Opening the door to a golden opportunity

I don’t generally carry on tit-for-tat debates in the papers. They’re not often all that enlightening. However, I feel it important that issues be clarified.

John-the-devil-is-in-the-details-Gourley stated, in his recent letter, that the CNMI has control over its surrounding waters (the Exclusive Economic Zone) through its participation in WESPAC, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council. But WESPAC, too, is a federal agency. The CNMI is only of the members. And WESPAC is gaining increasing bad press due to its emphasis on fish extraction, rather than preservation and conservation. It does not seem to have absorbed that if there are no sanctuaries where fish can breed and mature undisturbed, fish stock will eventually be depleted; that if longliners aren’t better controlled, leatherback turtles, among other species, will also disappear. Is this the type control the CNMI wants over its surrounding waters?

The monument approach will allow the CNMI to participate as a co-equal with the federal government in defining the conditions for access to the sanctuary, and assures that the approach will be environmentally-based toward achieving sustainability—a value that reflects the island heritage.

Gourley’s inquiry to the U.S. Coast Guard about additional funds for patrolling the newly-designated Hawaiian monument is ingenious, but not very relevant. In the first place, Hawaii is home port to a huge U.S. Navy base. Surely there will be no dearth of ships in those waters. In the second place, one would not expect new funding in the middle of a fiscal year. In the third place, since the monument will come under the Department of the Interior, administered like a national park, it is conceivable that the funds will not appear in the Coast Guard budget, but in the DoI budget. And with security such an issue in this area, it is doubtful that the comparison between Hawaii and the CNMI in this regard is all that valid to begin with.

Gourley states that the CNMI government wishes to develop sustainable fisheries (yup, that’s an actual quote from Gourley—he used the word “sustainable.”) in the entire CNMI EEZ. I, on the other hand, don’t presume to speak for the government, but neither have I seen that as any kind of priority. Even if it were, where would the funds come from? How can the CNMI, which does not have control over its waters, do anything of the sort? What kind of fishing?

Nor is there any data that I’m aware of to show that the northern seas—assuming that “sustainable” fishing would be done there—have enough fish to sustain any kind of fishing. Moreover, at the end of the day, as they say, a sanctuary will do more to keep surrounding areas stocked with fish, making nearby fishing more feasible, than will non-stop fishing ’til there are no more.

Denying the monument proposal in hopes of revenue from underwater mineral extraction sometime in the unknown future is just plain gambling. There’s absolutely no assurance that it will ever happen, that there’s enough there to make it worthwhile. There’s probably a local equivalent saying, but the one I know goes, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

The CNMI administration and Legislature should open the door to this golden opportunity. Doing so does not commit anyone to anything. It simply says, “I’m interested. I’m willing to help make it happen—yes, on terms I can live with.”