Guam Agriculture opposes NOAA's listing giant clams as endangered

Imagine for a minute that CHamorus could no longer wear a sinahi or other jewelry made from the giant clam across borders without risking confiscation. According to the Guam Department of Agriculture, that is just one of the impacts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposal to list 10 species of giant clams as endangered would bring.

On Saturday, Guam Department of Agriculture Director Chelsa Muna and her team opened the floor for community input in the village of Inalåhan as the government agency took a strong position against NOAA's proposed action and sought the community's support.

"Our agency is absolutely against its proposed listing. We do not want it. We do not believe it's being done properly," Muna said to community members, further noting, "(What) we need is for you to submit a public comment that gets registered in the Federal Register about this proposed listing and to encourage your family and friends. ... We need for them to hear how loud we yell. How mad we are. How much this is wrong. We need them to hear our voices and try and make them change how this is going to turn out."

According to NOAA, the petition was received in 2016 to list 10 species of giant clam as threatened or endangered. Seven of the 10 species are under review. Based on the status review of those seven species, NOAA proposed five more species of giant clam to add to the list as endangered. They are Hippopus porcellanus, Tridacna derasa, T. gigas, T. mbalavuana and T. Squamosina. NOAA also wants to list H. Hippus as threatened.

But, according to Muna, one is an ancient fossil and the other species, although imported from Palau to Guam to cultivate, never "took."

"So, of the five species, none of them are here. And listing them as endangered would restrict our ability to continue our aquaculture work, which we do for ecosystem restoration, but also economic development. It would restrict people from wearing their jewelry across borders. Like you couldn't travel to the States wearing a sinahi, or your nana couldn't travel wearing her earrings or necklace made from that because it would be confiscated. So (it) dramatically and significantly impacts our community," Muna told The Guam Daily Post.

She said the proposal would have cultural and religious implications similar to what was seen when the sea turtle was listed as endangered and jewelry made from the shell illegal.

"Think of the wearing (of) turtle shell jewelry, ... it's just so intertwined and ingrained into who we are as a people and our culture. ... You can even consider this a religious practice for many, and that, for me, that becomes an infringement of our civil rights and our religious rights because you're being told you cannot wear something that connects you to your ancestors, something that ties you to your land and your culture because it's endangered somewhere else," she said.

Ronald Laguana from Dededo had a vested interest in the issue, describing himself as a "sustainable fisherman and bona fide farmer."

"I'm an advocate for CHamoru language and culture. I'm also a perpetuator of the language and also an activist. I practice my culture through how I survive as a fisherman, also for sustainable purposes. ... The clam is a very important component in our food source," Laguana said.

Laguana said he believes the NOAA proposal would hinder the ability to connect with the native CHamoru culture.

"The clam is also of significant importance for our people. As with regards to today, with ornamental purposes, traditional purposes that they use them as ornamental jewelry and stuff like that. And many of (our) people are utilizing them as a means of identity. For example, the sinahi comes from the clamshell Tridacna, and those were the materials used to carve these things," Laguana said.

Laguana stressed that sinahi were worn by chiefs, and they have been found at ancient CHamoru burial sites.

"It's so important, and it also signifies the blue moon, in which the first five days of those moons is the best time for hunting and fishing. Those are the significance and importance of the sinahi, and that ... it indicates the best times to hunt and fish (on) both land and sea. It also, if you look at the 15 Mariana island chains, the formation of those 15, the sinahi archipelago is what it's called," he said.

While Agriculture and Laguana stood firm in their opposition, other community members wanted to learn more about what NOAA's proposal would entail.

"I'm here to learn more about this idea of listing the giant clam as an endangered species. I want to hear it for myself, exactly what they're saying and what they plan to do. ... But just from my experience with other endangered species listed, it has positive effects and negative effects," Inalåhan resident Benny Paulino San Nicolas told the Post.

San Nicolas was specifically interested in how the ban would impact his community, as Agriculture had proposed to cultivate a giant clam farm at Inalåhan Pools, which he noted has a positive effect on education and food security.

"With the endangered species listing, it also has a positive impact. So, what I want to make sure that we balance that and make some kind of recommendation how we can make it a win-win situation for everything," he said.

He stressed that one way to help keep giant clams off the endangered list is to cultivate them on the island.

Muna, meanwhile, said listing giant clams as endangered would "restrict aquaculture for ecosystem restoration and economic growth."

The event Saturday was the second community outreach event Agriculture conducted on the issue. According to Muna, the first event, held Friday at the Sinajana Community Center, had nearly 60 people show up, many of whom opposed the NOAA proposal.

"Every single person talked about how it connected them to their culture, or how, for some, it helped define them within their culture because they lived off island and didn't know they didn't have that connection to their roots. But when they started wearing a sinahi, then everyone who sees them understands where they're from. And they were able to find people that they connect with or that it's a tradition passed on through generations, and it's a familial tradition. So it was really powerful last night," she said.

The department intends to submit its opposition to NOAA, Muna said, and believes that doing so could change the outcome.

"I think we have a very strong chance. Because when they tried to designate critical habitat for our coral, we fought back. And we fought back, not just as an island, but also as a region with Guam, Saipan (and) American Samoa. We got them to pull back their initial proposed rule and rewrite it because they needed better data. And that's the same for this situation. And they need to step back (and) just really strongly consider the impact it's going to have on our community. It's violating people's religious freedoms. It's limiting our economic development and economic growth as an island and for our entire economy. And their science is wrong. That's that. Those are three very valid reasons why they should not proceed with this at all," Muna said.