I've just gotten Ruth Tighe's permission to post her "On My Mind" article for today. Well at least the part about the Marine Monument. She has summed up the presentations given this past week quite well and this has allowed me to write something else which will be coming soon but first I've got to go get the kids!
Thanks Ruth for taking the time to address this issue!
On My Mind
5/23/08
What does "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" mean? First of all, it's a proverb - a short, frequently-used saying that expresses a basic truth or practical rule or principle.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs, it means "It is better to accept what one has than to try to get more and risk losing everything." A web site, www.dictionarist.com puts it: "It's best to go with what you have for certain than to wait for something better that you might never get." And the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd edition, 2002, says it means "The things we already have are more valuable than the things we only hope to get."
Its first occurrence is recorded in the 13th Century in Latin, so the principle would appear to have been around, at least in the western world, for centuries. Is there an eastern, oceanic equivalent? I don't know - I've never encountered one. That may well be because eastern and western beliefs are different. At the risk of appearing to stereotype, it would seem that Easterners are more inclined to gamble - and therefore would be more willing to wait for something, hope for something, in the future.
The relevance? HANMI president and Saipan Tribune publisher Lynn Knight used the phrase (though she mentioned only one bird in the bush) at this past Tuesday night fishermen's forum at American Memorial Park, in suggesting that the CNMI should take advantage of the on-going efforts to have its Marianas Trench declared a monument, rather than putting it off and hoping for a better offer some time in the future.
But if the Eastern/Asiatic/Oceanic mindset is more oriented towards taking risks, gambling, hoping uncertain future events will bring more benefit than present offerings, the hesitation and reluctance of community members to accept the opportunity to have a monument declared in the northern islands becomes more understandable. It's not necessarily the right or best or wisest reaction, but at least there's an explanation for the stance.
On the other hand, tropic peoples are known for living in the present, for not putting much store into planning for the future - because the present is certain, and who knows what the future will bring. Which would mean that one would expect the local community to say, "Yes! Let's go with what is before us, with what is being offered, and not just hope for more in the future."
What is being offered is an opportunity to develop the islands of Maug, Uracas and Asuncion into a world-famous attraction, an opportunity to boost the economy, an opportunity to look good in the eyes of the world - all with someone else's money.
Will that opportunity be there n years from now? Who knows? The bottom line, it seems to me, is whether the people of the CNMI have the vision to see the benefits the offer brings, the willingness to act on it without endless debate, the faith and trust in each other to work together to try make it happen.
It was encouraging - and refreshing - to hear William Aile, a native Hawaiian on island this week to share the Hawaiian experience with the establishment of its monument, as well as to put to rest some of the misconceptions about it that have circulated here. For example, the much-mentioned seven-year delay was not due to objection by the Hawaiians, but to fighting among federal agencies, he said.
While a few native Hawaiians were not happy with being denied fishing rights in the Hawaiian reserve, they were compensated for the cancellation of their permits. The vast majority of native Hawaiians, said Aile, were strongly in favor of their western-most islands being declared a monument, and were a driving force in getting it done.
He also was quite outspoken about the harm that the Western Regional Fisheries Management Council had caused in Hawaiian waters with its "optimization" approach - as opposed to an approach supporting sustainability. It killed our lobster fishery, he noted.
It was fascinating - and instructive - to watch as Aile made use of the negotiating skills he's developed over the many years he has devoted to the concerns, the rights, the needs of indigenous Hawaiians, in responding to often repetitive and already-asked questions at the fishermen's gathering on Tuesday, at the joint House/Senate session on Thursday, at the evening open session Thursday evening.
He stressed, over and over, that the Hawaii monument should not be used as a model; that the CNMI would be free to - and should - define its own terms and conditions of access and use, should the monument indeed become reality. The url for the Hawaii monument is here. It is well worth a look.
Unlike the national federal election campaign, which will not end until November of this year, the brou-ha about a trench monument for the CNMI may well end in another two-three weeks. Within that time period, according to Jay Nelson, Pew Charitable Trust representative, also on island, it will be decided (presumably by the White House Council on Environmental Quality) whether or not to officially consider the Marianas Trench and CNMI's northern islands as a candidate for monument status. If the decision is positive, federal officials will begin an assessment of its viability as a candidate. If the decision is negative, the discussions become moot.
In a manner of speaking, it is up to the people of the CNMI to decide whether a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. They can express interest and good will, or they can create so much noise and confusion/controversy that the bird will fly away.
Showing posts with label Ruth Tighe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ruth Tighe. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Marine Monument – Personalities & Politics
To get me started I will refer to Ruth Tighe’s “On My Mind” and her comments this week regarding the proposed marine monument. I quote.
“Perhaps the offer was not made in the most appropriate manner, did not include some of the key people, did not take the traditional approach, was not sufficiently forthcoming. But that is not reason enough to reject the project. It is, after all, the project that is important, has meaning, that offers hope, not others' missteps. What is being asked of the CNMI is that it be open-minded, flexible, creative and imaginative, willing to grasp a golden opportunity when it presents itself, to take advantage of an offer that would bring the CNMI international recognition and attention, attract tourists, stimulate the economy, help fishermen, and last but not least, help preserve and protect the marine environment so critical to the earth's health”.
She’s absolutely right. Everyone should strip this proposal down and examine it for what it is. To date, for many reasons, this has just not happened.
For one, a number of people don’t like the locally hired Pew coordinator or lobbyist if you prefer. No doubt Angelo O'Connor Villagomez can be cocky and arrogant. His sense of humor often easily missed, especially by strangers. The fact remains, nearly everything he has touched on this island after returning 2 years ago has turned out pretty darn well. He’s a big part of the success of both BCNMI and MINA and the countless projects, clean ups and education that has come from his role as island-wide motivator and coordinator. Much of the buzz of optimism that once ran through many of us willing to stick it out through these tough times was fed by the level of energy and “get it done attitude” that bursts from Angelo. Ultimately, he is young and passionate. A powerful combination that will lead to mistakes along the road to many more successes. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t already wish he could start over again on this one. No doubt with experience he will bring the lessons learned here to the next pot of success he boils. Angelo is an environmentalist through and through. In Angelo’s eyes this marine park is a “no brainer”.
Unfortunately this attitude, along with a time frame that most here would consider very short (especially given the current level of distrust between the CNMI and Washington) must be considered significant factors should this proposal not take flight.
As Ruth says, the bottom line is none of this should matter. If everyone were to take a fair and open look at what has been proposed thus far, the merits to keeping an open dialogue would be obvious.
The same could be said for Mr. John Gourley’s rapid and vocal opposition to the project, which, I must say, also smells of obvious vested interest. In the end it shouldn’t matter that John, for many years, has acted as an advisor and contact person (or lobbyist if you prefer) for the troubled WESPAC advisory council. It shouldn’t matter that WESPAC is a powerful, pro-fisheries regulatory body very much against any large scale no take or limited take zones under any pretense. Of course we can understand why, doing anything otherwise would ultimately undermine their own level of control of the world’s oceans.
Some might even suggest that a few high-powered fisheries folks won’t like the fact I’ve given so much credit to Angelo’s attitude and a time frame out of their own control as reasons for the possible demise of the proposal. After all it makes it look like they had nothing to do with it despite the obvious evidence to the contrary!
Even though none of this should matter we all know it does and after speaking briefly with Mr. Lino Olopai on Thursday and then reading his letter to the editor on Friday, I’ve come to appreciate just how unimportant the facts are and how instrumental both Mr. Gourley’s opposition and the missteps taken by Pew in attempting to fast track this concept have been.
Before I continue let me reiterate what I’ve said before about what I believe to be the view of most everyone here on Saipan. The concept of a marine park is, at the very least worth discussing and potentially (if done right) it is the best thing that has come this way in a long, long time. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and misinformation has been substantial and influential.
Lino has resigned from MINA stating that he cannot and has not from the beginning, supported the Pew approach. He mentions the MINA retreat where Jay Nelson first introduced the members to the project and how put off he was by their approach. I was there. There was a lot of conversation and debate as to whether this was something MINA wanted to spearhead and take on. The issue was not the establishment of a large marine protected area but rather MINA’s role in promoting it. Ultimately, the board felt it would be too politically hot a topic for a young NGO to deal with despite majority support for the concept. The board at the time decided (as I perceived it) to concentrate on building their successful track record by biting off smaller projects that could be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
What is most interesting to me now is to recall just how vocal and prepared John Gourley was for that meeting and how he was able to immediately play on the local distrust for the federal government. I recall Lino not necessarily being against the concept of a protected area but rather he didn’t like the idea of foreigners telling the local people how to preserve and protect their own environment. Understandably he didn’t like the idea being pushed by Gourley that the local people would lose control.
As I’ve gotten to know Lino one of the things we always seem to come back to in our discussions is his belief that the local indigenous peoples are best suited to be the stewards of the land and sea. He believes that they have the knowledge necessary to conserve and live by nature’s rules. While I believe this is true and should it be the case that only the indigenous islanders have influence on the resources, I would agree with him fully. However, the fact remains with each passing generation more and more of this knowledge once seen as critical for survival is being lost. In addition, as years pass the influence of outside cultures becomes more and more prevalent as seen in both the populous numbers and the deterioration of our environment. As a net result, over time, there is a decrease in local indigenous control and the ability to influence actions and behaviors of others.
When Lino said to me the other day, “the people of the CNMI can do this, we don’t need Pew”. I asked him what the plan is for those islands and for these islands we live on now. His response, to me said a lot. With a smile he half joked “None, we don’t have one”.
Well, unfortunately, with all due respect, the absence of a plan usually means things will not work out so well for anyone. What’s really frustrating to me is given all the issues and speculation regarding who would control the waters, who would co-manage it, how the regulations would be developed and enforced, who’ll pay for it etc, few now see how the monument would actually give them (the local indigenous peoples) far more say in the way things are to be managed than they have right now.
Would it not make sense to sit at the table and be a part of the discussions and give the indigenous peoples the opportunity to protect these waters the way they want to. If it takes 10 years of writing and re-writing regulations, is that not better than never getting started and leaving all control to outside forces? Should this process happen when elders like Lino are here to pass on their wisdom? Absolutely! This is just one more reason why the time to look at this is now. Ultimately if what we see and hear is not to our liking then simply say no and take the bits and pieces we do like and incorporate them into our own plan. Of course, by waiting we’ll also need to remember it will be our own money and not that of a large, well-respected, charitable group that will make any such plan a reality.
Unfortunately, as usual, scare tactics and dissemination of inaccurate information is no match for good old-fashioned discussions based on truth and mutual respect. If the opposite were true we’d still be talking and using whatever information comes from this proposal process to either make it happen now or to assist in developing a plan that is so desperately needed for the future.
The fact that both Angelo and John have vested interests in how all this turns out shouldn’t matter to any of us. The fact is we all have a vested interest! We all owe it to ourselves, our children and our children’s children to listen, get the facts and make an informed decision based on what is good for our planet and our quality of life here, now and in the future.
In real life, facts rarely compete in a world where perceptions rule. In the case of the proposed monument the public relations game is preventing the delivery of many tangible assets regardless of whether the monument becomes a reality or not. Killing the discussions now does no one any good unless, of course, your source of revenue is WESPAC-based.
“Perhaps the offer was not made in the most appropriate manner, did not include some of the key people, did not take the traditional approach, was not sufficiently forthcoming. But that is not reason enough to reject the project. It is, after all, the project that is important, has meaning, that offers hope, not others' missteps. What is being asked of the CNMI is that it be open-minded, flexible, creative and imaginative, willing to grasp a golden opportunity when it presents itself, to take advantage of an offer that would bring the CNMI international recognition and attention, attract tourists, stimulate the economy, help fishermen, and last but not least, help preserve and protect the marine environment so critical to the earth's health”.
She’s absolutely right. Everyone should strip this proposal down and examine it for what it is. To date, for many reasons, this has just not happened.
For one, a number of people don’t like the locally hired Pew coordinator or lobbyist if you prefer. No doubt Angelo O'Connor Villagomez can be cocky and arrogant. His sense of humor often easily missed, especially by strangers. The fact remains, nearly everything he has touched on this island after returning 2 years ago has turned out pretty darn well. He’s a big part of the success of both BCNMI and MINA and the countless projects, clean ups and education that has come from his role as island-wide motivator and coordinator. Much of the buzz of optimism that once ran through many of us willing to stick it out through these tough times was fed by the level of energy and “get it done attitude” that bursts from Angelo. Ultimately, he is young and passionate. A powerful combination that will lead to mistakes along the road to many more successes. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t already wish he could start over again on this one. No doubt with experience he will bring the lessons learned here to the next pot of success he boils. Angelo is an environmentalist through and through. In Angelo’s eyes this marine park is a “no brainer”.
Unfortunately this attitude, along with a time frame that most here would consider very short (especially given the current level of distrust between the CNMI and Washington) must be considered significant factors should this proposal not take flight.
As Ruth says, the bottom line is none of this should matter. If everyone were to take a fair and open look at what has been proposed thus far, the merits to keeping an open dialogue would be obvious.
The same could be said for Mr. John Gourley’s rapid and vocal opposition to the project, which, I must say, also smells of obvious vested interest. In the end it shouldn’t matter that John, for many years, has acted as an advisor and contact person (or lobbyist if you prefer) for the troubled WESPAC advisory council. It shouldn’t matter that WESPAC is a powerful, pro-fisheries regulatory body very much against any large scale no take or limited take zones under any pretense. Of course we can understand why, doing anything otherwise would ultimately undermine their own level of control of the world’s oceans.
Some might even suggest that a few high-powered fisheries folks won’t like the fact I’ve given so much credit to Angelo’s attitude and a time frame out of their own control as reasons for the possible demise of the proposal. After all it makes it look like they had nothing to do with it despite the obvious evidence to the contrary!
Even though none of this should matter we all know it does and after speaking briefly with Mr. Lino Olopai on Thursday and then reading his letter to the editor on Friday, I’ve come to appreciate just how unimportant the facts are and how instrumental both Mr. Gourley’s opposition and the missteps taken by Pew in attempting to fast track this concept have been.
Before I continue let me reiterate what I’ve said before about what I believe to be the view of most everyone here on Saipan. The concept of a marine park is, at the very least worth discussing and potentially (if done right) it is the best thing that has come this way in a long, long time. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and misinformation has been substantial and influential.
Lino has resigned from MINA stating that he cannot and has not from the beginning, supported the Pew approach. He mentions the MINA retreat where Jay Nelson first introduced the members to the project and how put off he was by their approach. I was there. There was a lot of conversation and debate as to whether this was something MINA wanted to spearhead and take on. The issue was not the establishment of a large marine protected area but rather MINA’s role in promoting it. Ultimately, the board felt it would be too politically hot a topic for a young NGO to deal with despite majority support for the concept. The board at the time decided (as I perceived it) to concentrate on building their successful track record by biting off smaller projects that could be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
What is most interesting to me now is to recall just how vocal and prepared John Gourley was for that meeting and how he was able to immediately play on the local distrust for the federal government. I recall Lino not necessarily being against the concept of a protected area but rather he didn’t like the idea of foreigners telling the local people how to preserve and protect their own environment. Understandably he didn’t like the idea being pushed by Gourley that the local people would lose control.
As I’ve gotten to know Lino one of the things we always seem to come back to in our discussions is his belief that the local indigenous peoples are best suited to be the stewards of the land and sea. He believes that they have the knowledge necessary to conserve and live by nature’s rules. While I believe this is true and should it be the case that only the indigenous islanders have influence on the resources, I would agree with him fully. However, the fact remains with each passing generation more and more of this knowledge once seen as critical for survival is being lost. In addition, as years pass the influence of outside cultures becomes more and more prevalent as seen in both the populous numbers and the deterioration of our environment. As a net result, over time, there is a decrease in local indigenous control and the ability to influence actions and behaviors of others.
When Lino said to me the other day, “the people of the CNMI can do this, we don’t need Pew”. I asked him what the plan is for those islands and for these islands we live on now. His response, to me said a lot. With a smile he half joked “None, we don’t have one”.
Well, unfortunately, with all due respect, the absence of a plan usually means things will not work out so well for anyone. What’s really frustrating to me is given all the issues and speculation regarding who would control the waters, who would co-manage it, how the regulations would be developed and enforced, who’ll pay for it etc, few now see how the monument would actually give them (the local indigenous peoples) far more say in the way things are to be managed than they have right now.
Would it not make sense to sit at the table and be a part of the discussions and give the indigenous peoples the opportunity to protect these waters the way they want to. If it takes 10 years of writing and re-writing regulations, is that not better than never getting started and leaving all control to outside forces? Should this process happen when elders like Lino are here to pass on their wisdom? Absolutely! This is just one more reason why the time to look at this is now. Ultimately if what we see and hear is not to our liking then simply say no and take the bits and pieces we do like and incorporate them into our own plan. Of course, by waiting we’ll also need to remember it will be our own money and not that of a large, well-respected, charitable group that will make any such plan a reality.
Unfortunately, as usual, scare tactics and dissemination of inaccurate information is no match for good old-fashioned discussions based on truth and mutual respect. If the opposite were true we’d still be talking and using whatever information comes from this proposal process to either make it happen now or to assist in developing a plan that is so desperately needed for the future.
The fact that both Angelo and John have vested interests in how all this turns out shouldn’t matter to any of us. The fact is we all have a vested interest! We all owe it to ourselves, our children and our children’s children to listen, get the facts and make an informed decision based on what is good for our planet and our quality of life here, now and in the future.
In real life, facts rarely compete in a world where perceptions rule. In the case of the proposed monument the public relations game is preventing the delivery of many tangible assets regardless of whether the monument becomes a reality or not. Killing the discussions now does no one any good unless, of course, your source of revenue is WESPAC-based.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Marine Monument - Why Kill It Now?
I've been struggling putting to paper all of my thoughts regarding the proposed marine monument. The reasons are many. The power keeps going out for one – another 3 hours today! A four month old and a two year old is also a factor! Daddy hood is exhausting and time consuming. Greatly rewarding but, in general it doesn't leave a lot of time to hide away and get into the writing groove and that's what it takes for me. Partly because I'm not very good at it and partly because I always feel the need to wrap my head around the big picture, digest it, find out what I don't know, (from people and sources that do know) and then formulate my own opinion. The biggest obstacle in this case however, is clearly the complexity of the issues at hand including the personalities, politics, distrust, greed and emotions that come along with them.
On the other hand conversation is a completely different story for me. I've shared my thoughts with many, many people over the past 2 or 3 weeks. Whether it was the revolving door at our booth during the Flame Tree Arts Festival or as a result of the countless meetings, presentations and sales calls I've made since getting back from Canada. In turn people I've talked to share their own thoughts and concerns for me to digest. The cross section of individuals providing the dialogue runs the spectrum. From conservationists, commercial fisherman, artists, professional types like lawyers and doctors, business and political leaders (including those charged with guiding our tourism industry) to the delivery clerks and receptionists at Joeten and hotel gift shops.
The overwhelming feeling I get is that everyone, including those currently opposed, can see the many benefits that could come from keeping the proposal on the table regardless of the final outcome. It is true that nearly everyone also believes they require more information to make a decision one way or another. Of course there are a few people out there who would like to see the concept die before it’s given a chance to see the light of day. As is always the case in life some folks tend to put their own personal agendas ahead of the greater good so it’s always important to consider the motives behind the rhetoric.
Each morning as I read the papers and blogs discussing this topic my own article gets bigger and bigger. With letters to the editors pouring in at this crucial time I realize how important it is to get my own thoughts on paper. This in part comes from the fact that few I’ve talked to disagree with my position and because I know most of these people are unlikely to take the time to make their own opinions heard. It’s also about the kids. Sitting back and doing nothing is not the kind of footsteps I want mine to grow up following in.
So to all those that are so opposed to opening up a dialogue and moving forward with the process I ask you, what is the rush? What is the rush to kill this thing before it even gets started? Why not allow the process to continue and examine the proposal in full while taking advantage of the opportunities being presented. Think about it. Even if it is ultimately rejected everyone, whether for or against, would gain something from the economic and environmental studies alone not to mention the proposed media expedition.
Could you imagine how much MVA and our tourism industry would benefit from having images, both topside and underwater of these Northern Islands - at no cost to them! Of course this does not even consider the amount of positive international press that would be gained should the monument become reality. It is solely based on MVA developing collaterals designed to sell the Marianas as a destination in future marketing campaigns.
What about the scientists at DEQ, CRM, and DFW? Even if the studies were biased (as studies of this nature often are) wouldn’t there be at least some useful information that these professionals could use. Again, at no cost to them or the taxpayer!
I’m also fully aware that the time frame argument goes the other way. What’s the rush to do this now? Hawaii had 7 years why do we have to decide this before Bush leaves office? Won’t there be another chance?
As luck should have it just as I was beginning to write some thoughts to these excellent questions I received Ruth Tighe’s “On My Mind”. Once again Ruth points out exactly what I was thinking so rather than try and rephrase it I give you what she wrote today.
Let me try to dispel some more of the misgivings. There is concern that not enough time has been provided for a thorough discussion, that people feel pressured. It is true that not enough information has been made readily available. Much has been there, but one has had to dig for it. But can the issue be postponed? Will the opportunity still exist months or years from now? In theory, yes. In actuality, I doubt it.
What we have, at the moment, is an out-going president who wants to add a jewel to his crown, so to speak; a respected, moneyed, international non-profit dedicated to the environment willing to underwrite costs; and a site not yet spoiled by greedy commercial fishing interests. Will those three factors occur simultaneously again? Not likely.
There is concern that the declaration of a monument through the Antiquities Act is the wrong mechanism. The alternative is a declaration by an act of Congress. Don't we all know how long that can take? How hazardous, risky, the route is? How many detours and false trails, how much excess and unwanted baggage, that can bring with it?
It may seem backward, but in this case, as I understand it, the time for negotiation comes afterwards. The President declares a monument, and the rules and regulations follow. And that's where the CNMI will have its opportunity to define what it will or will not accept.
Ultimately our leaders and the people of the CNMI may determine the proposal is not right at this time (or even in 6 months time). Should this be our position at the 11th hour even President Bush wouldn’t run this down our throats. He's already unpopular enough. Instead he'll ultimately pick somewhere that has welcomed the idea with open arms from the beginning. In the mean time what is the harm in working with Pew and the federal government over the next few months to get as much out of the process as we can?
Is it fear? Fear that if all the information is allowed to get into the hands of the people that the concept of rejecting the proposal will become too hard to swallow? If that’s the case I guess I can understand why a few, including some powerful types, might want to see this die now!
What a shame that would be.
On the other hand conversation is a completely different story for me. I've shared my thoughts with many, many people over the past 2 or 3 weeks. Whether it was the revolving door at our booth during the Flame Tree Arts Festival or as a result of the countless meetings, presentations and sales calls I've made since getting back from Canada. In turn people I've talked to share their own thoughts and concerns for me to digest. The cross section of individuals providing the dialogue runs the spectrum. From conservationists, commercial fisherman, artists, professional types like lawyers and doctors, business and political leaders (including those charged with guiding our tourism industry) to the delivery clerks and receptionists at Joeten and hotel gift shops.
The overwhelming feeling I get is that everyone, including those currently opposed, can see the many benefits that could come from keeping the proposal on the table regardless of the final outcome. It is true that nearly everyone also believes they require more information to make a decision one way or another. Of course there are a few people out there who would like to see the concept die before it’s given a chance to see the light of day. As is always the case in life some folks tend to put their own personal agendas ahead of the greater good so it’s always important to consider the motives behind the rhetoric.
Each morning as I read the papers and blogs discussing this topic my own article gets bigger and bigger. With letters to the editors pouring in at this crucial time I realize how important it is to get my own thoughts on paper. This in part comes from the fact that few I’ve talked to disagree with my position and because I know most of these people are unlikely to take the time to make their own opinions heard. It’s also about the kids. Sitting back and doing nothing is not the kind of footsteps I want mine to grow up following in.
So to all those that are so opposed to opening up a dialogue and moving forward with the process I ask you, what is the rush? What is the rush to kill this thing before it even gets started? Why not allow the process to continue and examine the proposal in full while taking advantage of the opportunities being presented. Think about it. Even if it is ultimately rejected everyone, whether for or against, would gain something from the economic and environmental studies alone not to mention the proposed media expedition.
Could you imagine how much MVA and our tourism industry would benefit from having images, both topside and underwater of these Northern Islands - at no cost to them! Of course this does not even consider the amount of positive international press that would be gained should the monument become reality. It is solely based on MVA developing collaterals designed to sell the Marianas as a destination in future marketing campaigns.
What about the scientists at DEQ, CRM, and DFW? Even if the studies were biased (as studies of this nature often are) wouldn’t there be at least some useful information that these professionals could use. Again, at no cost to them or the taxpayer!
I’m also fully aware that the time frame argument goes the other way. What’s the rush to do this now? Hawaii had 7 years why do we have to decide this before Bush leaves office? Won’t there be another chance?
As luck should have it just as I was beginning to write some thoughts to these excellent questions I received Ruth Tighe’s “On My Mind”. Once again Ruth points out exactly what I was thinking so rather than try and rephrase it I give you what she wrote today.
Let me try to dispel some more of the misgivings. There is concern that not enough time has been provided for a thorough discussion, that people feel pressured. It is true that not enough information has been made readily available. Much has been there, but one has had to dig for it. But can the issue be postponed? Will the opportunity still exist months or years from now? In theory, yes. In actuality, I doubt it.
What we have, at the moment, is an out-going president who wants to add a jewel to his crown, so to speak; a respected, moneyed, international non-profit dedicated to the environment willing to underwrite costs; and a site not yet spoiled by greedy commercial fishing interests. Will those three factors occur simultaneously again? Not likely.
There is concern that the declaration of a monument through the Antiquities Act is the wrong mechanism. The alternative is a declaration by an act of Congress. Don't we all know how long that can take? How hazardous, risky, the route is? How many detours and false trails, how much excess and unwanted baggage, that can bring with it?
It may seem backward, but in this case, as I understand it, the time for negotiation comes afterwards. The President declares a monument, and the rules and regulations follow. And that's where the CNMI will have its opportunity to define what it will or will not accept.
Ultimately our leaders and the people of the CNMI may determine the proposal is not right at this time (or even in 6 months time). Should this be our position at the 11th hour even President Bush wouldn’t run this down our throats. He's already unpopular enough. Instead he'll ultimately pick somewhere that has welcomed the idea with open arms from the beginning. In the mean time what is the harm in working with Pew and the federal government over the next few months to get as much out of the process as we can?
Is it fear? Fear that if all the information is allowed to get into the hands of the people that the concept of rejecting the proposal will become too hard to swallow? If that’s the case I guess I can understand why a few, including some powerful types, might want to see this die now!
What a shame that would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
