Pew's Role Defined

I think one of the biggest issues in the area of the Marianas Marine Monument concept has been the role of the Pew environment group. It is true (at least in my opinion) that the organization has not done a great job of bringing this concept to the people in a manner that would be considered appropriate by most folks in this neck of the woods. In particular the underestimation of resources required on the ground and the need for "back room politics" comes to mind. Despite what most would consider a large financial capacity at their fingertips the job of coordinating and pursuing public education and support for the concept has fallen on the shoulders of a very small team, the local Pew coordinators Angelo Villagomez and Laurie Peterka. Over the past number of months many (including myself) have pointed to Angelo's approach as one of the factors behind some of the resistance encountered especially from that of local government officials and members of the indigenous populations. However, in all fairness to Angelo and Laurie the blame cannot be pinned entirely on them. Yes mistakes have been made but they have been up against a large, well-oiled machine in the form of WESPAC and pro-fishing forces. These lobbyist are well trenched in this region of the world and their capabilities are very real and very well designed to head off any attempt at reducing their own jurisdiction and control. Second, in some cases they (Angelo & Laurie) have been unable to react to issues in a constructive and timely manner partially because of what I can only characterize as corporate bureaucracy and misunderstanding from the top as to "how things work here in the CNMI".

At the heart of matter for many opposed to the monument concept is their opposition to Pew and the approach taken in bringing this idea forward. That is why I was pleased to read Jay Nelson's special to the Tribune in today's paper. I think it clearly shows that Pew's role revolves around bringing this concept to the people and that their motivation behind wanting to establish the monument comes down to a dedication for conservation of marine resources and ecosystems world wide.

Now, hopefully, people can look past the fact that an outsider has brought this opportunity to our door step and move forward in examining the benefits and pitfalls that may exist. In doing so it is my hope that our local government will ultimately do what is best for the people of the CNMI and ask for a seat at the table when developing the declaration and subsequent rules and regulations of the monument. If the Federal government does in fact pursue this designation Pew will essentially disappear and it will be up to the local population to develop a proposal that makes sense for the residents of the CNMI.

Here is Jay Nelson's article from the Tribune.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Committed to ocean conservation

By JAY NELSON
Special to the Saipan Tribune

Editor's Note: Jay Nelson is director of the Pew Environment Group's Global Ocean Legacy, a project to protect some of the world's most spectacular marine environments.

Considerable recent press has been devoted to plans to establish a world-class marine park in the waters around the three northernmost Mariana Islands - Asuncion, Maug and Uracus. Letters, editorials and opinions have focused on both the benefits of the idea and on the non-profit organization, the Pew Charitable Trusts, which believes such a program would not only benefit the Mariana's marine environment and economy, but would also greatly enhance the reputation of the Mariana Islands as an environmentally friendly tourist destination.

The participation of people in CNMI in this very public discussion has been useful and healthy and will hopefully continue.

Worldwide, the oceans and their marvelous ecosystems are in trouble from global warming, pollution, overfishing and a host of other problems. But there are some places, like the Mariana Islands, where people still have a chance to preserve their cultural heritage and leave a wonderful environmental legacy for their children, while at the same time creating jobs and revenue that can improve the local standard of living.

Any new idea, however, is bound to stir interest and questions. So what of the Pew Charitable Trusts itself?

Pew, through its environmental arm, the Pew Environment Group, has launched a global effort to improve scientific understanding of the oceans, prevent the continued decline of fisheries to the benefit both fish and fishermen, and promote the preservation of particularly spectacular locations that have yet to suffer the devastating impacts of much of the world's marine environment.

Our efforts to encourage the establishment of a marine park in the Marianas are very much in keeping with our work around the world. Pew is an independent, non-profit organization governed by the same set of U.S. laws that apply to other charitable or non-profit groups, such as the Red Cross. We operate completely independent of government and business, although we try and work with both whenever possible. Moreover, as a non-profit, we make no money from our charitable work.

Pew has been a leader in advancing policies that improve lives, in Philadelphia where it is based, and throughout the world. Indeed, we are one of the most well-known, independent, non-profit organizations in the United States, running programs relating to education, culture, public health, the arts and the environment, among others. Our polling and information work is considered to be amongst the highest quality and most influential of its kind in the world.

For two decades the Pew Environment Group has been a major force in promoting sound conservation policies in the United States and, in recent years, internationally. The Environment Group is staffed by respected senior scientists, attorneys and policy specialists, all of whom have had significant prior experience in nonprofit advocacy, government and the private sector.

The Pew Environment Group focuses on reducing the scope and severity of three major global environmental problems: dramatic changes to the Earth's climate caused by the increasing concentration of global warming pollution in the atmosphere; erosion of large wilderness ecosystems that contain many of the world's rapidly vanishing plants and animals; and damage to the world's marine environment.

What led us to our work in the Mariana Islands was a number of factors. First, the environment in the waters around the northernmost islands has been little impacted by fishing or other extractive activities and is relatively healthy, containing some of the world's most unique geological features and ecology. Second, there is virtually no fishing in this area because it is so remote, and has never had the concentration of high-value fish that would make it a productive commercial fishing area. Third, it contains a portion of the world's deepest marine canyon and a host of native species, plants and other marine organisms that make it ecologically unique. And fourth, establishment of a marine park would actually benefit CNMI's economy through increased tourism and government support, in addition to generating jobs and revenue.

In the Mariana Islands, as in other areas of world where we are encouraging the establishment of marine reserves, we work with governments and the public to analyze the potential environmental and economic benefits of protecting these remarkable places.

The area being proposed for protection in CNMI is a spectacular complex of coral reefs, undersea volcanoes and deep ocean waters along a portion of the famed Mariana Trench. We believe this area will best serve CNMI both economically and culturally if it is conserved for education and research, for tourism and for future generations. We have sought to collect and disseminate information on the significance of this area and to bring this information to the attention of federal and local officials, as well as to better inform the people of the Mariana Islands about the area's natural values.

As part of our assessment of what a marine monument might mean to CNMI, three months ago we asked a respected economist at the University of Guam, Dr. Tom Iverson, to study the potential costs and benefits of such a designation. Dr. Iverson calculated that a marine monument would produce up to 400 new jobs and annually generate $10 million in new spending and $14 million in sales. He identified a number of potential benefits that would be created from a monument, many of which are related to the visitor industry and tourism marketing.

The establishment of parks or wildlife reserves, either on land or in the sea, is often a controversial process. There are always some individuals who do not believe that special natural areas should be protected from activities such as industrial fishing, mining, logging, and that these areas offer more value to people if their resources can be extracted for commercial gain. History, however, has generally proven this to not be true. The great parks of the world, places like Yellowstone or Yosemite in the western United States, or the spectacular game parks of Africa, provide far more benefit to people as parks than they ever would have if left unprotected. Protecting the waters around the three northernmost islands as a marine park will create much greater economic value for CMNI than commercial fishing or other extractive activities are every likely to produce. And at the same time, one of the world's most spectacular oceans areas will be protected for the culture and the people of the Marianas and their children and grandchildren as well as for the rest of the world.

Quite simply, we have approached the Mariana Islands as part of our overall mission to protect and conserve natural resources. In doing so, we seek to create a healthier and more sustainable environment for both people and nature. Our goal for the CNMI is to be a constructive advocate for an environmental opportunity that will not only benefit the local and global marine environment, but also the people who live here.

The decision on whether or not to designate a monument can only be made by government. If a marine monument is established, Pew will have no role in its management, and receive no compensation or benefit other than the satisfaction of knowing that a portion of the world's marine heritage is protected for future generations, while at the same time bringing certain economic benefits to local people.

Designation of an internationally recognized national-park-of-the-sea in the waters around the three northernmost islands of the Marianas will protect a portion of one of the world's premier marine ecosystems. It also will focus favorable global attention on the Mariana Islands, promote local tourism-including ecotourism-and establish CNMI's reputation as a global leader in marine conservation. As one of 15 protected areas within the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, CNMI also would be able to take advantage of federal dollars devoted to public education and conservation. We believe this is one of those fortunate circumstances where conservation and economic development can work together for the benefit of both.

We encourage you to investigate this opportunity for yourself and look closely at its cultural and economic benefits. We look forward to continuing to work with the business community, your elected leaders and the public on this proposal.

Coral Triangle Meet the Trench Monument

I wrote the following way back on October 14th 2007, long before I'd heard about the Mariana Trench Monument concept. There is a link to the original post here but, for those of you too lazy for an extra click I've cut and pasted it below. I thought it appropriate to look at this again given the Tribune article today anouncing the upcoming release of a Pew sponsored scientific study.

At the end of my original Coral Triangle Post I've taken a moment to address a few things that might relate to the marine monument currently being debated in the community.

Here's my original post on the Coral Triangle. By the way, "Coral Triangle" remains one of the biggest search engine key word searches people use to get to this site.

CORAL TRIANGLE

No, we're not trying to copy Bermuda and their famous triangle that seems to take planes, vessels and lives without warning.

No, in fact, we're talking about a region of the earths ocean described by the World Wild Life Fund (WWF) with this in mind...

"No other place on Earth is as rich and varied in marine life as the Coral Triangle. Spanning Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji and Northern Australia, this extraordinary expanse of ocean covers some 5.7 million square kilometres. The Coral Triangle echoes the richness and diversity of the Amazon rain forest".

This map shows that most biodiversity occurs around Indoneisia and Papua New Guinea
However, the map below shows how the Northern Mariana Islands not only fall within the upper end of the triangle but they also establish a boundary line!
I realize the primary area of focus for the triangle is Indonesia and the surrounding countries but, it's important to note that we do sit within this important ecological zone.
We do in fact, contribute to the vast array of species this region accounts for. We have rare hard corals and other critters the scientific community recognizes as occurring here and perhaps no where else. In fact it was in my first year on Saipan that a group of researchers found 8 previously unnamed species of fish. See link here. Then on another survey this was a quote from the NOAA team after returning from the Northern Islands in 2003. See Tribune story here

“Many of these species are new records for these islands, as very few previous surveys have been conducted at most of these islands. Many species were also present in the size ranges at which they recruit from the plankton, or as very young juveniles,” the team said.

I think it's also important to note that in relative terms the scientific community has barely scratched the surface when it comes to surveying our vast waters especially up North. Who knows what else is out there just waiting to be discovered. We know there are plenty more dive sites around the Islands of Saipan, Tinian and Rota that are worth discovering and going to on a regular basis. We also know that divers have witnessed the mating of two different species of nudibranchs a phenomenon that was previously just a theory but now thanks to Harry (The Nudibranch whisperer) it's been documented. Bottom line, when we say we are privileged to dive in some of the most diverse waters of the world it is true!

Now, isn't it just a little more appealing to live in the triangle that breeds diversity rather than swallow up ships and planes like a giant black hole. Perhaps just one more advantage we have over our Caribbean counterparts!

Coral Triangle & Marianas Trench = Synergistic Marketing!

Like I say, those were the original thoughts I had on the triangle when I first became aware there was such a theoretical boundary. Now, throw in the concept of having an internationally recognized "Monument of the Sea" including the deepest part of the world and it's easy to see how potentially powerful such a marketing combination could be. A monument designation with all the hoopla that would come form the Bush administration announcement would instantly and effectively focus positive attention on us from around the world. With ensuing federal funding from the NOAA sanctuary program this beacon of light in the pacific would likely shine for many many years if not forever and glow ever stronger with time. The spotlight and funding couldn't possibly do anything but benefit our tourism industry and the scientific community.

Take a close look at the map. Have you ever tried to go on a vacation, diving or otherwise, to one of the remote islands of Indonesia. With the exception of perhaps Bali, it's not usually to encounter flight delays or planes that just don't show up for days. If you go, prepare for an adventure and be very pleased if your travel time is any where close to what it says on your itinerary.
For our largest tourist markets Indonesia represents long, multiple flights while we offer single non-stop daily flights from both Seoul and Tokyo. With fuel surcharges going up for all flights but particularly noticeable for long haul trips we can also offer a more affordable and convenient excursions to the "Amazon of the Sea" than perhaps anyone else in the region. Now, build a world class visitors center with information on specie diversity within the coral triangle and the untouched wonders of the deep and yes, they will come AND yes, they will spend their money!

From a purely scientific point of view there has to be something said for lying on the edge of even an arbitrary boundary. I once had to do a paper for an economics class based on what happens in communities where artificial boundaries exist. Mine was pretty easy as I lived close to the US / Canada boarder where the "line" actually meant large beautiful homes on one side and fields of very little development on the other. My point is, if the boundaries of the Trench monument can be maintained so as to allow an entire ecosystem withing the Coral Triangle to go untouched by things other than mother nature it should provide a nice baseline for years of comparison to other less protected areas outside the triangle. A scientests dream come true I would imagine, especially in a world without many baselines!

The Pew sponsored economic study released a few months ago touched on how a stable, long term marine protected area would bring long term sustainable dollars from increased research and scientific voyages. With increased research (and research dollars) who knows what else they'll find, but one thing is true, they'll probably find more with more trips and more minds looking into it all! New species, cures for diseases........

Ultimately, if the local people demand a seat at the table, with any and all governing bodies deemed necessary to develop and maintain the park, than control of how it is used and how it will benefit the people of the CNMI will remain tied to local interests. Without the seat at the table and an open dialogue there is the potential to A) risk loosing a significant long term opportunity that would grow the islands economy and preserve a resource for years to come or B) have the monument designated without local input leaving everyone scrambling to get the needed balance and local control that can only come with meaningful participation from local representation.

The benefits are real and at hand NOW!

Marine Monument - Ruth's Round Up

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.

Marine Monument - Development

This article in the Variety yesterday was certainly promising. In it Senator Paul Manglona form Rota has introduced a bill to create a task force that will review the Pew Group’s proposed national marine monument.

Lets hope everyone will take a look at this and begin the process of understanding everything that is being considered.

By the way has anyone dove Rota! It's definitely worth the trip!

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.

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.