On Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 11:00 a.m., the Hawaii Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplemental EIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 343. The application for writ of certiorari asked the court to review this Question Presented:
Under HRS Chapter 343 an its enabling rules, is a supplemental environmental review required when there are significant changes to a project’s circumstances, such as increased environmental and community impacts, or are supplemental reviews limited solely to changes in project design?
The application for writ of certiorari and opposing and amici briefs in the case thus far are posted here.
The ICA’s opinion is reported at 120 Haw. 457, 209 P.3d 1271 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008), and is posted here. The briefs filed in the ICA are posted here.
Entries tagged as ‘ocean protection’
More on Turtle Bay EIS: When is old, TOO old?
October 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Categories: ocean protection
Tagged: north shore, ocean protection
Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Turtle Bay
October 29, 2009 · 1 Comment
The Supreme Court of Hawai`i announced yesterday it would hear oral arguments on whether an outdated 25-year old Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided enough information to approve a proposed expansion of the Turtle Bay Resort. Kuilima Resort Company, owner of the property and currently headed by local developer Stanford Carr, is seeking approval for five new hotels and 1000 luxury condos at the Turtle Bay Resort on O`ahu’s rural North Shore.
The Supreme Court will review a split 2-1 decision made by the State Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which denied the Keep the North Shore Country and Sierra Club, Hawai`i Chapter’s request for an updated review of the proposed development’s environmental and community impacts. The ICA majority held that no supplemental EIS would ever be required unless the “project itself” changed. This ruling could be taken to absurd conclusions. For example, Turtle Bay’s 1985 EIS could remain valid for hundreds of years, even if there are major hurricanes, drastic shoreline erosion, or significant changes to the community in the area.
“Much has changed in the last two decades, most notably the rapid growth in traffic congestion along the narrow, two-lane Kamehameha Highway, the only regional roadway on the North Shore,” said Gil Riviere, President of Keep the North Shore Country. “The expansion plan is extremely unpopular due to concerns of over-development of the rural area, traffic gridlock, new environmental concerns such as endangered monk seals pupping on the resort property, and the likelihood of disturbing ancient Hawaiian burials.”
Six community organizations represented by Earthjustice – Conservation Council of Hawai’i, Surfrider Foundation, Hawai’i’s Thousand Friends, Life of the Land, Maui Tomorrow Foundation, and KAHEA: The Hawai’i Environmental Alliance – filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of Keep the North Shore Country and the Sierra Club’s position. Their involvement was necessitated by the broad negative ramifications of the ICA’s ruling, which could impact development projects throughout the State.
“The purpose of an EIS is to ensure decision makers have the necessary information about the human and environmental impacts of a proposed project,” said Robert D. Harris, Director of the Sierra Club, Hawai`i Chapter. “This lets the community be involved in the process and ensures smart decisions are made,” he continued. “Plainly, we cannot rely upon obsolete information to approve a project that is clearly no longer appropriate for the community.”
Oral arguments are currently scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 11:00 a.m.
(Mahalo to Dick Mayer)
Categories: ocean protection
Tagged: north shore, ocean protection, turtle bay
More Commentary on Ocean Policy Task Force “Listening” Session
October 1, 2009 · 1 Comment
From Snorkel Bob (Robert Wintner), on Tuesday’s Ocean Policy Task Force:
Consensus was overwhelming; conservation efforts in Hawaii have been stifled in the name of commerce for too long. The Ocean Policy Task Force may render a sea change in priorities & approach. We shall see. At any rate, NOAA got the message with a panel representing depth in science & political will. The HPR commentator noted aquarium extraction as a common complaint throughout the session. By raising many voices, we got the point across.
Irene Bowie for Maui Tomorrow challenged the wisdom of re-opening the Hawaii swordfish longline fishery, that would allow triple allowable “take” of loggerhead & leatherback turtles, which includes any form of interaction, with the expectation that up to 3 adult females and up to about 7 other loggerheads would be killed annually. The longline issue was spearheaded at the San Francisco task force venue, though it’s a Hawaii “fishery,” so Irene’s testimony stood out.
You can still submit your testimony to the Task Force online here.
Categories: activism · fisheries · ocean protection
Tagged: ocean policy task force, ocean protection
Media Coverage of Ocean Policy Taskforce
October 1, 2009 · Leave a Comment
http://hawaiipublicradio.org/audio/TS_092409.mp3
Categories: conservation · ocean protection
Tagged: moana, ocean protection, oceans
“Listening.” Kind of.
September 30, 2009 · 2 Comments
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.
Categories: activism · conservation · island sustainability · ocean protection
Tagged: ocean, ocean protection, oceans
“Offshore Aquaculture is not Fishing Act of 2009″
August 12, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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.
Categories: Aquaculture · activism · conservation · fisheries · legislature · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, conservation, cultural rights, fisheries, legislature, ocean protection
Open Ocean Aquaculture proves itself very controversial in on-going newspaper commentary
July 31, 2009 · 1 Comment
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
Wespac Wants to Weaken Swordfish Fishery Rules
July 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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
HVCA Aquaculture Meeting
July 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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.
Categories: Aquaculture · events · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: Aquaculture, cultural practice, fisheries, gmo, ocean protection, sustainability
A Sea Change–film on ocean acidification
July 25, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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
KAHEA Lawsuit Makes Headlines
July 23, 2009 · 1 Comment
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
Draft Science Plan Public Hearing: Grandfathering-in Permitted Activities
July 22, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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 SUES STATE TO PROTECT NWHI
July 21, 2009 · 2 Comments
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.
“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
Natural Rights: Not Ours, But Nature’s
July 21, 2009 · 2 Comments
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:
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
32 Tons of Marine Litter Removed: Sadly, the Tip of the Iceberg
July 13, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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:
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
Legality of Shark Tours Debated
July 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment
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.
Categories: conservation
Tagged: ocean, ocean protection
Wanted: Old Seal Stories
June 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment
As part of ongoing efforts to protect endangered Hawaiian monk seals, federal officials are turning to old Hawaiian chants and songs. The purpose: to battle misperceptions that the Hawaiian monk seal is an invasive species that does not deserve protection.
“This ain’t the mongoose; this animal was here before any of us,” says David Schofield, Monk Seal Coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The problem, however, is to document the animal’s presence here. To that end, NOAA is working with Hawaiian cultural experts to find references to the monk seal in traditional oli and mele. NOAA also is asking people to ask kupuna if they know of any old stories involving the sea mammals. The point, Schofield says, is not to invent tall tales about seals, but document the animals’ presence through oral histories and other documents.
For instance, Schofield says, volunteers interested in helping might research archives, such as the Bishop Museum, to find old references to the animals.
This research is just a small piece of what NOAA is trying to do to help the seals. The agency is charged with protecting beached seals, rescuing animals that have been hooked or entangled in fishing nets, counting seals, relocating animals that become too habituated to people, and informing the public about the animals. Part of this public outreach campaign lately has involved dealing with a growing rumor: that monk seals are not from here. This ugly rumor has led some people to refuse to give monk seals the deference the animals deserve when it comes to sharing the water. And that’s a problem.
Known in Hawaiian as ‘Ilio holo I ka uaua, or the dog that runs in rough water, the Hawaiian monk seal has been recorded in the islands as far back as the 19th century.
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Hawaiian language · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · fisheries · ocean protection
Tagged: beaches, marine reserve, northwestern hawaiian islands, ocean protection, oceans
Empty Reefs
June 24, 2009 · Leave a Comment
From Alana:
This BBC News video shows how the growing demand for fish in places like inland China is putting a huge stress on coral reefs. Most adult fish have been caught, so the majority of fish sold in markets are juveniles that have not had a chance to reproduce yet. Because of this trend there has been a downward spiral in fish populations and reef health worldwide.
The world needs stricter fishing regulations ASAP, and if that doesn’t happen we will probably see the collapse of entire ocean ecosystems in our lifetimes.
Categories: conservation · fisheries · ocean protection
Tagged: fisheries, management, ocean protection, oceans, sustainability
Fishing in NWHI?
June 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment
From Alana:
On June 15, the third anniversary of the designation of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national monument, a boat that was caught fishing multiple times in a highly protected area of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The bottom-fishing boat was in a very restricted area of the monument, which extends 50 miles from each of the atolls. This sanctuary is the main home for dozens of highly endangered species including the hawaiian monk seal and green sea turtle. Considering that, and all the press they’ve been getting, one would think they are facing huge charges.
The truth is that they are only facing $130,000 to as little as $1,000 in fines.
Wait, wasn’t a woman just charged $1.9 MILLION for downloading 24 songs illegally off of the internet?
This is a repeat offense case. The fishermen obviously knew where they were becasue of their reaction to the plane. Why doesn’t the government use this case to set an example for others who might have plans to fish in the protected area?
This boat is one of eight Honolulu-based fishing boats permitted to fish in a designated area of the monument. The boat was fishing outside of this area, but it still raises the question: why are these eight boats allowed there at all? What are their restrictions and how do we know they are following them?
Mismanagement needs to be dealt with now, and the correct consequences need to be issued.
Categories: 1 · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: cultural rights, fisheries, land and cultural rights, management plan, marine protected area, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean protection
Red. Handed.
June 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Vessel caught illegally fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands:
A Coast Guard search plane on patrol of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument spotted a U.S.-flagged vessel fishing in a special preservation area within the monument on June 15. The Coast Guard said it took video and still photos of the vessel’s crew hauling its lines out of the water and the ship then “abruptly getting underway.”
The aircraft flew out of sight, but when it returned the vessel’s crew had put its lines back in the water and resumed fishing, the Coast Guard said. The incident was reported to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement, which ordered the vessel to cease fishing and return to Honolulu.
The name of the vessel, which reached port on Saturday, was not released because the case is under investigation. The vessel’s owner faces charges of illegally fishing in the national monument and fines from $1,000 to $130,000 for a repeat offense.
Papahanaumokuakea spans nearly 140,000 miles and is the largest marine protected area in the world. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands chain is home to more than 7,000 marine species and is the primary habitat for critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals and green sea turtles.
See full article in the Honolulu Advertiser.
Categories: ocean protection
Tagged: fishing, NWHI, ocean protection
Monk Seal Protection Update
June 19, 2009 · Leave a Comment
from Stewart:
After the Surfrider Foundation’s Kauai chapter offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for killing two Hawaiian monk seals on Kauai, it raised an obvious question: Why is the Surfrider Foundation having to offer a reward? Where is the federal government?
It turns out officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration enforcement division have been investigating the monk seal shootings and went so far as to search a white pick-up truck in hopes of finding the gun used to shoot one of the seals. Click here to read the article. The special agent in charge of NOAA’s Pacific enforcement offfice said the investigation involves a lot of gum shoe detective work and that agents have been able to find some witnesses despite the remoteness of the areas where the seals were killed.
The feds are not just investigating killings; they are also proposing to expand monk seal habitat. In response to a petition from Kahea and two other organizations, the federal government last week announced it would expand the monk seal’s critical habitat to include portions of the main Hawaiian Islands. Here’s the link. The move will not restrict recreational activities like fishing or surfing in the critical habitat areas, but will restrict federal government activities and activities that require federal permits, such as dredging and coastal development.
NOAA has published the regulations expanding the habitat in the Federal Register. Here’s the regulation. And the public has the right to comment; please sign Kahea’s petition in support of the habitat protection.
In the meantime, here’s some monk seal trivia gleaned from NOAA’s proposed regulations.
– Despite concerns of some local fisherman that monk seals are competing for fish, studies have shown that seals prefer eels, wrasses, and bottom-dwelling benthic species and therefore do not compete for many of the fish humans seek to catch for sport and sustenance.
– NOAA received over 100 comments in support of expanding the monk seal’s critical habitat to the main Hawaiian Island; people see the main islands as essential because monk seals are in better physical condition on the main islands than the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and because the low-lying islands and atolls of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands are losing seal habitat because of rising sea levels.
– Scientists believe monk seals occurred in the main Hawaiian Islands before the arrival of humans and are indigenous to the whole Hawaiian Archipelago; the monk seals are believed to have been driven from the main Hawaiian Islands by hunting.
Categories: 1 · Hawaiian Monk Seal · activism · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, fisheries, marine protected area, monk seals, northwestern hawaiian islands, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline
As the Ocean Thrives, So Do We
March 24, 2009 · Leave a Comment
From the amazing Hannah Bernard, an invitation to a Maui community event to launch actions that help bring back the health of nearshore waters around Maui.
More Fish in the Sea, A Community Conversation: E ola ke kai, e ola kakou (As the ocean thrives, so do we)
WHAT: We all want more fish in the sea. How do we make it happen? That is the question we will address in a half day gathering of all segments of the community and a half day work event at a nearshore site to be determined. The results we seek – a community galvanized for practical action to achieve a shared vision: MORE FISH IN THE SEA.
WHEN: April 4, 2009 – 2:00 – 6 pm & FILMFEST 7 – 10pm Sunday April 5, 7:00 am – noon.
WHERE: Maui Community College, Pilina Building and lawn
WHY: Our Earth is truly the ocean planet with more than two thirds of its surface comprised of seawater. The health of our world ocean is paramount for the health of all, but especially for islanders like us who depend on the sea for our sustenance, quality of life, livelihood, well-being and way of life. Yet our oceans are in trouble and our fish are disappearing faster than they are being replaced (>90% of our large fish are gone according to Nature, 5/15/03, to name only one international study). We are calling on everyone to come together to support the healing of our ocean and to work together to return our nearshore waters to thriving health.
HOW: We will join in small group workshops, larger group conversations, and small step action projects to plan together, work together, learn together, and discover how we will change together. We will identify paths forward and begin developing practical concrete steps that individuals, communities, citizens’ groups, businesses, and government can take to help move us toward MORE FISH IN THE SEA.
WHO: Are you an islander? Do you Think Island or want to learn how to? All interested members of the community are invited – fishermen, restaurant owners, dive and snorkel boat operators, the hospitality industry, government representatives, citizens’ and civic groups, ocean scientists, students, communications media, and philanthropists will be invited. A broadly-based steering committee will design an exciting opportunity to talk and learn together, plan together, and act together. The event will be video-taped and we’ll use the resulting video record to help build public awareness of the need for more fish in the sea and what each of us can do to help.
Categories: activism · ocean protection
Tagged: maui, nearshore, ocean protection
Superferry by any other name…
March 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Write up from Joan Conrow on the Hawaii Supreme Court Superferry decision, which found Act 2 exempting the Hawaii Superferry from EIS law to be unconstitutional: http://kauaieclectic.blogspot.com/2009/03/musings-supreme-court-slap-down.html
My inbox, meanwhile, has been popping with jubilant messages about the ruling, but folks aren’t happy just because they won. They also see it as a vindication of the rule of law and the belief that laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone. You don’t just go in and have a new one written when a court decision comes down that you don’t like.
Categories: island sustainability · ocean protection
Tagged: ocean protection, superferry
Another Mass Whale Stranding
March 2, 2009 · 3 Comments
Yep, February was “Humpback Whale Awareness Month” in the states, but March is looking like a not-so-hot one for other cetaceans…
Military sonar among suspected causes of mass whale stranding on the Tasmanian shore over the weekend.
Mark Simmonds, of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and an expert on cetacean strandings, said that two species coming ashore together was enough to arouse suspicions of a human factor, including the use of sonar by the military.
Categories: ocean protection
Tagged: cetaceans, military, ocean protection, sonar
Half Way To Victory!
February 27, 2009 · 1 Comment
Beach access got a real boost today. Hawaii’s Senate Judiciary Committee just passed SB 1088, which will help to improve enforcement of public access rights to the shoreline and inland recreational areas. Yay!
Big Mahalos to everyone who submitted testimony! There is still a chance to help out in this important effort.
The bill is ready to “cross over” to the House of Representatives, where it will go through a similar committee hearing process. Unfortunately, the first committee that will likely hear this bill declined to hear a similar bill in the past.
To ensure that SB 1088 does not suffer the same fate, please take a moment to contact the Committee’s chairperson, Representative Ken Ito either at 808-586-8470 or repito@capitol.hawaii.gov. Just leave a nice message encouraging him to hear the bill and help protect beach access in Hawaii.
We can start collecting testimony now in support of this bill by encouraging friends, family, and all outdoor lovers to visit our nifty virtual testimony table. Watch for action alerts in your inbox next month calling for public testimony in support of this and other bills that protect the public’s right to open and safe beach access. You can sign up with our email action alert network by clicking here.
Categories: activism · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: access, beach access, ocean protection
