On November 11th 2021, the news broke. The world's largest marine protected area (MPA), once a strict no-take zone in the Pacific ocean, is set to reopen its waters to tuna fishing fleets—a slippery slope that some worry could lead to the dismantling of the area as a whole.
The Phoenix Islands Protected Area, home to the world's last intact coral archipelago, will soon be stripped of its title as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and subject to the dangers of commercial fishing techniques.
Is this a devastating setback for ocean conservation? Undoubtedly. Does it come as a surprise? Some would say yes. However, a trail of money leading back to the United States would say otherwise.
PIPA off the coast of Nikumaroro Island. Source: University of Washington
Large area, larger funds, even larger risk.
The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) is, in its own right, a massive feat of marine conservation, safeguarding approximately 408,000 square kilometres of Kiribati's eclectic coral reefs and lucrative tuna stocks.
Despite being a UN-designated "Least Developed Country", the Government of Kiribati (GoK) found a way to designate the massive site in 2008. The "way" in question? A pledge of $14 million from Conservation International (CI) and the New England Aquarium Cooperation (NEAC)—both notably American non-governmental organizations.
And while the establishment of a reverse fishing license (funded by CI and NEAC) initially quelled the woes of locals—set to lose all rights to PIPA's waters—the GoK was not prepared for its American partners to under deliver by $7 million.
Banner seen on Conservation International's ocean webpage. Source: Conservation International
What began as a 'benevolent gift' from American NGOs, quickly became a financial nightmare, given that PIPA's long term success, according to the GoK, was dependant on the assurance of funds to offset massive losses in domestic and international fishing revenue (an estimated $6 million a year since 2015).
Why the massive discrepancy?
This is still highly debated, with some suggesting that the PIPA Conservation Trust, which oversaw the reverse fishing licenses (controlled by a majority American presence) wildly underestimated the amount of domestic fishers in need of reimbursement. Others cite a clause in the PIPA Conservation Trust Act, allowing CI and NEAC to adjust their pledge based on the acquisition of additional foreign funding (which did not occur), as the inciting incident.
What is now more important is the state that this has left PIPA in. This dependancy on loosely regulated foreign funding has left unique ecosystems and critical provisioning services in limbo, with PIPA at the mercy of the highest—you guessed it—foreign bidder.
At the top of this list sits China—who intends to attain "preferred access" to Kiribati's most protected tuna stocks and develop an airstrip on Kanton Island.
Purse-sein fishing in PIPA. Source: Christopher Pala/IPS
And while the GoK has not published an official decision on this matter, leaked federal documents suggest that Kiribati is ready to open PIPA's waters to reap $200 million a year in renewed fishing revenue.
Foreign funding. A necessary evil?
This is not to say that small island states should not protect their most lucrative and vulnerable marine ecosystems, but rather to act as a cautionary tale. If not regulated properly, the fine print of foreign funding agreements can come back to 'haunt' one's MPA.
In the case of PIPA, the GoK was placed between a rock and a hard place, after being left high and dry by CI and NEAC. The rock? China. The hard place? The danger this move will inevitably place important marine ecosystems in.
Plainly stated, without American money, PIPA would not have spent the past 14 years safeguarding ecosystems. However, the question remains—was it worth it?
Lettuce coral in PIPA. Source: Paul Nicklin/National Geographic
It's no secret—MPAs are expensive. Emergent costs are littered throughout their designation and management processes. Thus, it's no wonder that many governments looking to establish MPAs often turn to foreign philanthropic entities to help soften the financial blow.
However, when it comes to small island states, while the biodiversity surrounding them is abundant, the federal funding is most often not. This leaves many at the whim of foreign money, a situation that, as shown by PIPA, can be extremely precarious.
A way forward.
Reducing foreign intervention in domestic MPA designation, and building financial and political capacity in small island states, is a large undertaking. Unfortunately, marine ecosystems, especially those within the Pacific Islands, do not have the time to wait for this change.
Thus, while foreign funding continues to be a necessary evil, the challenge at hand is decreasing the probability that the (inevitable) strings attached to foreign money will lead to the downfall of an MPA.
Potential ways to address this challenge include:
Supplying federal and local governments with third party legal council to provide a second set of eyes on the contentious fine print of funding agreements;
Ensuring that MPA management boards are made up of a majority of domestic stakeholders to avoid critical misunderstandings that come with external decision making; and
Further research into existing foreign funding agreements to identify loop holes—as seen in the case of PIPA—and avoid future losses in large MPAs.
The moral of the story.
Ultimately, while foreign funded conservation efforts have indeed been successful in the past, their long-term consequences, when applied to large scale MPAs (home to an abundance of lucrative fish stocks, potential oil stores, and fragile benthic communities), are widely understudied.
Thus, without the proper foresight, accepting this funding can be a slippery slope, leading MPAs towards a future tied up in financial headaches and, in the case of PIPA, dire environmental consequences.
Comments