Expanding marine national monument would harm U.S. and Hawaii fisheries

From a little boy born in Honolulu to the president of the United States, Barack Obama has traveled a literal and figurative distance. In his own words, Hawaii offered him "a basis for the values that I hold most dear," and his executive actions benefiting the environment today may stem from years spent in the Pacific.

However, in seeking to stand out as an environmental steward in his second term, President Obama seems to have lost touch with his birthplace. His latest plan to create an environmental legacy would use unilateral action to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM).

Citing executive authority under the Antiquities Act, Obama in June announced the proposal from 5,000 miles away without consulting the very citizens who are at risk of losing their traditions and livelihoods. If enacted, the monument’s expansion would impact Hawaii’s longline fishery, which supplies the Hawaiian Islands and U.S. mainland with the majority of ahi and swordfish. Fishery managers, local officials and fishermen who rely on these waters are understandably astounded by this failure in outreach and consideration.

The present monument, established in 2009, encompasses the 50 nautical miles surrounding seven U.S. islands and atolls, banning all commercial activities, including fishing. But under the president’s plan, the boundaries would be expanded up to the full 200-nautical mile limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding these islands.

Several issues make this proposal a bad deal for U.S. Pacific Island fishermen, U.S. seafood consumers, and true conservation and management of the ocean.

Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Island territories and possessions already account for 90 percent of the nation’s marine protected areas. Apart from Hawaii’s congressional delegation, these areas have no voting representation, and thus limited political influence, in Washington. The result is the U.S. Pacific Islands being forced to bear the brunt of a conservation strategy on which it has little to no say.

By expanding the monument, regional fishermen will be forced out of important fishing grounds, which have supported generations of Pacific Islanders. They will have to fish either in international waters or other nations’ waters. This will cost more in the high fees paid to other countries to access their EEZs. Restricting available U.S. fishing grounds only hurts our fishing-supported territorial economies.

The proposed expansion disregards years of successful management under comprehensive, inclusively developed domestic fishery management plans and international fishery management measures endorsed by the federal government and acknowledged by Obama himself.

The current boundaries of the PRIMNM already protect vulnerable habitats like coral reefs, and the migratory species that pass through these offshore areas do not spend enough time in them to likely benefit from monument expansion.

Aside from stifling local U.S. fishing economies in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, the proposed expansion would substantially undermine efforts toward ending illegal fishing and overfishing. Restricting U.S. fishermen from the area makes it easier for unregulated foreign vessels to illegally fish U.S. waters without detection. The result instead would replace American-caught seafood with product from foreign competitors, who already account for 90 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States.

In communities such as ours, where fishing traditions have sustained us for generations, our families deserve leadership that considers their needs and represents their interests. Obama should reconsider the implications of closing off U.S. waters from U.S. fishermen around the existing boundaries of the PRIMNM. If the monument is to be expanded, it must first be functional. The president must allow well-regulated U.S. commercial fishing to continue in these waters.