Thursday, June 11, 2009

Workshop 6: Cultural Impacts Voting Results

Below is a summary of the dots for Workshop 6: Cultural Impacts.


Is the cultural impact assessment process working well?

The process is still new, but working relatively well. (2Red dot)
  • The requirement emphasizes the importance of traditional culture. (Blue dot)
  • OEQC guidelines are useful.(4: 2Red dot, 1Green dot, 1Blue dot)
  • Best practices have been developed.
  • Gathering of information good, but analysis can be superficial. (2: 1Red dot, 1Green dot)
There is a lot of inconsistency. (14: 6Red dot, 3Green dot, 5Blue dot)
  • Cultural impacts and traditional practice are difficult to define. Whose culture is eligible? (5: 3Red dot, 2Blue dot)
  • Agencies have conflicting roles, process requirements, and comments. (2: 1Red dot, 1Green dot)
  • Comments generally only focus on native rights and property/shoreline access.
  • Cultural impacts are often conflated with archaeology. (4: 2Red dot, 2Green dot)
  • It is busy work to employ consultants and “cultural experts.”
  • Lack of confidentiality inhibits the sharing of some important cultural knowledge and impacts. (2: 1Red dot, 1Green dot)
The role of cultural experts is unclear. (4: 3Red dot, 1Green dot)
  • Cultural experts are few and over-burdened by this requirement. (3: 2Red dot, 1Blue dot)
  • Provided information can be contradictory or focused on the project rather than culture. (Green dot)
  • “Experts” tend to be people part of the system, not part of the culture; preparers will not pick someone who says, “My ancestors bones are there, don’t do it.” (7: 1Red dot, 5Green dot, 1Blue dot)
  • Are short forms or checklists permissible? Are consultants always required? (Blue dot)

How can the system be improved?

The State should define ‘cultural impacts’ and ‘traditional cultural practice.’ (2Blue dot)
  • The definition should include resources used in subsistence and religious practice. (9: 2Red dot, 3Green dot, 4Blue dot)
  • Emphasize purpose for decision-making, not just information gathering. (3: 2Green dot, 1Blue dot)
Clarify role of ‘cultural expert.’ (8: 4Red dot, 1Green dot, 3Blue dot)
  • Cultural experts should have a certification requirement. (2Red dot)
  • Establish a contact list of cultural experts by area and ahupuaa / have blind reviewers.
  • Create a mechanism for clarifying conflicting/disputed information from cultural experts. (7: 3Red dot, 3Green dot, 1Blue dot)
Establish better guidelines / standardize the process. (11: 2Red dot, 3Green dot, 6Blue dot)
  • Clarify content and process. (12: 4Red dot, 3Green dot, 5Blue dot)
  • The guidelines should be requirements. (2Red dot)
  • Each County should have its own archaeologist to perform the assessment.
  • Requirements should be relative to the scale or impact of the project. (Red dot)
Resolve agency roles in process. (4: 1Red dot, 1Green dot, 2Blue dot)
  • Clarify roles of SHPD, OHA, Burial Councils in commenting, reviewing, and acceptability determinations. (5: 2Red dot, 2Green dot, 1Blue dot)
  • Rename it to “ethnographic assessments” and put under SHPD jurisdiction. (Red dot)
  • Distinguish from archaeology reports. (Red dot)
Comments and Concerns
  • Current OEQC guidelines are onerous. (Blue dot)
  • Studies are expensive and not always of clear benefit to the community. (3: 1Red dot, 2Blue dot)
  • This should not be a requirement. (2: 1Red dot, 1Blue dot)
  • Integrate into project planning, not just 343. (10: 3Red dot, 6Green dot, 1Blue dot)

No comments:

Post a Comment