Blog
News, updates, finds, stories, and tidbits from staff and community members at KAHEA. Got something to share? Email us at: kahea-alliance@hawaii.rr.com.
A little explanation.
From Miwa:
I wrote the little explanation below the other day to Uncle Bill Aila, Jr. in response to an email from him. Though it was written for him, I thought I would share it here on our blog, as others may have questions about KAHEA’s support of Na Koa and Koani Foundation in their request for intervention on World Heritage Site designation for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands:
First and foremost, KAHEA fully supports legal protections promulgated in the State Refuge and the Monument, including the prohibition on commercial fishing within 50 miles of the islands. We believe deeply in a vision of full conservation of the NWHI, as it represents a significant place of refuge for cultural practice, for native endangered species, and for some of the last predator-dominated reefs remaining on the planet.
However, as you know well (!), we have had, and continue to have, some deep concerns about management in the NWHI by the state and feds. Including:
1) Lack of meaningful prioritization for activities in the NWHI, or of analysis of cumulative impacts (taking into account past activity–including legacy over-exploitation and military activity)
2) Weak and disorganized permitting – “unified” permit process not really very unified in implementation
3) No enforcement plan, failure to push for accountability/mitigations/appropriate limits on military activity in the NWHI
4) Lack of funding/focus on cultural access or study
5) No public advisory entity established for Monument and limited venues/opportunities for public participation on decision-making
6) Lack of collaboration: Monument Management Board has not met in nearly six months? Multi-agency commitment to integrated ecosystem management getting lost on turf wars.
At the heart of this, is an exhibited inability for the co-trustees to collaborate effectively. Officials on the Federal side have acknowledged “some deep conflicts” which the Federal agencies are “struggling to resolve.” Though many are eager to take credit for the protections in place for the NWHI, implementation has lacked the political will to “make it work.”
We support Na Koa and Koani Foundation in their request for intervention for the following reasons:
In many communities, the decision to pursue a WHS designation comes only after years of conversation, debate, struggle and consultation. We are concerned that Native Hawaiian consultation on the WHS proposal was indeed inadequate, conveying unified support, when this is not in fact the case.
Further, World Heritage designation does not offer any additional enforceable protections for the NWHI. Indeed, over 30 World Heritage Sites are currently threatened with de-listing, due to poor management by those in charge, including the Belize Barrier Reef System and the Galapagos Islands. In an article written this past February, Goldman Prize winner John Sinclair heavily criticized Australian officials for neglecting conservation management for his beloved Fraser Island following its World Heritage designation, in favor of facility upgrades, and recreation management (e.g. widening roads) at the expense of “natural resource management, — environmental monitoring of wildlife and ecosystems, fire management, weed control, and quarantine.”
In many cases, this designation is used to promote tourism to a site (See http://www.expedia.com/daily/sustainable_travel/world_heritage/default.asp), which ironically increases the tourism impacts to the site intended for protection.
What World Heritage designation does offer is prestige and publicity. Prestige and publicity is not a need for the NWHI, as a great deal of public attention has already been placed on the protection of the NWHI. Indeed, a TIME magazine’s feature Earth Day article (Bryan Walsh) on oceans just last week noted NWHI protections as hopeful action in an otherwise pretty dismal picture of world-wide ocean resources management.
What is needed is not more attention or prestige. What is needed is accountable, integrated and cooperative management that puts the resource and the rightholders first.
Let’s do that–let’s get there–and we’ll have a place that can really be held up as an example to the world of how ocean conservation that strongly protects cultural practice can be done well. This is our hope, and vision ahead of our efforts.
Antifouling Causes Paler Fish
From Marti:
Study in Sweden found that new antifouling chemical medetomidine (used to prevent the buildup of barnacles, seaweed/marine organisms on the cages/nets of open water fish farms) causes paler fish, affecting the skin cells that contain dark pigment. It also appears to affect a detoxifying enzyme in the fish’s livers, which could result in lessened ability to filter environmental toxins (like PCBs or mercury!)
Looks like, in the race to replace TBT to keep fish farm nets and boat bottoms critter-free, it’s back to the drawing board.
See full article at: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/12238/antifouling-causes-paler-fish
State finally getting it right for Northwestern Hawaiian Islands... -ish.
Last week, the Board of Land and Natural Resources held a special meeting to consider several permit applications from HIMB researchers for activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Papahānaumokuākea. After several years of public testimony at every permit hearing — and even finally, a lawsuit! – the Land Board and its staff finally admitted: a cumulative impact assessment IS needed to understand the affects of harmful human activity on this extremely fragile place BEFORE permits are issued to allow prohibited activities. Hallelujah!
Unfortunately, knowing you were wrong and getting it right are not the same thing.
At the meeting, staff gave a very technical presentation about past permitted activities, how they are documented, and what the likely affects are. Then representatives from the applicants — Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) — testified to studies they have conducted on themselves to assess the impact they are (not) having on the environment. These are good and noble acts that should be continued, but do not get at the heart of the issue over the issuance of permits for taking species, dumping waste water, anchoring, constructing, and dredging activities in the largest NO-TAKE marine reserve in Hawai’i. These activities have the potential to harm the very thing that is trying to be studied (and ostensibly saved). Yet? Still no cumulative impact assessment. Still no environmental assessment.
The researchers and the staff obviously have some information about the impacts of human activities in the NWHI. Why not put that together into an environmental impact statement and release it for public comment?
Permits are required because the activities requested are prohibited. Permission is to be given for prohibited activities when they are necessary for conservation, management and cultural perpetuation. This is at the heart of a “permit” system.
The issue: We are supposed to have a public process to evaluate what activities are really needed, and balance them against the cumulative impacts. How can we do this without the legally required environmental assessment (EA)? Or for that matter, without a public process?
All the while granting of permits continues to be driven by availability of grant/Federal dollars, rather than the actual need for the activity.
Today, decisions for the Monument are being made in the dark–and it shows. We continue to ask: open up the Monument to transparent, accountable decision making for this public trust. Hold public meetings of the Monument Management Board, where permitting decisions can be made in the light of day. Really, what is there to hide?
Admit it, we were right all along
From Marti:
We have commented on every permit issued and every plan released concerning Papahanaumokuakea because we want to see these public trust resources protected. At every hearing for five years, we have asked the co-managers to assess the cumulative impact of human activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
They punted on the monument management plan and fumbled on the science plan, but never stopped issuing precious permits for invasive, extractive (often federally funded) research in this visionary no-take-refuge. Not only that, they issued these permits with exemptions from all environmental review.
We think these exemptions are being issued improperly. This is the only critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals — you can’t just assume activities there will not affect their fragile, important environment. So we sued.
Now, a year later, we may finally be seeing some action — at least at the State level. Last week, nine permit applications for all kinds of research in the state’s NWHI marine refuge were deferred after the Land Board members conferred with a Deputy Attorney General in executive session. We have no idea what was said. But a special Land Board hearing just for these permit applications was announced for Monday April 19th.
What will the Land Board do? Continue to issue permits that are improperly exempted from all environmental review or finally require that a real, cumulative impact assessment is completed — one that is public and takes into consideration all of the horrible things human exploitation has done to this amazing, irreplaceable marine environment?
Hawaii's Renewable Portfolio Standards: Aggressive But in Need of Qualification
From: Andrea
Just last month, Act 155 was passed in the Hawaii Legislature, amending Hawaii’s renewable energy law.
One of the highlights of this amendment was the strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (often abbreviated as RPS). These standards are binding for electric utility companies, which must satisfy the specified percentage of their net electricity sales with electricity generated from renewable energy sources by the specified date.
Now, Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards are as follows: 10% by 2010; 15% by 2015; 25% by 2020; and 40% by 2030. The two standards that Act 155 changed are the two later dates: the 2020 standard was increased by 5%, and the 2030 standard was a new addition.
This strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards was a wise move by the Hawaii Legislature. Hawaii should be a predominant leader in the renewable energy realm, considering that it is the most oil dependent state with over 90% of its energy needs met by imported fossil fuels– a doubly detrimental impact with carbon footprints from long-distance importation and burning. The context of climate change and sea-level rise heighten Hawaii’s energy vulnerability.
Yet, Hawaii is also ideally situated to move the ball forward with renewable energy due to the high availability of solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy. Thus, the Legislature’s addition of the long-term standard, 40% renewable-created electricity by 2030, is in line with Hawaii’s position of great need, vulnerability, and opportunism.
However, the short-term standard could be a bit more aggressive. Although a five-percent increase to 25% by 2020 is an improvement, a few other states have more stringent short-term standards. For example, California is requiring 20% renewable-created electricity by 2010– double Hawaii’s 2010 standard. And, Maine has a 2017 standard of 40%, Hawaii’s standard for 13 years later, while New York has a 2013 standard of 24%– 9% greater than Hawaii’s 2015 standard.
Regardless of the precise standards, the definition of “renewable energy” sources must be amended. While creating more stringent standards in the short-term is ideal, amending the definition of “renewable energy” to only encompass those sources that are truly clean is a must.
As it stands now, the definition of “renewable energy” does not contain any qualifications. For example, it includes “biofuels.” Such an unqualified authorization allows utility companies to meet the standard with, say, palm oil, which fits the broad definition of “biofuels.”
What’s the problem with palm oil qualifying as a renewable energy source? This “biofuel” implicates a significant carbon footprint due to carbon-emitting land change. After the deforestation, heavy fertilization, and peatland burning required to produce the palm oil, the production of this “biofuel” actually contributes more to global warming, opposed to ameliorating the crisis.
Renewable energy sources and, thus, renewable portfolio standards for utility companies should authorize only clean renewable sources in life-cycle terms. Renewability should be just one requisite for clean energy sources; the holistic footprint, including emissions, land change, and other environmental impacts, also must be taken into account.
Otherwise, we may simply displace the impact to another medium. Without amending the law to reflect this crucial qualification, the renewable portfolio standards may end up perpetuating the very problem that they are intended to improve.
Want Hawaii to lead a meaningful renewable energy transition?
Contact your representatives in the State Legislature and voice your opinion!
Here’s contact information for our House representatives:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.asp
And, here’s contact information for Senate members:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp
NWHI suit- DLNR should stand for "Dept. of Looting our Natural Resources."
From Melissa:
KAHEA’s suit against DLNR has gotten much media coverage over the last few days. The following excerpts provide the basic information about the case, please read the full articles to further your knowledge on this very important issue.
Two lawsuits filed within the past two weeks claim that the state of Hawaii is breaking its own law that requires protection of the largest conservation area in the United States.
KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources for failing to conduct legally required environmental reviews before granting hundreds of permits for access to the protected Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
The region is world renowned for its diversity of endangered species, unique deep sea coral reefs, and rare predator-dominated ecosystem.
The KAHEA lawsuit, filed in state circuit court in Honolulu, seeks an injunction to halt the unlawfully permitted activities and the granting of new permits until the state agency complies with state law.The islands are revered as sacred by Native Hawaiian cultural and religious practitioners as the path of souls to the next life, says KAHEA.
“Our Kupuna Islands are protected and revered for a reason,” said Kumu Hula Vicky Holt-Takamine, KAHEA’s Board president. “This is not the wild west; there are laws here. Laws that are meant to protect our natural resources and the best interests of Hawaii’s people.”
To read full story click here
Without doing required assessments on how the proposed work would affect the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands environment, the agency approved such activities as shark kills, extreme-sports canoe racing, harvesting of thousands of marine species and disturbing of sunken vessels, according to Kahea’s lawsuit.
To read full article click here
Kahea – The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance – sued the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources in state court after a whistleblower accused the state agency of refusing to do its job…
Former monument policy specialist David Weingartner claims he was fired because he reported to superiors the issuance of permits without environmental review.
Weingartner’s lawsuit, filed July 8, includes a table indicating 20 permits, most of them for scientific research, which he says lack environmental assessments.
To read full article click here
After reading these articles you may ask yourself why the state can’t and didn’t follow their own laws. We ask ourselves the same question. Please keep informed and check back with us for further updates!
KAHEA Lawsuit Makes Headlines
HONOLULU ADVERTISER, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS WIRE REPORT ON CONTROVERSY
by Stewart:
KAHEA’s complaint asking a Hawaii court to require the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to follow state law concerning permits for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument has made news, as Hawaii’s largest newspaper and a national environmental wire service both published pieces on the matter today.
The news reports come two days after KAHEA filed its suit and a day after KAHEA presented its case to the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources. KAHEA has requested the board refrain from issuing new permits until the agency complies with the law; KAHEA has requested an administrative hearing on the issue.
