Blog

“Uh, seriously?” –is probably the best way to describe our response to the BLNR’s recent decision that Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners and conservationists (like Sierra Club members) have no standing to speak for the fate of public trust lands like Mauna Kea. And so, as people generally do when faced with crappy* administrative decision-making, we appealed today in court.

Read full article in the Hawaii Independent:

The State’s Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) and the University of Hawaii are being challenged in court by Native Hawaiian practitioners, conservationists, and activists for rushing through a process that would pave the way for the building of the massive new Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea despite public opposition.

Conservationists say that the BLNR’s decision to approve the CMP before ruling on the petition for a contested case hearing is an affront to meaningful citizen participation in agency decisions and neglects citizens’ substantial rights.

“Citizen participation in agency decisions is an essential part of our democratic tradition,” said Nelson Ho of the Sierra Club. “The concept of meaningful public participation ensures decision-makers will have adequate information and minimizes the possibility of public corruption and back-room dealing.”

*We use the word “crappy” here, in the most respectful and “aloha-ful” way humanly possible, but we have to call it like it is, yo.

From Miwa:

“We are the Kānaka. We are the Hawaiians. We are the ones who, if you screw it up, have nowhere else to go. Whose mana, whose ancestors, whose everything, will be lost.” - Testimony from one uncle from Oʻahu to the Ocean Policy Task Force members.

So, I only made it to the last hour or so of the Ocean Policy Task Force Honolulu “listening” session yesterday, but here are a few of my observations from the time I was there (The amazing Marti and our board member Kealoha Pisciotta were there throughout the afternoon):

Despite the tsunami warning in the AM, it was still a pretty packed room with people from around the islands. (Brothers and sisters in Samoa, in our thoughts.) Thanks to all who heard the kāhea and came out!

In June, the President made a commitment to dramatically improve the health of the ocean. As per usual, however, the push towards a unified U.S. ocean policy may get hijacked by corporate interests seeking to exploit our oceans and may end up undermining local management efforts. Original plans by the Feds were to hold this session in San Francisco only, meaning a 3,000+ miles trek and thousands of dollars in travel costs for concerned Hawai’i (and other peoples of the Pacific) residents. We fought hard to have this “listening session” in Honolulu.

So first, let me say that it was great to actually see administration officials IN Hawai’i, face-to-face with people of the Pacific. In principle? Listening Session = Awesome. In practice? It was sort of more like a “we’ll-listen-to-the-guys-we-want-to-hear-from, and-then-the- rest-of-you-can-talk, at-least-until-we-have-to-leave-for-dinner” session.

There was  a hand-picked panel of “stakeholders” up first, ostensibly representing different “stakeholder groups.” Administration officials were about 6 feet above the audience, lined up at a table on a stage, listening. After the panel, the floor was opened up to “everyone else.” At six o’clock, administration officials called it quits. Approximately 35 people who had waited hours to testify, were sent away.

I argued against this kind of “listening” model a lot when I worked in government. The problem I have with this kind of “stakeholder representation” process–the problem I’ve always had with this kind of process–is that it allows a small group of government officials to arbitrarily elevate the voices of a favored few, while demoting the voices of others.

Officials and government staff and consultants favor this kind of model because it gives them a sense that they are being “fair”–through the stakeholder panel, different groups are “equally” represented (e.g., this guy represents business, this guy represents Hawaiians, this guy represents surfers, this guy represents conservation interests)–in an orderly fashion that doesn’t take up a ton of their time and minimizes their being yelled at.

These are all understandably human desires. Orderly = good. Being yelled at = bad.

The problem, is that this is a false sense of order. In reality (where all of us actually live), the world is messy, it is complex, it is imbued with people’s passions, guided by what they care about, filled with uncertain choices, and sometimes charged by their righteous outrage.

Being listened to by government on the fate and future of resources in the public trust should not be a privilege, but a sacred right.

Kealoha noted how much of the public testimony (outside the panel) really focused on the unique needs of Pacific Island nations, sovereignty, the need to acknowlege Hawaiian right-holders, and the imperative to respectfully seek and request indigenous knowledge and ways-of-knowing.

For Hawaiʻi, the stakes are incredibly high. In Hawai’i, we are a place of ocean. The future of Hawaiian waters is the future of Hawai’i. And, (I say this with all due respect) if you must be late to dinner, Dr. Lubchenko, because you are listening to what citizens in Hawai’i have travelled miles to say about their own future, I think maybe that should be okay.

But as a beginning, I left this “listening session” feeling… hopeful. This process will continue over the next year or so, and with more opportunities for Hawaiʻi communities to meaningfully speak to the future of our public trust Hawaiian waters. Please be on the lookout for the next kāhea to participate!

You can still submit written testimony to the Task Force online here.

From Melissa-

Tomorrow, we along with others will plead our case at the Board of Land and Natural Resource meeting for a contested case hearing on the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan.

Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, The Sierra Club-Hawaii, The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, Dwight J. Vincente and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching have submitted a request for a contested case hearing on the plan.

Robert Harris, executive director of the Sierra Club, said that after the plan was approved in April Mauna Kea was chosen for a $1.2 billion Thirty Meter Telescope project.

“Our position is we’re not sure you should be approving new telescopes until this comprehensive management plan is finalized,” Harris said. “If you are going to call this a comprehensive management plan, I think you’re going to have to take into account future development and this plan specifically doesn’t address any development whatsoever.”

Department of Land and Natural Resources staff are recommending against a contested case hearing, saying there are no laws or rules requiring one because of the board’s approval of the plan and that the petitioners have no property interest in the project.

“The (comprehensive management plan) does not permit or authorize any new land use of development on Mauna Kea, including telescope projects,” the recommendation said.

Marti Townsend, program director for KAHEA, said there is a public interest in the protection of public trust resources. More time is needed to develop the plan and get public input, she said.

The DLNR says the acceptance of the plan doesn’t facilitate new construction but Townsend said she thinks it does, especially in light of the recent announcement of the Thirty Meter Telescope project.

“That was our concern all along — that we’re rushing through the management plan process in order to accommodate the TMT and so it’s really a development plan,” Townsend said.

To read full article click here.

The meeting will be held tomorrow (August 28, 2009) at 9:30 in the DLNR Board Room 132 on the first floor of the Kalanimoku Building at 1151 Punchbowl St. The Board Room is located on the makai (ocean) side of the building.

From Alana:

Too often loko i’a are talked about as things of the past, and somewhat obsolete. They are spoken of like memorials of a time past, a time when Hawaiians could essentially farm huge amounts of fish without even needing to feed them. But those days are over, right? No, they don’t have to be. 

On Saturday at He’eia fishpond in Kaneohe, a bunch of people got together to help fish some of the predators, like baracuda, out of the fishpond. He’eia is an estimated 800 years old. It is owned by Bishop Estate, and is cared for by  Paepae o He’eia, a private non-profit organization. It has taken them years to clear destructive mangrove trees off of about half the fishpond wall, and they are still working on fixing a hole in the wall, but they still manage to produce and sell moi. He’eia produces anywhere between 300 and 700 pounds of moi each year and that number is expected to increase when the wall is fixed and the fishpond is completely restored. About 100 years ago there were many more fishponds all around the island, but most of them have either been filled in completely with mangroves, or are in ruin. 

He’eia, though, is a beautiful example of how community effort can lead to something meaningful and productive. Although many fishponds are privately owned now, they could still serve as productive entities of society. He’eia and Moli’i on O’ahu both manage to. Hawaiian fishponds utilized a system that was not found anywhere else on the planet. It was probably the most efficient and sustainable way of raising herbivore fish ever. Fishponds are not the remnants of an ancient culture. Hawaiians are still here, and Hawaii can still benefit from fishponds.

From Alana:

As a result of many letters being sent to state representatives, Rep. Mazie Hirono has decided to co-sponsor the “Offshore Aquaculture is not Fishing Act of 2009″. The bill asserts that under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and regional fishery management councils do not have the authority to permit or regulate the commercial ocean fish farming industry, because it is not fishing. 

The federal law that gives the Gulf Council and NOAA authority to regulate fish and fishing region-by-region was not intended to govern risky industrial enterprises like ocean fish farms.

This is a step in the right direction for the regulation of offshore aquaculture, which might soon happen in the Gulf of Mexico, and expand in places like Hawaii.

From Melissa:

Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) was denied approval by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of it’s Amended Biofuel Contract with Imperium Renewables on August 5, 2009. The amended contract would have Imperium import biodiesel from a West Coast refinery to power HECO’s new 110-megawatt generating plant, instead of a refinery built by Imperium.

Costs brought on by this amended contract would have shifted costs from Imperium to HECO’s customers, as it would have to import the fuel from the West Coast of the Continental US. The PUC ruled,

“…the Amended Contract limits Imperium’s potential liability for failure to perform, but HECO failed to provide credible evidence that such a provision, which substantially shifted risk from Imperium to HECO and its ratepayers, was necessary.” Given the substantial amendments to the Original Contract, which were not subject to a competitive bidding process (or some other process that would provide the commission with some assurance that the amended terms are reasonable), the commission finds that HECO failed to demonstrate that the Amended Contract is in the public interest…”

Although this is a win for HECO’s ratepayers, they must also ask themselves if biofuel is right for Hawaii. As stated in the testimony of Henry Curtis, Executive Director of Life of the Land, against the Amended Biofuel Contact,

Life of the Land’s position (on HECO’s application requesting the Public Utilities Commission’s of the State of Hawaii’s approval to commit funds estimated at $134,310,260 for the purchase and installation of the Campbell Industrial Park Generating Station and Transmission Additions Project) was that biofuels negatively impact climate change in a number of ways: producing ethanol and biodiesel requires the use of large amounts of fossil fuels, water, and land. Hawai`i is parceling off its agricultural land and where we would get the water remains a huge issue. Will Hawai`i ever be able to grow enough biofuel to satisfy our needs? Life of the Land doubts it. After one hundred plus years of plantation-style monocropping, is this what we really want to do? Growing biofuels is not about small farmers, it is about big agribusinesses and corporate farming. How will this help Hawai`i’s struggling family farms? Should Hawai`i be using our precious agricultural lands to grow energy crops or food? Since Hawai`i imports 90% of our food, wouldn’t promoting food security and feeding our people be a more prudent use of these lands? Biofuel production competes with food products for resources. In the US, corn that could be used to feed people and animals is siphoned off for fuel. In Brazil ethanol production displaces other crops which are then grown in newly decimated Amazon rain forests. The most productive source of biodiesel is palm oil. Most of the world’s biodiesel is grown in Indonesia and Malaysia on recently destroyed rain forests. … Indonesia ranks third in the world in greenhouse gas emissions from the carbon emitted by burning forests and peat soils to make room for mono-cropped palm oil plantations. In essence, we are substituting the greatest source of global warming – the burning of fossil fuels – for the second greatest contributor – deforestation. …

Also provided in the testimony of Henry Curtis, Dr. Tadeus Patzek, Chairman of the Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, states:

Now I am predicting the diverse negative consequences of intensive biofuel use in Hawaii and dare the defenders of the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO’s) decision to burn palm oil from Malaysia in an electrical power plant on Oahu to laugh at me. What seems to be at stake here is a tragically misguided decision by HECO to secure a new source of fossil fuel for its electrical power station. Their thinking seems to be that as long as the new fuel is not crude oil, somehow its flow will increase the strategic security of energy supply of Oahu. This type of linear, unimaginative thinking is characteristic of large bureaucracies under pressure to come up with a quick fix of a perceived problem.

Are monocropped agrofuels the fix to our dependence on petroleum, or should be be looking other places such as renewable energy systems? As HECO moves to solicit bids for alternative biofuel suppliers, that question should be in the back of everyones mind.