective status quo of a site, then many groups will see no harm in the effort.
• Easier precedent: If MCAs are new to an area, it is better and easier to establish a precedent with a non-controversial project (in areas where there are no competing uses) in order to set the stage for potential future controversial projects (in areas where there are competing interests).
• More diverse: Sites that are pristine and/or not targeted for development may contain the highest biodiversity in an area. When this is the case, these sites should take priority over less diverse, more degraded, and/or sites targeted for development.

Return to Top