With the committee set to dissolve in June, it was required to submit a final report to the Legislature before the session started. While the 75-page report addresses most, if not all, of its required tasks, concerns raised at the Legislature by other native Hawaiian and environmental organizations and government agencies suggest that the `aha moku development process may have to undergo a few changes if it is to continue.
Monumental Misunderstanding
While the ‘aha kiole advisory committee was tasked only with helping develop an `aha moku management system in Hawai`i, it appears from letters in the files of the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources that the group believed its job extended to commenting on former President Bush’s efforts to establish a national monument in the waters around the Mariana islands.
On October 13, 2008, the committee wrote Bush, berating him for “taking” the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands from native Hawaiians when he established the Papahanaumokuakea marine monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The committee also criticizes the Pew Foundation’s role in the establishment of both monuments.
“The Native Hawaiian communities have followed the progress of the Pew Foundation’s attempts to establish another national marine monument in CNMI with anger, trepidation, and despair. These strong and passionate emotions are universally felt by Hawaiians whenever the word ‘Papahanaumokuakea’ is mentioned….
“We ask that you not compound your grave mistake with Hawai`i by creating another monument in CNMI against the wishes of their people,” they wrote, noting that the CNMI’s governor, senate president, house speaker, and four mayors opposed the monument.
“As leaders elected by the people to represent them, why will you not listen to them? The actions of the Pew Foundation reflected by the actions of your administration show that there is no consideration for the indigenous people of CNMI – any more than there was any consideration for the Native Hawaiians. Native people have no voice with you or your administration… Please do not inflict this heartbreak and rage on another Pacific culture,” they wrote.
Ignacio Cabrera, chair of a group called Friends of the [Mariana Trench] Monument, wrote in a January 1 letter to Gov. Lingle that his organization was puzzled by the committee’s request that Bush not designate the proposed Mariana Trench National Marine Monument and asked if the `aha kiole committee’s opposition was the official policy for the state of Hawai`i.
“If so, it hurts us deeply that the state of Hawai‘i would oppose something that we believe holds great potential benefit to our people.
“If, on the other hand, this group is not speaking for the state of Hawai‘i, who is it that they do speak for? Even if they only speak for themselves, as an entity established by the state, their actions will likely continue to be confused as an official policy position – as they have already in our media.”
Cabrera said his group understood that the committee was created by the state Legislature in 2007, but added, “we have heard that there is credible evidence that this group is largely a creation of the [federal] Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Wespac), another group opposed to the monument that feels compelled to meddle in CNMI politics.”
He cited a recent front-page story in the CNMI, which stated that the council and its executive director, Kitty Simonds, are under federal investigation for alleged lobbying to undermine the protections afforded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
“It appears they have continued their lobbying activities as well as their attempts to manipulate your DLNR through the `Aha Kiole, this time to use the state of Hawai`i and native Hawaiians to interfere in the CNMI’s business,” he wrote.
On January 8, DLNR director Laura Thielen responded to Cabrera on Lingle’s behalf. She stated that the `aha kiole advisory committee was established to “recommend resource management best practices based on Native Hawaiian expertise.”
She continued that the committee neither speaks for the DLNR nor sets policy for the state.
“Their opposition to the Marianas Trench National Marine Monument comes from their own opinions and [was] voiced without the knowledge of the State of Hawai`i. If they have used their position as those selected to perform the tasks of Act 212, SLH 2007, then it is beyond the scope of the law’s directive and their appointed purpose,” she wrote.
Thielen added that since Bush declared the Marianas Trench, Rose Atoll, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas national marine monuments on January 6, “it would appear that the `aha kiole members have not seen their views sustained and…the Friends of the Monument can now look forward to the preservation of a truly unique marine ecosystem.”
In a phone interview with Environment Hawai‘i, ‘aha kiole community coordinator Leimana DaMate (a former council contractor), explained, “The kiole commented only because they were specifically asked by practitioners from CNMI who had been encouraged by Act 212. [The committee] would not have commented otherwise.”
Last Bill Standing
Whether or not the ‘aha kiole advisory committee has completed its job, its members, as well as some of its critics, want the development of an ‘aha moku system to continue. This session, legislators introduced four bills regarding the future of the committee and its work. House Bill 1806 ambitiously sought to take the next step and establish within the DLNR an ‘aha ahupua‘a council task force, ‘aha ahupua‘a councils, ‘aha moku councils, and an ‘aha kiole council. Under the original bill, the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs would select the task force’s nominees.
The task force would have conducted elections in 2010 and 2011 for the ‘aha ahupua‘a councils with administrative, technical, and clerical support from the DLNR. ‘Aha ahupua‘a council members would have then appointed a representative to an ‘aha moku (an island-wide council), which would have appointed a representative to an ‘aha kiole (a statewide council). The ‘aha kiole would have been charged with the following:
-
- Advising the state on traditional natural resource and land management practices;
-
- Resolving issues brought by the ‘aha moku council, or any issues of statewide importance, or affecting more than one island;
-
- Maintaining a repository for issues addressed by an ‘aha moku council or an ‘aha ahupua‘a council; and
- Representing ‘ahupua‘a statewide in the state, national, and international arenas.
With strong objections from the DLNR, which would have had to foot the bill for an entire ‘aha moku system that would include dozens of regional representatives, the bill was later watered down to merely extend the sunset date of the ‘aha kiole advisory committee from June 30, 2009, to June 30, 2011, and require the committee to submit a final report of its work to the Legislature prior to its 2010 regular session.
Senate Bill 1108 also proposed to extend the committee’s sunset date to 2011. House Bill 905 and Senate Bill 999 did the same, but also proposed moving the committee from the DLNR to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and appropriating funds to support the committee’s work.
Testimony on all of the bills has been mixed, with those in opposition expressing concerns about the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s influence on the committee’s actions, the exclusive right of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to select nominees, and an apparent “top-down” approach to developing the ‘aha moku system, among other things. In the end, just one bill – SB 1108 – survived crossover.
DLNR Director Thielen has not opposed the bill, but has testified to her department’s thin personnel and fiscal resources and recent budgetary cuts, which are “already impacting departmental priorities.”
DaMate, testifying on behalf of the Princess Ka‘iulani Hawaiian Civic Club, argued in her testimony that an extension could have been avoided had the state only released the money appropriated in Act 212. (The governor never approved release of the funds, amounting to more than $200,000. Although the DLNR has approved about $4,000 in reimbursements to the committee, DaMate says it had not been paid as of mid-March.) The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs and the committee itself also submitted testimony in favor of the bill, the latter stating that although it held about 100 community meetings and gained support on many islands, “more time is needed to solidify the process.”
While it testified in support of SB 999, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs testified against SB 1108, stating written testimony, “We do not agree that the group as it now exists is the correct one to do this work.”
OHA continued, “If this advisory committee’s lifespan is to be extended, it must be with the understanding that the committee is limited in its capacity to be advisory only, it does not speak for all Native Hawaiians on any natural resources issue, it will be task oriented, and it will support existing or proposed community-based resource management projects.”
OHA recommended that if SB 1108 advanced, the governor should appoint eight new members from a list of nominations submitted by not only the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, but by other native Hawaiian organizations. It also recommended that the committee be properly funded and administratively attached to OHA, not DLNR.
(In testimony for HB 905, KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance also recommended that the Legislature adopt rules restricting the use of federal funds for the ‘aha kiole system; require the ‘aha kiole to comply with state laws regarding open meetings and rulemaking; require committee members to be elected, not appointed by the governor; and limit the committee’s purpose to information collection regarding traditional and customary resource management approaches in specific areas.)
Despite OHA’s recommendations, the Senate Committee on Water, Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs, as well as the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, passed the bill without amendments. The House committee did, however, ask OHA to actively participate in the committee’s public meetings, and “work toward alleviating concerns raised regarding whether Hawai`i’s communities are being properly consulted and represented in the System.”
Although legislators appeared to be content with the committee’s current members, DaMate said that she could agree with seeking nominations of cultural practitioners outside the AOHCC. She added that the main reasons the nominations came from AOHCC were because it is non-partisan and has an extensive membership representing many communities.
Leave a Reply