R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11
partnerships and collaborative processes
Download 338.85 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Scientific Excellence.
- Partnerships and Collaborative Processes.
- Long-term Monitoring.
- Information Flow
- Actions to Date, and Next Steps
- RD and Alaska’s Human Environment
- Approach to Development of a Human Environmental RD Plan
| partnerships and collaborative processes for coordinating R&D,
-- Establish and support integrated long-term monitoring networks, coupled to process study models and decision-making tools (and developing the technology necessary for this), and directed at improved decision making at the ecosystem and regional level, and -- Increase the flow and relevance of information to decision makers, including individuals who are directly influenced by environmental conditions (e.g. weather, contaminants). Indeed, we could borrow the goal of CCRI for Alaska’s own objectives: “to measurably improve the integration of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems and resources”. Although the elements of this strategy are relatively easy to state, we make no pretense that they will be simple to implement. We are, in essence, suggesting that all of Alaska be instrumented as a long-term environmental observatory, both for the study of issues affecting local conditions, and to help understand global dynamics. This will be a major undertaking that will require close cooperation of all stakeholders and major technological advancements. We believe, however, that the results would be well worth the effort, and would serve as a model for the rest of the nation. In the paragraphs below, we briefly discuss each element of this strategy. We also note that there are two underpinning tasks that will be needed to support both the environmental strategy, and those for the human environment, economy and infrastructure: high resolution mapping and statewide communications connectivity. We discuss these separately in a later section. 1. Scientific Excellence. World class expertise requires both people and facilities. Alaska has been able to attract experts in many of the requisite fields largely because it is such a wonderful natural laboratory. From the aurora, to moose, salmon, and earthquakes, we have an abundance of natural features that inspire curiosity and offer superb opportunities for field work. In addition to strong research groups in state and federal agencies, UA has world-class researchers in many areas of geophysics, fisheries and oceanography, and biology and resource management. These fields are included as areas of distinction in the strategic plans of two of the Major Administrative Units. There are also several independent non-profit research groups in the state, and their strength is growing. Additionally, researchers from many other states and nations contribute to the study of our environment. In general, the researchers have access to excellent field sites, some of which form critical nodes for our proposed integrated state-wide long-term observations. We also have excellent computational facilities (in particular, the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center (ARSC) at UAF), with wideband access to the global grid and adequate capacity to meet projected needs. Finally, we have exceptional access to information from polar-orbiting earth-observing satellites, via UA, NASA, and NOAA facilities. Where we are weak, is in laboratory facilities. UA’s research labs are, in general, old and crowded. Proposed capital budgets will not ameliorate the problems for many years. The status of these labs not only impedes ongoing research, but severely hampers the University’s ability to hire new top-quality faculty. Federal and state agency researchers are scattered, often in small groups, and in many cases housed in rental spaces without access to modern lab equipment. In addition, much of our important analytical work is contracted outside. We urge the State’s attention to its responsibilities to provide infrastructure for its researchers, and further suggest that the University, with State and Federal Agencies, develop plans for collocation and shared R&D facilities and equipment in the major centers, as well as at key field stations. We recognize the bureaucratic difficulties associated with such cooperation, but also note that none of the individual organizations will be able, by themselves, to afford the required capabilities. Progress toward facility consolidation and improvement will require strong state leadership. It will also be important to build capacity in areas where state research institutions, especially UA, are now weak. This is discussed at some length in the section on Strengthening and Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions, but here we highlight the need for improved and broadened capabilities in marine science and fisheries, land resource management, and coupled human and natural ecosystems. 2. Partnerships and Collaborative Processes. Co-location is only a partial solution to cooperation. Further, what is needed is a coordinated effort to organize research campaigns and sampling schemes, to share and synthesize the various pieces of data and make them readily accessible, to develop common information tools and models, and to create products that meet the needs of the various user communities (resource managers, harvesters, industry, subsistence users, and the general public). We recognize that mission agencies have their separate mandates and individual planning and budgeting processes. In addition, we know that these are sometimes drastically at odds even between branches within a single organization. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by efforts such as USGCRP and the more recent CCRP, as well as by major science initiatives supported by NSF and others (such as Earthscope, SEARCH and the LTER program), answering the hard questions posed by environmental processes requires broad cooperation. Too often in Alaska, development of research programs and capabilities has been played as a zero-sum game. UA, during its “desert years,” was a particularly bad example of local parochialism. Achieving the goals that we suggest requires proactive collaboration and partnerships in R&D planning and execution. In turn, these collaborations and partnerships demand strong and consistent state support. 3. Long-term Monitoring. Monitoring has traditionally been viewed as an “unscientific” activity. However, perhaps strongly stimulated by climate studies, the research and resource management communities have come to recognize the value of high-quality observations over a sufficiently long period to distinguish, and measure variations associated with, important natural cycles. This is the only way that we can even begin to hope to tease out the impacts of natural versus human-induced change. In many cases this long-term monitoring means not just seasons, but decades of commitment. This need is recognized by new Federal initiatives such as the Integrated Ocean Observing System, the National Ecological Observatory Network, the National Biological Information Initiative, and CCRP. To reiterate the point above, such long-term networks can be achieved only through extended partnerships. We have begun to envision the nature of an Alaska state-wide environmental resource observational network. Logically, it should have seven major components, one each for in-situ or ground-based marine, terrestrial, subsurface (oil and gas, minerals, permafrost, tectonics, etc)atmospheric and space, and human observations, and two others that supply remotely sensed satellite data and archived samples to the other five. Information from these “systems” should be made immediately accessible to all users through the web, via a common portal (UA is designing GINA with this purpose in mind). Data from process studies that take advantage of and enhance the long-term system would likewise become part of the widely accessible data base. The ARSC would serve as the principal center for the development of models to exploit the data8. While we don’t wish to underestimate the difficulties inherent in implementing this vision, we have already made considerable progress on initiating the marine component, as discussed below, and note that there are several currently unconnected Alaskan monitoring networks (e.g. for seismics, weather and climate, and hydrology) that could serve as the basis for an integrated terrestrial and atmospheric observational system; perhaps, with considerable overall savings in logistics costs. Similar synergies should be possible for space and satellite observations. Overall, we believe that a commitment on the part of the state to lead the development and management of a statewide set of environmental monitoring networks could be one of the most far-reaching actions that it could take in support of all aspects of R&D, including economic development. 9 4. Information Flow: At present, much of the information collected through field studies in Alaska is available only to the investigator or organization that collects it. Frequently even the final product of this fieldwork is in the form of a report that never gets into the catalogued statewide library system, let alone peer reviewed journals or the world wide web. UA is developing procedures to insure that at least its own researchers’ output is appropriately documented and accessible. As part of this study, we have developed and started to compile the Alaska R&D (ARAD) inventory of ongoing R&D projects, facilities, experts, and associated literature. As noted above, UA has sponsored the initial stages of development of GINA to make remotely sensed data more widely and cheaply accessible, and ultimately to serve as the portal for data from the envisioned monitoring networks. While these initial efforts will help, careful design of data bases and decision tools will have to be an essential component of any efforts to improve R&D cooperation, let alone to develop comprehensive monitoring networks. We also recognize the need for early and continuous involvement of community representatives from around the state, to help define the types of environmental information our people want and need, and to ensure that it is provided in useful, timely, and accessible ways. Further, if our State’s needs are to be adequately addressed in national and international programs, Alaskans must be vigorous proponents, particularly of the importance of Native peoples and the Arctic. Actions to Date, and Next Steps We have already alluded to some of the efforts that are underway in support of our suggested strategy (even if not inspired by it - we simply note that they are commensurate with what we believe is appropriate for a state R&D Plan). These projects include ARAD and GINA, upgrades to the ARSC, discussions with NOAA and NASA on wideband fiber connectivity and access to satellite resources, leadership of the hydrological component of SEARCH, work with Russia and Canada to establish ocean monitoring systems in the Arctic, and initial meetings to develop a plan to improve weather forecasting for Alaska and the circumpolar Arctic, and to prepare an Alaskan proposal for NEON. Perhaps the most significant step, however, has been the development of a consortium of federal and state government agencies, Native Alaska entities, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and private industry to establish a Coastal Alaska Observatory System (CAOS), which we envision evolving into the marine component of an integrated Alaskan environmental observing network. We discuss CAOS briefly as an example. The impetus for CAOS was provided by a national meeting in late 2001 to discuss the US Integrated Ocean Observing System, IOOS. Although Alaska’s coast and waters are as extensive as the other eight regions envisioned for IOOS combined, CAOS would fulfill IOOS objectives (ranging from climate change and sustained use of living resources to homeland security) from our borders with Canada and Russia, to the North Pole. The CAOS concept was broached to a wide range of interested parties at the Oceans and Watersheds symposium in Anchorage in April 2002, and given the positive and broad response, an organizational meeting was held in conjunction with the annual Arctic AAAS meeting in Fairbanks in September. Governance and Implementation Committees have been formed, a user group meeting is planned for April 2003, and a search for a CAOS Director to be hosted at UAF’s SFOS is underway. Given the size of Alaska’s coasts and waters, CAOS is envisioned as comprising 3 major regional segments (Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic ocean, with further local subdivisions), each served by an interlinked set of “nodes,” all with geographic responsibilities, and some with lead responsibilities for aspects of the science planning and process studies. An example of the latter could include marine fisheries expertise concentrated in Juneau, with the new NOAA lab, UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (SFOS) fisheries group, UAS marine biology, and ADF&G. Similarly, estuarine research could be centered at Kachemak Bay (National Ecological Research Reserve and headquarters for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge). Prince William Sound Science Center would continue to focus on the ecology of the Sound from Cordova. Barrow, through the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, could lead the Arctic node. EVOS’s Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring Program (GEM) could lead efforts in the GOA. NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Lab and Alaska Fisheries Science Center could continue and hopefully expand their monitoring and research efforts in the Gulf and Bering Sea. Kodiak could support sustainable harvest studies in local waters as well as be the center for fisheries technology. Seward could play a critical role as the homeport for the Arctic Region Research Vessel (proposed replacement for UA’s current UNOLS vessel, R/V Alpha Helix) and thus be the central point for access to the open ocean and the major shore lab site for the oceanographic researchers that would use the ship. In addition, Seward would serve as a center for mooring logistics, data management, marine mammal research (based on the Alaska Sealife Center’s husbandry facilities), and shipboard training (AVTEC). At this point in the CAOS process these are just conceptual ideas, but they indicate a likely direction of evolution, and we have, in some cases, started discussions with local leaders and agency representatives about their roles in the network. CAOS is also a major factor in the ongoing strategic planning process within SFOS. We have also started to build the partnerships requisite to coordinated planning and execution of marine research. One such effort is a draft Memorandum of Agreement between UA, the EVOS Trustee Council, and the NPRB, which commits the parties to working together to meet research priorities and data and information needs. This MOA will be open to other interested partners. One of Alaska’s great competitive strengths is the large amount of dedicated funds for marine research managed by NPRB and the EVOS Trustee Council, as well as those from the Pacific Salmon Commission’s Northern Fund, the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, and the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, plus funds managed by UA SFOS via the Mineral Management Service’s Coastal Marine Institute, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center, the Rasmuson Fisheries Research Center, and the NOAA-supported Sea Grant and National Underwater Research Programs. Harnessing these efforts, as well as Federal and state agency programs in a collaborative effort to address the many pressing marine issues in the state, should enable Alaska and CAOS to be national leaders in the development of IOOS, and major players in the evolving Global Ocean Observing System. CAOS has been launched, but is in the very early stages of its development and is thus still susceptible to being derailed. We therefore urge strong state support for this effort, and for leadership of it within Alaska, by an Alaskan organization (UA would be a good candidate), where it can best be integrated with other statewide monitoring and data management systems, and couple closely to education and training. In addition to the overall CAOS efforts, the partners are continuing their own planning efforts, notably the EVOS Trustee Council’s work to establish GEM, and NPRB’s evolution and the continuation of its science planning with the NRC. Planning for and development of other monitoring programs and systems that can evolve into CAOS nodes will also continue, as will efforts such as GINA and ARAD that contribute to the marine component of our suggested monitoring network. Other next steps will include discussions with potential partners for other components of the proposed statewide network, to lead to the development of a more thorough and structured vision of its objectives and organization. As with CAOS, near-term efforts to this end will include a combination of individual efforts (e.g. the preparation of a NEON proposal, continuing work on the ACIA and other Arctic Council projects, and discussions leading to the development of an Alaskan counterpart to Canada’s Northern Contaminants Program) plus attempts to develop memoranda of agreement, form consortia, discuss joint facilities, and build momentum toward interest in integrated networks. We have started with the marine component because of the impetus provided by IOOS, plus the mutual interests of several of the major players. We will attempt to use this as a model for efforts on the terrestrial, atmosphere and space, human, and satellite sensing components. R&D and Alaska’s Human Environment Alaska’s communities range from modern, cosmopolitan Anchorage, to villages of a few dozen people surrounded by huge tracts of wilderness. The state’s population includes members of a wide variety of ethnic groups, a large contingent of military personnel, and many temporary workers who come for the excitement of the land or the lure of well paying jobs. Alaska is unique in the US in its large geographic areas in which indigenous people, again of many cultures, comprise most of the population; yet virtually all Alaskans have access to modern communications and means of transport. Most rural residents frequently visit large towns and cities, and most urban Alaskans greatly value opportunities to go to the bush . Thus Alaska is an unusual amalgam of western and indigenous, and rural and urban cultures, with the problems and joys of both, as well as the tensions associated with their intersection. Approach to Development of a Human Environmental R&D Plan With a population of 626,932 and a land area of 571,951.26 square miles (according to the 2000 US Census), Alaska is blessed with little overcrowding and few traffic problems. However well over half the State’s residents, some 380K, live in, or adjacent to, the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Anchorage municipality alone is home to 260K. Another 95K live in towns of 5-15K, and 19K in towns of 1-5K. The rest of the population is scattered in nearly 300 villages. Of the 349 communities in the State, fewer than 50 are on the road system, and only about 20 are on the state ferry system. 10 Overall, Alaska’s population increased 10% since the 1990 census (although there has been a net out-migration since 1994). The fastest growth is occurring in the urban centers of Anchorage and the adjacent Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The greatest percentage decline has been in Aleutians West, and was associated with military base closures. Overall, there is a slow, but inexorable migration toward population centers, driven by a combination of jobs, schooling, health facilities, and increasing reliance upon modern technology. Alaska’s population is as diverse as it is geographically scattered. The cities boast a wide mix of cultures, with a significant population of Koreans in Anchorage and a large number of Filipinos along the coastal arc. Military personnel (some 18K+ in 2000) and their dependents, a quasi-ethnic group by virtue of their demographics, contribute significantly to the labor pool and expenditures around the major bases near Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kodiak, and can be the source of significant disruption when bases are closed (e.g. Adak) or built up (e.g. Fort Greely near Delta Junction). Alaska Natives are particularly significant contributors to the state’s diversity and its value structure not only because they comprise almost 17% of the population, but because unlike most other groups, they often reside in towns, villages, or even regions where they are a significant percentage of the population. Indeed, Alaska Natives are a majority in 10 of Alaska’s 27 census areas. Indigenous cultures themselves are diverse, as reflected in their 21 languages and five major cultural groupings. Alaska’s political, land ownership, and resource management structures are also varied. There are 17 boroughs with 49 city governments and 83 unincorporated places, and 10 additional unorganized “census areas”, with 96 city governments and 92 unincorporated places. Two hundred and twenty four Alaska Native Villages, Communities, Associations, Councils, or Organizations are recognized as separate “American Indian Tribes” by the Federal Government, and there is one Federal Indian Reservation. Each of these entities has associated rights of sovereignty. Of Alaska’s 375 million acres, the Federal Government owns 221 million (151 million are in National Parks, Refuges, and Forests), the state owns 105 million, and the 12 in-state ANCSA corporations (and more than 200 village corporations which have surface entitlements) own 44 million acres. 11 Resources are managed by a number of federal and state agencies, and in some cases regulatory authority is shared with indigenous groups. Such diversity of culture, demography, accessibility, and governance naturally leads to a wide array of social and economic needs of the people, and of challenges to delivery systems. School sizes vary from as few as eight children, to several thousand. Local medical and social welfare support ranges from perhaps a single paraprofessional, to full-service primary-care hospitals. Some vitally important social and economic needs, such as subsistence, are almost unknown in the US outside of our state, and even here, harvests of wild foods range from less than 20 pounds per person in Anchorage and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs, to some 700 pounds average in the Wade Hampton census area, where wild foods account for about 44% of an individual’s economic well-being. 12 As was the case with the natural environment, the range of scientific, social scientific, and humanitarian disciplines within which R&D is conducted in support of the needs of the human environment is very large. Similarly, a large number of federal and state agencies, academic institutions, NGOs, and commercial entities are involved in both R&D and service delivery. Further, there are indigenous counterparts to western knowledge for most important human issues. Here, more than for many of the natural environment themes, formally organized Native groups and organizations, ranging from village councils, to village and ANSCA corporations, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and regional non-profit corporations, are fully capable of performing R&D and supporting their peoples’ more immediate needs. Thus, as for the natural environment, a completely bottoms-up, or disciplinary approach, to developing an R&D plan was felt to be inappropriate. Our working group on “Social and Economic Needs of Alaskans” elected to commission task forces to examine human needs in a number of areas. As noted above, the papers from these groups are located in our “Appendix” on the web. For some topics, such as law enforcement and justice, our respondents felt that there were no significant issues that needed to be discussed at this time. Some topics, such as history, gender, and governance, were ignored for this initial effort, in spite of their importance. Others topics, such as health, biomedicine, and social welfare have been the subject of intensive review and discussion in this report and in others. The groups that are addressing these issues have structured plans and formal timelines which include extensive stakeholder interaction. These timelines call for submission of their report in April, and thus we are able to make only very preliminary comments at this time. As for the natural environment, and in at least two instances directly related to it ( resource management and contaminants), some major themes emerged. We will focus on these themes in this initial draft. Download 338.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|