The `Aha Kiole Report to the Legislature Assails 'Environmentalist Dogma'

While many might argue that the `aha kiole advisory committee over-stepped its bounds at times, the committee’s final report to the Legislature suggests that it did most of what Act 212 directed it to do:

The committee developed best practices for the creation of an `aha moku council system, held meetings (nearly 100) statewide to gain a perspective on establishing an `aha moku system, and established an administrative structure, procedures, eligibility criteria for `aha kiole members and staff, as well as a budget.With regard to the development of goals and objectives, which was also required under Act 212, the report makes several recommendations regarding adaptive management – where communities and government agencies work together to manage and monitor resources – and the development of informal codes of conduct, a community consultation process (via the `aha moku structure) and educational programs to perpetuate the use of traditional knowledge in resource management. The report also describes how the development of an `aha moku system meets several goals laid out in the Hawai`i 2050 Sustainability Plan.

The committee has not yet met its mandate to develop a consensus about the development of an `aha moku system. Many have criticized the committee for having an agenda and for improperly using its position to advance it. Anyone who reads the report’s section on natural resource management can see why.

While the bulk of the committee’s report is a straightforward, in-depth discussion of how best to incorporate the traditional knowledge of cultural practitioners into natural resource management, its discussion of contemporary natural resource management (versus traditional Hawaiian resource management) begins with an anti-environmentalist diatribe.

It states, “The needs of humankind are the foundation of the environmental assessment of the state of the World. Plants and animals, whales and fish don’t debate or participate in natural resource management decisions, people do…. The process is political and one vision of the World competes with another – a battle of values. Recognition of realities is fundamental but environmentalist dogma and the environmentalist litany have reached a point where even blatantly false and misleading information is repeated over and over and taken as truth.” (Here, the plan cites Bjørn Lomborg, author ofThe Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World.)

“Basing natural resource management decisions on falsehood is detrimental to the environment and, by extension, detrimental to humankind, people and communities. Taking a broad view, environmentalist dogma fools itself by attempting to construct the concept that actions of humankind are irreparably damaging the Earth,” the plan continues.

In a more moderate tone, the report’s section on traditional natural resource management describes how local communities can enhance management efforts.

“A traditional population may or may not have traditional ecological knowledge about everything that exists in the environment that the population survives in, but they will have specific traditional knowledge about those things that are important to the culture…. Resource management is site-specific and long history at a site yields important information about the site, ecological principals and patterns and cycles of abundance and scarcity. Traditional management often has a built-in conservation ethic – ‘take only what you need,’ ‘fish only in your area,’ ‘ask permission if not in your area,’” the plan states.

While traditional Hawaiian management fostered sustainable use of resources, the plan states that “contemporary managers should not confuse the Hawaiian system with present-day preservation campaigns that discourage resource consumption.”

Volume 19, Number 10 — April 2009