A Most Interesting Day on Saipan - A Monument Hangs in the Balance

It’s a beautiful, not too hot, not too cold kind of day here in Southern California. I have no idea what the weather is like on Saipan today but I do know it is going to be a very interesting one to say the least.

Yesterday, James Connaughton arrived on island to conduct official federal discussions with the people of the CNMI regarding the wishes, concerns and, ultimately, support for or against the creation of a large marine protected area surrounding the islands of Asuncion, Maug and Uracas.
These tiny, remote islands in the Western Pacific make up the northernmost tip of a rugged archipelago stretching over 400 miles to the south. Each of the 16 islands of the Mariana chain protrude like vertebrae on a human spine as they arch their way along the deepest part of the world, the Marianas Trench. Three of the islands are considered active volcanoes while 7 are inhabited. Less than fifty people live in the northern islands while the southern islands including Saipan, Tinian, Rota and Guam make up the population base. Politically the chain is divided but it is also united under the flag of the United States of America. The southern most island of Guam is considered a territory while the other islands, with Saipan as the capital, make up the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI).

Uracas

Today gets interesting because after 10 months of discussion the concept of the Marians Trench Marine Monument becomes an actual proposal and the dialogue between the federal government and the people of the CNMI including local government representatives officially begins. Open to the public on Capitol Hill at 11:30 AM there will be a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives where Mr. Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, will presumably be outlining the preliminary details of the proposal. A proposal that would see President Bush use the powers of the Antiquities Act to create the second largest marine sanctuary or protected area in the world. A proposal that has caused a lot of debate and, with significant advocacy campaigns for both sides, a certain amount of tension and distrust between those who favor and those who oppose.

Maug

Anyone who follows along with CNMI politics or who has had the opportunity to sit in on a session of the house or senate knows that this should make for a very interesting start to a long day indeed. Just to fill in anyone who’s jumping into this midstream, I’ll provide a quick run down of the highlights and how I perceive we’ve gotten to this point before jumping in with a few “fly on the wall” predictions as to how today might go down.

Asuncion

The Marianas Trench Marine Monument, as it has become known, was a concept first floated by Jay Nelson of the Pew Environmental Group in November 2007 during a public retreat designed to establish the goals of a local NGO, the Marianas Island Nature Alliance (MINA). It was stated that President Bush was looking to have large NGO’s from around the world assess potential areas for the possibility of protection through use of the Antiquities Act as was done in creation of the Papahanaumokuakea monument in Hawaii two years earlier. While MINA decided to concentrate efforts in other directions, their director at the time, Angelo Villagomez, would later become the local Pew representative in charge of coordinating community outreach and advocacy for the monument concept.
During the MINA retreat, John Gourley, a local resident, former biologist at the Division of Fish and Wildlife and advisor to the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Wespac), opposed the idea and would later become a leader of the movement to block the concept from being discussed. Shortly after Pew began conducting public information sessions, the CNMI legislature also acted quickly (within 24 hours of its introduction) on a resolution essentially stating they were not interested in any proposal that allowed unilateral action by the federal government. Around about the same time, Governor Fitial also wrote a letter against the idea despite never meeting with Pew representatives or hearing the concept.

From the beginning the lines were drawn. Fortunately the story does not end there. Those in favor of the concept did not give up and quickly pointed to the need for conservation as well as the potential benefits beyond resource preservation that would come with the designation including increased tourism, more jobs, positive international exposure and higher education for local residents. The opponents pointed to a “takeover” of the waters from the local people and a loss of commercial fishing and mineral extraction rights across 1/3 of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). They also set out to create an “Us vs. Them” mentality with the pushy outsider being the Pew Environmental group.

Early on, opponents also attempted to sound the alarm that native Hawaiians did not welcome the formation of Papahanaumokuakea and that President Bush had forced it upon them. Pew brought William Aila, a respected native Hawaiian, to Saipan where he spoke about the indigenous Hawaiians asking President Bush to declare the monument. In doing so he said Bush had ended the government infighting and pro-fishing lobbying that had prevented Hawaiians from achieving the additional protections they desired.

Next came the argument that the designation would prohibit indigenous people from ever visiting the islands and that restricting 1/3 of the EEZ from any potential extraction of minerals or fish in the future would spell disaster for the local economy. Pew commissioned an economic study and like every economic study it was based on assumptions that could be argued one way or the other, but in the end it showed the immediate and long-term positive economic boost that would come from increased federal funding and increased tourism. At the time Aila also assured local fisherman that in the case of Hawaii, it is local Hawaiians that decide who is issued permits for fishing. So, although there were restrictions, it is not entirely prohibited and he encouraged people of the Marianas to demand a seat at the table when negotiating any rules or regulations for their own monument.

Another point of contention is the debate over who owns the rights to the waters surrounding the three islands. While the courts have ruled in favor of federal jurisdiction from the high water point out to 200 miles, many in the CNMI believe the issue of submerged lands is ongoing and that agreeing to the monument will officially give up what is theirs. However, many recognize that creation of the monument along with a co-management agreement including participation by local government would give the people of the CNMI a stronger position in the regulatory process while providing much needed funding for properly managing such a vast area of water.

In June just before I had to leave the island for my heart condition, a small group of local residents was formed. The Friends of the Marianas Trench Marine Monument (FMTMM) believed in the concept Pew had brought forward but realized the organization had not necessarily handled the delivery appropriately under the circumstances. They also realized that the opposition was spreading misinformation while attempting to put a stop to any real discussions before they got started. The Friends set out on a campaign to educate and discuss the issues as well as the potential benefits with the people of the CNMI. Over 5000 signatures and numerous support letters later, the group has grown and by all reports I get from the ground it seems they have been successful in gaining considerable support for the Marine Monument. This, while what seems like a few with a vested interest in the status quo, continue to oppose the idea based on the loss of potential commercial mining and fishing rights as well as the change in administrative jurisdiction. They continue to push the idea that no help is needed to protect or study this vast area of water despite the current lack of funds and personnel to do so. They point to past “effective” fishery management by local agencies through Wespac and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act as reason enough not to consider any type of large marine protected or no-take zone in the area. It is interesting to note that should a monument be designated there will be a change at the Federal level with regards to who manages the proposed area. As it stands now jurisdiction falls under the NOAA fisheries division, of which Wespac is an advisory body. If the monument becomes reality governance will be co-managed with the lead federal agency shifting to the NOAA Sanctuaries program where Wespac has little influence. Local input and co-management responsibilities will likely mean changes at the local DFW offices as well and perhaps even the creation of a new local agency all together.

So, with much at stake and both sides firmly believing they are right, a whole bunch of people will show up this morning when discussions about the monument officially begin in the Senate chamber. No doubt on one side of the room will be Angelo Villagomez and Jay Nelson alongside the Friends in a sea of orange. On the other will be John Gourley, Sylvain Igisomar and other representatives of Wespac and DFW. I predict all or most of the government officials will be present and the room will be full. The press will be there. Jacqueline from the Saipan Tribune will get a great front-page cover shot for tomorrow’s paper. Chris Nelson or one of the KSPN reporters will be there with their video cameras trying to capture the scene including an interview with at least one of the Senators and Mr. Connaughton himself. Then later today there will be a press conference at the Friends of the Monument office in Garapan where support signatures will be officially turned over to the federal government. Finally at 5:30 tonight a public forum will be held at the Aquarius hotel. The room will again be packed with supporters in orange and those against (I’m not sure what color they will wear). There will be tension. There will be angry accusations. There will be many trying to sound intelligent but in the end many will likely ramble on. They will run out of time and then everyone will go home.

That’s as far as I wish to predict. I don’t believe Angelo and John will go for beers together afterward but I’m confident Angelo will have at least one among a group of dedicated people wearing orange.

Stay tuned for a full report!

UPDATE - The Day After.

An excellent story in the Tribune today. 'CNMI may regain control over its submerged lands'
Another Tribune story on the petition hand over. '5,502: A monumental number'
And Another Tribune article about Friends & Style 'Monument backers sport orange ahead of forum"
Jane Mack has written her take on the public forum.

Other articles and Links from the past 24 hours or so..
Amazed and Proud
Thanks for supporting the monument plan
The WOW of MMM
DFW arguments for marine monument
Angelo's Blog and Updates


The following are links to additional articles I've written about the Marianas Trench Monument in chronological order. Those with an * have been published in the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety.

April 25th 2008
Act Two - Northern Island Marine Monument

Friday, May 9, 2008
Marine Monument - Why Kill It Now?*

Monday, May 12, 2008
Marine Monument – Personalities & Politics*

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Marine Monument - Lets Talk eh!*

Friday, May 16, 2008
Marine Monument - The Benefits / It's Not All About the Fishing*

Thursday, May 22, 2008
Marine Monument - Get Informed

Friday, May 23, 2008
Marine Monument - Ruth's Round Up

Saturday, May 24, 2008
Bush Eyes Unprecedented Conservation Program - NPR Report

Monday, July 14, 2008
Coral Triangle Meet the Trench Monument

Friday, July 18, 2008
Pew's Role Defined

Marine Monument - The Benefits / It's Not All About the Fishing

Today’s article by the WESPAC reps is another indication of how too narrow a view makes it easy to miss the big picture. They say we don’t need a monument, that they are doing just fine regulating our waters. The letter goes on to talk about all the regulatory changes WESPAC has had a hand in and although it’s an impressive resume, for the purpose of the monument, it really does not matter.

But, before I explain why, let me first say that, specifically with regards to the CNMI waters, I’m not familiar with anyone suggesting WESPAC has not done a decent job. I can’t honestly say one way or the other. It has been pointed out that WESPAC has had problems with their recommendations and practices in other areas of the world but, again, none of that really matters in our case because it’s not just a fishing issue!

Especially when you look at all the potential benefits. Some benefits are more tangible than others. Some speculative, some dependent on just how much funding comes along each year. Some will have a global reach, some will affect local lives directly on a daily basis. Some may not be noticeable for 100’s of years when the area in question remains one of Earth's untouched natural wonders.

Little of it has anything to do with fishing.

Yes fishing is an issue. Or rather how we fish is an issue. Do we want commercial fishing fleets trying to sustainably harvest those waters or maintain them as they are for generations of islanders to experience as their ancestors once did? In my last post Marine Monument – Lets Talk eh! I tried to point out that it is more about balance and hedging our bets rather than pointing blame or fighting over turf. By allocating 1/3 of the asset to a certain management method while leaving 2/3 to be managed in a different way, we protect ourselves from the catastrophe that could happen should our current, all eggs in one basket, mentality fail.

Wait, I digress again. I said there was more to this than the fishing. That’s right, the benefits John’s been missing at the presentations and in the numerous letters written in support of the park.

1) Free, instant, worldwide recognition.
We are THE pin in the map. We won’t have the limelight forever but the pin will never fall out. To put this into perspective, I’ve sat in the room where MVA marketing people have looked at landing Survivor or the Amazing Race as their big ticket for our tourism industry. How do you think that would compare to National Geographic specials, Discovery Channel, hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, all with a positive spin. By the way, we will get this even if Congress didn’t fund a penny more than they do now and the “park” sat there as it does now.

But, this is just the beginning. What about when new scientific discoveries come from the increased research that is also likely. Imagine if one day it is a local kid from NMC (Northern Mariana College) who’s the first to discover a new species of deep-water nudibranch or films the mating ritual of gigantic squid from her submersible. I could go on and on about the increased and continued exposure this designation would bring, but there are many other benefits to talk about.

2) Protecting Our Planet – Conservation
Some don’t like this as a benefit. They see it as too fluffy and an environmental-Nazi like attitude. Or they just want to take it all now and don't care what they leave behind for their kids. But, luckily, as our planet suffers and the signs and symptoms become that much more obvious, more and more focus will fall towards how we can save what we have. To say it is becoming trendy to be environmentally conscious would be an understatement even now. Don’t think this type of thinking is important or that it can’t be positive for our islands then perhaps you need to sit down and have a chat with the President of Palau. He started the Micronesian Challenge and will be remembered forever for it. In fact, he may end up getting some sort of Nobel-type prize for his efforts in due time. I’m pretty sure designation of a marine monument site here would help the CNMI meet and exceed our own responsibilities for this challenge and perhaps even steal some of that spotlight from our neighbors.

3) Jobs
Yes jobs, real jobs. I realize this can’t really be promised until money is appropriated from Congress but two things have been pointed out by our Pew lobbyist during the presentations John’s slept through. First, the Congressional budgets being appropriated for the sanctuaries and the bodies that govern them have been increasing over the years and there is no reason to think this won’t continue. Hawaii received 18 million in its first full year. Shaking a stick at even half that seems pretty silly. Next, in each case where a monument or national park has been designated there has been construction of a world class, top-notch visitors interpretive center. In the case of the CNMI, this alone would be huge.

Given the distance to travel, it is unlikely that many tourists will actually venture to the physical monument boundaries. However, almost all visitors to our islands would pay to visit an interpretive center where among other things they would get to walk through a cross section of the Marianas Trench. If it were a free pass we’d still have the funding to run the center and jobs to offer our residents. MVA said there were 31,174 Saipan visitors last month. At 10 bucks a head that's $311,740 per month. But, you say, they won't all go. Ok lets take 150,000 a month, not including souvenirs and other ad ons, that's 1.8 million a year!

4) Increased research and opportunities for higher education.
It’s been seen in Hawaii already. Again, according to our Pew lobbyist, the number of research vessels conducting work there has significantly increased since their monument was established. NOAA sends a boat out here every now and again. It stops in port for a few days where crew get off while provisions and equipment for weeks out at sea are purchased and loaded. I don’t know exactly how much money each one of these types of surveys would bring in but something is better than nothing. Then again we just had a crew of 2-5 marine archaeologists on island for over a month and they ate out nearly every meal and rented condos at the Flame Tree Terrace so it really could add up to something more than nothing pretty damn quick.

Now imagine if the college could be on board with all of this. Along with the sense of pride that comes with being known for something special like the marine park, developing a world class marine sciences program would go a long way to ensuring kids graduate with sought after skills. Best of all once they graduate they wouldn’t necessarily have to go off island to find a job since they could be employed directly or indirectly through the park.

5) Submerged lands and co-management
I put this under a benefit even though this is one of the issues those against the monument are using to say it’s a bad idea. There was a court case back a number of years ago where it was ruled that the CNMI did not have jurisdiction over the waters out to the 200-mile limit. The state vs. federal fight over this has gone on with all the territories and the state of Hawaii. Nowhere has the state or territory ever gotten full control of the 200-mile limit. In the case of the CNMI right now, there is no ownership of the waters around the islands in question. The area is managed by Fish and Wildlife and the NOAA office here on Saipan and without a coast guard cutter it’s pretty hard for any of them to patrol, protect and enforce that vast an area.

Following a similar model to Hawaii the monument would be co-managed by the NOAA sanctuaries program and a local CNMI body. This would, in effect, give the CNMI a say in the waters it currently does not have ownership of. The status of the monument should also bring an increase in funding for protecting the area. Again no guarantees but do we really think they’ll designate a monument and then give us nothing? That’s kind of setting things up to fail, which I really don’t think is the intention. With the increased military build up in Guam I don’t think it would be a stretch for the Feds to agree to something that funds increased patrols in the area. I certainly doubt such a concept would be frowned upon by homeland security.

6) Cultural Preservation
This is always such an interesting concept. As cultures all around the world get swallowed up in the global mixing of the human race what defines a persons culture will become more and more difficult to determine and hang on to. If the idea is to preserve and nurture those things that are important to the indigenous peoples then they must be exercised and received by the younger generations with enthusiasm and pride. I didn't get to see a lot of the performances at this years Flame Tree Festival but, what I did see was many island cultural dancers going through the motions. When there is energy and pride these dances and the people performing them are a beautiful thing to watch. When there is no pride outside influences will win and no matter how strong the desire, otherwise traditional ways will become extinct.

Not that this next concept requires the designation of a monument but again it would make more sense with one. What if there was some type of voyage to the Northern island monument where traditional sailing and navigational methods were utilized and tested. In school, kids would eagerly take in what they could knowing they'll need the skills to make a journey of a lifetime. To fish for big fish along the way just as their grandpa showed them. Sound too corny and far-fetched? Maybe, but without implementing this type of concept it is only a matter of time before the traditional ways will be nothing more than black and white paper and a few color photographs thrown in for good measure.

7) High-end adventure tourism.
As I said earlier there is no reason to believe that the marine monument would see that many tourists enter its boundaries. However, depending on the final regulations and terms of use for the park it is possible that a profitable eco-adventure tourism program could be established or even the possibility of seasonal live aboard dive charters. Tourist paying for this kind of trip would likely be considered high end, just the type MVA is trying to market to now. Is it possible? Without a monument designation it would be a lot more difficult. It is a known fact that many potential tourists consider world heritage sites as a reason to venture to certain areas. This draw cannot be ignored especially in Japan, our largest tourist market. It should also not be ignored that there are many very well-off individuals that might just spend a bundle to put their own pin on their own map directly on top of us.

8) Where is Saipan?

Have you heard of the Marianas Trench Monument (MTM)? Yeah that’s right, in the pacific close to Japan! ....... You have heard of us then!

So, as you can see, even with just these examples it’s not all about the fishing. To the good folks at WESPAC please don’t take the loss of turf so personally. It’s not really that we all think you’re doing a horrible job; it’s just that we can all do better by looking at the bigger picture and perhaps even working together. The people of the CNMI deserve the opportunity to look at this proposal and make an informed decision.

Next up I’ll try to give my two cents worth on what I think is the biggest “issue” facing the monument as it tries to move forward into the psyche of the general public.

Why now!

Marine Monument - Lets Talk eh!

Finally! John wants to hear about the monument! He's been so busy raising his objections at all the presentations that he hasn't actually paid attention to what has been said! Such is usually the case when you’re so narrowly focused. Anyway, maybe there's hope for an open and honest dialogue after all! Now if we could only get him to stop blowing things so far out of proportion. I quote "They {Pew people} proclaim that their preservationist approach to resource management is the only way to save the world".

Really John, is that what we {supporters of the monument concept} are saying?

I like to look at the marine protected area more like an asset an investment banker may use when planning for retirement. We all know that despite gazillions of economic studies the only way to really be sure your investments will be secure over the long haul is to diversify and make regular contributions (dollar cost averaging). You don't put all your eggs in one basket as they say. Listening to only one market segment or belief system (such as tech stocks for example) does little to hedge your bets on the future. Guess wrong and you could be on the short end of the money train.

The same can be said in the fisheries debate. Despite many advances in research abilities the fact remains our oceans are too vast and complex for anyone to really understand all the relationships and what actually goes on down there on a global basis. Whether they believe in sustainable extraction or replenishing preservation no marine scientist will tell you they know enough to make bold predictions about what the resources will definitely look like generations from now. If they do they're feeding you a crock.

So back to the analogy. We could take the waters around our 15 islands (the asset) and invest entirely in the fisheries based line of thinking (WESPAC) as we do now or we could take a portion of it and diversify by putting some eggs (islands) into another basket. By having 1/3 of our EEZ as you like to refer to it under "protectionist" control and 2/3 under "selective extraction" control we are now hedged against an utter collapse of either system. Intuitively it might seem much more likely that a human regulated extraction system may be at greater risk of failure than say one in which mother nature is left to her own devices (as in the case of the monument) but, I digress.

In bringing John's over statement down to earth I don't think anyone is saying "preservationism" is the only way to save the world. I think there has to be a balance. Right now all our eggs (islands) are in one basket and regulated by one line of thinking. Can you say Enron?

Next in his letter today, John suggests doing a Google search for "pew anti fishing". I did and I've scanned the top five results. If that's what he’s looking to discredit Pew with he might want to make his point a little easier to find. Of course sometimes the best way to determine if a source is credible or not is to take a look at what they've done / said in the past and compare it to the present.

As many have done in this debate I did a Google search early on for “John Gourley Saipan”. At the time the link I'm about to refer was on the first page. Now, given John's popularity in the bloging world, it's been pushed back to page 3. Interestingly the current top result for "John Gourley Saipan" is now this blog!

Anyway, it's just easier if you simply cut and paste this title "The Impact of the Regulations Resulting from the Events of September 11th" into Google and click on the first item - be aware it's a PDF down load.

The document is a WESPAC report with plenty of references by Mr. Gourley. I don't want to type out the whole section about the CNMI nor do I want to misquote or take John's words out of context so please read the file - page 11 and 12. I find his remarks quite interesting considering his number one reason for opposing the monument in the first place is the restriction on commercial fisheries.

The same industry he speaks of in these terms...

"Fishing is certainly not one of the main contributions to the economy of the CNMI. ..... while the seas remain largely undisturbed by large commercial fishing ventures".

"Most of those who fish in the CNMI do so from smaller boats that stay within 20 miles from land. The main take by commercial, subsistence and recreational fishers is skipjack tuna"

“Despite the local fishers, CNMI must import fish {to supply demand}... If a local fisherperson has a good catch, they may not have any customers due to the previous agreements with importers”. (Gourley, 2002)

This is the best one...

“There is little incentive for Asian longline fishing vessels to port in Saipan because Guam is closer to the southern fishing grounds and has better facilities as well as cheaper fuel and re-supplying costs. At the moment there simply is not an adequate infrastructure for the transshipment of fresh tuna”. (Gourley, 2002)

Then writing about a failed commercial venture.
“.... they were unable to catch enough fish to make it profitable”.

“While there is a growing Japanese market for skipjack, the most commonly caught fish in the NMI, Gourley suggested that fight quality yellowfin and bigeye or processed loins would be the most profitable”.

Doesn’t this last one really stress the sound science used behind selective extraction decisions - NOT!

The rest of his statements clearly and completely contradict his current number one reason to nix the monument discussions all together and that is the protection of the commercial fishery. Come on John, let’s stop trying to scare everyone into thinking the park will prevent a lucrative commercial fishery. The bottom line is it has not been feasible to this day without a monument nor is it going to be feasible in the foreseeable future with (or without) a monument. The benefits of hedging our bets while creating world wide recognition as well as preserving a portion of the archipelago for future generations to enjoy in all it’s glory far out weigh the possibility that a few might make ends meet selectively fishing those same waters.

John’s second reason for his opposition revolves around the permanent elimination of drilling and mineral extraction from the park area. Again, I agree 1/3 of the EEZ is a large area but, it still leaves 2/3 up for grabs should it ever become feasible to actually extract something of value out of the waters that, currently by law, the CNMI does not own anyway.

Let's be slightly realistic shall we!

And finally, we come to the third reason why John cannot support the monument. He says it is not based on sound scientific study (data) and (Pew) “still don't have any significant justification for the designation of a National Monument in the CNMI”

It’s late I’m going to have to leave all the reasons Pew has given during the presentations to another post. They are numerous and in many cases very tangible. Worth discussing I’d say eh!

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.