What is the kuleana of Kānaka living outside of Kō Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina when it comes to having a voice at the table in discussions about military leases? This article reflects ongoing conversations and the need to expand them.
For some, the answer is straightforward: if you leave the islands, or are born away from them, your voice in Hawaiʻi is diminished. A Hawaiʻi state-issued ID becomes a proxy for belonging – and, by extension, legitimacy.
Within our work, we recognize that perspective but also understand it as a response shaped by scarcity. As a lāhui, our responsibility is to move toward an abundance framework – one that recognizes the breadth of our people, regardless of where they reside.
The Ecosystems and Environment Committee of Nā Lei Makalapua, the Mainland Council of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, engages in a range of federal and state processes that impact Native Hawaiian resources and rights.
This includes participation in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) reviews, military lease discussions, and broader national consultations with agencies such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The committee is also registered with the Federal Register to monitor and respond to rulemaking and notices that affect Hawaiʻi and its beneficiaries, reflecting a sustained commitment to advocacy at multiple levels.
This work requires grounding in the historical and legal framework of Hawaiian crown lands, whose boundaries were shaped during the 1898 annexation, and their alignment with the Hawaiʻi State Constitution. The constitution embeds the public trust doctrine and affirms Native Hawaiian rights, establishing a trust relationship that is status-based, not location-based.
Except for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, a Native Hawaiian is generally understood as any descendant of the aboriginal people of Hawaiʻi prior to 1778. This definition does not diminish with geography.
Accordingly, the question is not whether diaspora Kānaka are beneficiaries, but how their interests are recognized in decision-making processes.
Reviews of environmental impact statement (EIS) documents, including the Haleakalā Air Tour Management Plan EIS and the Pōhakuloa EIS, indicate that standard National Environmental Policy Act procedures structure participation through impact identification and public comment tracking, often organized by geography or general identity categories.
In practice, this results in diaspora Kānaka being categorized as either “Native Hawaiian” or “out-of-state,” – but not both – within a unified framework.
This reveals a gap in how the full beneficiary class is identified and considered. Current processes do not fully account for diaspora Kānaka as part of the trust relationship, resulting in incomplete engagement with those who hold recognized rights and interests in these lands.
The State of Hawaiʻi carries an obligation to manage trust lands for the benefit of all beneficiaries. That obligation cannot be met without processes that accurately identify and meaningfully engage the full beneficiary class.
At stake is not simply process, but principle – and the state’s responsibility to uphold its constitutional trust obligations.
The absence of diaspora voices is not incidental; it is a structural deficiency that must be addressed to ensure that all beneficiaries are counted, and all are heard.
Noelani Mengel is Ecosystems and Environment Committee chair for Nā Lei Makalapua, Mainland Council of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.
