Efforts by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council to incite Native Hawaiians to rise up in protest against nearshore fishery regulations go back several years. The first public manifestation of this campaign occurred in August 2006, when a puwalu, or conference, was held at the Hawai`i Convention Center in Honolulu.
The outcome of that conference, attended by about 100 Native Hawaiians, was a resolution “to begin the process to uphold and continue Hawaiian traditional land and ocean practices into the governance and education of the Hawai`i archipelago.” The resolution also called for “the perpetuation and preservation of the knowledge of practitioners and the restoration of healthy ecosystems through furtherance of the `ahupua`a management system, including konohiki management with kapu and hoa`aina rights, and the re-establishment of the `Aha Moku,” or island councils.
Over the next 14 months, four more puwalu would be held as well as a dozen or more other invitation-only meetings, all involving Hawaiians, intended to support the puwalu goals. And with each puwalu, concerns grew among council observers that the real intention behind the meetings was to undercut state management and regulation of fisheries and other marine resources nearshore waters.
Throughout the 2007 legislative session, the goals espoused in the resolutions adopted at the puwalu were frequently invoked by people testifying in support of several bills – notably, a “freedom to fish” measure that would have undercut state regulation (it failed), and another, which passed, establishing an `aha kiole committee, the first step toward setting up `aha moku.
The council made no secret of its support for the puwalu. In program materials, the council identified itself as “host” of the event, while other organizations that assisted in some way – the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Hawai`i Tourism Authority, Kamehameha Schools, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs – were identified as sponsors. Named as coordinator of the puwalu was the Pacific Islands Resource Management Institute, or PIRMI. The puwalu “owes its success to the steadfast endeavors and commitment of Leimana and Bob DaMate of PIRMI,” reads a statement in the materials distributed to those attending the conference.
Follow the Funds
How much did the council, which is funded entirely by the federal government, end up spending on the puwalu and in support of lobbying at the state level? And was this activity approved by the council’s overseers in the National Marine Fisheries Service?
Those questions were behind a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Environment Hawai`i with the council more than a year and a half ago. Two responses were received in the first few months (reported on in earlier issues of Environment Hawai`i), but the final response was not received until late March.
According to those records, Leimana DaMate contracted with the council for the first time in February 2006. This provided for her to be the council’s “Hawaiian Cultural Ocean and Ecosystem Principles Coordinator.” Duration of the contract was roughly 14 months, through the end of March 2007.
The statement of work included in the contract has a long disquisition on the deleterious impacts of regulation by “foreign colonizers and immigrants:”
“Given their long histories of sustainable use of marine resources, indigenous residents of the Western Pacific Region, including Hawai`i, have not universally embraced increasingly prohibitive management necessitated by the modern influx of foreign colonizers and immigrants.”
The SOW also takes a jab at environmental groups, several of which had become increasingly critical of the council’s tilt in favor of commercial fisheries interests: “[S]ome recent campaigns by non-governmental organizations representing often far-off groups vigorously opposed to virtually all use of marine resources have increased what many see as the separation of local residents from the natural environment that surrounds them.”
Under contract terms, DaMate was supposed to organize at least 16 “community educational programs and workshops” (two on Kaua`i, four on O`ahu, one each on Moloka`i and Lana`i, three on Maui, four on the Big Island, and one on Ni`ihau).
For this work, Damate was to be paid $50,000.
On August 1, DaMate and council executive director Kitty Simonds signed an amendment to the contract, adding $31,800 to DaMate’s contract in return for which she was to organize three puwalu. Of the $31,800, $15,000 was for “coordinator compensation,” and $16,800 was for “consultant fees.” Given that the first puwalu was held just days later, the question arises as to whether the contract amendment was, in fact, made to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to payments already made to support that effort.
Checks attached to the contract suggest that was exactly what happened. On July 11, 2006, three weeks before the contract amendment was executed, a check from the council, signed by Simonds and council chair Sean Martin, was made out to DaMate in the amount of $24,925.
Although the contract was to cover services through the end of March 2007, final payment to DaMate was made in January 2007. A month later, in February, DaMate signed on as “`ahupua`a puwalu planner and event contractor.” The scope of work called for DaMate to organize eight community meetings “to organize the `Aha Moku and `Aha Kiole,” to coordinate the fourth puwalu (April 2007), and to plan for the Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee meeting (late April).
For work through August 5, 2007, DaMate was to be paid $21,000.
The third contract with DaMate was signed in early October 2007. Again, the title of DaMate’s contractual position was “ahupua`a puwalu planner and event coordinator, and her chief task was to organize the fifth, and final puwalu, which began later that month. For this, DaMate was paid $5,250.
Over and above the contracts with DaMate, the Pacific Islands Resource Management Institute, described as a non-profit organization whose officers included Robert and Leimana DaMate (and whose address was also that of the DaMates), received $30,000 on a council purchase order dated August 11, 2006. This was for “travel and related expense costs associated with the Puwalu to be held August 15-17, 2006.” There is only a short description of the services provided:
- “Coordination/disbursement of per diem to puwalu travelers — $21795 – 77 projected travelers supported by the council”;
- “Registration and Secretariat Support at the puwalu … $6205 – pre-registration on August 14, registration and support on August 15-17 (10 hrs per day)”;
- “PIRMI Admin/Overhead — $2000.”
PIRMI, if it ever did exist, does not exist now. No record of any registration for it can be found in the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
Altogether, the payments made by the council to DaMate and PIRMI came to $138,050. But that was not the extent of council support.
A spreadsheet that the council provided to Environment Hawai`i showed it spent a total of $330,847 on the five puwalu. There is no breakdown of the expenses, however, which are shown only as a lump sum for each conference ($108,865 for the first, $66,604 for the second, $49,505 for the third, $77,800 for the fourth, and $38,073 for the fifth).
Reprogrammed Funds
The puwalu were not anticipated in the council’s budget submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Yet in the six-month report submitted to NMFS by the council, covering the second half of 2005, Simonds indicates that funds that had been intended for a baseline study of coral reefs in Hawai`i had been redirected to support “Hawaiian cultural fisheries and ecosystem information compilation.”
According to the terms under which the council receives grants, changes in program expenses, up to 10 percent of the value of the grant, can be made without NMFS’ prior approval. Funds made available to the puwalu series by this means came to $80,950 – roughly equal to value of DaMate’s first contract, as amended.
Still, it is impossible to know from records made public just how much the council has spent on the puwalu series and related meetings. Semi-annual reports that the council has to provide to NMFS contain brief summaries of activities, but do not have any dollar amounts attached. For example, in the “progress report” on council activities for the second half of 2006, activities in support of the three puwalu held in that time frame show up under several different program headings:
- Under the broad heading of “community development demonstration program,” there is the statement that the council “staff planned and coordinated three conferences on Hawaiian traditional management practices…” Also, funds were spent on “computer equipment for indigenous coordinator.”
- Funds from a 2005 coral reef ecosystem grant (total value: $525,000) were used to support “travel for lawai`a (expert fishermen) to participate in the … puwalu,” and to rent audio equipment and print programs for the first puwalu. Again, there are no dollar figures associated with any of these tasks.
- With funds from a 2004 coral reef grant (also for $525,000), the council contractor “identified and interviewed over 75 individual lawai`a” and developed a “database containing specific information about spawning cycles and abundance/density indicators.”
The semi-annual reports for 2007 showed funds to support the puwalu drawn from the “indigenous program” and the Community Demonstration Project Program. No mention of puwalu is made in the report of activities supported by the coral reef program.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 19, Number 11 May 2009
Leave a Reply