Environmental policies and legislation, like institutional frameworks, vary widely across the region. Current policies have evolved from a complex mix of often relatively recent colonial administrations and strong social and cultural values and mores (UNEP 1999). However, regardless of their particular history and form of government, Pacific countries share a common tradition of consultation at the local, national, and regional levels and a strong foundation of governance rooted in traditional political systems (ibid).
Environmental management in many PICTs has been guided by the development of National Environmental Management Strategies in the early 1990s, and more recently by National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and National Sustainable Development Strategies. These strategies have set out the national blueprint for the development of environmental policies and plans. While the NEMS set out strategies to improve environmental management by strengthening environmental institutions, supporting environmental legislation and policy, and raising environmental awareness, amongst others, little progress has been made in implementation. Part of the problem may have been a failure to set priorities based on links to economically or socially based criteria (ADB 2003).
At the regional level, conservation effort is guided by the five yearly Action Strategy for Nature Conservation. As noted already, the current strategy (2003-2007) reflects the approach of mainstreaming conservation into development planning. The strategy provides a broad framework involving partnerships between conservationists, and governments, the private sector and civil society to promote the mainstreaming of conservation into all development sectors.
Legislation dealing with environmental management and nature conservation has been drafted and enacted in many countries and territories in the hotspot. In most countries there is legislation incorporating environmental impact assessment and regulating natural resource extraction activities such as forestry, fisheries and agricultural development, establishing and managing protected areas, protecting endangered species and controlling disposal of solid waste and other pollutants, amongst others. However, many PICTs still lack legal frameworks covering major aspects of environmental protection and natural resource management (ADB 2003).
The deficiency in environmental legislation frameworks may stem from conflicts
between the Pacific tradition of local management authority and attempts by government to impose contemporary western-style legal frameworks. One result of this conflict is that even where national laws governing natural resource management do exist on paper, their enforcement at the local level remains weak to non-existent. Another factor contributing to the lack of enforcement of environmental laws is the slender technical and
administrative resources of enforcement agencies. Fortunately, there is renewed
appreciation of the need to consult with stakeholders and to take into account customary practise and tenure in regulatory frameworks. For example a national law was passed in Samoa in 1990 (the Village Fono Act) which legalises the traditional right of village councils to pass their own rules in a number of areas including the management and use of natural resources (Peteru 1993).
Hotspot states have signed up to most global and regional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). For example, most independent states have signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UNFCCC, the CBD, the U.N. Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD) and the Kyoto Protocol to name a few. PICTs are active participants in conferences linked to these MEAs and to the related forums including the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Barbados Program of Action for Small Island Developing States, and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (ADB 2003). A notable exception however, is the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which has only been signed by Fiji, Palau, and Samoa (although it is applicable to all U.S., French and New Zealand territories).
Two regional MEAs form a particularly strong legal foundation on which further regional cooperation on environmental matters can be built. The first is the Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (the Apia Convention), while the second is the Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (the SPREP Convention). The former seeks to encourage the creation of protected areas, including national parks and reserves, while the latter provides a broad framework for cooperation in preventing pollution of the marine and coastal environment and with the basic structure and mandate of SPREP.
A major catch of MEAs is that ratification of these agreements is required before financial resources can be obtained, but that the MEAs require a high level of engagement in dialogue and negotiations at international meetings, and place heavy reporting burdens on small environmental agencies and units. This puts a severe strain on limited resources of environment units and can divert attention away from pressing domestic environmental issues (ADB 2003). A recent GEF–supported initiative called the National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) aims to enable countries to assess the
progress and barriers to the national implementation of the three major global MEAs (the CBD, UNFCCC and the UNCCD). The NCSA will allow countries to identify capacity development needs and efforts required to expedite the achievement of MEA objectives. The ultimate intention if the NCSA and other capacity assessments is to advocate for the use of National Sustainable Development Strategies which are required to be completed
by 2005 under the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, as the primary vehicles for coordinated implementation and achievements of the objectives of MEAs (McIntyre pers. comm. 2004).