A decade ago, Daniel Pauly, one of the leading scientists in the field of fisheries management, coined a term: Fishing down the food web. This describes what happens when the large marine predators are overfished and their numbers decline, while populations of their prey explode. Those prey fish are in turn exploited to the point that their numbers shrink and then the bulk of the catch is made up of the fish that make up the next-lower trophic level. Taken to its logical conclusion, fishing down the food web ends up with catches of plankton-feeders and detritivores that, in earlier times, would have been scorned and discarded.<\/p>\n
At the October meeting of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Wespac), guest speaker Jeff Polovina, a scientist with the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and one of the most prominent names in the field of marine science today), discussed trends in Hawai`i fisheries \u2013 and in several respects, they match up well with what Pauly described.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen you look at longline catches from observer data, the catch rates have shown a slight downward trend for most fish caught over the last decade \u2013 tunas, sharks, billfish,\u201d Polovina told the council. But one group of fish species \u2013 the \u201cother\u201d category on observer forms, shows an upward trend, he noted.<\/p>\n
\u201cWho are these \u2018others\u2019?\u201d Polovina asked, then answered his own question with a slide that pictured five species. The toothsome mahimahi was instantly recognizable. The rest \u2013 lancetfish, snake mackerel, walu, and sickle pomfret \u2013 are still fairly exotic today, but, if Pauly is to be believed, several of them may be making more frequent appearances in local markets.<\/p>\n
Yet, apart from mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus<\/i>) and sickle pomfret (Taractichthys steindachneri<\/i>), these \u201cother\u201d fish pose some market challenges. The meat of the longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox<\/i>) has been described as watery and gelatinous. Walu, also known as escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum<\/i>), might be a hard sell, too: while tasty (some try to market it as \u201cwhite tuna\u201d), its oily flesh has caused it to be nicknamed the Ex-Lax fish. Snake mackerel (Gempylus serpens<\/i>), has little market value. If it is retained and sold, it usually ends up in processed fish cake: its appearance alone can dampen the most robust appetite.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re seeing a new face of the pelagic ecosystem,\u201d Polovina said. \u201cSnake mackerel catch rates have gone up 17.9 percent a year. Mahimahi catch rates doubled over the last decade, even though no one targets it.\u201d Catch rates for escolar increased at a brisk rate of nearly 11 percent a year, according to Polovina\u2019s data. For the higher trophic-level predators, however, catch rates were heading south over the same period. Albacore led the charge, with an annual catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) decline of more than 9 percent (although part of this decline may be attributed to a shift in targeting by the longline fleet). Striped marlin and bigeye tuna, high riders on the trophic scale, also saw significant declines in average annual CPUE (4.8 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively).<\/p>\n
\u201cThe overall composition of the catch has changed,\u201d Polovina said. \u201cIt used to be that 70 percent of the catch was made up of top trophic-level predators; now it\u2019s about 40 percent. We\u2019re seeing now a trophic cascade. The biomass of prey fish has increased its ratio. There\u2019s an increase of faster-growing, shorter-lived animals. Used to be, they made up 20 percent of the catch. Now they\u2019re 40 percent.\u201d Research by Polovina (published in the Fishery Bulletin<\/i> in September) shows that the lancetfish, which made up 10 percent of the total catch, in 2006 amounted to 20 percent \u2013 exceeding the catch of the fishery\u2019s target, bigeye (17 percent of the catch).<\/p>\n
The management issues posed by this change in catch composition are significant. In the past, Polovina noted, \u201cthere was a lot of focus on single species \u2013 for example, bigeye tuna \u2013 but we need to look at the whole ecosystem. Juvenile bigeye occupy a lower trophic level than adults, the same trophic level as mahimahi. So, will juvenile bigeye now have a better chance at survival because the top predators are removed? Or, now that there are these other competitors at the same trophic level as juveniles, will it be more difficult for bigeye juveniles to mature? We don\u2019t know enough about these interactions, but it\u2019s worth giving thought to.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a telephone interview, Polovina said that what\u2019s occurring in Hawai`i differs in several respects from what Pauly was describing. \u201cIn Daniel\u2019s approach, you\u2019re sequentially depleting resources as you go further down the food web,\u201d Polovina said. \u201cHere, though, bigeye tuna still commands the highest price, still is the target of the fishery, but what\u2019s happened is an increase in things that have no market value, like snake mackerel, lancetfish. You\u2019re reducing the abundance of fish at the top of the food web, but are still fishing it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat Daniel characterized as fishing down the food web \u2013 you wipe out one tropic level and move down. Here, it\u2019s a little like that, but the target species is still largely the bigeye.\u201d<\/p>\n
But how much longer can the bigeye be profitably targeted? In recent years, stock assessments of bigeye in the western and central Pacific suggest that the catch of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus<\/i>) exceeds estimates of sustainable yields by from 50 percent to 100 percent.<\/p>\n
Last December, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, adopted a conservation and management measure (CMM-2008-01) with a goal of reducing fishing mortality of bigeye in 2011 by 30 percent from annual catch averages seen in the years 2001 through 2004. This, it was thought, would bring catches back to a level that was sustainable. (The measure is also intended to protect yellowfin tuna, which is not in as dire straits as bigeye but still in need of some protection.)<\/p>\n
Now, however, according to the commission\u2019s Scientific Committee, that goal of reducing catches of bigeye by 30 percent seems unattainable \u2013 indeed, according to the latest scientific reports, catch rates are likely to increase in 2009. Even if the 30 percent reduction could be achieved, it probably would not be sufficient to allow bigeye stocks to recover to healthy levels. Those were among the conclusions reached at the August meeting of the committee, held in Vanuatu. Supporting the findings was a report by John Hampton and Shelton Harley, WCPFC scientists, evaluating the effects of CMM-2008-01 on bigeye and yellowfin.<\/p>\n
After reviewing fisheries data and analyzing it in relation to the restrictions imposed by the conservation measure, Hampton and Harley modeled bigeye population projections through the year 2018. Not only was the desired goal of a 30 percent catch reduction in bigeye unlikely to be achieved, they found, but also there was likely to be no reduction in the degree to which bigeye were being overfished. In 2007-2008, they reported, actual levels of overfishing of bigeye exceeded 2.0 \u2013 or twice the sustainable yield. That figure was far higher than the level of overfishing (around 1.4) that had been estimated to occur at the time the conservation measure was adopted last December.<\/p>\n
Hampton and Harley gave three main reasons for the inability of the conservation measure to achieve its stated goal. First, given certain of the exclusions and loopholes in the provisions of the measure applicable to longliners, by 2011, the longline bigeye catch in the area under the commission\u2019s jurisdiction (the so-called convention area) would be reduced by no more than 11 percent from the baseline (the average catch of longliners between 2001 and 2004). Second, under even the most conservative scenarios, purse seine effort (measured in terms of days spent fishing) will be similar to or exceed the historical high effort that occurred in 2005 and 2008. \u201c[I]t is clear that even perfect implementation of all provisions of the CMM \u2026 will not meet the bigeye tuna objective \u2026 [of] achieving a 30 percent reduction in mortality in the purse seine fishery,\u201d they write. Third, the conservation measure does not apply in the archipelagic waters of the western Pacific, where Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands all have active purse seine fisheries and where the take of juvenile bigeye is high.<\/p>\n
Absent more stringent conservation measures, Hampton and Harley wrote, by 2018, bigeye tuna spawning biomass \u201cis predicted to continue its decline.\u201d By 2018, they wrote, actual spawning biomass of bigeye in the region \u2013 a measure of the reproductive potential of the fish \u2013 would be just 40 to 60 percent of what was needed to support the maximum sustainable yield of the purse seine and longline fisheries.<\/p>\n
The report of the WCPFC Scientific Committee noted, \u201cNot only have conditions deteriorated since the previous assessment, our view of past conditions is now more pessimistic,\u201d given recent updated catch information from countries fishing in the region that had been missing from previous stock assessments.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the WCPFC Scientific Committee noted that \u201cthe combination of increased fishing mortality on bigeye tuna to levels well above [maximum sustainable yield] \u2026 and the inadequacy of CMM-2008-01 in reducing fishing mortality by 30 percent implies that stock biomass will continue to decline if \u2026 effective action is delayed.\u201d Identifying and implementing management measures that can correct the deficiencies of CMM-2008-01, the committee said, is \u201cthe most urgent issue facing the commission with regard to managing the sustainability of target tuna stocks.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the next full meeting of the commission, to be held December 7-11 in Papeete, Tahiti, the full commission will take up a discussion of the Scientific Committee\u2019s report.<\/p>\n
Under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission\u2019s conservation measure for bigeye tuna, the 2009 catch of the Hawai`i-based longline fleet was to be reduced 10 percent from the volume of bigeye caught in 2004, for a total catch of 3,763 metric tons of bigeye taken from waters within the WCPFC\u2019s jurisdiction. According to scientists with NMFS\u2019 Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, that quota was expected to have been reached by December 1. After that, to meet the huge holiday demand for ahi, the longliners would be constrained to fishing in the waters of the Eastern Pacific (east of 150\u00b0 West meridian). There, bigeye are also dangerously close to being in an overfishing state, but given the catch trends for 2009, the annual catch limit of 500 metric tons for U.S. longliners set by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission will probably not be met.<\/p>\n
Still, even if the bigeye in the Eastern Pacific remain available, in the past, the fourth quarter of the year has historically been the poorest season for catching bigeye in that region. From 2005 through 2008, the fourth-quarter catch of Eastern Pacific bigeye is just 4 percent of the total annual bigeye catch taken from the Eastern Pacific by the Hawai`i longliners.<\/p>\n
As Environment Hawai`i<\/i> reported in September, the Hawai`i Longline Association anticipated the possibility that it could be facing a late-year closure of its most productive bigeye grounds under the WCPFC conservation measure. To mitigate that, it entered into an agreement with the government of American Samoa, under which HLA vessels would amount to a charter fleet of the government. With the WCPFC conservation measure giving American Samoa and other small island nations a minimum quota of 2,000 metric tons of bigeye \u2013 and no limit whatsoever if they were undertaking \u2018responsible\u2019 development of their fisheries \u2013 the HLA evidently spied a loophole that could allow its members to continue fishing in the Western and Central Pacific well after the fleet had reached its 2009 limit, with the charter agreement giving HLA the right to take up to 1,500 metric tons of American Samoa\u2019s allocation of bigeye.<\/p>\n
The fly in the ointment came in July, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a draft rule that would have required any landings attributed to territorial quotas to be made in the territory. At the July meeting of Wespac, whose chairman, Sean Martin, is a founding member of the HLA, the council voted to have its staff develop amendments, for a vote in its October meeting, to the council\u2019s Pelagics Fishery Management Plan that would clearly legitimize the sort of charter arrangements anticipated in the HLA-American Samoa agreement.<\/p>\n
In the council\u2019s meeting last month, the proposed amendments were discussed \u2013 without the participation of Martin, who recused himself. For the benefit of other council members, Fred Tucher, general counsel for the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, elaborated on Martin\u2019s recusal: \u201cPrior to the council meeting, I received a copy of a contract signed by [American Samoa council member] Ray Tulafono and James Cook [Martin\u2019s business partner] on behalf of HLA.\u201d The agenda item up for discussion would affect this agreement, he continued. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, he said, council members may participate in decisions, \u201cprovided the issue does not address a matter of primarily an individual concern.\u201d In this case, he said, \u201cMartin has decided to recuse himself.\u201d (Tulafono, who sits on the council thanks to his governmental position and not as representative of private fishing interests, was not required to recuse himself, Tucher later explained.)<\/p>\n
The document prepared by staff for the council\u2019s consideration presented a range of options, from no-action (leaving the HLA-American Samoa agreement in a difficult legal position), to alternatives that provided explicit authority for such charter arrangements to vessels of any nation, with catch limits of 1,000 or 2,000 metric tons. (The unlimited catch allowed to WCPFC territories engaged in \u201cresponsible\u201d fisheries development was briefly mentioned in the staff report: \u201cThis [no-limit] alternative would be most consistent with the wording of \u2026 CMM 2008-01; however, it seems irresponsible not to limit longline catches of bigeye by the Territories given the condition of the bigeye stock.\u201d)<\/p>\n
Advice from the council\u2019s Pelagic Plan Team as well as its Scientific and Statistical Committee attempted to throw cold water on the proposal. With respect to quotas for the island territories, the SST wrote, \u201cGiven the continued decline of the status of the bigeye stock the SSC does not support any increase in bigeye catch by any entity \u2026 and declines to endorse any specific alternatives related to this draft [Fishery Management Plan] amendment.\u201d The Plan Team, evidencing some doubt as to the claim in the agreement that the HLA charter agreement was \u201cintegral\u201d to American Samoa\u2019s domestic fleet, recommended that any amendment to the fishery management plan include criteria, \u201csuch as one that includes port of landing, recent history of landings, port of vessel servicing and vessel location office, for determining if vessels operating under domestic charter arrangements\u201d are in fact \u201cintegral,\u201d as required under the WCPFC conservation measure for bigeye.<\/p>\n
In response to the Plan Team\u2019s comments, the council staff included in its set of options one that would require charter vessels to make \u201cat least three annual landings to offload catch in the ports of the chartering territory, if adequate infrastructure is available (as determined by the chartering territory) to make it commercially feasible.\u201d However, if no landings are feasible in the first year \u201cdue to lack of infrastructure,\u201d the requirement would not have to be met until the second year of the arrangement. (Given the damage from the September tsunami, it is unlikely that anyone would challenge a determination that in 2009, at least, American Samoa\u2019s infrastructure would be incapable of accommodating landings from the Hawai`i longliners.)<\/p>\n
Council member Peter Young expressed his dismay over the proposed change in the Pelagics FMP that would increase fishing effort on a species dangerously close to overfished condition \u2013 if not already in overfished territory. \u201cWe began this with a discussion of responsible fisheries development \u2026 as a reason for considering the expansion of the harvest of bigeye in the area,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThen we had the discussion of vessel chartering, and the recusal of the chair, and mention of an agreement of some type between HLA and American Samoa\u2026 I feel like I\u2019m connecting dots. It looks like what we\u2019re trying to do is increase the allocation to HLA to harvest bigeye with an additional allocation of 1,000 to 2,000 metric tons per territory and they may not even have to land the fish in American Samoa, because, if there\u2019s no infrastructure for the longline fleet to land there, they don\u2019t have to do that\u2026 We know the earthquake and tsunami devastated harbor facilities, so it\u2019s not likely they\u2019ll be landed there next year. There are no longliners in Guam except a training vessel, and we know they don\u2019t have facilities in Guam and CNMI [Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands]. If bigeye come to Honolulu, I don\u2019t know how that helps the territories\u2026.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t see why we\u2019re even suggesting the next step when bigeye is the targeted fish, because we\u2019re obligated to prevent overfishing, and when there\u2019s an overfished status, we have an obligation to rebuild stocks, not harvest more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Council member Dave Itano, said, \u201cI just don\u2019t see the economics of it, developing a bigeye fishery in American Samoa or Guam.\u201d Referring to the fact that the fish would have to be shipped out of the territories to market, he continued: \u201cHaving to land fish locally, especially in American Samoa and maybe Guam, for the quality of fish, it doesn\u2019t add up economically to me\u2026 It just seems rather a stretch. This is painful.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stephen Haleck, a council member from American Samoa, made a pitch for the chartering agreement. \u201cIn American Samoa, Chicken of the Sea cannery has closed already\u2026. True, our infrastructure was damaged by the tsunami, but that doesn\u2019t mean we are not looking to rebuild. From American Samoa\u2019s point of view, we\u2019re looking at this chartering agreement as a very good tool for us to receive funding\u201d \u2013 HLA agreed to pay $225,000 to help out with harbor improvements and other projects \u2013 \u201cand also as a means to rebuild our infrastructure, provide jobs, training for our people. And that\u2019s why we have signed an agreement already.\u201d<\/p>\n
Blame it on the purse seiners<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Manny Duenas, council member from Guam, objected to Itano\u2019s characterization of Guam. Guam has \u201cthe largest trans-shipment port in the Pacific for foreign fleets. We\u2019re very familiar with trans-shipment, three to four daily flights to Japan,\u201d Duenas said. \u201cWe do have capacity in Guam, we just do not have the fish. But CNMI does, so maybe we can partner.\u201d<\/p>\n
As for the troubled state of bigeye, Duenas blamed it on the purse seiners. \u201cLook at 2008 records,\u201d he said. \u201cThe purse seine fleet nearly doubled. They\u2019re up to 55,000 metric tons over the last eight years. Nothing has been done on their end for conservation, but they got big money.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not happy with what\u2019s being discussed today. The only fishing group being regulated under the quota system is the longline fleet. The purse seine fleet is not being regulated this way. Who are you kidding, scientists, when you pick on the longliners?\u201d<\/p>\n
Under the WCPFC conservation measure for bigeye, Duenas noted, \u201cTerritories are not given a limit. There is no quota.\u201d Still, with the recent establishment of several large monument areas in territorial seas around CNMI and American Samoa, and the expansion of military closed areas off Guam, \u201cwe\u2019re shut out of our waters.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think anyone in this room has a right to point to territories and say we\u2019re not deserving of this. People on this council had the chance to attack purse seiners, but all the effort was focused on the longline fleet.\u201d<\/p>\n
William Robinson, administrator of NMFS\u2019 Pacific Islands Regional Office in Honolulu, attempted to defend both WCPFC and the conservation measure it adopted.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne comment on WCPFC,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s really an imperfect organization. And it\u2019s dominated by geopolitics, in that the majority of its membership is made up of small island developing states and non-voting participating territories who have clearly expressed a view geopolitically that their economic development as nations depends in part on their ability to develop their own fisheries. Given the scientific advice that we need to reduce effort by as much as 30 percent to fish at a sustainable level, clearly, for the majority of members, that reduction is going to come out of the developed nations, not out of aspirations of small island developing states.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s very difficult to deal with in real world, but that\u2019s the Catch-22 we\u2019re dealing with. To the extent [small island developing states] rapidly develop their fisheries, either reductions come from developed nations, or we\u2019re not going to achieve fishing goals at all. It\u2019s a very difficult situation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nor could Robinson let slide Duenas\u2019 remarks on the purse seine fleet. \u201cI don\u2019t want to wade into purse seine waters,\u201d he said, \u201cbut I would point out that the U.S. position was to take them off the water for two months, but nobody else would agree to that\u2026. The [National Marine] Fisheries Service is supportive of the Conservation and Management Measure, which clearly recognizes that SIDS [small island developing states] and territories do have the right to responsibly develop their fishery without significant constraints. We support that\u2026.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut I want to identify one issue that\u2019s somewhat problematic for us. That is the issue of what it means to operate as an integral part of a domestic fleet. \u2026 The problematic aspect right now for the Fisheries Service is, what is the minimum threshold for operating as an integral part of a chartering fleet. Our concern is kind of precedential, in the sense that in the first place, \u2026 a reasonable interpretation of integral is some sort of essential nexus, such as landing, provisioning, etc. We feel that\u2019s important that those kinds of requirements be included\u2026.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we don\u2019t want to see as members of WCPFC, we don\u2019t want to set a precedent or create a model that Chinese Taipei or Taiwan or Korea can come in and think that they can write a check to somebody, and that in and of itself makes us integral, and therefore we can just keep fishing wherever we normally fish and land wherever we normally land. We suspect some of that is occurring anyway, but our position is that it should stop. The contribution of a charter fleet should be significant. \u2026 We don\u2019t want to open the door to wholesale abuse of chartering, which is why we\u2019ve pushed so hard to have these operational conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the turn came for members of the public to comment, Jim Cook, owner of several longline vessels with Sean Martin, weighed in. \u201cThere\u2019s been a lot of discussion that turns on the definition of integral,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s curious to me that the WCPFC did not enter into discourse on this definition. They granted island communities their unlimited or 2,000 ton quota and left the rest up to them\u2026 Here we\u2019ve been talking about integral, and benefits accruing, but it seems to me it\u2019s up to the territories to decide what\u2019s integral, and not the U.S. government. I think we\u2019re all islanders, we\u2019re all from the United States, we\u2019re all integral.\u201d<\/p>\n
The next day, the council voted on the issue. Once more, the purse seine fleet was vilified, with frequent mention made of the $18 million a year that the U.S. government pays in foreign aid to island nations so that the U.S. purse seiners can fish in their waters.<\/p>\n
Robinson of NMFS attempted to address Young\u2019s repeated concerns that the possible increased fishing mortality of bigeye tuna allowed under the FMP amendment would undermine the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. \u201cUnder the national standard,\u201d Robinson said, \u201cbasically, because the United States is a small part of the overall mortality\u2026 the Magnuson Act defers to the regional fishery management organization\u201d \u2013 in this case, the WCPFC \u2013 \u201cas long as the RFMO is addressing the overfishing issue. And because the U.S. catch is a very small percentage, 3 to 4 percent, of the total, we defer to the RFMO\u2026 With the conservation and management measure, if you follow through with a 30 percent reduction, there would be a significant reduction in mortality\u2026 If you look at the exemptions of small island developing states and territories, there\u2019s an expectation there may be some responsible development in those fisheries which would add some mortality back in. But what these proposals do, whether it\u2019s ours or another, it simply adds a little bit more mortality back into the equation. Maybe you don\u2019t get the full 30 percent mortality, you get something less, but overall you should still get significant reduction in mortality.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, the motion to allow Guam, American Samoa, and CNMI to manage up to 2,000 metric tons of bigeye catch per year through charter arrangements passed the council by a wide margin. The final vote: 9 in favor, 2 opposed (Laura Thielen and Peter Young), 1 recusal (Martin), and 1 abstention (Robinson).<\/p>\n
For Further Reading<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The September 2009 edition of Environment Hawai`i<\/i> contains a more thorough discussion of the HLA-American Samoa charter agreement. The article, \u201cHawai`i Longliners Attempt an End Run around Bigeye Quotas in Western Pacific,\u201d is available online at the Environment Hawai`i<\/i> website: [url=https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org]www.environment-hawaii.org[\/url] Access is free to current subscribers. Others wishing to view the article may do so on payment of $10 for a two-day pass to the archives.<\/p>\n Volumn 20, Number 6 December 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A decade ago, Daniel Pauly, one of the leading scientists in the field of fisheries management, coined a term: Fishing down the food web. This describes what happens when the large marine predators are overfished and their numbers decline, while … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[176,8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-december-2009","category-fisheries","category-marine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}