Overview:
Economic Gains or Environmental Loss? Palau Debates Marine Sanctuary Cuts
KOROR, Palau — Japan’s fishing industry is urging Palau to cut its protected ocean area from 80% to 50%, sparking intense debate over the future of the Palau National Marine Sanctuary (PNMS). While Japanese delegations highlight long-standing fisheries ties and economic benefits, many Palauans argue that the sanctuary is vital to the nation’s environment, culture, and tourism-based economy. As legislation moves forward, Palau faces a pivotal decision balancing economic growth with global leadership in ocean conservation.
By Leilani Reklai | Island Times
KOROR, Palau — A visiting delegation of Okinawan and Japanese fishing representatives has urged Palau to reduce its protected ocean area from 80 percent to 50 percent to reopen more of its waters to commercial fishing — a proposal that has reignited national debate over the future of the Palau National Marine Sanctuary (PNMS) and the economic role of Palau’s pristine environment.
The delegation, led by officials from Japan’s National Offshore Tuna Fisheries Association and Okinawa fishing cooperatives, said the 2020 implementation of the PNMS, which closed 80 percent of Palau’s exclusive economic zone to industrial fishing, has drastically cut their operations.
According to the delegation, the number of Okinawan vessels fishing in Palau’s waters dropped from 32 in 2020 to five this year and could reach zero by 2026. They said the reduced access has weakened long-standing ties between Palau and Japan, with both symbolic and economic implications.
“We believe that expanding the fishing zone to 50 percent will be the minimum requirement for a stable tuna supply,” said Managing Director Notomi Yoshihiro of the National Offshore Tuna Fisheries Association of Japan. “The proposed amendment would benefit both Japan and Palau and help develop Palau’s maritime sector.”
The delegation emphasized the historic 100-year connection between Japan and Palau through fisheries and highlighted the upcoming launch of direct flights between Koror and Narita in October as a potential trade route for fresh tuna exports.
President Surangel Whipps Jr. has introduced legislation to amend the PNMS Act, arguing that reopening half of Palau’s waters to regulated commercial fishing could help diversify the nation’s economy and strengthen its fisheries infrastructure. He has also engaged in talks with Japan on potential port development projects to accommodate larger vessels.
Delegate Nace Soalablai, who recently attended the Philippines Tuna Congress, expressed support for revisiting the sanctuary law. He said the Philippines’ tuna industry “believes in strong, sustainable protection of the ocean because the ocean supports their livelihood,” and that Palau should balance protection with productive economic use.
However, many Palauans have voiced strong opposition to the proposal, describing it as a retreat from Palau’s global leadership in ocean conservation and a challenge to national sovereignty.
“The ocean is our life, that’s a fact,” said a 79-year-old retired science teacher who attended the Mechesil Belau Conference, where the Japanese delegation also presented their appeal. “Palau made a bold decision to protect our ocean after seeing how fast our fish stocks were disappearing. Now that we are finally seeing recovery, why should we turn back?”
Others said the PNMS has not only protected Palau’s fisheries but also reinforced its reputation as a “Pristine Paradise” — a foundation of the nation’s tourism industry. Tourism, which relies heavily on Palau’s clean waters, vibrant marine ecosystems, and world-class diving sites, remains one of the country’s primary economic engines.
“Palau’s identity is tied to its environment,” said an 18-year-old college student. “I don’t think sacrificing the environment, which again is part of Palau’s identity and also a big contributor towards its economy with tourism, is a good thing. It feels very aggressive and will mostly benefit Japan more than it does Palau — and will most likely hurt Palau in the long run.”
A 62-year-old fisherman from Ngatpang described the lobbying effort as “pressure, not partnership.” He added, “Our ancestors taught us to take only what we need and leave the rest for tomorrow. If we change those laws just for other countries, we are breaking that promise to our people.”
The Okinawan fishermen, however, said they operate responsibly, targeting migratory species such as tuna rather than reef fish, and that they “truly understand Palau’s value of protecting its environment.”
Still, controversy flared when Okinawan representatives addressed the Mechesil Belau women’s conference last week. One member said the presentation, which asked for support to reduce the protected area to 50 percent, “was not on our agenda” and left several participants upset.
The PNMS, which covers 500,000 square kilometers of Palau’s waters, has been internationally recognized for its conservation leadership and was hailed as one of the world’s most ambitious ocean protection efforts when it took effect in 2020.
As the proposed amendment moves to the Olbiil Era Kelulau for consideration, the debate underscores Palau’s central dilemma: balancing economic resilience with environmental stewardship.
“Japan may see this as business,” said a retired boat operator. “But for Palauans, the ocean is not a business — it’s our food, our culture, our tourism, and our future.”