Honolulu Weekly

Policymakers are finally starting to recognize that Native Hawaiians, who managed these Islands for centuries, have traditional knowledge that could be useful in caring for our natural resources. State lawmakers got on board earlier this year, approving legislation that would begin the process of creating an ahu moku council to advise the state on indigenous resource management practices specific to various moku, or districts. An aha kiole committee comprised of eight Hawaiian cultural practitioners has been appointed by Governor Lingle to help kick-start that process.

One outsized, biologically priceless moku would be the far-flung Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), designated as off-limits to commercial fishing but accessible to ‘noncommercial subsistence, cultural and religious uses by Native Hawaiians,’ as President Clinton wrote in his executive order in 2000.

As the process moves forward, however, questions are arising about who is really behind the aha moku initiative, and whether Island residents or other interests–such as the federal Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Wespac)–ultimately stand to gain. Critics say they support the idea of an aha moku council, but feel that Wespac’s participation has tainted its implementation. ‘Here you have a process that at the very beginning was very pono, but it has since been twisted and manipulated by Wespac and people closely associated with Wespac,’ says William Aila, Jr., a fisherman and State harbor master at Waianae.

‘They (Wespac) hijacked the whole process,’ says Tina Owens, a member of the Lost Fish Coalition, a marine life advocacy group, who also sits on the West Hawai’i Fisheries Council. Owens, Aila and others say this is the beginning of Wespac’s long-range plan to re-establish the lucrative fisheries that are to be phased out under President Bush’s executive order establishing the NWHI National Marine Monument.

‘They’re (Wespac) going to manipulate these Hawaiians on the aha moku council to say we need to go into the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and fish,’ Aila says. ‘That’s the goal.’ Owens and three others–Big Island Councilwoman Keiko Bonk, Hanalei Watershed Hui director Makaala Kaaumoana and Linda Paul, director of the aquatics division of the Hawai’i Audubon Society–have filed formal complaints with the Department of Commerce contending that Wespac’s role in getting the aha moku legislation passed and implemented constituted illegal lobbying and misuse of federal funds.

Additionally, Na Imi Pono, a Native Hawaiian cultural organization led by Aila, the Hawai’i Audubon Society, the Snorkel Bob Foundation, the Conservation Council for Hawai’i and the national Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), released a statement this past June expressing concern and calling for the resignation of Kitty Simonds, Wespac’s executive director. A Sept. 7, 2007 letter sent to Owens from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, which oversees Wespac, confirms that a federal investigation of the complaints is currently underway.

Wespac’s strategy, Aila and Owens say, involves manipulating the process to ensure that persons favorable to its policies are ultimately appointed to the ahu moku council. Then, under the guise of preserving indigenous subsistence rights, the panel will gain broad authority to manage the taking of lobster and other fish in federally protected waters where commercial fishing is restricted or prohibited. Ultimately, Owens says, Wespac seeks control over fisheries in State waters, where the agency currently has no jurisdiction.

Asked to respond to those allegations, Wespac outreach and education coordinator Sylvia Spalding wrote in an e-mail that the agency currently has authority over fisheries in the NWHI that are scheduled to end in 2011, under Bush’s executive order. ‘The Council looks forward to working with the Aha Moku Council in its capacity as a cultural consultation body, especially in regards to [Wespac's] Hawai’i Archipelago FEP [Fishery Ecosystem Plan],’ Spalding wrote.

Cooperative planning and a power transfer: Sounds innocent enough. So how did pono become pretext? As Aila recalls it, ‘the idea of having local experts chime into the decision making process’ over the use of natural resources originated some seven or eight years ago with the late cultural teacher and kumu hula, John Kaimikaua. ‘He was the nexus and motivation for this because [ahu moku] is a traditional political/management process.’ But, according to Aila and others, things began to unravel when the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AOHCC) got involved.

That began about two years ago with the organization’s ocean resources committee, chaired at the time by Big Island resident Leimana DaMate, AOHCC President Leimomi Khan recalls. As the AOHCC discussed the aha moku concept at its meetings, Khan says, ‘We felt we needed to hear the voices of the kupuna and we wanted to hold these puwalu [a Hawaiian term for calling people together].’ As such a process is costly, Khan says, AOHCC turned to Wespac, which had recently received monies under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ‘to assist indigenous people and call together people.’ DaMate, Khan says, ‘was hired as project manager by Wespac to organize the puwalu on behalf of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.’

Funding, Spalding says in her e-mail, was also provided by Kamehameha Schools, Hawai’i Tourism Authority, Coastal Zone Management and Office of Hawaiian Affairs. DaMate ‘was contracted to hold community meetings and coordinate the Puwalu series as part of the Council’s initiative to increase and encourage community and native Hawaiian participation in development of its Hawai’i Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP),’ Spalding says.

DaMate’s connection to Wespac first surfaced on April 25, 2006, when she and Toni Lee, then president of AOHCC, published a commentary in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin praising Wespac’s ‘ocean protection processes’ and stating, ‘When Hawaiians and Wespac finally came together, it was a natural collaboration. Both are striving for the same thing: ecosystem resource protection.’ (DaMate, contacted last week for comment on her retention by Wespac, agreed to answer written questions; however, she failed to provide responses by press time.)

Aila offers some additional context for the timing of the puwalu. When Wespac had lobbied for the increased funding in May 2006, he says, the state Department of Land and Natural Resources was going through the ‘gut-wrenching process that dealt with gill-netting.’ A so-called ‘right to fish bill,’ which conservationists say originated on the mainland and makes it very difficult to restrict access to fisheries, had also come under hot debate. Owens notes that such legislation ‘has been knocked down in every State but Hawai’i.’ Although that bill died, the State did adopt new regulations on gill-netting, and Aila says some fishermen were left feeling disgruntled and concerned about the push to create more marine protected areas (MPA), which could further restrict fishing.

‘This is the environment in which, I’ll be very blunt, Kitty Simonds saw the opportunity to have more leverage with indigenous people and money to spread around,’ Aila says. And those receiving money from Wespac ‘will be less willing to speak against it.’

About 100 persons attended the first puwalu, held in August 2006, and out of that session ‘emerged the need for aha moku councils for each island,’ says Khan. ‘The kupuna said we need to have aha moku councils so we called up our legislators and lobbied them to allow for that.’ With regard to this puwalu, Makaala Kaaumoana’s complaint notes that ‘Ms. Simonds, Wespac Director, ‘presided’ over all the meetings. Sitting in the front of the room at a ‘head table,’ her role as ’sponsor’ of the event was obvious.’

‘Throughout that meeting,’ Kaaumanoa adds, ‘I became increasingly uncomfortable at what appeared to be a very intricately choreographed scenario that was intended to produce a concerted result. I heard Leimana [DaMate] and Kitty Simonds make statements that ‘we (the Hawaiians) had lost the kupuna islands’ (Northwest Hawaiian Islands) and that this threat (unnamed but inferred as State Government leaders) was poised to take away many more.’

Lee and DaMate, in their April 2006 Star-Bulletin commentary, stated that the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) ‘is in the process of creating 15 permanent fishery area closures around the state. These areas are predominantly located where Hawaiians fish. This is not ahupuaa [a traditional land division running from the mountains to the sea] integration, but a concession to a Western process that has already proved to have failed.’

A second puwalu was held in November, and a third in December 2006, which, Keiko Bonk says in her complaint, was attended by several members of the State Legislature, including Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, Sen. Russell Kokubun, chair of the Water, Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs committee, and Rep. Pono Chong, vice chair of the House committee on Water, Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs. Both committees would later hear the aha moku bills.

Bonk, who characterizes the puwalu as ‘lobbying organizing meetings,’ also contends in her complaint that at the December session she ‘witnessed three Wespac associates give a presentation, addressing natural resources and public policy changes. This Wespac presentation included the need to develop policies in line with their Aha Moku concept.’

Khan acknowledges that Wespac employees did address the puwalu, which she thought was reasonable ‘because fishing is their business and they have resources on their staff who can provide information. Is that undue influence? I don’t think so.’

Both Kaaumoana’s complaint and Aila contend that Wespac was disseminating ‘propaganda’ at the various puwalu, such as claiming that Native Hawaiians had no access to the Northerwestern Islands under the executive order that designated it a national monument–when, in fact, their rights are expressly protected. ‘The executive order clearly allows Native Hawaiians to go up there but not to commercially fish, because that’s not a traditional practice,’ Aila says.

When the Legislature convened in January 2007, Bonk’s complaint recounts, three bills related to the puwalu series emerged. Two concerned the aha moku council and the other was a revision of the ‘right to fish’ bill, which in 2006, she notes, ‘had caused considerable controversy about Wespac’s involvement in lobbying the state Legislature.’

The 2007 version of the ‘right to fish’ bill also generated opposition from conservation groups, Hawaiians and others because it would have taken authority for creating marine protection areas away from the state and given it to various private groups, including the AOHHC and the Pacific Islands Fisheries Group, which Bonk says is affiliated with Wespac.

Owens, who was instrumental in securing legislation to protect West Hawai’i fisheries from the aquarium trade, says she started looking more closely into Wespac’s activities in 2006 while following the ‘nightmare fishing bill. I could see this ‘freedom to fish’ bill was imperiling what we’d done here and I wanted them to stay out of West Hawai’i,’ Owens says. ‘When I got more involved and saw the crookedness, I could not believe it. After it [the bill] went down [in 2006], suddenly these puwalu started. Kitty [Simonds] realized nobody’s going to say no to the Hawaiians.’

As part of that strategy, Owens contends, those who questioned the ‘right to fish’ and aha moku bills have been branded racist. ‘We’re not backing down. We know we’re not racist. But it’s been a ploy to get the Hawaiian people to back these bills and then once they’re passed, Wespac pulls all the authority out of them and takes it over itself.’

A fourth puwalu was held in April 2007. Bonk states in her complaint that participants worked with Wespac staff to develop an aha moku council structure, which was then delivered to House and Senate committees deliberating on the bill. She and Kaaumoana further report that attempts were made to exclude those who had expressed objections or concerns in the initial puwalu sessions from subsequent gatherings.

Aila concurs. ‘People who didn’t agree with Wespac’s agenda were no longer invited and their presence at further meetings and side meetings that were supposed to be public was discouraged. It should have been an open process.’

Although the ‘right to fish’ bill never made it out of committee (where it remains alive, however, and could be revived in the 2008 session), legislation was approved authorizing an aha kiole committee to guide the creation of the aha moku council commission. Under Act 212, which refers to the puwalu as a catalyst for the bill, the AOHCC was directed to develop a list of candidates for the aha kiole, with Lingle making the final selection.

At the end of October, a fifth puwalu was held to discuss the implementation of Act 212 and the composition of the aha kiole committee. Owens contends participants also discussed ‘how they could change this advisory position to an actual authoritative agency,’ a position she finds ‘absolutely unacceptable, because it’s Wespac.’

A legislative insider, however, doubts such an effort would prevail. ‘In an election year, with an open federal investigation, the aha moku council and Wespac will be radioactive at the Capitol,’ he says.

Owens says there was also dissension at the AOHCC over the aha kiole nomination list, which was initially prepared by DaMate, ‘who is hardly a disinterested person,’ and included only those who had attended the puwalu.

Khan says DaMate ‘had some names recommended,’ but the AOHCC board ‘felt we needed to expand the opportunity and not just limit it to those’ on DaMate’s list. ‘We have advisory councils on each island and we asked them to add or delete’ from DaMate’s list, Khan says. ‘That’s empowerment, and that’s the intent of the bill in my mind, to empower each island. They came back with names and that’s the list we submitted to the governor.’

From that list, Lingle appointed Timothy Bailey from Maui, Winifred Basques from Lana’i, Vanda Hanakahi from Moloka’i, Sharon Pomroy from Kaua’i, Ilei Beniamina from Ni’ihau, Hugh Lovell from Hawai’i and Charlie Kapua from O’ahu. Les Kuloloio will represent Kaho’olawe. As members of the aha kiole, they are charged with submitting a report prior to the start of the 2009 legislative session advising the state on the structure of the ahu moku council and the composition of the commission that will direct it.

Hanakahi, who will serve as the committee’s chair, did not respond to an inquiry about how the aha kiole’s duties will be carried out, how citizens can get involved and what her hopes are for the process.

‘I feel all of these people are qualified to do the work,’ Khan says. ‘They’re all sincere people and want to do the best they can.’

Khan says she understands why some feel that Wespac influenced the proceedings, since DaMate worked from an office at Wespac and some meetings with cultural practitioners were held at its facilities. ‘I talked to Kitty [Simonds] about that and said I didn’t think that was a good idea because of the perception, so they are looking at different venues’ for future meetings.

‘I think in the journey there were some bumps, but look at the end result: we’re going to have a formal structure on each island to hear the voices of the practitioners,’ Khan says.

Aila sees it differently. ‘It’s the setting up of a little Wespac within the state system,’ he says. ‘The losers in this were the Hawaiian Civic Clubs who partnered with Wespac.’

Aila says the AOHCC repudiated Wespac at its annual convention, held this past October in Anchorage, when a subcommittee denied, by a vote of 29-1, a motion to ‘thank Wespac for all its hard work with the puwalu.’

Aila says Simonds attempted to discredit him and have the resolution brought to the floor, claiming that no investigation of Wespac was under way, but the move was killed when he distributed copies of the Inspector General’s letter confirming an open investigation.

Khan acknowledges that ’some people think Wespac have their hands too much in the pot and don’t like who was appointed’ to the aha kiole committee. ‘It’s important to let that go and let them do their work and if we don’t like what they do, we can express it at the Legislature’ when the panel submits its recommendations, Khan says.

Aila, however, says ‘Wespac is in it too deeply’ to just move on. ‘It will never have the integrity as long as Wespac and people associated with Wespac are involved.’ Both he and Owens object to DaMate serving as an assistant to the aha kiole committee, a position she apparently received in a rather ad-hoc fashion, without considering other candidates.

‘That’s an example of the manipulation and the lack of transparency,’ Aila says. ‘There needs to be an objective, in-depth review of how the process is developing. The DLNR has to take an active role in making sure there’s no undue influence from Wespac. I have cautioned [DNLR Director] Laura Thielen about this process and what she chooses to do with that information is up to her. She did not seem receptive.’

Khan believes the process can work if the public participates fully in the aha kiole meetings that are getting under way on each island to gather comments about an aha moku system. ‘We have to be out there and give our manao [thoughts] because that is the process.’

Aila also advocates participation, for a slightly different reason. ‘It’s my responsibility as somebody who’s an outsider to keep an eye on things, and you can be assured I will.’

But as the aha kiole begins its work, it remains unclear just how the public can participate in the process, and whether Wespac is already so deeply embedded in the process of determining how Hawai’i’s natural resources will be managed that such community vigilence is ultimately rendered moot.