Tourism Talk
Doing it Island style may not work with cruise industry
By Michele Kayal
Advertiser Staff Writer
It's local style to welcome new acquaintances into your home.
But aloha does not require that you give them your home.
Hawai'i might want to keep this in mind as it approaches its budding relationship with the cruise industry.
Seasoned cruise executives and state officials met for the first time last week to begin hashing out the rules of their new friendship. And even though the two sides had barely met, some Hawai'i leaders seemed ready to throw open the state's doors, nary a question asked.
Take for instance this exchange: Gary Gill, deputy director for environmental health and one of the people charged with making sure the state's waters remain clean, noted that a new Alaska law levies fees on the industry. He asked what fees the cruise lines might pay if Hawai'i adopted a pact with the industry that was not an actual law.
After industry members ran down the fees they pay, Sen. Cal Kawamoto, a member of the Senate's tourism committee and its transportation committee chairman, apparently felt the need to defend the newcomers further.
"These folks pay a lot of fees," the senator told the group. "We have $30 million in the special harbors fund and in three to five years we'll have $60 million. So these people are paying. They pay for what they use. They're paying their fair share."
"I couldn't have said it better," said Al Parrish, vice president of government and community relations for Holland America Line.
"Al, you and me can go play golf from now on," chimed in John Fox, senior vice president of industry relations for Royal Caribbean Cruises.
But two years ago, Royal Caribbean agreed to pay an $18 million fine for dumping hazardous waste in the ocean, and several other cruise lines have pleaded guilty to illegal waste dumping since 1993. So any time a government official could double as an industry spokesman, red flags should go up.
The cruise executives said they favor a relationship model like the one used in Florida, a mutual agreement wherein the industry pledges to follow all the environmental laws and to cooperate with regulators. By the end of the meeting, some Hawai'i officials said they, too, thought the Florida model, known as a memorandum of understanding, was the way to go.
But on what grounds? Based on what research? On what survey of the sentiment of Hawai'i's people, what evaluation of the unique environmental situation that exists in its waters?
The cruise lines say the Florida model is the most flexible. And, they say, it's actually stricter than the other available model, the Alaska law, which created the world's first comprehensive monitoring, testing and control measures on the industry.
Maybe the Florida model is best suited to Hawai'i. And maybe it's not. But there's no way to know, because there's no information.
The director of Hawai'i's Office of Planning dismissed the Alaska model, which some have called confrontational, as "not the Hawai'i way to do things."
But maybe, at least right now, the Aloha State needs to temper its "way to do things" with a good dose of skepticism. That doesn't mean being rude. It simply means exhausting the pros and cons of every possible option for protecting the people, the land, the oceans, and the creatures in it.
This, you've gotta know, is important.
The state is still far from settling its formal, legal relationship with the cruise lines, and another meeting is planned in the next few weeks.
Lots of attendees said they'd like more information at that time. From Native Hawaiian groups. From environmental groups. But what about from Florida and Alaska? Perhaps no two places on Earth have as much experience with the cruise industry. And each has chosen a different model to deal with it.
Maybe it would be a good idea to know why.
Michele Kayal can be reached at mkayal@honoluluadvertiser.com
