1. It is economically advantageous for the CNMI;
2. It will help preserve the fish and other marine animals for our future generations;
3. It will bring in over $3 million to the CNMI;
4. It will help in the restoration of the world’s environment;
5. It will employ many CNMI residents; and
6. The CNMI Constitution has already identified Asuncion, Maug, and Uracas as marine protected areas.
I would like to separately comment on each of the above points.
1. I have read the “economic benefits” study done by a University of Guam professor several times and unfortunately, Mr. Professor did not present any economic indicator to substantiate his economic presentation. His economic presentation is all based on “Maybe” or “Probably” and therefore my friends it is a plan without substance. Please, do not be fooled by his economic plan because it will definitely not provide economic advantages to the CNMI and its people.
I was the Public School System trip officer to the Northern Islands from 1984 to 1990. It took the ship seven to eight days trip to the three northernmost islands — a total of 14 to 16 days to and from. How many tourists can afford to pay thousands of dollars to see the ocean at the Marine Monument? There is nothing to see except virgin lands that you cannot get onto, unless the tourists are willing to ride the waves and jump and cling onto the cliff line to get on land.
If Mr. Professor is alluding to tourism as the economic factor to benefit the CNMI, again he is wrong. Tourism is driven by the number of airlines coming to the CNMI. An airline is driven by the cost of fuel. The proposed Marine Monument will not reduce oil prices. Therefore, the number of tourists coming to the CNMI will not increase. The friends of the monument are being fooled by Mr. Professor’s “economic benefits study.” FORTUNATELY, WE ARE NOT!
The friends of the monument have been comparing the Papahanaumokaukea Marine Monument in Hawaii to the proposed Marine Monument in the CNMI. This comparison is fallacious. How can you compare Hawaii which gets over four million tourists every year to the CNMI with less than 400,000 tourists every year? This comparison is outrageous. I am not a businessman, but my goodness, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. It will not work.
2. Perhaps it makes sense to think about the conservation and preservation of our resources. The question is, Isn’t the present one-fourth MPA’s in the CNMI not enough conservation area? The CNMI, by law, has Managaha, Forbidden Island, Bird Island, Asuncion, Maug, Uracus and Pisto as Marine Protected Areas. What do you want from us? Take everything that we have? Enough is enough!
If the fish spillover in all these designated Marine Protected Areas within the CNMI is not enough to give the future generations an opportunity to see the fish, then I don’t know what will.
3. Are we going to compromise the future well-being of the people of the CNMI for $3 million? I think not! No amount of dollars can replace our subsistence living. The questions to ask are, Is the CNMI going to get $3 million every year? Is the $3 million going to be used to buy a ship for tourists? Or is the $3 million for the jobs of the “friends of the monument” and their families?
Uracas, Maug and Asuncion are already marine protected area. Here is the difference between this MPA designation and the Marianas Marine Monument designation.
The CNMI Constitution’s MPA designation was approved by the people. The people can always amend their Constitution in the future to address their needs. But the designation under the proposed Marianas Marine Monument will be for the rest of the lives of the people of the CNMI. The economic opportunity of the CNMI’s future generations will be forever lost.
4. Again, I certainly agree that we must all take part in the restoration of the world’s natural environment. But Pew is responsible for the world’s environmental dilapidation. They should pay the price but not at the expense of the people of the CNMI. I might sound selfish, but it is the truth that the people of the CNMI is never a beneficiary of the billions of dollars Pew have made in destroying the world’s natural environment. Why should we pay for it now?
The people of the CNMI have only two things that are handed down by their ancestors — land and the water. The history of the NMI will show that its people have lived on the land by farming and in the water by fishing. Many would argue that it is not the case anymore. Wrong! We still farm our land and we fish our ocean for our daily subsistence. More so now especially with the bad condition of our economy that perhaps will continue until we see better times.
We the islanders of the CNMI have only one thing left that was handed down by our ancestors and that is LAND. The federal government, through the NMI Covenant negotiators, has taken away our water by the mandate of the Covenant. This was affirmed by the federal courts’ decision on the submerged land case. Blame the short-sighted Covenant negotiators! That should give the people of the CNMI more reasons to protect the taking of Asuncion, Maug and Uracus.
5. The Papahanaumokaukea Marine Monument in Hawaii employs only seven people out of the state’s 1,211,537 million population. This is not even 1 percent of the population. How can you convince the people of the CNMI that the Marianas Marine Monument will employ more people than Hawaii’s?
6. The people of the CNMI want the northernmost islands protected for their future needs. We should keep these islands protected for the future of our children. We should give them the opportunity to make decisions in the future whereby they can amend the Constitution to fit their future economic needs.
Once again, I strongly feel that the islands in the CNMI belong to the Carolinians and Chamorros. We should be speaking as to how best we will dispose of our islands. Those who are not of NMI descent must refrain from talking as to how best they think they can dispose of our indigenous islands.
The friends of the monument have put out a list of individuals who support the Marianas Marine Monument. Here are some of the things that I find problematic about their list:
1. The names of individuals are printed five or six times;
2. The names of individuals who are not of sound mind are listed; and the
3. Names of students who are in the special education program are also listed.
Is this how desperate the proponents of the monument are? They would enlist individuals who don’t fully understand what they are signing? Did they think that people would not review their list? How shameful.
The parents of those special kids whose names were listed without their authorization should take immediate action.
If you are not an islander, then you will never understand how islanders live. You can pretend to know, but you will never know unless you are an islander! Hope to hear from you!
JUAN I. TENORIO
As Matuis, Saipan
