Dr. Vaughan starts off Chapter 6:Kia'aCarrying Kuleana into Governance, discussing how people have been "working to restore local-level governance" (p. 138). She focuses on the challenges that the Ha 'ena community leaders and volunteers encountered when creating rules for protecting fisheries along coastal regions. Remember that this initiative took nine years before being signed into law and the following years were spent creating regulations to implement the new law.
Assignment Prompt:Think about the many parts of Chapters 6 and 7 of Dr. Vaugan's study and the Ha'ena Public Hearing to discuss and respond to the difficulties that the local community faced in partnering with state and federal agencies. How does this compare to Dr. Marino's ethnography where she discusses how the Inupiat have worked with various agencies to come up with a relocation plan and the issues that appear to be obstacles rather than benefits for the Shishmaref population. What suggestions can you provide that would make the process for indigenous people working with federal and state agencies a more productive and quicker process?
f 1 I I ,,1' ;11 I i/1 I •I I 1/1 I II' I' I 11 I CHAPTER 6 Kia'i C . g Kuleana into Governance arrym We gotta get back to the konohiki system, and maybe the konohiki is gonna be the community. -David Sproat, Kalihiwai, 2015 You gotta believe in it and you gotta live it. If we're gonna make these rules then we gotta live it. -Chipper Wichman, Ha 'ena, 2011 This isn't about extra agencies being needed or extra enforcement; al/ we need is the ability to do what we know how to do, in a place /the families of Hii'ena) know best. -Maka'ala Ka'aumoana, Hanalei, 2014 Historically in Hawai'i, the people of an ahupua'a served as kia'i, guard- ians or caretakers of local resources, from fishponds to streams, moun- tain forests to coral reefs.' Though konohiki shifted, makaainana families stayed in and watched over the ahupua'a of their ancestors across gener- ations.' Under the territorial and, later, state governments, decision-mak- ing about natural resources shifted from local konohiki and makaainana families to centralized state agencies. This chapter investigates how the people of Ha'ena are perpetuating their role as kia'i of their ahupua'a by working to restore local-level governance. Governance "refers to who par- ticipates in decision-making, the procedures and rules by which decisions are made and consensus is reached."' As they carry kuleana into gover- nance, the families of Ha'ena are strengthening their community and state policy. For over twenty years, Ha 'ena community leaders have developed collaborations with state government agencies. Over the last decade, the community created local-level fishing rules based on ancestral practices of the area, which have now become state law. The Ha'ena community, led by the Hui Maka 'ainana o Makana, is a model for over twenty other Hawai'i communities seeking to reestablish local ahupua'a-based fi sheries 1}8 Kia'i·Carryi . ng Kukana IJ9 , t including the Ke'e /o'i, circa 1924. (Hawai'i State Archives, Photo bi• tta'enas coas , . . nth Photo Section Air Services USA) Carrying kuleana into governance requires ~ing for aina and commu- . at home while also partnenng to shape policy efforts at the county, state, t111 federal levels. Engaging in governance requires very different skills than :hing, including community organizing and outreach, public speaking, po- litical strategizing, drafting legrslauon, networking, and usmg soaal media. Communities like Ha'ena work within existing systems of state government, while creating new institutions that enhance capacity for local governance.' This chapter begins with background on Ha'ena's rule-making effort, then shares the challenges of partnering with state agencies, Ha'ena's exhaustive processes for developing collaborative management, and disappointments with the outcomes of the rules, along with key achievements and lessons. Background of the Ha 'ena Fisheries Rule-Making Process I limit myself because I see what it was like before. There hfft plenty fish! Not likt today, you strain your eyes looking. Big like this tent, the pile of moi, and somt bigger, the ulua behind, riding the wave, silver all in the wave. -Tommy Hashimoto, elder Ha'ena fisherman, 2009 With formal management authority centralized in state agencies, fishing communities across Hawai'i have observed declines in their nemhore fisheries. ' One state agency, the Department of Natural Resources and fi I I I I i I I I I I 140 Chapter 6 ment oversees 1.3 million acres of stat I al Manage • . e a ds Environment and 750 miles of coastlme.7 State fishi n , d astal waters . . ng regui beaches, an co ,, across the main Hawauan Islands, despite . a. I ely unuorm . I . eviden tions are arg . ble times in different ocahons.• State re I ce . wn at vana gu ati that species spa . i·ons catch limits, and seasonal closures ne d 0ns, . . ear restnc I ' . ' e to b mcludmg g tern compleX!ty. However, state agencies st e d fleet ecosys . ruggle refine to re . . rules because of lack of fundmg and personn 1, to , even eX1stmg . e . ernorce e to shortcomings m state governance rural 4 in respons . . . • subs" In 199 '. unities across the Hawanan island chain ad IS- fishmg comm vacated tence . . 1 designate community-based subsistence fishin for leg1slat10n ° . d . g areas ) ., tbe purpose of reaffirmmg an protecting fishing pr . (CBSFAs 1or . actices .1 d traditionally exercised for purposes of Native Haw .. customan y an "'° SFA II b . auan . ulture and religion. CB s a ow su s1stence harve t subsistence, c s gov. d b munity-generated rules and management reflecting loc 1 erne y com a an. cestral practices and values. ' . . Communities across Hawai i saw CBS FA des1gnat1on as an eagerly awaited tool 10 revive culturally grounded, local-level management. 11 However, state agency personnel, tasked with implementing the law, viewed the legisla- ture's directive as an inconvemence and, m some cases, a threat." Over the next twelve years, the Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), which "manages, administers and exercises control over the State's natural resources," did not designate a single CBSFA. A successful two-year (,995-1997) pilot CBSFA management effort at Mo'omomi on the island of Molokai resulted in increased fish biomass and abundance." However, DLNR and its subsidiary, the Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), failed to promulgate administrative rules for permanent designation of Mo'omomi after the pilot ended. DAR lacked funding, motivation, and expertise among their staff of fisheries biologists to devolve governance and implement col- laborative management." In 2006, a group of Ha'ena community leaders with extensive experi- ence working with state government decided to take a more active ap· proach, rather than wait for designation by DLNR. 15 Instead, they worked with Kaua'i's genteel, Native Hawaiian state representative, Ezra Kanoho, to pursue direct designation by Hawai'i's legislature. Kanoho introduced Act 241 to declare Ha'ena a CBSFA in 2006, his final session before retirement. His fellow representatives voted for the bill out of respect for the senior statesman despite opposition from commercial fishermen and tour oper- ators on other islands. The following legislative session, ten other Hawai'i communities, including three entire islands (Moloka'i, Lana'i, and Ni'ihau), also introduced bills for designation as CBSFAs. '6 None passed. LegiSlators C Kia 'i: Carrying K , __ Uocana 41 d to see evidence of Ha 'ena's success before design . d the nee th D. . . f A atmg more cite the head of e 1vis1on o quatic Resources at th . F• As b th e tune ex-CBS ,.,s. _, a is important ecause ey are going to set th . d "Haen . h fi h . e precedent PlaJJle , anagement of ms ore s enes] might happen• th fu h w (com I . m e ture for O .,.1 If it's a complete mess, DLNR) 1s [not] going to god . LiaWal I · "f . ks OWfl th!S [in " . yum· e soon. But 1 11 wor out, then you might actua11 gain an y see route a ard gradual re-empowerment of communities."" . trend tow . LNR k . -' this , Act 241 reqmred D to wor with Haena residents t ..,-•enas o cre- ria fi ce regulations based on traditional coastal use After p and en or d . · assage ate ill ommunity members starte an mformal fisheries committ f the b , c . ee o fifteen individuals, ages slXteen to seventy. The committee began f ten to c ·1· . f Ii o . gularly with ,ac1 1tat10n rom a nonpro t conservation grou eeung re d h " k p, 111 ., . C mmunity Stewar s 1p Networ (HCSN), now KUA which I-1awa110 . . " fi d . ' d draft the Jeg1slat1on.1• To m orm un erstandmg of ancestral and helpe Ii hing practices, changes in resource health, and recommendations current s . b fu management, commumty mem ers conducted twenty interviews for ture . . ·th Ha'ena fisher men and women m 2006, addmg to fifteen elder inter- WI d " "Th . d th views already conducte m 2003. e committee rew on ese interviews to guide management planning. They identified species of concern and key threats, brainstormed rules to address both, and sought broader commu- nity input.'° While developing rules, members of the fisheries committee also conducted three separate studies of coastal use assisted by university students." Studies included human use counts, a catch per unit effort study to assess current levels of fishing, and a Manta tow survey, in which com- munity members assessed substrate health along the coast. The Division of Aquatic Resources required that proposed rules be stricter than existing state and federal regulations, constitutional, and easy to obey and enforce. Through ongoing negotiation with DAR, facilitated by HCSN, the committee ultimately settled on twelve draft rules. They gath- ered feedback on these rules through meetings with Ha'ena's kupa aina fishing families," other coastal users such as surfers and commercial kayak operators, and the neighborhood association encompassing all Halele'a area residents. After five years of feedback, revisions, and translating the proposed rules into legal language, the Ha'ena community submitted their rules and management plan for approval to DAR in June of 2011 . Both DAR a nd DLNR failed to respond to the community for over a year, then took two additional years to review the rules before scheduling them for public hearing in Th b "·• . 2014- e rules were finally signed into