We are not alone in our opposition

I thought the people of the CNMI should know that they are not alone in opposing the designation of a national marine monument in their backyard. A similar scenario is being played out in the U.S. mainland where there is growing significant resistance over the proposed “Islands in the Stream” Monument. Interestingly, the specific concerns being expressed by the mainlanders echo those we have expressed here in the Marianas, or vice versa.

According to a National Public Radio broadcast on July 26, 2008, the unofficial short list of proposed marine monuments include the Rose Atoll in American Samoa, U.S. Pacific Remote Islands (central Pacific area), Mariana Trench in the Mariana Islands, the deep sea coral beds along the southeastern U.S. coast, and “Islands in the Stream” located in the Gulf of Mexico. The legal instrument of choice that would be used to designate the national monuments is the Antiquities Act of 1906. This approach is simple and relatively quick—a unilateral action by the President that does not require public review and stakeholder involvement. Should these proposed monuments be pursued in the creation of the President’s “blue legacy,” they could be legally designated within six months.

The approach that would be utilized to designate national marine monuments is more autocratic than democratic. I find it amazing that our island enviro-extremists do not see anything wrong with this approach. Instead, they see it as a golden opportunity to push their personal preservationist agenda without having to address the concerns or needs of the real stakeholders—the fishermen, other resource users and indigenous island communities. Case in point was the recent comment made by Ms. Ruth Tighe in her Letter to the Editor dated July 16, 2008: “It should also be noted that it took Hawaii seven years to overcome political pressures exerted by fishing interests.” This attitude of not giving a tinker’s damn about the opinion of others, even stakeholders, appears to permeate the Pew monument supporters (PMS) and is reinforced time and time again whenever they attack those who do not agree with their ideological views on conservation. But I digress; back to the issue at hand…

The proposed “Islands in the Stream” monument is based on a concept paper developed by the National Ocean Service (a NOAA agency). By the way, this is the same agency that would be given primary management authority over the federal ocean component of any new monuments. The overarching goal of this particular endeavor is to create a network of marine protected areas, MPAs, in the Gulf of Mexico that would be interconnected by the Loop Current (an oceanic current). It is my understanding that the exact boundaries have not yet been finalized, but may include the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, NW Gulf Reefs and Banks, Madison Swanson, Florida Middle Grounds, Steamboat Lumps, Pulley Ridge and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The concept paper also proposes that additional ecologically connected MPAs be established off the coasts of Mexico and Belize, making this the largest and first international MPA network. Unlike the CNMI where we have the Pew Charitable Trusts advocating for their marine monument, the proposed “Islands in the Stream” monument does not have a particular group actively supporting its designation.

The proposed “Islands in the Stream” Monument has already generated opposition from stateside legislators, specifically Sen. David Vitter from Louisiana and Sens. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby from Alabama. As early as October 2007, Sen. Vitter relayed his concerns over the proposed monument in a letter to Chairman Connaughton at CEQ. Sen. Vitter expressed “serious concerns with the President attempting to use this authority [the Antiquities Act of 1906] to adversely affect recreational and commercial fishermen and to prevent energy production from safe, secure domestic sources without the benefit of public participation.”

In November of the following month, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council raised several serious shortcomings in the designation process; a lack of public input and stakeholder involvement. Their letter, sent to the U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary, recommended following the accepted guidelines established by Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas) for the creation of MPAs.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the American Sportfishing Association and Congressional Sportmen’s Foundation wrote to CEQ and articulated these very same concerns and recommended that “any further designations [of MPAs] must be accompanied by a transparent process with robust stakeholder participation.”

Similar concerns were expressed by the Coastal Conservation Association in a letter to the CEQ, dated April 10, 2008. The CCA is a large (90,000 + members) conservation non-profit NGO organization that is comprised of 17 coastal state chapters spanning the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

A follow up letter was sent by Sens. Vitter, Sessions and Shelby on April 21, 2008, to CEQ emphasizing their opposition to the approach being used to designate the “Islands in the Stream” Monument. Due to the short time period before the President leaves office, they believed there was insufficient time to create a “blue legacy” and, at the same time, provide a fair and equitable opportunity “to fully consider the variety of public interests that must be represented…” They suggested “such a significant project should not move forward without the participation and support of the many stakeholders involved.”

As an aside, on April 29, 2008, of the following week, Governor Fitial informed President Bush (via letter) of the CNMI’s opposition to the proposed Pew monument. The Governor was heavily criticized by the PMS group who claimed he acted hastily.

As recent as last month, President Bush received yet another letter (dated June 10, 2008) that was co-signed by numerous NGOs opposing the “Islands in the Stream” monument. They expressed disagreement with the conclusion reached when the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument was being designated, that “recreational fishing was harmful to the environment.” As such, these activist groups were “gravely concerned that future designations will reaffirm this new standard….” An alternative approach suggested in their letter was the adoption of a “designation process that includes a robust, science-based, public comment process that provides for the meaningful participation of recreational anglers, boaters and sportsmen, and recognizes the needs and contributions of these user groups.” Those groups that signed this letter include: American Sportfishing Association; BASS/ESPN Outdoors; Coastal Conservation Association; Congressional Sportmen’s Foundation; International Game Fish Association; National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses; National Marine Manufacturers Association; and The Billfish Foundation.

Some may ask how large conservation activist groups can dare oppose the “Islands in the Stream” monument. The reasons are very simple: a complete lack of public input and stakeholder involvement, and the fact that the Antiquities Act completely ignores the guidelines and procedures established for the creation of MPAs. The CCA letter (April 10, 2008) made an excellent point: “If these areas are environmentally sensitive and warrant protection, there is ample authority under the existing laws to protect them without expanding the sanctuaries program.”

Despite the large geographical differences between the Gulf of Mexico and the Mariana Islands, the joint opposition for the proposed “Islands in the Stream” and Pew monuments are similar: (1) irresponsibly creating very large oceanic “no-take” MPAs without following established guidelines;

(2) the permanent prohibition of commercial and (most likely) recreational fishing;

(3) the permanent prohibition of oil, gas and mineral extraction; and

(4) using a designation process (i.e., Antiquities Act) that has no legal requirements for public input and stakeholder involvement.

To make this scenario more objectionable, the time line for the decision making process is established by artificial political deadlines and not by the need of the affected communities.

As if we were all children, the PMS continue to beleaguer us about all the perceived benefits of their monument proposal, all the time ignoring the fact that the wants and needs of the CNMI cannot possibly fit in with their plans of a “no-take” MPA monument. The Pew lobbyist claimed during the Kagman Community Center public meeting on May 1, 2008, that the CNMI can negotiate anything they want with the federal government; they just need to come to the table. This irresponsible statement is misleading at best. The legal constraints imposed by the Antiquities Act, coupled with the stated goals/objectives of the new management authority (i.e. NOS – National Marine Sanctuaries Program) will simply not allow the CNMI to achieve their goal of utilizing natural resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. The wishes of the CNMI, as I understand them, and what Pew is proposing are incompatible. No matter how much talking we do at the negotiation table with the federal government, it won’t change this fact.