We’re talking—PEW isn’t listening

If I’m not mistaken, PEW was involved in developing the proposed NMI Monument without our advice or input in Washington, D.C. over a year ago. PEW came to the CNMI, hired a lobbyist, and then started promoting your monument idea in hopes the people of the Marianas would support your grand plan of establishing—forever and ever—a “no-take” Marine Protected Area (MPA) that covers over 115,000 square miles of water within the CNMI’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We have been told repeatedly that the proposed PEW Monument would be based on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument (NWHI Monument) model and that we need to act soon before President Bush leaves office.

In my opinion, there are at least three fatal flaws with the PEW Monument idea. They are:

1. The complete and permanent prohibition of all commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing activities within 1/3 of the CNMI’s EEZ;

2. The complete and permanent prohibition of all oil, gas, and mineral extraction activities within 1/3 of the CNMI’s EEZ; and

3. The complete lack of scientific justification and total disregard of recognized scientific protocol in the design of the “no-take” MPA (i.e., PEW Monument).

Possibly a hundred presentations have been made by the PEW lobbyist and many of us have sat through multiple presentations in an effort to fully understand the issue. Opposition to your monument idea has been expressed at both public meetings and in the local papers on at least two of the abovementioned fatal flaws. Every time these issues are brought up, PEW supporters shine us on or change the subject—generally—to some future unknown federal government budget that the CNMI will probably receive. I have seen no effort by PEW to genuinely discuss the CNMI’s concerns over fishing and other extraction rights within our EEZ. Case in point is when Mr. Jay Nelson (PEW Director – Global Ocean Legacy) was asked by a concerned Chamber of Commerce board member (presentation held on March 26, 2008) whether fishing activities could perhaps be negotiated within monument waters. I heard Mr. Nelson respond that he didn’t think the CNMI would want to allow any fishing in the monument—end of discussion.

Please keep in mind that it was PEW who approached us—the stakeholders in the Marianas—with your monumental travesty. Our governor and a majority of our legislators have made it known officially that they do not agree to the establishment of a very large “no-take” MPA encompassing 115,000 square miles of our EEZ. Letters to the editor show dissention and controversy within the community over this issue. In spite of strong opposition against the monument, PEW wants to continue dialogue to straighten out the so-called misconceptions that people have with their monument idea. It appears to me that PEW is confusing “misconceptions” with our right to disagree with PEW. How can PEW not see that a majority of islanders in the Marianas simply do not support their “no take” MPA and do not believe it’s a good idea?

Opponents to the PEW Monument have expressed our basic concerns over and over, but PEW simply isn’t listening or doesn’t care.