Tension high at marine monument forum

In a tense public forum Wednesday, environmentalists backing a controversial proposal to establish a national marine monument in a vast swath of ocean encompassing the CNMI’s northern waters squared-off with opponents of the plan, represented by two local government officials.

Before the forum even began, the two sides found themselves debating the results of the coin toss that was supposed to decide which of them would present their case first.

Later, one presenter for the monument’s opponents, Coastal Resources Management Director John Joyner, apparently tried to jumpstart the forum early, speaking to the crowd several minutes before the forum began from his table rather than the podium, to be politely cut off by Saipan Chamber of Commerce president James Arenovski.

The proposed monument has proven highly controversial in the CNMI with environmentalists contending the 115,000 square miles of ocean it would protect are a “biodiversity hotspot” that is increasingly under threat and opponents saying the plan would unnecessarily intrude on the CNMI’s autonomy and bar any future fishing or mining in the area.

President Bush in a memo issued last month called on federal agencies to conduct an assessment of the waters at issue—those surrounding the islands of Maug, Uracus and Asuncion—to determine whether they are a suitable site for a monument. The assessment process could take up to two months.

During the forum, hosted by the Chamber and held at Saipan Grand Hotel, Angelo Villagomez, coordinator for the Pew Charitable Trust—the organization that has championed the creation of the monument—said the proposal could bolster the CNMI’s economy, increase tourism and safeguard a unique region of the Pacific that is home to rare life and geology. Villagomez gave the Pew Trust’s presentation first.

“The number one reason for doing this is environmental conservation,” he said. “Anyone who has been out on the lagoon knows there are fewer fish there and they are smaller. And this true not just in Saipan’s lagoon.”

The timing of the proposal, he added, is critical with Bush now seeking to cement his so-called “Blue Legacy” of ocean conservation before the end of his term. The CNMI is competing with two other sites where Bush may establish a monument.

“There’s a limited timeframe for this,” said Villagomez. “When President Bush leaves office, we no longer have a president we know who is interested in ocean conservation.”

Pointing to a host of news articles written about the monument proposal recently, Villagomez added the plan could draw significant and positive media attention to the CNMI.

Opponents of the monument presented their case later, represented by Joyner and CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife director Sylvan Igisomar, who said the plan is unnecessary given the tight local protections that are already in place to protect the waters in question.

“The bottom line is that there are protections now,” Igisomar said, pointing to federal statutes designed to safeguard the local marine environment. “They already exist.”

Establishing a monument, he added, will take away the rights of local people to decide how to regulate the CNMI’s ocean resources.

“It is like for to me to ask you guys to sign over the deed to your house, to your property without us first agreeing on a price,” said Igisomar.

Joyner added the proposal raises serious questions about the federal government’s power to seize property and said it has more to do with boosting Bush’s presidential image in the twilight of his final term than protecting the environment.

“It’s for self-aggrandizement,” he said. “It is for the emergency of a lame duck president that is leaving. We are managing these waters correctly and properly. We have been good stewards.”

In an editorial published the same day, the New York Times endorsed Bush’s plans to establish a new marine monument and blasted one of its key opponents, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, or Wespac.

“President Bush may be on the brink of doing something stunningly at odds with his record as one of the worst environmental stewards ever to inhabit the White House,” the Times writes. “All we can say is: Go for it, Mr. President.”

On Wespac, the Times said the council “is notorious among environmental groups as a chronic enabler of reckless commercial fishing.”