Myth: We should only lease or own ocean and coastal lands and resources when they are threatened by degradation or already degraded.

Fact: There are numerous reasons why pristine and/or unthreatened areas should be protected through leasing or ownership.

A common issue is whether conservation efforts should prioritize areas that are degraded (or threatened with degradation) over areas that are pristine and/or not targeted for development (and resultant degradation). This issues hinges on the concept that there is no need to protect something unless it is currently targeted for development or has already been developed and degraded. But this is a myth as there are several reasons for leasing and owning ocean and coastal lands and resources prior to their being degraded or threatened by degradation.

• Change happens: Coastal populations and pressures are constantly increasing; lands and resources not threatened today will inevitably be threatened in the future. Protecting sites before they are threatened decreases the likelihood of their being threatened in the future.
• Cheaper: In most cases, it is less expensive to simply 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 conservation projects more easily accepted. Local development projects can increase tax bases, improve businesses, and provide facilities or goods to the public. Consequently, conservation 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 private conservation of lands and resources lying with ocean and coastal waters is new to the area, it is better and easier to establish a precedent with a non-controversial conservation 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.