Pagan, politics, people and prosperity

It seems that Pagan has become a hot and polarized issue just like the Sugar Dock development issue. Both of these issues are very similar and centered on the same factors of environmental impact and the investors themselves. Hopefully, we learned from the Sugar Dock issue because we are faced with the same dilemma. The question is how does the Pagan issue avoid the politics that stopped the Sugar Dock issue and how to help the people and the investors find prosperity? Anytime the people force the government to take notice or action, politics will come into play. But I’m writing this because I care about the people of the CNMI and the investors. I’m also hoping this letter will be received as an objective suggestion to help with finding the common ground to go forward in the best interest of everyone in the CNMI and the investors.

I recently attended Rota High School’s graduation and the theme was “carpe diem”—meaning to seize the moment. This simple slogan will forever be a lasting memory of the ceremony because investors with this kind of potential just don’t show up at our door every day, or decade in the case of the CNMI. Carpe diem should be our motivator with good faith collaboration and transparency as our allies.

Pagan is an island that processes a natural resource and the simple question is what do we do to develop an industry driven by the resource? I think it has been established that no one is against the mining and the concerns are for the impact of the mining and the value of the pozzolan. The Pagan mining is an “experiment” for the investors and for the people of the CNMI to determine the feasibility. It would not be prudent for the CNMI to use its money and it could all be for nothing (we should use the money generated by the mining to conduct the study). It wouldn’t be fair to force the investor to pay either for an impact study for the CNMI when the environmental impact could be studied in real time during the two-year experimental period. With no established markets or uses for the pozzolan, any feasibility on the value of the pozzolan would be purely speculative at this point in time. The CNMI should be conducting its own environmental impact study through DEQ with an assessment on the value of the pozzolan during the two-year gestation period that has been proposed. The CNMI should be focusing on developing sound information to base an agreement on for the 50-years or more at least.

No one has mined this stuff in half a century, so any mining company will be doing something relatively new but with a technological edge. The quality of the mining company is purely an investor’s problem and not the CNMI’s. We should not try to tell investors whom to hire for the mining because every company was a new company at one time or another. We must respect and give investors the benefit of the doubt. No doubt the investors have hired a firm that can deliver. I’m sure the average person wouldn’t invest millions on a company that might not have the potential to deliver.

The politics of the CNMI are not driven by democracy like we see on the mainland where the polls and percentages dictate political actions and responses. The stronger concept of “consensus” prevails in the CNMI. This phenomenon is a result of the cultural expectations of the local people to form a consensus before proceeding with big changes in the society. This is a phenomenon I learned about the hard way through trial and error. Politics and the people literally chased the Sugar Dock investors away and we still don’t have a definitive plan that I know of to preserve or improve the dock, Now we have to deal with the tragic ramifications of Sugar Dock remaining unchanged.

My fears are we may be repeating the same steps with the Pagan issue and we could be writing our own economic epitaph should we lose these investors. Investment bankers are highly connected in our global economy of today and it won’t take much for the word to get around about investing in the CNMI. We could easily be chasing a lot of investors away by refusing the mining permit. Even though a large part of the problem can be contributed to the investors or their representatives in both cases for not developing a consensus or approval among the local people before proceeding, we must not hold this against the investor to the point we destroy a potential economic benefit because it is just business to the investor, nothing personal.

The people of the CNMI have wanted prosperity that is equal to the quality of life in the mainland for more than two decades now. However, the people must decide how badly they want or need to make a trade off to improve the quality of life for people in the CNMI. We have a saying in the old neighborhood, “You have to pay if you want to play” and that is the case with Pagan. The people should also consider the words of the Governor when he took office; he advised us that we might have to “take some risks” which is what we are faced with now. Risk is a big part of improvements in our society and if we aren’t prepared to take any risk, then maybe we aren’t ready for prosperity and we know that that is not true. If astronauts can risk their lives, certainly we can risk a little mining. But if we aren’t going to take any risk, then I suggest we all get ready for a never-ending ride on the Austerity Train with no money.

The people should also consider the positive side affects of the mining operation. The shipping of pozzolan will be a large part leading to more jobs at the port, the people from Pagan will get additional infrastructure development for free regardless of the outcome, local men can earn good money working for the mining company and the list goes on and on. The people should not be fearful of a two-year mining experiment totally destroying Pagan’s environment—it just won’t happen, especially when its obvious there will be many people focusing on how the environment is being affected. The volcano didn’t destroy Pagan and a two-year mining operation can’t destroy Pagan. In fact, we need to hope the volcano doesn’t destroy Pagan before we can at least earn some revenues. This is an experiment the people of Pagan need to buy into for everyone’s sake.

Prosperity is the prize or the ultimate goal of our society that has been sought after since the very conception of the Commonwealth. To achieve a higher quality of life we must do a better job of finding investors and be better prepared to handle potential investors. When investors are planning to impact the use of land or the ocean, they need to be educated about the CNMI because the people have an unconditional attachment to the land and ocean that was proven in the Article 12 arguments, “this is My island.”

Even though it was failed attempt, Mayor Benjamin Manglona set a fine example that we should follow on how to treat potential investors when they come to the CNMI. Other than our search for investors, the Pagan issue serves as another example that justifies the need for an economic task force or commission. Outside investors are very much at the mercy of their contact person or representative in the CNMI and depending on who that person is will have a dynamic affect on the final outcome. I would even dare guess there are some people that have made some nice money as a go-between for investors to establish a consensus for projects or investments in the CNMI.

However, with an established economic task force or commission an investor could go to one government entity for education about the CNMI, and approval as a viable investor and support and help with all government requirements along with presenting the issue to the people for acceptance if necessary. The group should be composed of agents from government agencies such as MPLA, DCCA, DEQ, DLNR and others.

It should be obvious that we don’t have a structured plan to find or handle investors when they show up. We are still operating very much on the old principle of “who you know” in the CNMI that is limiting our ability to find investors and limiting the investor to a dependency on one person.

The prosperity that we are seeking in the CNMI will require a monumental effort and we must develop a planned and structured methodology to accomplish such a task through a task force or commission. We can no longer afford to take the risk of leaving potential investors solely at the mercy of their representative to connect all the dots for a successful investment as proven with Sugar Dock and now with Pagan. It’s obvious these representatives of investors can’t get it done alone and this is not meant to be a negative reflection on the representatives of investors because the problems are beyond their control. But there are potential billions riding on these kinds of investments and the economic future of the CNMI and we must be more cognizant about guarding the relationship between the CNMI and investors. Prosperity will always go unachievable for anyone in the CNMI if we continue to stop every investor before a dime is made. We can easily correct any profit discrepancies in the Pagan issue because we have two years to earn some revenues and to study the profits and impact under real conditions that will provide us a true and accurate assessment to make a sound decision about Pagan. One people, one direction.

Ambrose M. Bennett
Kagman High Teacher Rep