In the confusion over which group to point fingers at concerning who is disseminating the most misinformation, deception and lies, we should not lose sight of the role the Pew Environment Group is playing in this very controversial issue. Pew unilaterally decided (with support from Council on Environmental Quality?) to implement what was to become a hostile campaign in the Marianas to force its’ people into accepting their version of a national marine monument. They are paying for full time campaign employees and is actively orchestrating and funding their alter ego — the Friends of the Monument, or FOMers. Since this is a Pew lead campaign and their purpose from day one was to educate “us,” I would expect some level of professionalism to ensure that accurate and factual information about their monument proposal is distributed.
It is my opinion that most, if not all, of the misinformation flying around the island is either directly or indirectly the fault of the Pew Environment Group. The basis for my opinion lies with Pew’s miserable failure in “educating” the masses and their arrogance in working with people who have a different opinion than theirs. From day one, Pew has been insensitive to the numerous concerns raised by local islanders. From day one, Pew has made absolutely no attempt to incorporate any islanders concerns into their proposal. And from day one, Pew has not deviated one inch from their 0 to 200-mile no-take monument proposal which utilizes the Antiquities Act. Based on my observations, I truly believe that Pew has no idea how to work WITH Pacific island communities, or how to properly develop marine protected areas in a fair and equitable manner where communities actually have a voice in determining the design and management approach. The Pew Environment Group is not unlike a selfish school yard bully — with a lot of money.
In contrast to the well oiled (i.e., funded by Big Oil) and experienced Pew campaign machine, those that oppose the monument are not organized, have full time jobs elsewhere, and must rely on hard earned donated funds out of the pockets of concerned islanders.
Back to misinformation, deception and lies. Recently, Mr. Bogdan claims that a national monument would not “be taking any rights away from the people of the CNMI.” (letter to the editor, 23 September 2008 titled ‘Law of the Sea’). This same message is echoed by Mr. Blalock with this claim: “And we wouldn’t have to give up any mining rights, fishing rights or rights to the water either, we don’t have any!” (“Food for Thought”; 12 September 2008).
How many times does this issue need to be explained? Federal ownership of the waters surrounding Uracas, Maug and Asuncion is not the problem. The concern lies with the change of resource management authority from that of a sustainable resource use approach, (i.e., WesPac and National Marine Fisheries Service) to that of a preservationist approach being advocated by Pew (i.e., Antiquities Act in concert with the National Marine Sanctuaries Program).
Presently, the people of the CNMI have the RIGHT or PRIVILEGE (or whatever other word you wish to use) to commercially and recreationally fish throughout the entire CNMI EEZ as long as the activity complies with federal and local fishery laws. Even though these waters are federally owned from 0 to 200 miles, the Magnuson-Stevens Act guarantees the people of the CNMI the CHOICE whether to fish or not to fish. Through the various Advisory Panels and public outreach groups organized by WesPac, the people of the CNMI presently play an important and active role in co-managing fisheries within CNMI federal waters (the EEZ). Case in point is the recent recommendation by the WesPac Council for implementing a purse seine closure area in the Marianas EEZ. This proposed fishery management measure will go to NMFS for final action (accept as is, modify, or reject). This is fact.
If Pew’s proposal is accepted and the national monument is designated, our CHOICE to commercially and recreationally (likely) fish within monument waters will be PERMANENTLY TAKEN AWAY by a combination of prohibitions normally included with actions associated with the Antiquities Act and transfer of management authority to the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The Magnuson-Stevens Act will no longer be the primary resource management authority and the CNMI will lose the RIGHT to use those natural resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. This is fact.
A similar situation exists for the CNMI’s RIGHT or PRIVILEGE to promote and support the exploration options for oil, gas, and mineral extraction within the CNMI EEZ through the (DOI) Minerals Management Service (when and if CNMI submerged lands come under their jurisdiction). This is fact. Because this issue has been previously discussed, I won’t go any further and bore you with the details.
With all due respect to Mr. Bogdan and Mr. Blalock’s opinion, their claim that the people of the CNMI will not lose any rights should the Pew national monument proposal be designated has absolutely no basis of fact. Is this an example of misinformation, deception or lies?
Do you remember the recent article dated 20 September 2008 and titled “2 ConCon members back monument plan”? The article was based on two letters written by Mr. Karl Reyes and Dr. Jack Tenorio. While Mr. Reyes letter was published on 19 September 2008 and also posted on the FOM Web site (http://marianamonument.blogspot.com/2008/09/uncle-karls-letter.html), the FOMers were very quiet about Dr. Tenorio’s letter. The reason Dr. Tenorio’s letter was not publicized is because he doesn’t support the Pew monument proposal! To be fair, he didn’t oppose it either. He was simply requesting that the Legislature refrain from passing a resolution in opposition to the Pew monument proposal. He states: “While I am not familiar enough with the costs and benefits of such a proposal to support it.” Would this newspaper article be an example of misinformation, deception or lies?
On the other hand, Mr. Reyes’ letter discussed his experience in being a member of the 2nd ConCon during1985 and discussed the reasons why the islands of Uracas and Asuncion were designated as wildlife conservation areas. My understanding of Mr. Reyes’ letter is that the intention was “to protect all the resources in the far north.” However, they were not able to due to the Federal Government having “jurisdiction from the high water mark out to 200 nautical miles.” My layman’s view of this issue is that members of the 2nd ConCon had several legal options available to them that would enable them to covert the oceanic waters/resources surrounding Uracus and Asuncion to conservation areas; the Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980 and Submerged Lands Act of 1979. Keep in mind that these two Acts were not declared invalid by the Federal courts until 2005, some 20 yeas after the 2nd ConCon. For reasons unknown to me, they chose not to exercise their authority.
While conservation ethics are certainly a traditional value of Marianas culture, so is the responsible and sustainable use of our natural resources. For example, one of the stated purposes in the Marine Sovereignty Act is “to ensure the continued availability of such (marine) resources for future generations by establishing jurisdiction over such resources.” “Availability” is the key word here — it doesn’t mean to lock-up the marine resources and throw away the key and it doesn’t mean to give ultimate resource management authority to the Federal government. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind why the 2nd ConCon didn’t convert the waters surrounding the northern-most islands into a conservation area.
Despite Pew’s rhetoric, the position taken by those opposing the monument is far more in line with the original intent of the conservation objective included in the CNMI Constitution then what is being proposed by the Pew Environment Group. The Pew proposal permanently diminishes local management control and use of marine resources — the complete opposite of those principles that were embodied in the now invalid CNMI Submerged Lands Act and Marine Sovereignty Act. Never in their wildest dreams would the authors of the CNMI Constitution believe there might be a day when the people of the CNMI would not be able to sustainably use the fishery, oil, gas and mineral resources within a significant portion of their EEZ due to a unilateral federal action that ignores the Covenant agreement. Additionally, I just can’t believe they would sit still about having to request written permission from the federal government to enter their ancestral waters surrounding the conservation islands! It’s one thing for the CNMI Constitution to designate our northern islands as conversation areas under the local management authority of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. However, it’s quite another to have the federal government unilaterally take away our CHOICE to fish and explore oil, gas and mineral extraction opportunities over 115,000 square miles of EEZ simply for the political gain of an outgoing president. This is political environmentalism at its worst!
Pew’s recent campaign tactic of trying to discredit those opposing their monument proposal as disseminating misinformation, deception and lies is a sure sign of a desperate and decaying crusade that has absolutely nothing to loose. When will the school yard bully acknowledge that the CNMI does not want THEIR national marine monument proposal and stop their campaign of half truths and dare I say — lies? No matter how one looks at it, creation of a national marine monument via the Antiquities Act and the adoption of Pew’s “no-take” management scheme for 115,000 square miles of our EEZ is an insult to Marianas island culture and to all future generations of indigenous Pacific islanders. The people of the CNMI should be proud in standing up and rejecting the monument proposal being advocated by the Pew Environment Group.
JOHN GOURLEY
Navy Hill, Saipan
