Policy implications of protected area discourse in the Pacific islands

Abstract

The words taboo, conservation area, reserve, protected area, and marine protected area (MPA) are used to refer to the community-based closures of the Pacific islands. Diverse definition and interpretation have led to confusion and debate, particularly as the Pacific islands engage with international protected area policies and partners. This case study from the Republic of Vanuatu traces the introduction, evolution and contemporary implementation of protected area typology. Higher-level debates often center more on symbolism and post-colonial ideologies than on the operational specifics of closure regimes. Island communities, indifferent to ongoing national-level discussions, are continuously adapting closures to contemporary contexts, utilizing indigenous and non-indigenous terms to differentiate among them. Protected area policy in the Pacific islands could be improved by recognizing the diverse closure typology of the region and building on the discursive status quo that is emerging at the community level. Future policy will be enhanced if it embraces the inherent flexibility and heterogeneity of Pacific island custom and culture to manage natural resources.