Bill Devick

Division of Aquatic Resources

Department of Land and Natural Resources
 

I would rephrase the question as "How SHOULD government implement the Public Trust Doctrine in Hawaii?" Although the Doctrine is implicit in the State constitution and seems to be a legal expression for the original meaning of "conservation," it has enormous implications for the future of all living natural resource management. Government is supposed to manage these resources in a responsible manner, weighing human needs or wants against the ability of the environment to accommodate those demands. Given economic and political pressures, combined with a lack of understanding at all levels of the consequences of decisions that are made, short term interests that maximized use have historically prevailed in the decision-making process at the expense of the long term sustainability of not only the targeted resources but also of the natural system to which they are indivisibly linked. Ideally, recognition of the priority that should be given to Public Trust will in the future shift the fulcrum in balancing those decisions from the side of exploitation towards protection.

The past half century has seen a dramatic shift in attitudes towards how living natural resources should be managed. Originally these living resources were presumed to be renewable, with appropriate management, and the highest good was to increase their availability to man. Concurrently, habitats were being altered for human convenience. If we build on a flood plain, channelize the stream to prevent flooding. As we produce more and more waste, just dump it in the ocean. While we’re at it bring in lots of alien species that intentionally or accidentally become permanent residents, reducing native species biodiversity in the process. Virtually all of the living resource problems we are facing-- declining fish populations, loss of native species and habitats, invasions of alien species to name a few-- have as their root cause excessive human exploitation.

This is hardly a revelation. But only recently has it been generally recognized that living natural resource management can not be done in isolation from what is happening in the rest of the world. The mantra now is "ecosystem-based management," a phrase which is easier said than done, although the original native Hawaiians developed an effective working model for their time in their "ahupua’a" system. Conceptually single species management has yielded to broader approaches, although in practice we are still mired in single-species mindsets. As we enter the new century, it is imperative that we develop the tools to construct an effective management framework that is genuinely ecosystem based.

At the heart of successful ecosystem-based management must be good science. At the biological level we must do our best to understand the requirements of species, their relationships to other species, and the impact of perturbations of landscape changes and other impacts of human activity. This is open-ended and can not be done cheaply, but as understanding increases so will better identification of the key questions that need to be addressed. If good science is set aside as an economic expedient, it is certain that the messes accumulated in the last century will continue to pile up.

The Precautionary Principle, which was discussed very well in Jim Paul’s paper, "The Public Trust Doctrine: Who Has the Burden of Proof", presented at the 1996 meeting of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Administrators, might be viewed by some as a convenient substitute for hard science. It says that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Because the Principle could be interpreted to require proving a negative, it provides an opening for irrational mischief-making, the degree of which is directly proportional to the absence of understanding about the subject. But properly interpreted, it can be a valuable tool. The Gilchrest-Farr Fisheries Recovery Act, introduced to reauthorize the MagnusonStevens Act, includes language to exercise "additional caution in favor of conservation in any case in which information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate as to the effects of any existing or proposed action on fish, essential fish habitat, other marine species, and the marine ecosystem in which a fishery

In brief, we have a myriad of parts and interests that need to be integrated into a structure for successful management of living biological resources in the new century. More than the foundation, Public Trust Doctrine provides the glue to bond these pieces permanently. It mandates all government entities to look further into the future, and account for their actions accordingly, to ensure perpetuation of the resources for which they are responsible. And their actions should not be taken in isolation. Much greater emphasis on public outreach and education will be needed. As a legal mandate it is a step ahead of most of our political leadership, but that too may change rapidly as acceptance of the Doctrine grows.