Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Protected area / relocation · Palau · 2015

Palau National Marine Sanctuary

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 4 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Should the sanctuary be reduced?
  • Government and regulators Palau government: Cited the 17% contraction of the economy in 2021 and lost tourist fees in proposing to open up to 70% of waters in 2022.
  • Communities and civil society Council of Chiefs: Opposed the 2022 bill.
  • Press and investigations Island Times: Reported in December 2025 that Japanese and Okinawan fishing interests demanded 50% as a minimum, and that about 70% of citizens wanted the sanctuary to continue. Island Times

Palau closed 80% of its exclusive economic zone to fishing under a 2015 law that took effect in 2020. Proposals to reopen part of it have been tabled since 2022.

80%Share of Palau's exclusive economic zone closed to fishing
Under the National Marine Sanctuary Act (RPPL 9-49, 2015), in force from 2020. Proposals to reduce it to 50% were reported in 2024 and December 2025.

Status As of December 2025: the 80% closure remained in force; fishing interests were asking for a reduction to 50%; no 2026 outcome found.

What?
Palau closed 80% of its exclusive economic zone to fishing; proposals to reduce the closure have been tabled since 2022. UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform
Where?
Palau, western Pacific. UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform
When?
Act passed in 2015; in force from 2020; reduction proposals in 2022, 2024 and December 2025. Island Times
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
  • Foreign fishing fleets and domestic fishers — Reduced access to fishing grounds.
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The sources reviewed tie the sanctuary to a traditional chiefly fishing ban; the government later cited the economy and lost tourist fees in proposing a reduction.
How?
A statute closing 80% of the zone, with oversight funded by a US$100 fee on each tourist.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Palau closed 80% of its exclusive economic zone, the sea area extending 200 nautical miles from the coast over which a state controls the resources, to fishing. The National Marine Sanctuary Act (RPPL No. 9-49) was passed in 2015 and took effect in 2020. Oversight is funded by a US$100 environmental fee charged to each tourist.

The sources reviewed tie the sanctuary to traditional authority: a former president, Remengesau, has linked it to the traditional fishing ban, known as a "bul", set by chiefs. The law is debated again each year. A 2022 bill proposed opening up to 70% of Palau's waters to fishing; the Council of Chiefs opposed it and the Senate removed the amendments.

The government cited an economy that contracted by 17% in 2021 and tourist fees lost during the pandemic as the reason for the proposal. Fishing fleets from other countries and domestic fishers are recorded as those who lose income under the closure. Donors including The Nature Conservancy (TNC) provided US$10.8 million. The Agriculture Minister, Steven Victor, previously worked at TNC, and TNC's Micronesia director is named in the bill.

In December 2025 the Island Times reported that Japanese and Okinawan fishing interests demanded a reduction to 50% as a "minimum", and that a survey showed about 70% of citizens wanted the sanctuary to continue. The sources reviewed contain no independent study of the sanctuary's effect on fish stocks.

  1. 2015National Marine Sanctuary Act (RPPL 9-49) passed
  2. 2020Act takes effect; 80% of the exclusive economic zone closed to fishing
  3. 2021Economy contracts by 17%; government cites it in arguing for easing the closure
  4. 2022Bill proposes opening up to 70% of waters; Council of Chiefs opposes; Senate removes the amendments
  5. 2025Japanese and Okinawan fishing interests demand a reduction to 50%; a survey puts public support for the sanctuary at about 70% (Island Times, 23 December)

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Should the sanctuary be reduced?
Government and regulators
Palau government

Cited the 17% contraction of the economy in 2021 and lost tourist fees in proposing to open up to 70% of waters in 2022.

Communities and civil society
Council of Chiefs

Opposed the 2022 bill.

Press and investigations
Island Times

Reported in December 2025 that Japanese and Okinawan fishing interests demanded 50% as a minimum, and that about 70% of citizens wanted the sanctuary to continue.

Island Times

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

Recorded

  • The Act was passed in 2015 and took effect in 2020; oversight is funded by a US$100 fee per tourist.
  • A 2022 bill proposed opening up to 70% of Palau's waters; the Council of Chiefs opposed it and the Senate removed the amendments.
  • In December 2025 fishing interests asked for a reduction to 50%, and a survey reported about 70% of citizens in favour of keeping the sanctuary.
    Island Times
  • The sources reviewed contain no independent study of the sanctuary's effect on fish stocks.

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: USD · Window: 2011–2022. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • palau-government (2021–2022): Cited an economy that contracted by 17% in 2021 and pandemic-halted tourist fees as grounds for a 2022 bill to open up to 70% of waters.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Area closed to fishing
80%
Of the exclusive economic zone, from 2020
Independent study of stock effect
None found
The sources reviewed contain none

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
No court caseNo independent ecological evaluation

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.
  • Disputed Should the sanctuary be reduced?

Court

Record

  • None on record No independent study measuring the sanctuary's effect on fish stocks is on record in the sources reviewed.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: a pre-closure baseline study that, according to its authors, found the main tuna stocks were not overfished and that the benefit may lie more with bycatch species (figures cited: 104.8 million hooks; 3,601.88 tonnes in 2019, 64% yellowfin).
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that President Whipps said in August 2024 that he favoured reducing the sanctuary to 50% (the NPR page could not be opened).
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: tuna revenue rising from US$16.5 million to US$37.9 million, attributed to the Island Times; the original source could not be checked.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: the Palau Pledge tourism campaign winning three Grand Prix at the 2018 Cannes Lions.
  • None on record The status of any 2026 amendment to the law is not on record in the sources reviewed.

Did the harm stop?

The closure remained in force at the latest date in the sources reviewed (December 2025); proposals to reduce it were pending.

Who paid?

Foreign fishing fleets and domestic fishers, the groups recorded as losing income from the closure.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Government and regulators

Press and investigations

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Places and local terms

Conservancy (Kenya)
In Kenya, land managed by a community or private owners for wildlife alongside grazing, often with outside partners.

Carbon and conservation finance

Baseline
The projected scenario of what would have happened without a project, such as an expected rate of deforestation. Credits are issued for the difference between the baseline and what actually happened, so an inflated baseline produces more credits.

Bonds and banking

Guarantee
A commitment by a third party, often a development bank, to pay if the borrower does not.
Similar cases
Fishing ban · Protected area / relocation · European Union · 2017–2026
Bottom trawling in European marine protected areas
Same type: Fishing ban, Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature disputed
Fishing ban · Protected area / relocation · Kiribati · 2015–2025
Kiribati PIPA opened to fishing
Same type: Fishing ban, Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature disputed
Fishing ban · Protected area / relocation · Pacific Islands (PNA members) · 2010–2025
Pacific tuna Vessel Day Scheme
Same type: Fishing ban, Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature disputed
Protected area / relocation · Fishing ban · Mexico · 1995–2025
Cabo Pulmo National Park (Mexico) community no-take success
Same type: Protected area / relocation, Fishing banHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Fishing ban · Protected area / relocation · United States · 1870–1983
Pribilof fur seal harvest and Alaska Commercial Company
Same type: Fishing ban, Protected area / relocationHarm to nature not measured
Fishing ban · Antarctica · 2024–2026
Antarctic krill fishing near penguin colonies
Same type: Fishing banSame regionHarm to nature disputed