![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
![]() |
Mathew Chigiyal[1]
This paper discusses the major problems that prevent the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) from implementing necessary policies for marine protected areas. The major problems have been identified as the fragmentation of jurisdiction over the marine areas, the lack of legal framework and the lack of real action. It seems evident that unless the Federated States of Micronesia begins implementing real actions, it will have difficulty in addressing the pressing issues and concerns affecting the coastal resources. With the current economic recession, increased development is very likely and the sustainability of the resources would be compromised severely. The well-being of the coastal resources and their environment depends mainly on the efforts taken by the relevant managers and how keen they are in protecting the resources.
The Federated States of Micronesia is one of the Pacific Island States with a vast ocean and a relatively small landmass. The islands in the FSM are scattered over an area of 8,800,000 square kilometres of ocean, that is, approximately two thousand seven hundred times the size of the islands combined. The huge size of the ocean offers the FSM a great deal of wealth in marine resources from both inshore and offshore. In fact, because the landmass of many of the inhabited islands is relatively small, the FSM have been solely dependent on the ocean as the main source of nutrition and economic benefits. Despite the seemingly unlimited wealth of the vast ocean, many of the near-shore areas have been over-exploited from unregulated fishing and degraded from unsustainable coastal and land-based development. Many of the coastal marine areas have degraded marine habitats and reduced biological diversity and now face the threat of possible sea level rise due to global warming. Like many coastal states, the FSM recognizes that establishing marine protected areas (MPA) is a way to combat some of these marine coastal degradations. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has defined ‘protected area’ as
an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.[2]
The FSM has not been able to declare adequate MPAs, has not been able to promulgate the States’ integrated coastal resource management legislation and in general has not been successful in addressing the continued degradation of the coastal areas. In many ways, these problems are attributed to, inter alia, three main factors such as jurisdictional problems, lack of legal framework and insufficient effort in implementing relevant conservation programs. This paper will address these factors and show how they prevent successful implementation of policies relating to marine protected areas.
The FSM faces many jurisdictional problems with respect to the management, conservation and protection of coastal resources, biological diversity and the environment. The problems can be classified (only for the purpose of this paper’s attempt to categorize and differentiate the common jurisdictional problems) as ‘institutional’ and ownership jurisdictional problems. The institutional jurisdiction problems stem from the fact that the FSM has a federal state government in which the National Government’s jurisdiction is limited to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone and the State governments have jurisdiction over their respective territorial (12-miles territorial water) and internal waters (prescribed as residual power).[3] These institutional problems are more evident within each State government, stemming from the competing interests of the various stakeholders over the marine areas and their resources. The conflicts of interest exist not only between the managing group and the user group but also within each of the two groups. As for the ownership jurisdiction, it relates to the problems that emanate from the actual ownership of the coastal areas (land and reef tenure system)[4] where in many instances the ownership rests with the indigenous people or the local community and not the government.
Despite having no jurisdiction over the coastal areas, the National government is expected to serve as the conduit between the Nation and the regional and international community on issues relating to relevant coastal management, conservation and the environment. Furthermore, the FSM constitution also confers the control of navigation and shipping (a source of threat to coastal areas) on the National government.[5] This creates fragmentation and overlapping of control or jurisdiction and causes blurred decision-making and often leads to creation of sectoral and ineffective policies.[6] Nevertheless, the inherent role of the National government in coastal issues and how it interacts with the States on those issues is often weak and ineffective. In many cases, the fact that National government has to pass on to the States the Nation’s obligations (as a party to the various international and regional organizations or conventions) is sometimes perceived by the States as an act of encroachment into their sovereign rights and jurisdiction. Consequently, the National government cannot do much more than serve as a mere conduit. It has to rely on the States in the implementation of its regional and international obligations. Even so, with unresolved tension between National and State governments on the distribution of financial resources derived from foreign fishing activities,[7] the level of cooperation from the States and their willingness to accept advice from the National government are certainly at risk. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that cooperation on coastal issues may not be immediately forthcoming.
At the State level, conflicts of interest due to institutional jurisdiction are even more apparent especially among the various stakeholders (the managing groups and user groups), such as the management agencies, environmental agencies, fishing authorities, tourism agencies, and the general community. In many of the States, problems exist not only between the two interest groups but also between members of each interest group. Among the managing group, the environmental agency and the marine resources office have overlapping responsibilities and duties concerning the coastal areas. Due to, inter alia, lack of intergovernmental agencies, coordination among the various governmental and semi-governmental institutions/agencies is scarce.[8] As a result, the government often finds itself struggling each time a disaster effecting the coastal areas occurs to work out which institution or agency should take the lead role in addressing ad hoc coastal problems. Likewise, alleviation of long term or persistent coastal degradations is not an exception. Many of the State governments have not been able to integrate sectoral efforts and policies to effectively address the coastal and land-based environmental problems in a comprehensive manner. Among the user groups, competing use of the resources is often the case. It is usually a struggle between the general fishing community and the organized developmental institutions.
The second aspect of the problem, one that has greater impact, is due to the conflicting use of the coastal areas among the managing and the user stakeholders. While, on one hand, the conservation and environmental protection agencies wish to gear up their efforts in addressing the depressed marine habitat and environmental concerns, on the other the fishing and tourism industries wish to promote economic development. Due to the economic recession[9] in the FSM, the State governments have been inclined to prioritise economic development over anything. Consequently, the interest of the agencies that generate revenue, such as the tourism and fishing authorities, has naturally prevailed. This is evident by the fact that almost three years have elapsed and the coastal resource management plans for the States have not come into effect. One reason may well be because the plan might constrain development in the coastal areas.
The other jurisdictional dilemma stems from the actual ownership of the coastal areas. While the FSM constitution provides the States residual rights and jurisdiction over the territorial and internal waters, the States’ constitutions also recognize the rights and jurisdiction of the traditional owners of the coastal areas including the fringing reefs. In some States, the government controls some of the coastal areas and in others ownership and control rest entirely with the local community or the indigenous people.
For those states for which the government controls the coastal areas, the problem of ‘common property’ is the case. Although, the government has instituted some regulations relating to management and conservation of the coastal resources, enforcement is generally lacking. Consequently, the general public goes on exploiting the resources in whatever way it benefits most. In general, the people do not have a sense of responsibility towards the resources as they are seen as public property. On the other hand, it is these States in which the government controls the resources that have been able to declare some marine protected areas. The problem remains as to whether the protected areas are actually being protected. This will be discussed later in the paper.
For the other States where the resources are owned and controlled by the local community, it is quite difficult for the government to institute any legal framework. For instance, in the State of Yap where the coastal areas and reefs are traditionally owned, an integrated coastal resource management plan that could bring about declaration of some marine protected areas has been in an impasse state for the last three years. Among other things, the government feared that the plan would encroach upon the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the local community. Despite the significance of the plan which would promote sustainable land-based and coastal development, it may never come into effect unless the community understands that the plan would actually compliment jurisdiction and control by the local community. Nevertheless, the manner in which the marine resources are exploited is generally better in Yap State than in other States where the control is with the governments. Community-based management is highly encouraged and practiced. Consequently, there is a sense of responsibility amongst the community members and generally responsible fishing is usually maintained. Even though enforcement by the government is lacking, the community looks out for any infringement.
On the other hand, the introduction of modern fishing technology and the recognition of the economic wealth that could be derived from the marine resources could possibly weaken the solidarity of the community-based management. Therefore, complimentary legislation that would reinforce solidarity of community-based management, such as the pending integrated coastal resource management plan, is inevitable.
The FSM currently lacks the legal framework that would give teeth to the management and protection of the coastal areas.[10] Since the National government does not have any jurisdiction over the coastal areas, it solely depends on the state governments to institute appropriate legislation and management and conservation plans. Consequently, there has not been any significant nation-wide effort to address the coastal resource issues and problems. The only real effort by the National government was in helping the States in drafting their integrated coastal resource management plans. None of the plans however, have come into effect. For some States, their plans have just gone through the process of promulgation and for others they are being held in limbo.
Without the proper legislation, the States have been digressing in addressing the continued degradation of the coastal areas and their resources. Many of the recurring problems have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis without any long-term strategic plans to deal effectively with problems in a more cohesive and comprehensive manner. Moreover, intergovernmental coordination is difficult without a guiding framework.
For those States that have managed to declare marine protected areas, effective management and enforcement is lacking. Because the legal framework which would otherwise provide a clear mandate and commit required government resources is not in place, the protected areas are left at the mercy of poaching, developmental impacts and pollution. Also there is often the misperception that the marine protected areas are self-sustaining.
Among the problems which inhibit successful implementation of policies or plans for marine protected areas, the key problem is the inadequacy or insufficiency of efforts in the actual implementation of ideas, skills, plans, policies, etc. The inadequacy of the implementing process could arguably be the foundation of the multitude of problems whether they be institutional, jurisdictional, management, planning, or legal. It is quite clear that some of the problems co-exist as part of the system. They cannot be eliminated but should be made known so that appropriate measures and decisions can be made.
At the National government, the office that is mandated to respond and address issues relating to the management and conservation of the coastal areas is staffed by only two employees and lacks minimum capacity. With that limited number of persons who are required to keep up with the regional and international obligations and pressing commitments and to maintain their presence at the numerous meetings, conferences and forums, there is very limited time on hand accorded to the actual implementation process. It is often the case that much of the awareness or knowledge on pressing and critical coastal issues is localized at the National level or sometimes reflected only in reports, but has hardly been disseminated to the States’ agencies and to the grass root level in the outlying communities.
Evidently, due to lack of education, the general trend of attitude among government leaders and the general public suggests many misconceptions of what a ‘protected area’ means. Some perceive ‘protected area’ to mean completely no development and no access or use of the area or resources within. This is evident in the declared protected areas which are intended to protect certain species and yet every other use of the areas or access to other resources within such areas are totally restricted or banned. All the declared marine protected areas seem to take on the nature of a marine reserve without allowing for marine parks. This may in fact be a reason why the FSM in general has not been successful in establishing adequate marine protected areas. For others, they perceive that declaration of a protected area is a way for governments to assert their power over an area and to take away control from the local community or the indigenous people. It reflects a failure of the managers to educate the public that the regulations and plans for marine protected areas do not necessarily take away ownership or prevent development or use of the resources. System plans and regulations could in fact enhance community-based management schemes, protect the rights of the indigenous people and the depressed resources, maintain sustainability, commit necessary resources from the government and regulate destructive methods and tools used in exploiting the resource. Nevertheless, misconceptions and lack of action from the policy makers are due largely to the lack of actions on the parts of the managers.
In summary, it is clear that fragmentation of jurisdiction of the marine areas between the two levels of government as well as the fragmentation of ownership within each State government attribute to the difficulties of the FSM in establishing or implementing policies, regulations or plans for protected areas. Moreover, conflicting uses of the resources are also the consequences. Without the necessary legal framework, efforts to effectively implement management, conservation and protection measures are further constrained. Because monitoring and enforcement is often lacking, it is difficult to maintain desired outcomes. Above all, it is the lack of implementation or action by managers that stands as the overriding impeding factor. It leads to misconceptions of marine protected areas and augments the lack of awareness of the urgent need to safeguard the degraded marine areas, the marine resources and the marine ecosystem all of which are susceptible to many forms of threats, both man-made and natural threats. It is therefore concluded that lack of action is the simple cause of the failure of the FSM to implement policies relating to marine protected areas. There are numerous problems. While some can be eliminated, others can not as they are part of the system. The FSM, having limited resources, must not dwell so much on the problems but on the solutions. As a marine resource dependent Nation, it should never compromise the wellbeing and sustainability of the resources or trade it with unsustainable and short-term economic gain. In any case, real action by managers is a must.
A soft-copy in Acrobat Reader, 1982, The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia, Revised Version.
Amaraich, A. L. 1998, ‘State of Chuuk, State of Kosrae, State of Pohnpei, State of Yap, (plaintiffs) versus Secretary of Department of Finance and FSM (defendants)’, Summary Judgement: Civil Action No. 1995-085, FSM Supreme Court, July, pp. 353-387.
Bleakley, C. A Report to the World Bank Environment Department, URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/ library/pubs/mpa/chap14.html. Last modified 13 November 1998.
Commonwealth of Australia 1998, Australia’s Oceans Policy: caring, understanding, using wisely, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Davey, A. G. 1997, Draft Guidelines for National System Planning for Protected Areas, The World Conservation Union, Switzerland.
FSM National Government, ‘BioNET – IPR Workshop 27-31 March 2000’, The FSM Country Report on the Status of Legal Protection and Utilization of Biological Resources in the Federated States of Micronesia, Department of Economic Affairs.
G. Davis, J. Wanna, J. Warhurst & P. Weller 1993, Public Policy in Australia, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, Australia.
Joint Report by Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, and The World Conservation Union 1995, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, Vol. IV, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington.
Miles, E. L. 1991, A Fisheries Policy for the Federated States of Micronesia, Seattle, Washington.
Personal Communication with Andy Tafileichig, Head of Marine Resources and Development in Yap State Government.
Raynor, B. 2000, Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise Development on Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, Pohnpei UNDP-GEF 2000 Project on Terrestrial and Mangrove Conservation Areas.
[1] Mathew Chigiyal is the Manager, Licensing, Statistics and Computer Division in the Micronesian Maritime Authority, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. He is currently undertaking a Master’s degree at the University of Wollongong.
[2] A. G. Davey 1997, Draft guidelines for national system planning for protected areas, Draft 4, p. 7.
[3] 1982 Revised Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia, Article VIII (2).
[4] Personal Communication with Andy Tafileichig, Chief or Head of Marine Resources and Development Office in Yap State Government.
[5] ibid, Article IX (2)(h).
[6] G. Davis et al. 1993, Public Policy in Australia, p. 47.
[7] The four FSM States recently took the National government to court and questioned the FSM jurisdiction over the 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone, asserting that the ownership of the zone rests with them. After the court issued its decision in favour of the national government, the States then introduced a referendum, which was voted against, as an attempt to take ownership and control of the EEZ. Presently, the States have reopened the case. This time the case has been slightly modified to directly sue the National government on the distribution of the revenue from fishing access fee; the States are claiming that the revenue must be distributed equally among the five governments. The case is still pending. This indicates a very sensitive and hot tension between the two levels of government that may possibly impact the way coastal issues are dealt with.
[8] E. L. Miles 1991, A Fisheries Policy for the Federated States of Micronesia, p. 23.
[9] As the financial aspect of the Compact of Free Association agreement with the US approaches its expiry in the year 2001, the funds to the FSM dwindled. Renegotiations of the level of funds are occurring. There is uncertainty as to whether the FSM will be able to negotiate for an equivalent level of funds from the US. Hence, the State governments are struggling to induce revenue-generated development and have jointly sued (see above) the National government in the distribution of the fishing access fees. It could be asserted that the States would rather entertain revenue-generated development over conservation development.
[10] B. Raynor 2000, Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise Development on Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, Pohnpei UNDP-GEF 2000 Project on Terrestrial and Mangrove Conservation Areas.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2000/19.html