Lessons from the Micronesia Challenge 2030: Centering ‘effective management’ elevates traditional forms of natural resource governance April 2026

The Micronesia Challenge is a multi-jurisdictional commitment towards effective management of marine and terrestrial resources throughout Micronesia. While the inaugural Micronesia Challenge 2020 set the ambitious target of effectively conserving near-shore marine resources and terrestrial resources, the current Micronesia Challenge 2030 contains a key language shift: Instead of centering on “conserved” areas, the targets of MC 2030 call for “effective management” of marine and terrestrial resources. While a seemingly small change, this terminology broadens the scope of what areas can be counted towards the MC 2030 goals, while also underlining that efficacy, not just delineation, is the ultimate aim. In the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), this approach opens the door to include many areas that, under traditional forms of management, already maintain a high level of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity alongside their use for fishing, farming, and other livelihoods. This inclusion is particularly pertinent in the outer islands of many states across the FSM, where delineating swathes of land and sea for preservation is not feasible or in line with traditional forms of governance, yet effective management can fulfill both conservation and livelihood needs.

The Micronesia Challenge 2030 (MC 2030) is a commitment by Palau, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to effectively manage 50% marine and 30% terrestrial resources by 2030. Building upon the Micronesia Challenge 2020, the goal also includes a larger voice for fisheries management, reducing invasive species, restoring habitats, increasing livelihood opportunities, and reducing risks to communities from climate impacts in Micronesia.

The project Strengthening and Enabling the Micronesia Challenge 2030 builds on MC 2030 conservation, community benefit, and process targets, aiming to enhance national and regional marine resource management through three components:

Component 1: Supporting RMI, FSM, and Palau as they develop national policies, plans, and tools to support national integrated management of marine resources

Component 2: Strengthening capacities, communication, and planning to ensure regional coordination of the MC 2030

Component 3: Focusing on monitoring, evaluation, knowledge management, and communication of knowledge products generated through the project.

This experience note outlines how, within the FSM, orienting conservation targets towards effective management rather than protected area delineation facilitates greater inclusion of traditionally managed lands and waters in the MC 2030. In turn, these targets reflect the need to move beyond area-based measures alone, and towards holistic resource governance that effectively uplifts both people and the planet.

Through direct engagement, partners noted that the MC 2020 emphasized the percentages of land and water under protection, yet provided limited guidance on ensuring those areas were not “paper parks,” or assessing whether they were being meaningfully and sustainably managed.

Additionally, the framing focused on conservation didn’t always feel inclusive, with many practitioners across the FSM relaying anecdotes of traditional landowners equating conservation to strict protection in which no local use was allowed. This framing is counter to how many Yapese, Kosraean, Pohnpeiian, and Chuukese islanders conceive of their relationship to the land, which is built on millennia of sustainable use and stewardship, embedded in culture and tradition.

Approaches such as marine protected areas (MPAs) sometimes held negative connotations, as establishing new protected areas felt redundant or restrictive when many of their traditional practices were already aligned with pillars of effective and sustainable management.

Flipping the script to center on “effective management” has allowed these conversations to become more inclusive, and to fit the reality of life in the FSM. While the goals of the MC 2030 represent more ambitious coverage targets, they also take an important step towards more inclusive management models which meaningfully incorporate livelihoods and other regionally salient values into natural resource governance.

Practitioners across Micronesia are working to define what effective management entails and to develop regionally relevant indicators to track effectiveness. Central to this process was a Management Effectiveness Indicators Workshop held in Guam in 2023 as it focused on the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) as a monitoring mechanism and laid the groundwork for how effective management is being operationalized across the FSM today.

This mechanism shifts agency to each of the states within the FSM, leaving it up to them to determine what forms of traditional management can be considered effective management and thus broadening the scope of what may be measured in the MC 2030.

Currently, states across the FSM are in conversation to determine how best to include and represent these traditionally managed areas within their respective protected area networks. For example, Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Yap have dedicated resources to engaging their outer island communities, ensuring that traditional resource managers are being reached by communication and coordination efforts. Similarly, Kosrae has been considering how effective management can achieve co-benefits including watershed and climate resilience, creating management plans that not only protect biodiversity, but also serve communities through the enhancement of water resources and the co-existence of livelihood activities.

Flipping the script to center on “effective management” has allowed these conversations to become more inclusive, and to fit the reality of life in the FSM.

According to the Micronesia Challenge 2030 Sustainable Finance Plan released in June 2024, 30% of marine and 15% of terrestrial resources in the FSM are under effective management. However, across states including Yap and Chuuk, especially in outer island communities, it is expected that the true percentage of terrestrial and marine resources that are effectively managed is much higher due to active traditional management and stewardship. Uncovering and accounting for these areas under traditional management will likely enable the FSM to meet, and even exceed, coverage targets. Importantly, there is additional value in formally recognizing these traditionally managed lands and waters in states’ Protected Areas Networks (PAN) beyond their contributions to coverage targets: all four states intend to ensure co-benefits reach PAN sites, in the form of livelihood initiatives, invasive species management, and climate resilience efforts. By becoming a formally recognized part of the Network, these sites also become eligible for state-level funding to support their ongoing management and the integration of concerted efforts across the other focal areas of the MC 2030.

Through the development of Strategic Action Plans and discussions to contextualize indicators, each state is currently defining what effective management looks like in their respective contexts.

LEARNING FROM YAP

In the state of Yap, nearly all lands and waters are privately owned and under traditional jurisdiction, with traditional knowledge and practices being a predominant foundation for lives and livelihoods. Here, traditional management is management. This fact is the cornerstone of the state’s approach to achieving the MC 2030 Targets. Currently, there are vast areas that traditional clans are managing, sustaining both land and sea for resources and livelihoods. The inclusion of these kinds of sites into the MC 2030 would greatly help Yap in moving towards its 50% marine and 30% terrestrial targets, while also providing appropriate recognition to traditional governance as a form of effective management. Yap is also in conversation about how to account for their unique context and culture when defining what effective management looks like for the state, with traditional leadership constituting a main branch of their government and traditional practices playing a significant role in governance overall. They are navigating an adoption of the METT to the local contexts of Yap and its outer island communities, while drawing on both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge to inform management strategies.

Additionally, in Yap, the wide majority of MC sites are community-designated (rather than state-designated), exemplary of the leadership of communities to manage resources. Rather than the MC imposing external conservation structures on Yap, communities and practitioners alike are eager to demonstrate how the MC can instead elevate traditional governance, with high-performing sites being exemplary of how traditional management achieves biodiversity and livelihood goals.

INTEGRATED APPROACHES IN CHUUK

Like its fellow states in the FSM, Chuuk is taking an integrated approach to increasing the amount of marine and terrestrial resources recognized as under effective management. Significantly, Chuuk is placing special attention on raising awareness and recognition of the MC 2030 in previously relatively underserved yet significant outer island communities including the Mortlocks and the Northwest Islands. Because these islands’ remote locations often mean a disconnect from resources and capacity, Chuuk hopes that through increasing engagement in the MC 2030 and dedicating time and state capacity to their inclusion, outer island communities will have increased access to technical and financial support. Not only would sites included in the MC 2030 have access to this support, but Chuuk has also emphasized the need to ensure livelihood opportunities are integrated into any emergent PAN sites, with initiatives such as chicken husbandry to be piloted in newly designated areas. This intentional engagement with outer island communities can become an important example of how to meet outer islands’ distinct challenges and needs through holistic inclusion in the MC 2030.

While examined in the context of the FSM, there is an increased importance in alignment with global targets, tracking effectiveness, and communicating locally.

The approach taken in the MC 2030 is also in line with the 2021 Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 3, which similarly calls for effective and equitable management within protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Progress in the FSM demonstrates the value of centering effective management over area conserved when mobilising the GBF in different regional and local contexts.

Another important aspect of the FSM’s approach to effective management is adapting effectiveness tracking — in this case, through the METT — to the unique contexts of different states and outer islands. This tool enables indicators to account for local realities and differing traditional governance systems in the region while also maintaining common standards to measure site effectiveness.

An additional key effort is communicating the shift towards effective management to traditional landowners. In the past, many communities in the FSM had a negative perception of MPAs as approaches that were introduced — and at times presented — as needing to replace or supersede traditional governance.

Moving forward, emphasizing that the mandate for effective management is in fact inclusive of traditional forms of management is essential.

Rather than imposing prescriptive conservation frameworks, this approach instead serves to honor the efficacy of resource governance that has been practiced for millennia, while providing insight and support to communities in a changing world.

COMMUNICATING THE SHIFT

Key elements of ensuring the shift from “conserving” to “effectively managing” terrestrial and marine resources is re-acquainting local communities with the MC 2030 and using accurate and targeted messaging to convey that effective management can align with existing customary practices. This messaging is especially important in a region where, in the past, traditional land stewards have been alienated by externally imposed conservation ideals that felt akin to a restriction in cultural use and access. Part of the FSM’s strategic action plan is therefore developing audience-specific messaging for communities, leadership, and governments alike to help explain MC2030 processes and its associated benefits.

SIGNIFICANCE

Importantly, there are also benefits for formally including traditionally managed lands and waters in the MC2030. Across the FSM, designated sites unlock access to critical management funding, and those stewarding each site are also able to leverage their inclusion in the PAN to integrate or enhance efforts towards the additional MC 2030 targets of livelihood security, invasive species management, and climate resilience. As conversations continue across the FSM and beyond regarding the inclusion of sites in the MC 2030, the states are taking an active, holistic, and culturally grounded approach to the challenge.

CONCLUSION

Transitioning the focus of the MC 2030 from "conserving" to "effectively managing" natural resources enables an important shift towards recognizing and honoring the traditional forms of natural resource management that have existed across Micronesia for millennia. The manner in which FSM community members embrace this terminology provides an important example for other regions looking to re-localize and decolonize how conservation and coverage targets are conceived — centering existing local and traditional values and practices rather than imposing external conceptions of what management needs to look like.

REFERENCE

Micronesia Challenge 2030 Sustainable Finance Plan (2024).

Federated States of Micronesia: Micronesia Challenge 2030 Strategic Action Plan (2026).

Banner Image: Photo courtesy of Quinn Parker. Stone money from Kaday, Weloy in Yap State, FSM.

Included Image: Photo courtesy of Quinn Parker. Community meeting house in Kaday Village, Weloy in Yap State, FSM.

This experience note was collaboratively developed through the support of Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions Research Assistant: Quinn Parker (qparker@stanford.edu)

For more information about the Micronesia Challenge, please visit: https://www.mc2030.org/