Act 212 of the 2007 Legislature set up the `aha kiole advisory committee as a first step toward developing a resource management system that would incorporate Native Hawaiian traditions. In the two years since then, the committee has been embroiled in controversy over its ties to the embattled Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, a lack of transparency in its deliberations, questions over funding, and actions it has taken that overstep the limits of its jurisdiction. Under Act 212, the committee was to finish its work by June 30 of this year and the next phase of the process was to start.
But with the deadline fast approaching, the committee members balked at dissolving. Several bills considered in the 2009 Legislature proposed moving forward with the process of establishing elected `aha ahupua`a councils, but in the end, the wishes of the `aha kiole committee prevailed. Senate Bill 1108 passed, extending the life of the committee to June 30, 2011.
Among those opposing the extension were KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (which proposed several changes to the structure of the committee, should its life be extended) and several individuals. Favoring it were members of the committee itself and several chapters of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, including the Princess Ka`iulani chapter, whose president is none other than Leimana DaMate – who also serves as administrator of the `aha kiole committee. The Department of Land and Natural Resources, charged with administrative oversight of the committee, took no position, but did ask that the legislators “understand that given the budgetary cuts the department has had to absorb this fiscal year and further cuts proposed in the Executive Biennium Budget request, the Department’s personnel and fiscal resources are being spread thin,” with departmental priorities already suffering.
Despite the strong testimony opposing the measure, the Legislature approved the time extension, agreeing with committee members that they needed more time to complete their mission under Act 212. (Environment Hawai`i has reported extensively on the `aha kiole committee; our most recent reports appeared in the April 2009 edition.)
Governor Linda Lingle allowed the measure to become law without her signature. In her statement of concern, she identified two areas in which the bill was problematic:
“First, it fails to address the need for a larger cross-section of the native Hawaiian community to be represented on the membership… There are many groups and individuals in the Native Hawaiian community who care deeply about the preservation and restoration of our ecosystems. It is unfortunate that the membership has come from only one portion of that community.” Also, Lingle said, she was concerned about the positions taken by the committee on issues “that appear to be outside the scope of its intended jurisdiction,” referring apparently to the committee voicing opposition to a marine reserve in waters around the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Follow the Funds
The Legislature had appropriated roughly $220,000 to support the `aha kiole committee’s work, but Governor Lingle has not released any of the funds. Still, the committee has managed to hold meetings around the islands (more than 100, according to its report to the Legislature) and has a very spiffy, professionally designed webpage (www.ahakiole.org).
So, where is the money coming from?
While committee members have said they’ve spent several thousand dollars of their own money to cover costs, it’s unclear what its total costs have been. Given the close links between the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and DaMate, the council, with its multi-million dollar budget, is the most likely source of additional funds. The council supports a Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee (REAC), which closely follows the `aha kiole committee’s work.
The nature of the committee’s support was another issue raised in Lingle’s statement of concern. After noting that the bill did not include an appropriation, she wrote, “I believe it is incumbent upon the Legislature to review the sources of support the `aha kiole advisory committee has used and determine if those sources have compromised the independence or objectivity of the committee.”
Adding weight to the suspicion of outside funding is a recent request for proposals published by the council, seeking “Hawaiian cultural ocean and ecosystem principles project coordinator(s)” for the islands of Hawai`i, O`ahu, Kaua`i-Ni`ihau, and Moloka`i-Lana`i. (No coordinator was sought for the island of Maui.) For Hawai`i island, the coordinator is to “initiate meetings … with island communities to promote effective ecosystem management of natural resources within the council’s authority.” For Moloka`i-Lana`i, the coordinator is to “develop their own community based natural resource management plan.” The O`ahu project coordinator is to advise the council “on the value and advisability of a conference to be held on O`ahu that will discuss and make recommendations on the process to engage communities in community-based ocean natural resource management.” Finally, the Kaua`i-Ni`ihau coordinator is to be a “liaison between Kaua`i fishing community and Ni`ihau community to establish a workable, reasonable solution on fishing in the Ni`ihau waters.”
According to Charles Ka`ai`ai, the council’s indigenous community coordinator, “the ecosystem coordinators were budgeted in the Coral Reef award from NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration].” Originally, the council’s grant called for just one coordinator in Hawai`i, Ka`ai`ai said in an email to Environment Hawai`i, “but the work required to complete the tasks were broad and detailed, requiring contracting someone or an organization with specific skills, capabilities and social capital.”
Sixteen applications were received in response to an RFP issued in 2008, Ka`ai`ai said, but none of the respondents filled the requirements for the position.
“Before going out for more applications, it was decided to ask if it would be acceptable to divide this position into four or five discrete projects so project coordinators could complete the tasks called for in the grant,” he continued. “We developed four projects that would address the award conditions, serve the council’s need and benefit communities based on the requests for assistance that the council receives as part of our public outreach process.”
The deadline for responding to the RFP was June 15.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 20, Number 1 July 2009
Leave a Reply