The following is an exerpt taken from an MS Thesis by Claudia Campinti (a graduate student of Dr. Tissot) at Washington State University.
AQUARIUM FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN WEST HAWAII:
A DYNAMIC CONFLICT
By
CLAUDIA ANGELA CAPITINI
West Hawaii Case Study
Increases in aquarium collecting combined with the growing public perception of a dwindling number of “colorful shallow water marine fish species” developed into an intense multiple use conflict between aquarium collectors and the dive tour industry in 1970 in west Hawaii (Tissot et al. 2002). In response to the animosity between these two groups in 1973, the DAR began to require monthly collection reports from all aquarium collecting permit holders. It was hoped that resource managers could characterize the growing industry from this data. Five years later, however, biologists noted further increases in the number of permits issued and realized that data from catch reports was subject to the compliance and accuracy of the permit-holders (Walsh 1999).
21
As the number of aquarium collectors increased, discontent and harassment escalated between the two groups. Dive tour operators reported a decline or elimination of colorful reef species in areas they deemed essential for business, in addition to discontent at seeing aquarium collecting occurring during recreational tour dives. They concluded that collecting was eroding their industry. In contrast, aquarium collectors considered the divers claims unjustified and felt that these abundant areas were essential for their livelihood. In 1987, encouraged by the DAR, an informal yearly agreement was negotiated between the two groups in an attempt to quell the antagonism over aquarium collecting in certain areas. Aquarium collectors agreed to refrain from collecting in “four specific areas and in return, dive tour operators agreed not to initiate legislation opposing collecting and to cease harassment” (Walsh 1999). This was relatively effective for six months, but when this informal agreement expired, collectors resumed their previous activity. Meetings were held in August and September of 1988 to reinstate the agreement and permanently close the previously agreed upon areas. Only in October 1991 was aquarium collecting prohibited in these areas. Despite this accord, controversy and conflict over aquarium collecting continued unabated (Walsh 1999).
In May 1996, Hawaii House resolution (HCR 184) was passed that stipulated the designation of a taskforce by the DAR to develop a comprehensive management plan for regulating aquarium collecting in West Hawaii. The DAR, asked the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Service Agent for West Hawaii to develop a list of participants derived from competing resource interests. The resulting group of seventy members, known as the West Hawaii Reef Fish Working Group (WHRFWG), held nine meetings over 15 months. A professional facilitator and a DAR agent facilitated these
22
meetings. It was hoped that by providing scientific information from the DAR’s work, this initiative would ultimately engender a dialogue among user groups on a variety of social and biological issues and result in successful and sustainable management recommendations. The WHRFWG identified areas along the coast where user group conflict was particularly intense, known as “hot spots”. A considerable list of marine resource management recommendations was developed, however, due to opposition from aquarium fish collectors and a lack of political will in the state legislature, no substantial recommendations passed.
In response to the WHRFWG’s perceived lack of success in dealing with what were considered more pertinent issues surrounding aquarium fish collecting, several citizens formed a grassroots organization call the Lost Fish Coalition (LFC) to promote a total ban on fish collecting in West Hawaii (Walsh 1999). They presented a 4000-signature petition requesting a total ban on aquarium collecting to state legislators. Additionally in 1997, monitoring projects were initiated to obtain objective data for reef species prevalence, and to investigate reef damage along Hawaii’s west coast from dive tour operators and aquarium collectors. Because of the interest in reef protection, in January 1997 a bill, HB 3349, was introduced to Hawaii State legislature to accomplish this objective on a broad scale. The introduction of another bill, HB 3457, shortly followed, and was more specifically aimed at creating a West Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area (WHRFMA) along the 235km West Hawaii coast. Of this area, 50% was demarcated as fish replenishment areas (FRAs) where fish collecting would be prohibited. The first bill did not pass in 1998, but HB 3457 was debated and eventually endorsed by the community. During committee hearings, user groups compromised to
23
designate a minimum of 30% of the coastline by October 1 1998 as FRAs. This bill passed on July 13 1998 and become Act 306. It should be noted that the FRA designation was to occur within three months and that the decision to came largely without any outside support in the form of facilitators or staff.
Provisions of Act 306 included the effective management of fishery activities to ensure sustainability, enhancement of near shore resources and minimization of conflicts in the WHRFMA (Walsh 1999). To address the management of aquarium collecting, the DAR was charged with selecting and designating a minimum of 30% of the West Hawaii coastal waters as FRAs and establishing a portion of the FRAs as Fish Reserves, prohibiting the collection of reef-dwelling fish. Act 306 directed DAR to identify these areas after close consultation and facilitated dialogue with working groups of community members and resource users (Walsh 1999). To add a more dynamic management strategy to the FRAs, Act 306 required a review of the effectiveness of the WHFRMA every five years, providing an opportunity for amendment.
To insure broad community involvement, DAR biologists and UH Sea Grant Extension Agents chose to create a Community Council comprised of representatives from the diverse stakeholder groups in the West Hawaii community. Many different groups had vested interests in the aquarium resources aside from dive tour operators and aquarium collectors, and the groups’ coordinators attempted to include as many representatives as was feasible in this Community Council, eventually forming the West Hawaii Fisheries Council (WHFC) in June l998. Using the roster of the earlier WHRFWG as a guide, the 24 voting Council members included, among others, three aquarium collector representatives, an aquarium retail storeowner, three commercial dive
24
tour operators, six ex-officio, non-voting agency representatives, and one hotelier. The remainder of the WHFC consisted of members with a variety of overlapping interests such as LFC members, commercial and recreational fisherman, shoreline gatherers, recreational divers, and community representatives. Two members had degrees in marine or fishery science and 40% of the WHFC was native Hawaiian. Seven members were added later to expand expertise as the WHFC processes unfolded, bringing the total to 30 members. The coastal area and upland ahupua’a (traditional Hawaiian land division) areas were so large that UH Sea Grant and DAR created a stakeholder demographic/geographic representation matrix with which WHFC members could determine any gaps in representation. Thereafter, members were sought to fill those gaps.
Consensus Processes
The goals of the WHFC were to ensure sustainability, enhance nearshore marine resources, and minimize conflicts over resource use (Walsh 1999). To accomplish this, DAR scientists, researchers from the University of Hawaii (UH), and other resource managers presented information to the WHFC to assist in the FRA site selection process. Information presented to the Council included topics such as fish movements, reserve design and function for aquarium reserves as well as location, enforceability, traditional Hawaiian knowledge, and conflict resolution. The meetings were variously facilitated by a DAR scientist, a WHFC member, a retired fisheries biologist familiar with multi-stakeholder meetings, and when deemed necessary, a trained professional facilitator. The
25
UH Sea Grant Extension Service Agent recorded meetings, prepared groups notes from these recordings, and distributed notes to WHFC members.
At this point the WHFC meetings were conducted in a semi-facilitated manner and the goal was to attain consensus and reduce conflict. The importance of WHFC members representing their respective interest groups was repeatedly stressed. After establishing site selection criteria, WHFC members were asked to canvass their respective communities and submit maps of areas proposed for FRA designation. From the onset of the site selection process, the WHFC struggled to limit the total FRA area to 30% of the coastline. Although Act 306 designated a minimum of 30% off limits to aquarium collecting, the map-submission strategy was adopted to counter the considerable pressure from dive tour operators, community representatives, and LFC members to close a significantly larger portion of the coast. It was hoped that by determining consensus areas visually, a minimum of 30% would become readily apparent. However, aquarium collectors reacted adversely to closing more than 30% of the coastline, resulting in discord. They claimed this figure was too high and had been misinterpreted during the legislative process, resulting in an unfair proportion of coastline awarded to conservationists.
The process nevertheless continued and final maps were compiled from those submitted by members to provide clear graphical indication of the groups selections. Agreement on certain areas became readily apparent. Although aquarium collectors were reluctant to fully participate, the areas they selected were remarkably congruent with those chosen by the rest of the WHFC. In September 1998, the master consensus areas were adopted into a FRA plan, proposing nine FRAs (Fig. 1), comprising 35.2% of the
26
West Hawaii coastline, including previously protected areas. State enforcement agency representatives recommended that the FRA decision include prohibitions on possession of aquarium collecting gear and collected animals within the FRAs. In March 1999, these and other enforcement modifications were presented to the WHFC and they recommended that these nuances be incorporated a an upcoming public hearing.
At the public hearing in April 1999, the FRA plan received 93.5% support from the community at large for the proposed management plan. The hearing, with an estimated attendance in excess of 860, was the largest such meeting ever held by the DAR. In October 1999 the final draft of the Rule was sent to the Office of the Attorney General for language review. The Deputy Attorney General, who is alleged to have allegiance to the aquarium collecting interests, questioned the legality of the enforcement provisions added at public hearing. In his opinion, provisions should be removed because they did not go through earlier public hearing. The Rule then went through reapproval without any enforcement provisions. A four-year long effort to replace those provisions has ensued and much consternation exists in the West Hawaii community over the details of losing enforcement strategies. According to Act 306, the FRA Rule will be reexamined in 2005 by DAR and the WHFC to evaluate its effectiveness. At this point, reef monitoring data will become tantamount to evaluating the success of the FRAs and adapting their design to continue successful conservation.
