My reason for not supporting the Pew proposal

I have read with distress the letters of support for the Pew monument proposal, and those few letters voicing their concern for this proposal in its current state. Traditionally, our local people are not comfortable articulating their concerns in this arena and format. I have, however, heard many discussions over gatherings where local people have shared concern for the permanent loss of use over our waters, and the seemingly lack of participation in the process early enough to ensure that our values, customs, practices and interests are surely protected. It is for this reason that I find myself writing this letter.

I do not profess to speak on behalf of any other citizen. I merely ask for your consideration for my position. I am not against conservation; however, I am against unchecked and rushed preservation. In the biological field, the definition of conservation vs. preservation is that one supports sustainable or wise use, and the other locks away the venerated resource regardless of what the needs for consumption are. There seems such a willingness to sacrifice our people and people as a whole on the altar of environmentalism.

I have listened to two separate presentations from the Pew organization and the same concern continues to haunt me; we are asked to unilaterally support a set proposal from an off-island non-governmental entity to permanently block access to our resources without any guarantee that our interests will be considered when drafting the final regulations that will govern the monument. I came to this conclusion based on the presentation citing the urgency to voice our support for this proposal while the offer is on the table or lose the opportunity for designation at a later time when it may be more beneficial for the Commonwealth. The sense of urgency stems from the impending departure of President George W. Bush from office. It is the emphasis on this sense of urgency coupled with the lack of any guarantee to deliver on the plethora of proposed benefits to the Commonwealth, which bothers me the most.

During the last presentation I attended at the Kagman Community Center, one community member inquired how long the process took for the NWHI monument, to which Mr. Villagomez responded “seven and a half years.” The state of Hawaii had seven and a half years to go through this process, yet they expect us to make a decision without the benefit of having all the information to make the most educated decision. I do not doubt our mental acumen; I just feel that we should be afforded an opportunity to hear what the federal government is willing to assure the Commonwealth before we render our support. This begs the question, why are we only hearing from Pew?

Simply put, I do not feel that we should be pressured to rush to support this designation without any assurances from the only source that is able to negotiate the terms of designation; the federal government and/or the White House. If this concept is such a worthy endeavor, then it should withstand the test of time and be available at a later date when we all will have ample time to look into the matter and weigh all the options against the consequences. However, if this is not the best thing for the CNMI, then what recourse is available for redress? If this is such a great idea, it will remain a great idea even after President Bush leaves office.

For the sake of brevity, only an act of Congress will reverse the designation once the President has declared the monument so. If you think that I am wrong, I gladly accept correction with examples of monuments that were amended to suit the needs of the community.

Now, on the issue of “co-management,” I would like to suggest that we currently employ this arrangement now. We have benefited from a Cooperative Joint Enforcement Agreement with NOAA Fisheries Law Enforcement branch for many years which also provides funding. We are able to monitor and enforce our local regulations along with federal regulations to protect the interest of the Commonwealth. An example of a recent incident where co-management has proven successful is when a foreign fishing vessel was seized for illegally fishing in our waters, and the Commonwealth received approximately $160,000 for its part in the operation under the Magnuson Stevens Act, and the PIAFA. This was possible only because the CNMI was afforded an opportunity to negotiate terms that provide for our interests over a timetable that was set by us.

If Pew’s proposal is so valuable, why wouldn’t the opportunity for designation at a later date be possible? Why is it necessary for the President of the United States to designate the monument in order for us to be able to advertise the beauty and wonders of our resources surrounding the waters of our sanctuary and our unique destination? If stewardship is our ultimate goal, then we should increase the coverage of the monument locally and justify it through science. This way, it is still possible to weigh the restriction against the needs of the community and adjust the designation when and if necessary. We should pressure our elected leaders to consider humanity first, and continue to elect leaders that understand that people matter most and will not bend to the whim of extremist, or answer to the call for self-aggrandizing bravado.

In closing, I feel that we deserve to have all the information provided to us before we are requested to support this proposal one way or another. However, since we have only been provided carefully selected “possibilities” absent any concrete assurances of intent or agreement, and in light of the short time frame they are proposing, I am unable to give support to this endeavor. If Pew decides that this is no longer worthy if we do not accept their abbreviated timeline, then I would like to suggest that perhaps this is not the organization we want to advocate for us. Legitimate environmental concerns should be addressed by weighing the needs (not wants) of all the stakeholders; however, careful consideration should be given to the proposal as a whole!