The aforementioned Mariana Trench Marine National Monument, one of the largest protected areas on the planet, went through a process this year in which a management plan was put forward by the federal government for public comment. The process was mostly uncontroversial (Press Release, 2021), as the protected area was designated more than 12 years ago and had the longtime support of a local, Indigenous-led organization, the Friends of the Mariana Trench Monument. The group has engaged with the community for years on the biological and cultural importance of the Mariana Trench and the surrounding waters. The comment period ended with letters of support from elected officials, local and national nongovernmental organizations, scientists, Indigenous elders, and other community leaders. Thanks to the high level of community engagement and involvement, the islanders are excited about the opportunity to implement the management plan and support the process.

At the same time, the community was going through a parallel process to designate critical habitats for threatened and endangered coral reef species. The mechanics of this designation were similar in that proposed rules were posted to the Federal Register, and local communities were asked to comment. But rather than support, there has been near-universal opposition to listing this critical habitat (Clymer, 2021).  

In my view, the difference is that the federal agencies proposing the critical habitat listings did not engage with the local communities in a meaningful way. They did not explain how the listings would help or harm the community, did not offer different solutions to address the threats that corals face, and exempted waters that are controlled by the U.S. military, which was particularly inflammatory for some (Pacific Daily News, 2021).

This was a missed opportunity because everyone in the community agrees that corals are important and threatened, but ignoring the ownership of these resources by local people and making decisions on their behalf without local input has seriously impaired the ability of government agencies to protect nature.
In fact, in the very same summer, the local community rejected critical habitat designations for coral reefs, local groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Pacific Daily News, 2021), saying the agency failed to protect critical habitat for 23 species in the Marianas.  

All the differences in these three examples came down to equity and community engagement.  There is strong scientific evidence that protecting at least 30 percent of the ocean will benefit nature and people, but if we don’t pay careful attention to who gets to make decisions and how people are engaged in making them, we will only continue to exclude and harm people. 

It is very difficult to talk about the interplay of conservation and Indigenous peoples without first acknowledging that colonialism still exists in the United States and the world today. This is a painful reality. And although some leaders are making efforts to address it, it is clear—for example, in the United States’ relationship with Indigenous Americans—that governments need to strive for more. Focusing on social equity is the right thing to do, and there is strong evidence that equitable approaches lead to more durable outcomes.

 
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland inspired me when she said, “In spite of our agonizing history, Native American people find much to celebrate. The songs, dances, culture, and traditions surrounding planting and harvests, the prayers that are sent upward for healing and peace, and the welcoming of children into our families, are all reasons for us to keep moving forward with optimism” (Gorman, 2018).

We cannot change history, but we can learn from it. We can counter the legacy of colonialism by advancing inclusive and equitable approaches to conservation that are more collaborative, people-centered, and locally-led. By doing so, both nature and people will benefit.