Native Nations: Cannabis framework is a path to control, safety and growth

GREAT BAY--Representatives of Native Nations Cannabis SXM appeared before Parliament’s Permanent Committee of Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry, CAFAH, on Thursday to continue their presentation on the proposed legalization and regulation of cannabis in St. Maarten, telling Members of Parliament that the framework now being developed is intended to move cannabis activity out of the illegal economy and into a controlled, taxable and closely supervised system.

The reconvened meeting, which resumed an adjourned March 13 session, focused heavily on the role of Native Nations in the process, the origin of its concession, projected economic benefits, public health safeguards, banking access for license holders, and whether local farmers would genuinely be empowered under the model or placed at its margins. Representatives of Native Nations said their role is that of project lead within a broader inter-ministerial process, and stressed that the underlying policy direction and procurement decisions were made by Government, not by the company itself.

In opening remarks, Native Nations said the session was meant to address what it described as an informational gap left from the earlier meeting, where it believed Parliament had been presented with a technical proposal without enough context regarding how the process began, who requested the work, and how the company became involved. According to the documentation submitted, the effort stems from a government objective to regulate cannabis for medicinal, scientific, religious and recreational purposes, an objective which was included in the Governing Program 2020-2024. Cannabis was also identified as one of six tourism-export goals in the country’s economic recovery plan.

Native Nations told the committee that the process originated with a government-issued request for proposals in September 2022, following advice from the Legal Affairs Department. That RFP, the company said, asked for a full path to legalization, including socio-economic research, a comparative legislative review, draft legislation in English and Dutch, a regulatory framework, stakeholder consultations, and an implementation plan. The company further argued that the controversial issue of an ongoing concession was not introduced after the bid was awarded, but was already contemplated in the RFP itself, which explicitly invited bidders to indicate whether they wished to remain involved in the industry after implementation, including through a concession request and proposed investment.

From Native Nations’ account, its current contractual position is therefore the product of a formal procurement process rather than a later political arrangement. The company said the agreement grants it the right, subject to local law, to own and operate facilities for cultivation, processing, testing and supply of cannabis in St. Maarten for a ten-year period, while also holding an exclusive right during the preparatory phase to import cannabis for distribution purposes. Native Nations maintained that this structure reflected exactly what Government sought through the tender process: not only a consultant to draft laws, but a partner that could help establish and remain involved in the industry.

At the same time, Native Nations emphasized that it does not speak on behalf of Government on questions of political accountability or policy choice. It said all decisions regarding the award of the bid, the terms of the assignment, and the direction of the project remain the responsibility of Government, while Parliament retains its role in reviewing any eventual legislative package.

A major area of debate centered on the economic assumptions behind the proposal. In response to questions raised by MPs, Native Nations said projected revenues are driven not only by local consumption but by St. Maarten’s visitor economy. During the meeting, the company clarified that a frequently cited 28 percent figure refers to the estimated share of tourists expected to participate in cannabis consumption, not the share of total revenue derived from tourism. Representatives argued that St. Maarten’s relatively small resident population does not make the model unrealistic because the island’s economy is shaped by a much larger rotating visitor base, including both stay-over and cruise tourism.

Native Nations summarized its position by stating that projected revenues are based on a combination of local demand and tourism activity, and that regulation would not create new demand but instead capture activity already taking place in the illegal market and redirect it into a safer and taxable structure. The industry is described as  potentially significant economic opportunity for St. Maarten, rooted in tourism inflows, the island’s role as a regional hub, and the transition of existing informal activity into the formal economy.

Still, the committee’s discussion showed that Members of Parliament remain far from fully persuaded. MPs repeatedly pressed Native Nations to explain how its projections were calculated, what assumptions were being used, and how St. Maarten could realistically succeed in an industry where other jurisdictions have already encountered overproduction, price compression, banking obstacles and export barriers. Native Nations responded that it had studied the failures and weaknesses seen in places such as Canada, the Netherlands, Colorado, California, New York, Antigua, St. Kitts, Jamaica and Uruguay, and argued that St. Maarten now has the benefit of designing its framework after those lessons have become clear.

According to the company, the island is not being positioned as a mass-production jurisdiction. Instead, it described St. Maarten as a potential boutique, premium market whose advantage would lie in quality, tourism integration and controlled growth rather than scale. Native Nations also told MPs that export is not the foundation of the business model, but rather a possible upside if international compliance standards can be met. The central claim made to Parliament was that the proposal could remain viable based on local and visitor consumption alone.

Another critical issue was whether local farmers would truly benefit. Native Nations says the framework prioritizes local farmer inclusion, licensing access, agricultural participation and farmer empowerment, describing local stakeholders as core beneficiaries of the proposed system. During Thursday’s meeting, however, MPs sought more direct answers about what that participation would actually look like in practice.

Native Nations acknowledged that its earlier presentation had not fully explained the cultivation model. On Thursday, representatives said the proposal includes both outdoor and indoor cultivation opportunities, and that some local growers would be allowed to participate in each category. The outdoor segment was presented as more entrepreneurial in nature, aimed especially at farmers who already produce food and who could rotate cannabis cultivation with food production. Those farmers, the company said, would operate as entrepreneurs and receive training, while benefiting from crop rotation and additional income opportunities.

By contrast, the indoor segment was described as a job-creation arm of the model, with Native Nations indicating that growers in that structure would work as employees within a managed indoor cultivation environment rather than as independent home-based producers. MPs pushed hard for clarity on whether indoor cultivation from home would be permitted. Native Nations gave a direct answer: no. Representatives said there would be no commercial home-growing under the proposed framework, though limited personal cultivation for private use could be allowed up to a prescribed cap. Commercial cultivation, they said, would be centralized in controlled locations to ensure supervision, quality standards, monitoring and traceability.

That distinction appeared important to MPs, especially those concerned that a legalization model sold as an opportunity for local economic empowerment could end up concentrating the most lucrative or technologically advanced aspects of the industry elsewhere. Questions from MPs suggested continuing concern over whether local growers would be genuine business participants or mainly employees within a system designed and controlled by Native Nations.

Public health concerns formed another major part of the session. Native Nations and its medical expert, Dr. Joseph Rosado, argued that legalization should not be viewed as a relaxation of standards, but as the means by which standards can finally be imposed. The company’s media brief says the framework includes safeguards, oversight, licensing and health protections, and specifically states that revenue allocation would support mental health services and substance abuse programs. It also argues that public health institutions are meant to be integrated into the model and that regulation would reduce risk compared with the illegal market by introducing testing, labeling and structured oversight.

During the meeting, Dr. Rosado responded to concerns about schizophrenia and psychosis, particularly those raised from personal experience by MP Ardwell Irion. He argued that psychosis risk is real but concentrated in individuals with genetic vulnerability, and that cannabis has not been established as a primary causal driver of schizophrenia in otherwise healthy individuals. Whether Members accept that interpretation or not, Native Nations used the point to make a broader policy argument: that vulnerable individuals already exist in St. Maarten and are already accessing unregulated products, often with high potency and no clinical guidance. Regulation, the company said, would allow Government to impose potency labeling, screening protocols, age controls and clearer public health interventions that do not exist under prohibition.

The banking issue also drew substantial attention, especially in light of international compliance concerns that have complicated cannabis industries elsewhere. Native Nations told Parliament that it had consulted with the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten and built the proposed model around what it described as bankable conditions: a cannabis oversight authority, seed-to-sale tracking, auditable reporting, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing compliance, know-your-customer procedures, and transparent licensing. The company said these elements are intended to distinguish regulated cannabis businesses from other sectors that local banks may classify as high-risk.

Native Nations characterizes banking access as central to the framework and says legalization would improve financial inclusion by allowing farmers and businesses to operate openly within the formal economy. It also says compliance has been built into the heart of the model so that the industry can align with both local and international standards. Even so, representatives acknowledged that banks would still make their own final decisions, a point that leaves a significant practical question unresolved despite the assurances offered.

By the close of the session, the parties agreed that written responses and the full presentation would be provided to Members of Parliament, while oral answers during the meeting were shortened and summarized due to time and logistical constraints.

‍