Ads by Google Ads by Google

Legislators voice concern over proposal to expand Marine Sanctuary

Marine National Monuments
reporters@samoanews.com

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — American Samoa’s Senate President and Speaker of the House wrote in late November on behalf of the Legislature to express to President Joseph R. Biden their concern and opposition to the proposed expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary within the Pacific Remote Islands.

“As you consider potential actions during the concluding months of your administration, we urge you to resist all proposals to create or expand any Marine National Monument within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Western Pacific,” they wrote.

They believe that as ocean ecosystems face increasingly rapid changes, the U.S. fisheries management system — particularly through the oversight of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council — provides a stronger and more enduring framework for sustainable, science-based conservation measures than does the Antiquities Act.

“The Council has effectively managed these natural resources for our region, balancing ecological priorities with the economic needs of the local communities that depend on fishing for survival.

“When the Administrative responsibility for American Samoa was transferred from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior in 1951, President Truman stated that "the experience of the Department of the Interior in promoting the political, economic, and social advancement of our Territories will serve as assurance to the people of the United States and of the islands concerned that sound policies looking toward their welfare will be carried forward without interruption in American Samoa..."

The pair noted the obligation of the US government to honor this statement holds true today. Any expansion of the marine national monument would impede on American Samoa's lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness.

“We respectfully urge you to consider the severe impact that any additional marine sanctuary expansion would have on our people, economy, and culture.

“We trust that you will recognize the significant stakes involved and will prioritize the well-being of the people of American Samoa in your decision-making,” the legislators concluded and they attached a copy of the House Concurrent Resolution No.38-22 that formally voices their opposition to the proposed sanctuary expansion.

BACKGROUND

Between 2006 and 2016, five Marine National Monuments were created across almost 1.2 million square miles of ocean territory within the U.S. EEZ through Presidential Proclamations. Approximately 53% of the U.S. EEZ in the Western Pacific now lies within marine protected areas where commercial fishing is prohibited — a stark disparity compared to other jurisdictions (please see the attached map for reference).

The economy of American Samoa is heavily dependent on the tuna industry, which forms the backbone of our private sector. Some notable facts underscore this dependence:

- 99% of Am Samoa exports are tuna-related.

- Approximately one-third of private-sector employment (over 5,000 jobs) is tied directly to the tuna industry.

- Roughly two-thirds of incoming ocean freight is tuna-related, providing an economy of scale that significantly reduces costs for other goods and services within the territory.

- Our local cannery, a critical industry for our territory, is the largest consumer of locally generated electricity, benefiting al consumers by spreading the fixed costs across a broader base.

Commercial fishing remains essential to sustaining our tuna industry, a cornerstone of our economy. Restricting access to fishing grounds within our own U.S. EEZ would have devastating economic consequences for American Samoa, effectively undermining the sustainable supply of raw materials that our tuna industry requires.

For millennia, the Samoan way of life has been intricately linked to the ocean, and sustainable fishing is integral to our culture. Any action that disrupts this connection threatens not only our economy but also our cultural heritage and the welfare of our people. Such measures would be inequitable, disregarding your stated goals of equity and environmental justice.