There are three important conservation and management issues facing the Mariana Trench today. I do not mean threats like fishing, plastic pollution, and climate change, but rather issues of governance, politics, and management. They are somewhat separate issues, but you cannot understand one without also knowing the context of the others. Let me explain. But first, some background:
The Mariana Trench Marine National Monument was declared by President George W. Bush in 2009 in the waning days of his administration. I spent the better part of two years advocating for the monument’s creation, and was one of the lucky few invited to witness its signing. Despite some early controversy, at the moment of the signing, the islands’ leaders and citizens were united and elated in their support for protecting the ocean. Former CNMI Governor Benigno Fitial famously gave President George W. Bush a big hug.
Sadly, the good times would not last.
In the hours before the signing, a White House official called into the Harry Blalock radio show on Saipan, along with the former CNMI House Speaker, Senate President, and Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. The official promised listeners three things would come out of the designation of the monument. First, the CNMI would gain control of submerged lands from shore out to three miles for the first time. Second, the monument declaration would give the local government co-management along with the federal government over the entire monument. And finally, he promised the monument would result in a visitors center for the island.
The day after the signing, when we saw the text of the decree for the first time, it was apparent that things were not going to be so easy. It was clear from the start the governance of the monument was deeply flawed and would cause lots of problems. For example, nowhere in the decree is “co-management” mentioned, rather all decisions were to be made “in consultation with” the local government.
The community had been led to believe that the White House was considering a large, highly protected area based measure that would be managed by the Department of Commerce’s NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. This was the proposal put forward by The Friends of the Monument which was outlined in their October 2008 Vision Statement. Instead, Bush created a much smaller monument, mostly unprotected, that would be managed by the Department of Interior’s United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The fish in the monument would continue to be managed by the Department of Commerce’s NOAA Fisheries (in line with the decree language).
It matters which government agency manages an area. I think most people know there is a fundamental difference between a national park, a national wildlife refuge, and a national forest. All have trees within their borders, but the agencies have very different mandates, goals, budgets, and influence within the government. The same is true for the agencies that manage the ocean. These are broad descriptions, but NOAA Fisheries is all about catching fish. USFWS is mainly an enforcement agency, whereas NOAA Sanctuaries has a focus on outreach, education, and interpretation. When considering the needs of the CNMI community, NOAA Sanctuaries is the best fit. Yet they were not included in the management of the monument. A visitors center is also not likely under the current governance.
There are some bright spots, though. The Islands Unit, the 42,000 sq km area around the northernmost islands of Asuncion, Maug, and Uracus, became a highly protected marine protected area. All commercial fishing is banned in the area, with allowances for highly regulated sustenance, recreational, and traditional indigenous fishing. The rest of the monument, however, doesn’t really meet the standards of what the global community considers a marine protected area.
Also, we knew from the start that the submerged lands would have to be granted through the Congress. It took Kilili almost seven years to pass that legislation and get most of it through the Federal Register -- but there is still work to do there.
I've tracked these issues on the pages of this blog for nearly a decade now. My recent blogs Another Year of Mariana Trench Advocacy and Addressing Monumental Frustrations capture more of the detail and I encourage you to read them.
Monument Management Plan
This background leads us to the first conservation and management issue, which is enactment of the monument management plan. The decree stated that a management plan must be in place within two years of the signing. 2011 came and went with little progress. A staffer wasn’t hired until December 2016 – and she was placed on Guam (this would be like hiring someone to work at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in California and placing them in Oregon). Here we are in 2018, nearly 10 years since the declaration, and the management plan is still in draft form and has yet to be released to the public for review. There is still no staff in Saipan. Federal government representatives have told me every year since 2013 that the management plan would be released “next year.” The situation has led to incredible frustration on the islands.
The governance of the monument is partially to blame for the lack of progress. USFWS and NOAA Fisheries are placed in different departments and have very different mandates. This has led to infighting as NOAA Fisheries seeks to exploit the fishery as much as legally possible, while USFWS seeks to fulfill their mission to protect the resources. Also, with no co-management, funding decisions are being made in Hawaii without the input of the local government and people. Almost no money from the annual $3 million budget has made its way to the Marianas. The money all stays in Hawaii, or gets spent on boats based in Hawaii that make their way out to the monument. The ships have made amazing discoveries, but only token attention has been paid to the local community.
Again, this has been very frustrating for people on the islands. Over the last decade we’ve tried to fix the governance issues by changing the management structure by replacing USFWS with NOAA Sanctuaries. We’ve also advocated for co-management. Sadly, we made zero progress during the Obama Administration.
There may be an opportunity to obtain co-management under the Trump Administration. For example, Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke has made strong recommendations for local governments to have more say in how federal public lands and waters are managed.
Today we are no longer trying to replace USFWS, but would really like to see them get the management plan out for public review. The governance issue will continue to be a problem, but at this point, we’re hoping that we can just get something – anything – out of NOAA Fisheries and USFWS despite their lack of progress during the first decade of the monument.
Trump Monument Review
This leads us to the second issue. In April 2017, the Trump Administration announced a review of all large monuments created in the last 20 years, including the four marine monuments in the Pacific. A lot has been written about this review, especially as it pertains to Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. Ike wrote a series of letters about the review that were published in the local Saipan papers. At this point, the review is complete, and no recommendations have been made for changes to the Mariana Trench Monument. There are recommendations for the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, and changes have already been made to Bears Ears. I hope this issue is almost over, but recognize that a threat to one monument is a threat to all monuments. The Trump Administration has set a new precedent wherein a president can overturn monument decisions of previous presidents. Will that stand? The courts will decide. As of this writing, there are no clues as to what happens next or when it will happen, if at all.
National Marine Sanctuary
The Trump review was used as an excuse to hold up progress with the monument management plan (this is just the latest in a decade’s worth of excuses). It is also holding up progress with the third conservation and management issue, the nomination for a Mariana Trench National Marine Sanctuary. Rather than replacing USFWS, our goal today is to overlap the monument with a sanctuary. Creating a sanctuary would fill the conservation gaps under USFWS management, namely education, outreach, and interpretation of the cultural and marine resources of the Mariana Trench. This has worked well in Hawaii, American Samoa, and Florida, and it can work in the Marianas.
The process for creating a sanctuary is prescribed by law and laid out on the NOAA Sanctuaries website. Sparked by a letter from Governor Ralph Deleon Guerrero Torres and Delegate Gregorio Camacho Kilili Sablan, back in December 2016, Ike submitted a nomination, and that nomination was accepted in March 2017. The next step is for the Department of Commerce to begin what is called a sanctuary process. When that happens, NOAA Sanctuaries will hire staff and open an office on Saipan (or Tinian or Rota), and that staffer will be responsible for conducting environmental reviews and proposing options to the community for borders and rules for the potential sanctuary -- that's the government working directly with the community, so that we are clear. Others in the community have spun wild tales about how sanctuaries are made. He knows who he is, and if you are a regular reader of this blog, so do you.
There are politics behind this. The federal government agencies that have failed to do their job the last ten years feel that NOAA Sanctuaries would make them look bad if they swooped in and delivered on all the promises made by the Bush Administration in 2008-2009. But we can’t let past incompetence get in the way of future progress. Creating a sanctuary would fulfill the vision that we had for the monument nearly a decade ago, and I think ultimately this is the most important conservation and management issue to consider. Hopefully the monument will get through the Trump review process unscathed and if we’re lucky, USFWS will put the monument management plan out for review “next year.” The sanctuary process could begin at any time, and I hope that our local leaders see the benefit of protecting the ocean and the benefits provided by the sanctuary program.