Advancing ocean ecosystem conservation via property rights, rather than marine protected areas (MPAs)

There is demand to protect at-risk fish species and ecosystems. Property rights regimes can be superior to spatial controls via Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for doing so. Empirical cases from Australia and the US indicate that MPAs are inequitable, too large and restrictive, and controversial. These conditions lead to resistance and political pushback, threatening long-term budgets and conservation goals. A critique of MPAs is presented along with a range of property rights arrangements–common, community, private—and Coasean bargaining as alternatives. Outlined benefits are a.) Rights holders have a stake in conservation and are central in its design. They are more than respondents. b). Costs/benefits can be more equally distributed, including direct payments that include both costs of transition and contribution to public goods provision. c.) Spatial set-asides confront tradeoffs and hence, are more apt to be economically sited and designed. d.) Modifications can occur more smoothly through market exchange than through the political process. Durable global conservation efforts can be enhanced.