From Marti:
Late in the day on December 23rd, the final version of the Monument management plan was quietly published on the Papahānaumokuākea website. No press release. No email to the list serv. Just a quick post on the eve of the Eve of Christmas, which just happened to get picked up in a google alert days later.
Given all the eco-mojo the Bush Administration has tried to squish out of this “blue asterisk,” you would expect a mighty deal be made of finally finishing the management plan two years later. The fact that the release was so secretive has gotta make you wonder what’s actually in it.
On their website, James Connaugton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality is quoted as saying:
“When President Bush first designated the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in June 2006, his goal was to move beyond just thinking about conservation to carefully managing this important area.”
Yikes! What does the federal government mean exactly when it says “move beyond” conservation?
Well, from what we see in the plan it means:
- no limit on military activities affecting Monument resources (not even a discussion of what it would take to abide by the proclamation and “minimize and mitigate” half-pound pieces of fiery shrapnel hitting Nihoa).
- no ban on bioprospecting, which is the taking of public trust resources for exploitation and profit by corporations, academic institutions, and private individuals.
- no limit on the number of people that can access and/or take from this “no take” reserve.
- no assessment of the cumulative risks and impacts of past and anticipated human activity in the Monument.
- no public advisory council, which has been key in forcing transparent & accountable decisionmaking.
Over 50% of the proposed 355 million-dollar budget is for government operations and research, while a mere 12% goes to reducing existing threats, like clean-up of marine debris and legacy military contamination. The plan also fails to allocate sufficient resources for Native Hawaiian involvement in Monument decision-making, and leaves decision-making to a closed-door Monument Management Board.
The plan essentially abandons the “precautionary principle,” which was a hallmark of the State’s visionary pre-monument protections that required biological, cultural and historic resource integrity be favored when the impacts of any proposed activity were uncertain.
So while the revised vision, mission, and goals now commit to conservation as the purpose of the Monument, you can see that the actions to implement this plan remain largely unimproved over the weak draft released earlier this Spring.
When the draft version of this plan was released, the National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Biological Diversity and more than a dozen other organizations–representing well over 5 million people–joined KAHEA in strongly criticizing the management plan. Despite two years of advocacy, and thousands of public letters and comments calling for a stronger, more protective plan, it is apparent that our united call for a true pu‘uhonua didn’t fit with the federal government’s vision for the future of “conservation” in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
So, here’s our take – a quote for the papers – on the federal government’s attempt to “move beyond” conservation:
“This is conservation on paper, but not in practice. They have reshuffled the goals to say ‘full conservation’ but their proposed actions speak louder than their words. They are exempting increased military exercises proposed for this extremely delicate ocean habitat from management. They are proposing increased tourism, new construction, and extractive research without adequate public oversight and Native Hawaiian consultation,” said Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.
To learn more about this issue, including a detailed review of the draft plan, visit our website at: www.kahea.org
