Arguments against Pew proposal are political and economic

I support the Pew Charitable Trust Fund proposal to create a national marine monument around the CNMI’s three northernmost islands, Maug, Asuncion, and Uracas. This project is designed to protect marine habitat and the life within it. Conservation is an important goal for all of us because we need our oceans to be healthy for the wellbeing of our planet.

The national marine monument would create a zone of protected marine habitat—a “no-take” zone, a sanctuary, a refuge for marine life.

There are no conservation arguments against creating this national marine monument. The arguments raised against it are political and economic. Neither political nor economic reasons, though, outweigh the benefits of conservation that we will get with a national marine monument. Nor do the political or economic arguments against the national marine monument project, in and of themselves, warrant rejecting this proposal.

Most people support conservation. Despite efforts at conservation, our oceans are showing increasing signs of poor health. Now is the time for strong action. We need zones that are completely free from humanity’s rapacious appetite.

The current system of protection is not working. The current system employs a “sustainable fisheries” model where it looks at fish species-by-species. Global satellite imaging, however, shows that our oceans are in trouble. We need “no-take” zones, a place where marine life can find refuge and take sanctuary, be safe and thrive.

Conservation and protection of environment is the strongest argument in favor of the national marine monument around the CNMI’s three northernmost islands.

But the CNMI can’t create this marine haven.

The CNMI has already lost the court case about controlling submerged lands. Contrary to what’s been stated by some arguing against the proposal, the submerged lands issue has been decided and settled. The CNMI owns only that submerged land from the islands to the high water mark. Everything else from there out is not owned by the CNMI. The U.S. has ownership and control of the “exclusive economic zone” beyond the CNMI’s islands, the EEZ that is a portion of the ocean and submerged land extending out 200 nautical miles from land.

The fury and distrust toward the U.S. that is once again being whipped up serves no purpose in the argument against the Pew Charitable Trust proposal. It gets the CNMI nothing to turn down the national marine monument project.

The U.S. government is not a foreign power. It is our government, as much as the CNMI government is our government. Objecting to the proposal because it is a “federal” or “national” marine monument is not an argument against protecting the natural habitat. It is the politics of control. If it’s a good idea to have a protected zone (and it is), then it’s a good idea whether the U.S. does it or the CNMI does it. And frankly, it’s better for the CNMI to have the U.S. pay for it.

Maintaining the status quo gets the CNMI nothing politically. It also does nothing beneficial for us on the conservation scale. Rejecting it keeps the status quo. However, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the two agencies presently in charge of protecting our marine resources, have a poor record on the job.

Lawsuits and other reports detail the failures of NMFS to protect marine life in Hawaii waters, in the Atlantic, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Pacific Northwest. Similarly, WESPAC is under investigation for using federal money to lobby state legislatures on behalf of fishing interests. A cursory glance at the recently reported composition of WESPAC’s nominated representatives shows a lopsided weighting of “community voices” on behalf of fishing (commercial, tourist, and gasoline enterprise) interests, with no environmental interests represented.

There is no good reason for the public to have confidence in either of these agencies when it comes to protecting our precious marine environment.

Much of the objection to the Pew Charitable Trust Fund proposal for a national marine monument around our three northernmost islands is an objection to changing from the lax regulation by WESPAC and NMFS to the more environmentally protective NOAA control.

But from a political point of view, all of these agencies are federal.

The frenzy against the “federal” aspect of the monument is a red herring to disguise the preference for federal agencies that regulate in favor of commercial fishing interests, and against those that regulate in favor of environmental protection. The real objection is to conservation and protection of marine habitat and marine life, and a desire to maintain the present system of nearly unlimited taking in the ocean waters around our islands.

Economic

The economic reasons being proposed against the national marine monument are not persuasive, either. The waters at the northern end of the Marianas are accessible only to the larger fishing boats, commercial vessels that are usually foreign. The waters that would be protected constitute roughly one-third of the EEA. While commercial fishing interests might be obstructed somewhat by the national marine monument, two-thirds of our EEZ would still be open to their business.

Meanwhile, our local fishermen are generally not fishing that far north. They would find that the cost of gasoline and time make fishing around Maug, Asuncion, and Uracas unprofitable.

There are also economic reasons to promote conservation and the national marine monument. The natural world is a not an unlimited “bank” for our unlimited access. We cannot tap the world’s resources just because we want to, benefit financially from it, and have the capability to do so. Why not? Because we are not depositors into that natural world “bank.” We’re not putting anything good back into the ocean. And if we keep taking out resources without limits, we create dire consequences for ourselves and our children. Economically, it makes sense to preserve our oceans’ health. “Sustainable fisheries” projects as presently managed aren’t doing that. We need no-take zones, sanctuaries, refuges for our marine life. Otherwise, our oceans will be tapped out, and then it will be our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren who have nothing left.

The national marine monument will also produce income, possibly more than the commercial fishing interests presently operating. We can expect to see a tourist center in Saipan. We could revitalize our tourism industry with promotions of eco-tourism. We could see people from around the world seeking to visit this national marine monument. We can also help improve our CNMI image, so tarnished by the lingering imprint of human trafficking of sex workers and sweatshop labor abuses. Instead, we could share our natural beauty with the world and be known as an ecological haven, a “green” bit of paradise.

I support the creation of national marine monument. We need this. We need it now.