Entries from July 2009
From Alana:
For the past few weeks there have been numerous articles, editorials, and letters to editors in several local newspapers regarding open ocean aquaculture. A recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser states that
the large size and experimental nature of the [Hawaii Oceanic Tech] project demands that state regulators, and the public, keep a critical eye on the project as it moves forward.
The article goes on to say that the objective of this project is an organic, ecologically sustainable fish.
PROBLEM #1: Organic. The problem with this is that there are no organic standards for fish farming. It would also be especially hard to develop one for open ocean aquaculture, because the cages are not closed systems. Anything that is in the water will wind up in the bodies of the fish.
Hawaii Oceanic Tech also hopes to use “organic feed” for their fish. The main ingredient in HOTIs feed will be “sardines from sustainable fish stocks”. But, this goes back to what I said above: there are no organic standards for fish, so any claims of their feed being so are false.
PROBLEM #2: Ecologically Sustainable. This is a tricky one, just because it is so undefined. What is ecologically sustainable? Everything humanity does will impact the environment in some way. Perhaps ecologically sustainable means there is a balance of pros and cons for the environment. But what are the pros in this situation? Proponents of aquaculture say that farming fish gives wild populations a chance to repopulate, but this is easily proven wrong by the environmental havoc that fish farming has caused in British Columbia and other places where fish farms are popular. Many Canadians are embarrassed that their government has let the caged farming industry expand because of its serious impacts.
More information about ocean fish farming’s impact on wild stocks can be found here: Science Daily: Ocean Fish Farming Harms Wild Fish, Study Says (Neil Frazer-UH)
Keep your eyes open for more aquaculture in the news in the coming weeks.
Categories: Aquaculture · activism · conservation · fisheries · food sovereignty · gmo · island sustainability · ocean protection
Tagged: conservation, fisheries, gmo, ocean, ocean protection, sustainability
Rock, Metal, Petrol-based Product Dumped in Stream Bed
City of Honolulu Must Clean Mess, Halt Illegal Acts
posted by: Stewart
The U.S. government has ordered the City and County of Honolulu to clean up an illegal dump in Waianae after the city was found to have used a stream bed as a landfill for more than a year, in violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which announced the order earlier today, the area of the dump was about 1.08 acres, or roughly the area of a football field.
The EPA’s order requires the city to remove the illegally dumped material and restore the stream bed and banks of Maili’ili Stream near Waianae. Under the order, the city of Honolulu also must refrain from dumping more material in the stream bed, which is located near Waianae, a poor community on Oahu’s Leeward Coast that is largely populated by Native Hawaiians.
In July, the EPA inspected the stream and confirmed that concrete rubble, metal debris, dirt, and petroleum-based asphalt had been placed in Maili’ili Stream. The city had filled an area of about 1.08 acres in Maili’ili Stream: along both the north and south banks, the fill was about eight yards wide for a distance of about 175 yards. Fill extended across the entire 33-yard channel width for the uppermost 70 yards of the stream, the EPA said.
“This order will protect the coastline and water quality by removing the unauthorized fill and restoring the Maili’ili Stream to its previous condition,” said Alexis Strauss, the EPA’s Water Division director for the Pacific Southwest region. “It’s vital to consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and obtain needed permits well in advance of any fill activity.”
Categories: activism · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights
From Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and one of KAHEA’s Board of Directors:
As a former telescope system specialist on Mauna Kea, I value both Polynesian and modern astronomy. Unfortunately, the West Hawaii Today editorial endorsing the Thirty Meter Telescope Board’s selection of Mauna Kea over Chile contained several inaccuracies—and one insult to Hawaiians.
Portraying modern astronomy as an extension of traditional Native Hawaiian star and navigational knowledge is inaccurate and obscures the fact that modern astronomy now threatens to displace traditional astronomy on Mauna Kea and the people who practice it there. Hawaiians use Mauna Kea’s high elevation landscape for ceremonies that contain star and other knowledge essential to modern Hawaiian voyaging, knowledge our ancestors used to discover thousands of tiny islands spread over ten million square miles of the vast Pacific Ocean, before the time of Christ and millennia before modern astronomy.
But the constant building of new telescopes has destroyed critical landmarks and obstructed essential view planes that reveal star paths and astronomical alignments. Too much of Mauna Kea’s landscape has already been leveled, and TMT plans to bulldoze more. Eventually, thousands of years of traditional knowledge codified in the landscape will be lost, and practitioners will no longer be able to keep the knowledge alive. With TMT may also come nighttime access restrictions to areas we now use for traditional astronomy. These are among the reasons Hawaiians urged the TMT Board to build in Chile, which their own analysis suggests will inflict less environmental and cultural damage.
Categories: conservation · land and cultural rights
Tagged: conservation, cultural practice, cultural rights, mauna kea
From Melissa:
Haleakala National Park is being invaded by Yellowjacket wasps as you are reading this blog.
Invading wasps in Haleakala National Park, which usually make nests the size of a football, have grown nests “the size of a ‘57 Buick,” according to a new study.
Research just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows a fascinating interplay in which the invaders are being shaped by their new environment, just as they are drastically changing the native ecosystem. Not only do the aliens — western yellowjacket wasps, Vespula pensylvanica — take advantage of the lack of cold winters to grow huge nests, they have taken to eating vertebrate meat as well as other insects, geckos and native shearwaters.
Erin Wilson, who has just completed a doctorate in biology at the University of California, San Diego, studied the yellowjackets at Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks in 2006 and 2007. The yellowjackets have been a problem in the parks for years, but their new diet and their numbers were a surprise.
In a telephone interview from Acadia National Park in Maine, where she is vacationing, Wilson said yellowjackets like high, lonely places.
They are hard to find, which is why the size of the nests — up to 600,000 individuals compared with a few thousand in a usual nest — escaped attention.
Along with Argentinian ants, the yellowjackets are among the most dangerous alien arthropod invaders of the park.
“It’s not just what they’re killing,” Wilson said. “They’re also collecting great amounts of nectar, drawing down the resources for anything else that might want to feed on it, whether it’s native insects or birds like the Hawaiian honeycreepers.”
The wasps do not attack and kill vertebrates. They scavenge the protein-rich remains of dead animals. But even that could help unbalance the native ecosystem by usurping the food supply for native scavengers, like the pueo.
To read full story, click here
Categories: Haleakala · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability
Tagged: Haleakala, invasive, wasp, yellowjacket
From Alana:
Instead of having a limit of 2,120 sets of fishing gear deployments annually, Wespac thinks it’s a better idea to just catch swordfish until a sea turtle gets tangled in the net… WHAT?
Green sea turtles, loggerhead turtles, and leatherback turles are all endangered species that live in Hawaii. This new rule puts all three of these species at an even higher risk, along with dolphins, sharks, seabird, and whales.
There is a lot to lose when less stringent rules are introduced in commercial fishing:
Hawaiian longliners have historically hooked two to 10 sharks for every swordfish. At least 60,000 sharks–and more often around 100,000–are caught each year by swordfish crews, who often cut off the fins from live animals and then allow them to slide off the deck and drown…[furthermore] If this proposal goes forward, Fisheries is estimating a humpback will be killed every year.
Mahalo to everyone who took action on this issue in our last e-newsletter.
Click here to read the entire article from the Honolulu Weekly : Swordfight!
Categories: conservation · fisheries · ocean protection
Tagged: endangered species, fisheries, ocean protection, oceans
From Alana:
Entitled Aquaculture in Hawaii: Economic Advantage or Source of Sustainability, the Hawaii Venture Capitalist Association’s recent meeting addressed the benefits of many types of aquaculture in Hawaii. I think the presentation did a good job of explaining how aquaculture could be in Hawaii, in its most ideal form.
One of the first things mentioned was that aquaculture could help restore wild fish populations that are headed towards extinction. They failed to address, however, how that would happen. It is accepted in the scientific community that fish raised in fish farms are much less fit to live in the wild. Another weak point in the presentation was explaining how the current and future open ocean aquaculture ventures would increase self-sufficiency in Hawaii by reducing imports. Up to 90% of the future ventures’ fish would be exported, while the 10% allotted for Hawaii would go to restaurants like Alan Wong’s and Mariposa, restaurants that most people here can’t afford to go to on a regular basis.
There were also two slides that were completely skipped, clearly regarding genetics. I understand that this may have been due to time constraints, but the public deserves to know not only about possible economic gains from aquaculture, but also the genetic and environmental consequences of it.
A good way to sum up the outlook of the meeting is with the quote
“If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”
this quote was used during the presentation, but who is to say what is worth doing and what isn’t? Is anything worth doing badly anymore? A commenter on one of m previous posts claimed that “fish poop” produced from aquaculture can curb the effects of climate change by absorbing the CO2 from the atmosphere, and adding it to the ocean. However, as my previous “ocean acidification” post details, an increase nutrient-rich fish effluent leads to the acidification of the ocean, thereby further risking the health of many ecosystems.
Once again, I urge everyone to learn more about what is going on in terms of aquaculture in Hawaii.
Here are some links to more info on open ocean aquaculture. It is our responsibility to find out as much as we can while we can.
Food and Water Watch: Fish Farms
Kona Blue Fish Farm
Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc
Categories: Aquaculture · events · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: Aquaculture, cultural practice, fisheries, gmo, ocean protection, sustainability
From Melissa-
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has provided evidence supporting the theory that genetically modified (GM) foods cause adverse health effects. Many studies cited within their position paper on GM foods indicate that when certain animals are fed strict diets consisting of only GM foods, there is a”serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.
In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: “The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.”12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.
Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”13
Because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, the AAEM asks that:
Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.
Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.
For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
To read the full article, please click here.
Categories: food sovereignty · gmo
Tagged: American Academy of Environmetal Medicine, health, precautionary principle
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
Categories: 1 · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · climate change · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, biofuels, cap and trade, climate change, climate justice, conservation, energy, energy independence, energy law, environmental justice, fossil fuels, global warming, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, legislature, management, northwestern hawaiian islands, ocean, oceans, renewable energy, renewable portfolio standards, sustainability
From Alana:
On Thursday night, a film entitled A Sea Change, was shown at the Bishop Museum. It addressed the much ignored by-product of climate change, ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is, arguably, the most dire consequence of adding ridiculous amounts of carbon dioxide to the air.
For years, the ocean has been absorbing extra CO2 from the air, a total of 118 billion metric tons of it. Adding 22 billion pounds of CO2 to the ocean each day is severely changing the chemistry of the water. But what is wrong with the pH of the ocean lowering by .1, or .01, or even .001? It may not seem like much to us, but any change affects what all life depends on most: the creatures at the bottom of the ocean food chain, namely pteropods. Pteropods are moth-like, transparent creatures, that seem to fly in the deep ocean. They are the food for a myriad of creatures, which in turn are the food source for hundreds of other creatures, that humans then feed on. Increased amounts of CO2, though, are causing the pteropods’ calciferous shells to disintegrate. This threatens the entire food chain.
Scientists have underestimated the magnitude and haste of climate change. They assert that we are past the point where we can stop the extinctions that will come with the disappearance of pteropods and coral. This situation is so extreme that within a few centuries humans could be all but extinct as well. As one scientist simply exclaims, “we’re screwed”.
The thing that disgusts me most about all of this, though, is that we could have solved it by now. It would only cost TWO PERCENT of our GDP to solve the energy crisis. It can be argued that 2% of GDP is a lot of money, but I think it might be a good asking price for ensuring the continuation of our survival as a species, and the survival of the animals we depend on. To put this in perspective, enough photovoltaic cells could have been built to power the entire United States with only $420 billion–HALF of the Iraq war budget.
A big hurdle that the public has to face is simply realizing how much we rely on the ocean, and that it is in fact possible for us to change something that big. Most people accept the fact that the ice is melting, but continually deny that life is endangered because of human activity. One woman in the film says,
“We are a very visual species. What is below water is invisible to us. What we can’t see, we pollute… because it doesn’t exist to us.”
So what can we do about this? The main thing to do is just analyze your lifestyle and make sure that what you do doesn’t add to this serious problem. Venture capitalists have the choice of going down the alley of exploitation as easily as the alley of sustainability. The government owes it to everyone to do something about this. This type of problem will threaten national security, the world food supply, etc, so when is anyone going to do something about this in terms of strong legislation– or creating an actual plan of action?? Depending on your age, you may not see the effects, but it is real. It is not going away. I know that there will not only be a sea change in my lifetime, but a world of change.
Categories: climate change · conservation · island sustainability · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: conservation, coral, endangered species, island sustainability, ocean protection, sustainability
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!
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: DLNR, lawsuit
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.
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · fisheries · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, beaches, conservation, cultural rights, culture, fisheries, land and cultural rights, marine protected area, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection
From Alana:
This week Mauna Kea was chosen as the site for the Thirty Meter Telescope. It was chosen over a location in the Chilean Atacama Desert. In the weeks prior to the decision, some people thought that Mauna Kea might not be chosen because of its significantly higher cost, but was anyone actually surprised when the Mauna Kea site was chosen? It is sad to see untouched, sacred land used for a telescope that could be obsolete in a matter of years. In these job-hungry times the state should be focusing on creating jobs that invigorate the ‘aina, rather than destroy it. The ecological and cultural price might be even more than the price of building it…
More information on the Mauna Kea site: http://www.tmt.org/news/site-selection.htm
Categories: 1 · conservation · mauna kea · telescopes
Tagged: cultural practice, cultural rights, mauna kea, sacred summit
From: Andrea
Last night at the public hearing on the Draft Science Plan for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, held at the monument office in Hawaii Kai, a troubling consequence of the lack of environmental review was elucidated.
One of the Science Plan authors stated that research activities that have already been permitted are assumed to have gone through a “rigorous” review by management. The problem?
Actually, there could be quite a few from this muddy statement. For one, this statement suggests that research activities that have already been permitted will not be scrutinized- nor, certainly, environmentally assessed- in the future. It sounds like grandfathering-in existing and previous permits, meaning some activities that have been permitted in the past will be continuously assumed to pass muster, despite never actually being environmentally reviewed.
Clearly, grandfathering-in research activities so that they never undergo environmental review creates informational ravines that make cumulative impact analysis impossible. Cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action, must be assessed. The managers need to understand the big picture, especially when making seemingly small decisions like permitting.
Secondly, what is this “rigorous” review that the manager mentioned? There has been no environmental assessment on any permits nor the entire permitting system nor the Science Plan, so it clearly was not environmental review. If this rigorous review were undertaken via the prioritization system of the Science Plan, that, too, is problematic.
As I have blogged before, the Science Plan has two tragic flaws: (1) the prioritization scheme that doesn’t actually prioritize permit activities (To prioritize permit activities, it asks, pros and…pros?, leading to 97% of potential research activities to be ranked as “critical” or “high” in importance.) and (2) the lack of environmental review.
But, the environmental assessment did not come with the Science Plan. The managers argue that this is the draft plan, so environmental assessment is not appropriate now. However, they also proclaim the plan to be an evolving document- not problematic necessarily. The evolving nature of the plan is problematic, however, for lack of environmental review because, if it is meant to evolve, when would the managers consider environmental review appropriate? There could always be an argument that it is not truly finalized yet if it’s an “evolving” document.
On the other side, if the monument managers, in fact, conduct an environmental assessment for the Final Science Plan, which is the next step after last night’s public hearing, the decision on permitting prioritization will have been made. And, environmental assessment is legally required to take place prior to decision-making. The whole point of environmental review is for decision-makers to be informed of environmental impacts before they make final decisions.
So, either the Science Plan truly is an evolving document, in which case an environmental review is likely to be put off forever. Or, the Science Plan will be finalized in the next step, the Final Science Plan, which frustrates the point of environmental review taking place before decisions are made.
Confusing? Yes. But it need not be.
KAHEA urges the monument managers to take the straightforward approach by conducting environmental review of the Science Plan, which guides the entire permitting process, prior to finalization of the plan. KAHEA also urges environmental review of all permits- no grandfathering-in. Each proposed permit should be looked at with a fresh eye, through the lens of cumulative impacts, which inherently change over time.
Let’s hope that public comments are indeed incorporated into the Final Science Plan, whenever that may be. Otherwise, the one-sided prioritization system will continue to rank most activities high, leading to excessive access and impact in a fragile, irreplaceable ecosystem.
What can you do? Speak up!
Last public hearing on the Science Plan is in Hilo tomorrow:
Hawai‘i, July 23th, 6-8 p.m.
Mokupapapa Discovery Center,
308 Kamehameha Ave, Suite 203, Hilo, HI, 96720.
All written public comments must be received by the monument managers by or before August 10.
• U.S. Mail:
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Attn: Science Plan Comments, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, Suite 300, Honolulu HI, 96825
• E-mail: nwhicomments@noaa.gov.
To read the plan:
http://papahanaumokuakea.gov/research/plans/draft_natressciplan.pdf
(It takes a few minutes to download, but once you’re there, skip to page 10 for the prioritization chart.)
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, beaches, conservation, coral, cultural rights, endangered species, environmental justice, hawaii, hearing, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, malama, management, marine protected area, monk seals, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline, superferry, sustainability, whales
KAHEA Suit Asks Court to Enforce Law On Permits
Complaint Follows Whistleblower Suit By State Worker
“This is not the wild west; there are laws here.”
From Stewart:
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are known around the globe as one of the world’s last intact, fully functional marine ecosystems. They are home to highly endangered Hawaiian monk seals and the birthplace of more than ninety percent of threatened green sea turtles. Thousands of people participated in the establishment of the islands as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which led state and federal regulators to commit to a “do no harm” policy for all human activities allowed in the monument. The monument is intended to be one of the most protected places on earth, with access strictly limited by the do-no-harm policy and applicable state and federal laws.
Despite these protections, the state of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Division of Aquatic Resources have ignored their legal obligations when permitting activities in the reserve. The agencies have brushed aside KAHEA’s repeated objections to the agency’s practices. And when a lawyer working as a policy specialist to the Division of Aquatic Resources dared point out that the division was failing to follow the law the law, the division responded by firing the lawyer.
KAHEA has decided enough is enough.
The organization today filed suit against the department and division; the complaint asks the court to require the state agencies to comply with the law.
“This is a place of enormous cultural significance of the Hawaiian people and is intended to be one of the world’s most protected places,” said Marti Townsend, program director and staff attorney for KAHEA. “It is unfortunate that the agencies have forced us to take legal action simply to get the agencies to follow the law, but they left us no choice.”
“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,” said Kumu Hula Vicky Holt-Takamine, KAHEA’s Board President. “DLNR must follow these laws.”
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · conservation · fisheries · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, coral, cultural rights, culture, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, marine protected area, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline
From: Andrea
Most people are familiar with our inalienable natural rights, as John Locke summed up as life, liberty, and property. But what about nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve?
These are the inalienable legal rights that the town of Shapleigh, Maine, voted to grant to nature last February. Now, in the town of Shapleigh, population 2,326, natural communities and ecosystems are endowed with these inalienable, fundamental rights, and any town resident has “standing” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of natural communities and ecoystems.
Read the Boston Globe article here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/19/should_nature_be_able_to_take_you_to_court/?page=1
Shapleigh is on the right track. While critics may argue there are too many potential litigants, ranging from the Kukui tree to the Waimea River, there exists an entire planet of species and ecosystems deserving of the right to exist. And, sadly, counts of these potential litigants are diminishing. See:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01296862.htm
The above article, published July 2, reports that more than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the last five-hundred years, with almost 17,000 threatened with extinction now, according to a recent International Union for Conservation of Nature report. The track record shows that we are failing at conservation. Endowing nature with the right to exist may bolster our efforts at conserving biodiversity.
Apparent in many facets of our social structure, we have consistently valued profit above nature. After all, corporations have long had the legal status of a “person” and the corresponding rights, including ability to sue. If corporations are “persons” in the sense of legal status and rights, then what is the problem with nature possessing rights to exist? Nature is fundamental to our own existence, quite unlike corporations.
We are behind the time in recognizing nature’s rights. Notwithstanding the dire situation of lost biodiversity, concepts of an ethical relationship with nature have been around for at least 100 years. Aldo Leopold, an early environmentalist, wrote about his “land ethic” in A Sand County Almanac. Based on the idea that ethics should be expanded to encompass nonhuman members of the biotic community, Leopold summed up his land ethic as follows: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” If we humans were on board with this profoundly simple land ethic- and had been during our last couple hundred years of pillaging-, then perhaps we would not be in the situation of having to pass town ordinances to grant nature the right to exist.
But, alas, so is human nature. Our attempts at control have led us to a precarious precipice: here, at the edge of continuing to diminish biodiversity, we have a choice. The town of Shapleigh recognized this watershed moment and stepped in the direction of preservation.
If my town votes for a similar ordinance, you bet I’ll holler aye. And, when critics question, “how do we know what nature wants?” and argue that the interest is actually ours, I’ll have my response.
Sure, we humans may be the ones instituting this groundbreaking regime of granting legal rights to biota. But in reality, the idea of humans bringing these suits on behalf of nature is not so far-fetched. After all, people serve as trustees to bring suits on behalf of incompetent people and trust beneficiaries. Human implementation of nature’s rights is requisite: the law is our system, and our impacts and attempts to control ecosystems thus far have led to the gross loss in biodiversity.
Humans- but not corporations- are a part of the planetary ecosystem. We are not the operators behind an enormous control panel, like we have long been masquerading. As a single species, we should make room in our legal and socioeconomic structures for the other species to survive, lest we deprive them all of their right to exist.
We should be celebrating and wholeheartedly codifying nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve. Without nature, without Earth, homo sapiens would not exist.
Ho’okahi No Ka ‘Aina A Me Na Kanaka.
Categories: Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · climate change · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, conservation, corporations as persons, cultural rights, endangered species, environmental justice, ethics, extinction, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, legal rights, legislature, monk seals, natural rights, nature, ocean protection, sustainability
From Alana:
Last Friday there was a community aquaculture meeting at the UH Law School. It was fourth of four presentations given by Christina Lizzi (Food and Water Watch, DC), Rob Parsons (Food and Water Watch Coordinator, Maui), and Kale Gumapac (Kanaka Council). The other three meetings were on the Big Island and Maui. Only about 10 people showed up to the one on O’ahu (granted, it was on short notice, and had limited publicity), but a lot of concerns were raised, and was apparent that people are not only curious about these sci-fi fish farms, but they are also concerned. The meetings were informative about aquaculture, and the risks that come with it anywhere it the world, and also had a very cultural focus on Hawai’i.
Some of the environmental and legal issues brought up in discussion:
What state entity should preside over aquaculture?
Kona Blue has been meeting with Monsanto, the GMO company, for GMO soy in feed.
How can wild fish in feed be reduced, while also eliminating GMO protein substitutes, like soy?
Kona Blue has plans to genetically engineer a stronger type of kahala fish. Escapes of GMO fish, or GMO fed fish could lead to terrible repercussions in the wild.
Who holds ultimate title to leased aquaculture areas? In reality it is ceded land, and leases could be contested.
Kona Blue is not paying fair market value on leased area (only ~$14,000 per year)
All feed is imported, and its content is not released. It could have preservatives, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, etc.
Virtually all of ocean farmed fish would be exported from the islands.
Permit requirements for onshore hatcheries? The impacts of the hatcheries may be as harmful as what happens in the ocean.
Who would enforce buffer zones around larger ventures? DOCARE? Coast Guard?
Cultural issues brought up in discussion:
Hukilau Foods, the company running the fish farm off of Ewa beach, takes advantage of the concept of the hukilau, which historically would benefit the entire ahupua’a by providing fish to everyone who helped. Hukilau Foods, however, exports the majority of their fish to the mainland. (Asking Hukilau Foods to share their bounty on harvest days would make a big statement)
Hawai’i open ocean aquaculture operations have a tendency to equate themselves with the loko i’a (native Hawaiian fish ponds). This is similar to comparing the TMT to native Hawaiian astronomy. It is fallacious, and the two could not be more different. The ancient fishponds were set up to be self-sustaining ecosystems. They were poly-culture systems that used barracuda, sea turtles, seaweed, predatory fish, and smaller fish like a checks and balances system. It did not have to constantly be monitored for disease, and the fish did not need to be fed. The ponds were also separate from the open ocean.
In past generations the ocean was revered for its healing properties. Even when I was growing up I was taught to go in the ocean if I had a wound, but these days you are more likely to get staff infection than be healed. The ocean is changing, and not for the better. Adding an unknown amount of fish excrement to our waters could lead to a rise in “slime” which can lead to several health problems in humans.
EIS’ fail to address most cultural concerns. How will sharks that are attracted to the cages be address? In 2005 Kona Blue killed a resident 16-foot tiger shark that many people felt was an ‘aumakua.
Obviously there are a lot of conflicting interests here regarding land and ocean use. We came to the conclusion that the best way to benefit our island community would be to use all the money that would have be given to aquaculture ventures, to instead restore the loko i’a. If that happened, entire communities would reap the benefits, and not just a CEO and 20 employees of a company. Open ocean aquaculture has already proven itself to be a generally unprofitable business in Hawai’i– Kona Blue says it needs to expand or it will go out of business. Why not produce something locally, in a truly sustainable way, that would be for local people? The infrastructure for fishponds is already there, they just need a little makeover.
Categories: 1
From Melissa:
The Army plans to continue on with training in Makua Valley even though over 50 species of endangered plants and animals are found in the valley, over 100 of archaeological features are present and there is much resistance from the local community. 
Eight years after agreeing to do so, the Army yesterday completed an environmental examination of military training in Makua Valley by saying it wants to conduct up to 32 combined-arms live-fire exercises and 150 convoy live-fire exercises annually in the 4,190-acre Wai’anae Coast valley.
The “record of decision” by the Army scales back from the 50 combined arms and 200 convoy exercises the Army selected in June as a “preferred” alternative.
“This (Makua) environmental impact statement was a very thorough and publicly open process,” said Maj. Gen. Raymond V. Mason, commander of the Army in Hawai’i and the deciding official. “We’ve reached the best decision that allows our soldiers and small units to train locally and reduces their time away from families, all while ensuring the Army continues to protect the precious environment entrusted to us.”
To reduce the risk of range fires and threats to endangered species and cultural sites, the Army said it would not use tracer ammunition, TOW or Javelin missiles, anti-tank and 2.75-caliber rockets, or illumination rounds.
Additionally, the proposed use of added training lands at Ka’ena Point and what’s known as the “C-Ridge” in Makua are off the table, the Army said.
But Earthjustice attorney David Henkin, who has represented community group Malama Makua in a nearly nine-year lawsuit against the Army, said the level of training proposed still far exceeds anything conducted by the Army before 2004.
Under the terms of a 2001 settlement, live fire with helicopters, mortars, artillery and a company of about 150 soldiers was halted in 2004 because the Army hadn’t completed the agreed-upon environmental impact statement.
“This is a common trick, which is, let’s propose something totally horrendous … and then compromise with something that’s just awful, and people will be thankful, and that’s sort of the (Army’s) approach,” Henkin said of the Army’s record of decision issued yesterday.
Henkin said the Army proposes to do at Makua essentially the same training and use the types of weapons “that time and time again in the past have caused wildfires that have killed endangered species.”
To read the full article click here.
Categories: conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · military toxics
Tagged: Army Training, EIS, Makua Valley
From Melissa-
Maui taro farmers need your help. Our beloved Haloa is once again under the threat of being generically modified, this time on Maui. The Maui County Council needs to
hear from the public on this issue. Please voice your opinion (in Haloa’s favor of course) and let it be known to the council that you care about the purity of the kalo within the islands. Take a minute out of your day to contact the council and show your opposition to GM taro. Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta have been making their rounds, so pick up your phone and show them that Hawaii doesn’t back down on this issue.
Ask them to support Bill 09-100 and help protect taro from genetic modification.
Council members to contact:
Mike Molina (Haiku, Paia, Makawao) 270-5507
Gladys Baisa (Kula, Pukalani, Ulupalakua) 270-7939
Joe Pontanilla (Kahului) 270-5501
Jo Anne Johnson (West Maui) 270-5504
Danny Mateo (Molokai) 270-7678
Sol Kaho’ohalahala (Lanai) 270-7768
Bill Medeiros (East Maui) 270-7246
Wayne Nishiki (South Maui) 270-7108
Michael Victorino (Wailuku, Waihee, Waikapu) 270-7760
Councilmembers are expected to make a key decision in this process by July 16th, so please, please, please call them today. Your phone call could help to extend the shield of protection for taro to one more county.
Categories: 1 · activism · food sovereignty · gmo · kalo · taro
Tagged: Farmers, Maui County Council
From: Stewart
If Waianae residents want to stop people from treating their community like a garbage dump, they shouldn’t expect much from the City and County of Honolulu or the State of Hawaii. It took private citizens – namely a handful of KAHEA allies – to police the neighborhood and call attention to an illegal dump that appears to have been operating for years.
The latest reports of apparent illegal dumping in Waianae come less than a month after reports that Honolulu city workers had been dumping huge amounts of broken concrete in a stream in Waianae in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.
According to Will Hoover’s report in The Honolulu Advertiser, the more recent discovery was prompted by Lucy Gay, director of Continuing Education & Training at Leeward Community College in Wai’anae. Auntie Lucy, Hoover reported, learned about the landfill from a colleague who hiked the isolated area over the July Fourth weekend and stumbled across huge debris piles. Auntie Lucy joined Auntie Alice Greenwood and investigated the site on their own and contacted Carroll Cox of EnviroWatch. The three returned on Thursday, along with students from Leeward Community College.
Although the dump found by Auntie Lucy and Auntie Alice appears to be illegal, the City and County of Honolulu seems intent on taking more formal action to make Waianae the official trash heap of Oahu. Namely, the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting is drafting a new development plan for Waianae that will serve as the basis for zoning decisions in the area, and it seems Mayor Hannemann wants to let a landowner rezone some agriculture land into industrial land to allow for a garbage dump. The new plan will have to allow for this change.
The first battle will be before the City Council, which will need to approve the Mayor’s development plan. As with the illegal dump, citizens are going to have to step up. As recent history has shown, City Hall would just as well let Waianae get trashed.
Categories: activism · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights
From: Andrea
U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii is soliciting community interest in creating a Restoration Advisory Board as part of the Military Munitions Response Program for two sites near the U.S. Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area. The motivation for the Restoration Advisory Board is to enable community participation in environmental issues on previously used military training sites.
Currently, the focus of the Restoration Advisory Board would be the remedial investigation of two response sites: the closed Humuula Sheep Station and the Kulani Boys’ Home.
The Board will be formed if enough community interest is expressed. The Board would be composed of community members, government representatives, and other stakeholders. The Board members would attend meetings and review and comment on plans and reports related to the investigation.
For more information or to request an application, contact:
Environmental Divison
MMRP Program Manager
Director of Public Works, USAG-HI
948 Santos Dumont Ave.
Building 105, 3rd Floor, WAAF
Schofield Barracks, HI 96857
Phone: 808-656-3109
Fax: 808-656-1039
*Applications must be postmarked or emailed by August 14!
Categories: activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · military toxics · other
Tagged: activism, conservation, cultural rights, development, environmental justice, island sustainability, malama, militarization, military, military toxics, sustainability
From: Andrea
The U.S. Coast Guard removed 32 tons of debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands over the Fourth of July weekend. Much thanks to the Coast Guard for ameliorating the health of our oceans! See the Honolulu Advertiser article:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090713/BREAKING01/307130004/U.S.%20Coast%20Guard%20removes%2032%20tons%20of%20debris%20from%20Northwestern%20Hawaiian%20Islands?GID=e/Si+j1sOYkNlMXAMxQScaqw1wgB5/Nurtn+5iNvNh8%3D
While I am glad that efforts to clean up marine litter are taking place, especially in such an irreplaceable, nationally protected locale, 32 tons is only the tip of the iceberg. The scale of this problem is vast. Marine litter filling our oceans is a global problem affecting all people and nations. Marine litter, of which 80% are plastics, harms marine life, degrades human health, and results in tremendous social, economic, and cultural costs.
The United Nations Environment Programme recognizes this immense ocean dilemma that affects everyone. In April 2009, the UN Environment Programme released a report titled “Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.” Find the report at:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litter-A_Global_Challenge.pdf
“There is an increasingly urgent need to approach the issue of marine litter through better enforcement of laws and regulations, expanded outreach and educational campaigns, and the employment of strong economic instruments and incentives,” the report says.
The report also notes that the “overall situation is not improving.” Thank you, Coast Guard, for your part. But, we must do our part, too.
What can you do to help reduce marine litter?
- Keep streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and storm drains free of trash to prevent washing trash into the ocean and waterways.
- Take reusable items- and less trash and throw-away containers- to the beach.
- At the beach, be sure to recycle what you can and throw the rest of your trash into trash cans. Do not leave trash or anything else, like plastic toys or containers, at the beach when you leave.
- Pick up debris that other people have left; recycle what you can, and throw the rest away in a trash can.
- When fishing, take all of your nets, gear, and other materials back onshore to recycle or dispose of in a trash can.
- If you smoke, take your butts with you, disposing of them in a trash can.
- When boating, stow and secure all trash on the vessel.
- Participate in local clean-ups. Here’s one resource: http://www.adoptabeachhawaii.com/
- Reduce, reuse, recycle.
- Serve as an example to others.
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: access, activism, beach access, beaches, conservation, cultural rights, development, environmental justice, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, marine protected area, marine reserve, monk seals, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline, sustainability
From: Andrea
Sparked by curiosity about the legal procedure for chemical spills and releases, I have been researching the Hawaii Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act. After days picking apart the details of this Act and related regulations, I am left to wonder where I may find the “Community-Right-to-Know” aspect.
It seems like it should be called Department of Health-Right-to-Know. Nowhere in this Act is there a mandate for notifying the public when there is a chemical release or spill. Facilities that store hazardous and extremely hazardous substances over a threshold amount are bound to report their chemical inventory and releases or spills to the Department. But, what about notifying the public of this danger?
As discovered by a call to the Hawaii Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, the Department of Health is not bound to notify the public. The Department decides, within its discretion, whether to notify the public through a general statement about a chemical release in the community.
When I started researching this law, I expected to find public notification requirements about what hazardous substances are present in the community and when they are accidentally released. The only public right-to-know is the ability to request records on particular facilities from the Department of Health. But, this policy does not truly inform the community because members of the public must know exactly what they are looking for in order to request that information.
If the apparent goal of the Act is the community’s right-to-know about the presence and release of hazardous substances within the community, there should be a provision binding the Department of Health to notify the public. In other words, the Department should make records on these hazardous substances more accessible to the public, actually informing the community in a meaningful way.
As it stands now, the Hawaii Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act requires notifying the Department, but there is an essential step missing in the process: notifying the public, rather than requiring the public to specifically request information that is not generally public knowledge. The onus should be on the Department, the information-bearing party, not the public.
Categories: 1 · activism · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature
Tagged: activism, environmental justice, land and cultural rights, legislature
From Alana:
Last week in the Honolulu Advertiser there was an article about the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is supposed to “prevent overfishing, minimize bycatch, and protect fish stocks and habitat” in federal waters in the Pacific. The council was found to be less than accessible in terms of releasing public documents.
At a time when most public agencies routinely put their documents
online, the council requires a visit to its office to inspect or copy
most of its available records, the report said. In addition, a citizen
must file Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain anything “not normally made available to the public.”
And although there is no proof, some people speculate that their secrecy is because of misspent federal money or illegal lobbying that might show up in the records.
Categories: conservation · fisheries · legislature
Tagged: fisheries, hawaii
From Alana:
A proposed shark tour business was shut down in Hawaii Kai earlier this year because of opposition from the community. Controversy is now focused around the two main business on the North Shore: Hawaii Shark Encounters and North Shore Shark Adventures. There is a law that states, “it is unlawful to use food or any other substance in federal waters off Hawaii to attract sharks unless they are being caught or killed for human use”. Michael Tosatto, the deputy regional administrator with the National Marine Fisheries Service says, “Shark-encounter tours are not what’s illegal. Shark feeding is what’s illegal”, and it is known that these business chum the water to attract the sharks. Some are even hand fed.
Not only is it bad for these animals to become accustomed, and perhaps dependent on being fed by humans, it is also very dangerous. The sharks could start to associate food with humans, thus increasing the possiblility for attacks.
Here is the full article from the Star Bulletin
Categories: conservation
Tagged: ocean, ocean protection
From Melissa:
These guys on Maui are dedicated to helping ensure the future health of our islands. From a bamboo construction company to a new recycling center, living in an environmentally-friendly fashion day-to-day has become more accessible to the average person on Maui than ever before.
Yellow Seed Bamboo Nursery
Check out the following article and support the companies who make it their mission to support our ʻāina!
Maui organizations promote environment throughout the year
Categories: 1 · conservation · island sustainability
Tagged: Green, sustainable
