R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11
Download 338.85 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Entangled Values 9 Next Steps 10 RD and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11
- RD and Alaska’s Human Environment 24 Approach to Development of a Human Environmental 24 RD Plan The Dominant Themes 26
- Two Critical Issues: Mapping and Telecommunications 41 Some Tentative Conclusions 45 Industrial Snapshots 46
- Strengthening and Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions 65 Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together 70 Appendices on the Web
- Introduction The Organization of this Report and Our Deliverables
- What is Research and Development (RD )
- Why Should Alaska Care About RD
- Prerequisites for a Strong State RD Program
- RD and Alaska’s Natural Environment
- Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental RD Plan
- The Dominant Themes 1. Fish and Wildlife
- Local Impact of Human Activities.
- A Strategy for Natural Environmental RD in Alaska
| Alaska Research and Development
Preface: The SJR44 Charge and Our Response 2 Introduction The Organization of this Report, and Our Deliverables 3 What is Research and Development (R&D )? 4 Why Should Alaska Care About R&D? 5 Prerequisites for a Strong State R&D Program 6 Entangled Values 9 Next Steps 10 R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11 R&D Plan The Dominant Themes 12 A Strategy for Natural Environmental R&D in Alaska 18 Actions-to-Date and Next Steps 21 R&D and Alaska’s Human Environment 24 Approach to Development of a Human Environmental 24 R&D Plan The Dominant Themes 26 Strategy, Action- to-Date, Next Steps 32 R&D and Alaska’s Economy 35 Using Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base 35 Two Critical Issues: Mapping and Telecommunications 41 Some Tentative Conclusions 45 Industrial Snapshots 46 R&D and Alaska’s Infrastructure 56 Policy Issues 56 Science and Engineering Issues 59 A Common Need: Resource Assessment and Monitoring 63 Strengthening and Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions 65 Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together 70 Appendices on the Web: A. SJR44 B. “Alaska R&D Plan: Organization and Approach”, 10Sep02 Preface: The SJR44 Charge and Our Response Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) No. 44 of the Second Session of the 22nd Legislature of the State of Alaska (Appendix A) requested that representative state and federal organizations jointly develop a Research and Development (R&D) plan to: help expand and diversify Alaska’s economy, protect the health of Alaskans and the environment of Alaska, and strengthen and maintain the health of state research institutions. The parties drafting the plan were further asked to: identify ways to ensure that the federal and state governments work together identify and assess areas of high economic potential from resource development and tourism on federal and state lands, water, and airspace of Alaska present the plan during the first regular session of the 23rd Alaska State Legislature, and to the US Congress and the President via the US Arctic Research Commission. Representatives of the University of Alaska (UA), the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF), the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB), and the US Arctic Research Commission (ARC), met during the summer of 2002 to develop an organization and approach (Appendix B) to respond to the state’s request. We assigned the task of studying specific topics to six Working Groups. The Working Group Chairs and the ARC and NPRB representatives formed a Coordinating Committee to consolidate inputs, discuss issues, interact with the legislators appointed to participate in the effort, and draft this report. 1 The Working Group Chairs used surveys and volunteer task forces to assess issues and opportunities in focus areas. We concluded that it would be important to have an inventory of R&D facilities, experts, and projects in Alaska, and with the support of the EVOS Trust and UA, have started to compile this information on the web at http://www.alaska.edu/AlaskaResearch. 2 This report should be viewed as the first step in what we believe is a worthwhile, continuing effort on the part of the Government of Alaska to more effectively use R&D to improve the lives of Alaskans and Alaska’s economy, and to help researchers discover new Alaska-based knowledge of importance to the nation, and to the earth as a whole. In the few months allotted, through volunteer effort, we have been able to identify some major themes for R&D in Alaska, and we suggest some preliminary issues that the Legislature, Governor, and UA Board of Regents should consider. We have used this opportunity to start a number of technical initiatives and studies, and to begin to build tools to promote the R&D enterprise in the state. We have not had the time to conduct the workshops and stakeholder interactions essential to implementation of any “plan”. Thus this is very much a “for comment” draft, which we offer as a starting point from which Alaska’s Government can fulfill the charge of SJR44. Introduction The Organization of this Report and Our Deliverables We expect that our efforts will be of interest to a wide range of audiences, and have designed this report accordingly. The Executive Summary is intended to be a stand-alone document for presentation to the Legislature in response to our charge. It is also targeted at representatives of the state Executive Branch, Alaska’s Congressional Delegation, UA Executives and Board of Regents, and R&D decision-makers and sponsors in state commissions, the Federal Government, and industry. The Executive Report is targeted at their staffs, and essentially summarizes this document. It contains the central elements of our findings and recommendations. The body of this longer report, starting with this Introduction, is principally a status report, intended to serve as the basis for further development of an official state R&D Plan, and a guide to actions that we believe should be taken even as the plan continues to evolve. Individual Working Group and Task Force reports, where they exist, are located on the web pages we have developed (www.alaska.edu/AlaskaResearch). These reports should be of use to those that continue the overall planning process and to agencies, commissions, task forces, or other bodies that are concerned with specific aspects of R&D in Alaska. The inventory that we are developing to support the Plan will also be of interest to individual researchers and to citizens interested in current research in the state. We emphasize that this is a draft report, basically an introduction to the work that must be done to formulate a workable R&D plan for the state. Given about five months, and no money, we focused on developing what we believe to be a viable approach and started the planning process. We have relied almost completely upon previous work, where it exists, to identify major issues. In some cases, such as fisheries and oceanography, health and biomedicine, and some aspects of industry, we have been able to take advantage of formal R&D planning processes that were already underway. In others, we had to start from scratch. Thus our recommendations have varying degrees of “maturity”; but even where they are best developed there remains much to be done. The best we can hope for here is to have captured some of the major themes of R&D that must be validated and then further defined. By its very nature, R&D addresses an extremely large range of unanswered questions, some inspired by the curiosity of the investigators, others by obvious problems. We tried to address a wide range of topics pertinent to Alaska. This inclusive approach increases the tendency for our report to resemble a laundry list. Ultimately, the state R&D Plan will have to deal with all of these issues. There is legitimate need to address each of them, and a lot of work to be done. For this preliminary effort, however, we felt it most important to distill the details and simply try to describe what we believe are the overriding R&D priorities for Alaska. In this Introduction, we discuss basic aspects of R&D, and point out some fundamental philosophical and pragmatic issues that will influence the way in which the state must address R&D. We have not dealt with these issues at length, but try simply to identify them. In the sections that follow we discuss R&D for each of the three major elements of the “value structure” called out by SJR44 -- Alaska’s environment, the health of Alaskans, and Alaska’s economy -- and a fourth, the infrastructure that ties them together. We identify the major themes or needs for R&D in each, then offer suggestions on how to approach them. Then, as requested by the legislature, we address the health of our state research institutions, federal-state roles, and we call attention to some recurrent issues that came up in many working groups. We believe that during our short study we have developed some products of lasting value. First among these are the papers that address the individual R&D topics. As noted above, these are on our web site, and can be used as the basis for the next steps in the process. We have found this web site itself to be a useful tool for interactive development of the papers, and suggest that it be maintained. Similarly, we consider our inventory of R&D in Alaska to be a very important deliverable. This data base, at www.arad.alaska.edu, is a node on a broader data management and distribution platform called the Geographical Information Network of Alaska (GINA, www.gina.alaska.edu) which is being developed at the University of Alaska. We urge the Legislature to support the maintenance and continuing improvement of these systems, which we believe will be essential components of any ultimate state plan. We also express our appreciation to the many Alaskans who have contributed to these papers without recompense, and to the UA researchers and staff who have developed the web pages and data base. We have already started to take action to enhance R&D in Alaska in cases where previous initiatives have paved the way, or where new opportunities have arisen. These “deliverables”, many of which were initiated even before this effort began but relate directly to the key themes we want to emphasize, are discussed further in the appropriate sections. A few major examples include: The capacity-building programs of federal sponsors such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Defense, under which UA has initiated new research agendas and is hiring new scientists in biomedicine and engineering; A memorandum of understanding among NPRB, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council, and UA to share planning and to coordinate resources in support of common aims, In addition, there is the commitment of these and many other marine organizations to the development of a Coastal Alaska Observing System (CAOS) as part of the US Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS); Discussions regarding joint facility planning among UA and state and federal research groups in Juneau, Seward, Kodiak, Anchorage and Fairbanks; and ncreased commitment to federal and international initiatives in climate change through planning, participation on committees and panels, establishment and promotion of new global, Arctic, and US programs, and upgraded facilities. What is Research and Development (R&D )? At its most fundamental level, “research” is any activity that produces new knowledge. “New” in this general sense applies to the individual doing the research; thus research is an essential component of learning at all ages and a concomitant to teaching, whether in formal, community, or family settings. “Development,” in the same general sense, connotes the creation and transition to use of a novel item or practice, regardless of its practical value. Just like research, this is a basic life skill. We believe it important that a fully developed state R&D plan strongly encourage these practices through education and training, given the importance of knowledge and innovativeness in today’s world. More immediately relevant to this plan is the “formal” aspect of R&D, namely R&D that is practiced as an avocation or profession, or that is supported by a sponsor in the expectation of results. We found it necessary to be precise in defining this type of activity because different agencies use different definitions for what they will fund as R&D, or even permit their staffs to undertake. We believe that a state R&D plan should include the full scope of activities that are needed to create new economic opportunities or answer difficult questions about people, nature, and their interactions. Thus, we adopted the following definitions. We include all of these categories when referring to “R&D” as an entity: -- Basic research: the pursuit of new knowledge, where here “new” means not previously known to mankind. -- Applied research: the application of knowledge to solve problems and create new capabilities. -- Development: exploitation or maturation of knowledge and capabilities to create products and systems. -- Monitoring, observation, assessment, and evaluation: systematic collection, organization, and assessment of data and information to support the process of innovation. -- Innovation: discovery and invention combined with exploitation. -- Test and evaluation (T&E): the process of subjecting knowledge and products to operation and practice under controlled conditions to determine whether they perform as expected. We note that there are many different philosophical and cultural viewpoints about the nature and practice of R&D, and the resultant knowledge. A thorough discussion of this issue is well beyond the scope of this preliminary report, which is essentially positivist in its approach. We suggest that during further stages of the development of the Alaska R&D Plan, it will be important to consider the range of philosophies and approaches to research espoused by Alaska’s major cultural groups. In particular, we recognize the validity and importance of Alaska Natives’ traditional knowledge, and the need to incorporate its approaches and findings into state R&D plans. Why Should Alaska Care About R&D? In addition to its role in learning and the development of mental abilities, R&D has great practical importance to the state in at least three different ways. First, it is an economically significant “industry” in its own right. The University of Alaska, for example, conducts some $100M+ worth of sponsored research annually, leveraging state funds by a factor of 6:1. Derived directly from this activity are well over a thousand jobs, the related opportunity to attract talent to the state from around the world, and improved ability to “grow our own” and keep our best and brightest here. Most University researchers teach, thus passing on the values and disciplines of R&D to their students. State and federal agencies themselves conduct about the same amount of R&D in Alaska as does UA, with similar beneficial impact. Industry does considerably less R&D in the state (as opposed to the rest of the US where it predominates), but one of the reasons for this plan, of course, is to increase industry’s contribution to R&D in Alaska. The second reason to care about R&D is that we in Alaska are blessed with an unparalleled richness and diversity of human and natural resources. With that richness comes responsibility. A common saying is, “if we can solve it in Alaska, we can solve it anywhere”. R&D that enables us to more affordably and more sustainably meet socioeconomic needs while preserving our human and environmental values is likely to be exportable. Better solutions for basics such as clean water, reliable transportation, safe housing, and good education and health throughout areas with much wilderness and few cities are needed by people around the world. We have the intellectual and cultural capacity to address these issues as well as anyone, and thus we should. Further, there are earth processes and global challenges that, by virtue of geography, we are uniquely suited to tackle. Among these are the aurora, earthquakes, volcanoes, and climate change. Alaska has world-class R&D capabilities about these topics; we have attracted stellar talent in these fields because Alaska is a wonderful natural laboratory in which to study them. We must similarly promote world-class capabilities in fields such as Arctic biology, biomedicine, and marine studies. These R&D resources are not only a source of great pride for the state, but are of great importance to the world. Our R&D plan must enable us to maintain and grow these resources, for the good of others, as well as ourselves. Together, we refer to the practice of R&D for its direct economic, educational, and knowledge benefits as the “R&D Enterprise”. It is worth doing for its own sake, and it helps us manage our environment, our resources, and our lives. Beyond such intrinsic values, however, R&D is widely recognized as the principle engine of economic growth. Even given that fact, however, it can be argued that Alaska could “import” what we need at less cost than it would take to do it ourselves. After all, Japan thrived economically for years with a very weak basic research program. Indeed, in many of Alaska’s major industries, such as oil, mining, and aviation, we do precisely that; we rely almost exclusively upon knowledge and practices from outside. In some cases this may be fine, and of course it is impossible for any state or nation to be totally self-sufficient. However, there are some good arguments against adopting the “import” approach wholesale without very careful strategic thought: the imported knowledge and practices have often returned less value for our resources than could have been expected; outside knowledge and practices are often culturally or environmentally inappropriate or even damaging for Alaska and Alaskans; and conditions in Alaska are sufficiently different that reliance upon the outside for our ideas may make us miss important opportunities. We need to look after our own interests. In this draft plan we have tried to identify those aspects of R&D that we believe should be undertaken within the state to optimize both the creation of wealth and the preservation of our values. Prerequisites for a Strong State R&D Program High-quality research requires the enthusiastic participation of scientists and managers who are motivated by curiosity and concern for outcomes. However, R&D programs that are designed to meet the objectives of government must be based on clearly articulated needs and managed to focus the efforts of all participants on meeting those needs. Progress toward the solution of most important problems these days requires the collaborative efforts of researchers from a wide range of disciplines. Without clarity of purpose, effective channeling of effort, and skilled management, the work of even the most brilliant scientists will be unlikely to meet the needs of the sponsor. This does not mean that all research must be tightly directed. To the contrary, individual efforts, particularly those that build expertise, explore questions, and exploit skill within important disciplines, are the basis for any major research program. But from the perspective of the state as a sponsor, not all disciplines are equal. Policy choices regarding which should be fostered are as essential as efforts to build effective multidisciplinary teams. Our initial guidance to the SJR 44 Working Groups was to rely on previously identified state needs. R&D programs are relatively easy to develop when they are directed at known targets. However, we found that, in many cases, state needs had not been defined and were difficult to determine in the absence of state policy that prioritized goals and objectives and gave guidance on balancing values. We also found many cases in which state and federal agencies, as well as interested non-profit or other private sector participants, were working on discrete pieces of a potential state R&D plan, with no formal coordination and often without knowledge of what each other was doing. Virtually all of these groups expressed the need for better information on what was already underway. Basically, therefore, much of the foundation we had hoped to rely upon for our work was missing. Nonetheless, through surveys and task forces addressing individual topics, we have attempted to elicit enough consensus to identify themes and issues that are likely to be relevant under a variety of policy scenarios. During subsequent phases of R&D plan development, however, it will be important to address the fundamental issues that we found to be missing. Therefore our initial recommendation is that the state formalize the mechanism and process by which it defines and prioritizes needs, and then plans, coordinates, and influences R&D. It is particularly incumbent upon the Administration and Legislature to demand accountability from state agencies to spell our their R&D needs, complete with benchmarks for return on investment. To this end it should provide leadership, resources, and adequate time for a deliberate planning effort. We also note that R&D, like other human enterprises, thrives best when it is promoted by law, culture, active interest, and money. Where these are weak or missing, important aspects of R&D will be weak or missing as well. We assert that the status of R&D in Alaska indicates that the “R&D climate” is a problem for the state: -- Alaska is unusual compared to all other states and developed nations in the fact that industry is a only a minor participant in R&D. Indeed, in the annual NSF compilation of R&D by state, due to the small number of firms that report R&D in Alaska, some cells are masked to prevent disclosure of information about specific companies. -- In spite of the large percentage of land owned and managed by the federal government in Alaska, and federal responsibilities for offshore waters, there are no major national R&D laboratories or centers in the state. 3 -- State agency R&D labs are small and scattered. -- The major center for research in the state is at the University, and its capabilities are concentrated in the Fairbanks campus and are focused on a relatively small number of disciplines. 4
As an example of efforts to improve the State’s R&D climate, over the last few years UA has devoted considerable attention to enhancing its R&D capabilities. The University’s initiatives include participation in several federally funded capacity-building programs, development of campus master plans that include provisions for industrial parks as well as new research and teaching facilities, training programs, faculty and staff hires, federal and state initiatives targeted at new R&D programs and skills, and enhanced interest in the development of intellectual property. One of the objectives of this UA activity is to build strength in some of the areas that will be highlighted in this report, particularly resource-development aspects of environmental science (e.g., fisheries oceanography and marketing, land resource management), and health and biomedicine. A second objective is to promote the ability and interest of researchers in turning intellectual property derived from University R&D into spin-off companies. This type of entrepreneurial activity is widely promoted in other states and nations, and has been shown to be the basis for significant economic growth in areas such as Boston’s Rte 128, California’s Silicon Valley, and North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. In Alaska, however, university researcher participation in such spin-offs is prohibited under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52); thus, we strongly recommend the adoption of a modification to AS 14.40, the UA governing legislation, to read: “The provisions of AS 39.52 notwithstanding, the President of the University of Alaska may approve a contract of hire between the University of Alaska and its employee expressly authorizing an individual faculty or staff member to engage in the development and shared ownership of an Alaska based business related to or resulting from research or other development of intellectual property engaged in as part of the employee’s employment obligation with the University of Alaska. Such contracts are exempted from and not subject to collective bargaining pursuant to AS 23.40.” Another complication to R&D in Alaska is the nature of land ownership. Research questions don’t respect the jurisdictional boundaries of the various federal, state, and Native organizations, complicating the process of obtaining permits and approvals. Certain research activities are limited or prohibited by law or regulation (e.g., sampling birds for viruses on Federal Park lands), and research must often be designed and timed to avoid interference with other activities (one example is last year’s oceanographic cruise in the Beaufort Sea that was modified to avoid interfering with the whale hunt). These are not barriers to R&D, but do require the investment of considerable time and effort to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. In many cases, advice and support from a central coordinating organization that was aware of all of the various concerns, rules, and organizations responsible for environmental stewardship and regulations would be very helpful. An extremely important consideration for much research in the state is Alaska Natives’ perception of, and willingness (or unwillingness) to support and participate in R&D. This is particularly relevant when the research is conducted on native-owned lands, and when it involves activities in native communities or with native populations. We note three areas of concern. The first is ethics. The US Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) approved a set of “Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic” in 1990. 5 There are, however, other guidelines and codes of conduct (e.g. the “Guidelines for Respecting Cultural Knowledge”, adopted by the Assembly of Alaska Native Educators in February 2000 and published by the Alaska Native Knowledge Network, and the recent “Code of Research Ethics” drafted by the Alaska Native Science Commission). There are substantive differences among these codes and principles. These differences need to be reconciled. A second concern more specifically involves research on human subjects. As a matter of law, as well as sponsor regulation, any such research must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (e.g. see 45CFR46, Protection of Human Subjects). However, different IRBs may well apply the criteria in different ways, and research may need to be approved by several IRBs with different cultural perspectives. A third major issue is intellectual property. Native communities increasingly object to what they perceive as exploitation, through the use of community information and traditional knowledge (ecological and cultural knowledge, stories, etc.), by outsiders over whom they lack control. This is an area in which feelings are strong but law is weak, and a small number of Native villages have refused to be included in statewide or regional studies. Many communities that are significantly impacted by resource development, or that have been subjects of past research that failed to abide by the accepted codes of ethics, seek reductions in the requests of agencies and institutes attempting to conduct research. All of these issues will need to be thoroughly discussed with representatives of Alaska Native concerns, and we must attempt to resolve them before many of the projects likely to be recommended in a final state R&D plan can be implemented. Entangled Values Much of the challenge in building an R&D plan for this state comes from the need to preserve our cultural, spiritual, environmental, and physical health while at the same time strengthening our economy. Again and again, when we asked managers and decision makers about the issues for which R&D is needed, they identified not technological problems, but societal, regulatory, or legal problems. Balancing values in a diverse, democratic society is exceptionally difficult. Here we include a chart that depicts some factors that must be considered, and a few techniques we believe could be used to analyze them. 
We make no pretense of having grappled deeply with these issues, but we recognize their importance. What we have done as a substitute, per the guidance of SJR 44, is to organize our approach around elements of the “value structure” or “value clusters” of Alaskans. That is, we have addressed four essential components of life in Alaska separately. Each of these components -- the natural environment, social and economic needs of the people, industry and the economy, and the infrastructure that ties them all together -- has its own set of values. The thought is that as we generate ideas and recommendations focused on any one of these as the principal concern, we can simultaneously assess their impact on values associated with the other three. Indeed, we found that many of our initial questions were best asked by several groups at once in order to identify areas of potential conflict or partnership at the onset. As with other aspects of our work, this process is incomplete. Nonetheless, we believe that our methodology -- essentially the construction of a value-based matrix of opportunities -- will promote disciplined consideration of alternatives and trade-offs, and thus ultimately lead to a practicable plan, if not unanimity. Next Steps We believe that our efforts so far demonstrate that R&D is very important to the future of Alaska. Only through directed inquiry can we ensure that our full scope of values will be preserved. As a state we are committed to economic growth and expansion, and are equally committed to preserving our cultural and environmental heritage. R&D is necessary to enable us to make the requisite decisions and compromises. We therefore commend the Legislature for having launched this process and recommend that it provide the resources and leadership to complete the job. We believe that it is important for the state to take a leading role in the assessment and direction of R&D in Alaska. Federal agencies will sponsor mission-related research to meet national needs and to fulfill their regulatory and management responsibilities. Individual state agencies and boards will do likewise. The National Science Foundation (NSF) will support basic research that enhances our fundamental knowledge, with an emphasis on topics and issues defined by a combination of the scientific community and national policy makers. University researchers will pursue their intellectual interests, respond to opportunities for funded research, and provide the research-based component of higher education. All of these contributions are essential, and should be promoted and strengthened. We suggest, however, that it is the responsibility of the state to pulls these various elements together, by developing a thorough understanding of what is already occurring and the mechanisms by which it occurs, and then suggesting priorities, encouraging partnerships, identifying gaps, providing incentives, improving the R&D climate, and supplying resources. Further, knowledge of what is possible through R&D, and an ability to influence it, is a powerful tool to support policy formulation. We repeat that structured oversight of R&D is more important for Alaska than for many other states because of the status of our development and the challenges inherent in balancing elements of our value structure. As a first next step, therefore, we suggest that the Governor and the Legislature determine an appropriate mechanism for continuing this analysis and planning process. We are pleased to have been able to contribute, but we all have “real jobs” and believe that what we have started is important enough for leadership of its continuation to be the “real job” for designated individuals and staff, charged in such a way that existing state entities are mandated to pay continuing attention to R&D issues and to provide full support. We also believe that if the state agrees that this planning process is worth completing, it should provide enough resources to support both its mechanics (e.g., staff, development of the web pages, report preparation and editing) and the logistics of stakeholder involvement. At a minimum this includes support for travel and meetings. We believe there are also a number of studies that should be commissioned to support the process; we have encountered many questions that themselves require “R&D” to help establish a firm basis for further action. This will be important even if a designated leader is not assigned, since our own very limited resources have been badly stretched by our activities to date. Volunteerism can accomplish only so much. Until the Legislature determines its next steps, parts of this initial planning process will continue. Some Task Forces have yet to report. This initial broad study has identified some major themes and priorities, and we will focus our attention on them. Where it is within our individual responsibility and authority, we will continue to base our actions on the findings and recommendations here, with the intent of implementing the Plan even as it is being developed. R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment The natural environment is the starting point for almost any activity in Alaska. It provides sustenance for the rural population and is an essential constituent of the subsistence-oriented culture of Alaska Natives in cities as well as in villages. Through commercial fishing, mining, and oil and gas development and production, natural resources support the bulk of our economy, and have shaped much of our modern history. Between extractive industries and tourism and recreation, the environment provides employment for most of our population. Its beauty and challenges are what draws many of us to the state and keeps us here. In addition, the natural environment is a subject of study and research to help us understand earth processes and global change. Different groups within the state value the environment for dramatically different reasons, which can lead to contention over the laws and regulations that govern development plans. Thus we treat R&D and the natural environment first, as the basis for all other aspects of our plan. Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental R&D Plan Alaska is a land of vast and varied landscapes: from temperate rainforests, alpine mountaintops and protected fjords in the Southeast, to boreal forests, taiga and river valleys in the Interior, and north to the sweeping North Slope coastal plain. Stretching 2700 miles from east to west and 1700 miles from north to south, Alaska has a land area of 586,412 square miles, making it the largest state in the nation and the only arctic ecosystem within the borders of the United States. Our state has about 55 million acres of inland waters and its boundaries are defined in large part by nearly 47,000 miles of coastline bordering two oceans and three seas, as well as numerous sounds, inlets, and bays. These lands, oceans, and watersheds are home to rich terrestrial and aquatic life, providing commercial, recreational, and subsistence resources to many of Alaska’s peoples, as well as to the rest of the nation and the world. It is not a stretch to say that the Alaska environment, to a large extent, defines the people of Alaska and what they perceive as their future. For that reason, ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of this environment is crucial to the long-term health and sustainability of the state of Alaska as a whole. Given the state’s history and the diversity and importance of its environment, dozens of state and federal agencies have environmental responsibilities in Alaska. Represented within these agencies and Alaska’s academic institutions are a multitude of scientific disciplines that deal with aspects of our environment -- geology, ecology, geography, tectonics, volcanology, forestry, oceanography, fisheries, climatology--the list is huge. Each major category has a host of specialties, and many have parallels in Native ways of knowing. Not only does each scientific discipline have its own set of important questions relevant to Alaska, but there are innumerable federal, state, and international programs and initiatives to address them. Likewise, there are thousands of researchers both within Alaska and outside that view our environment as a natural laboratory and conduct research here. Industry also conducts considerable environmental assessment in Alaska, to locate and evaluate resources, to satisfy regulatory requirements, and to ensure that its activities are legal and socially responsible. Infrastructure developers, public and private, do likewise. Over the last several decades, concern over changes to the environment has sparked proliferation of non-governmental environmental issue groups, each vigorously promoting its own set of beliefs. Prompted by all these disparate factors, there is so much environmental R&D in Alaska, sponsored by so many different sources, and conducted by so many different research groups and individuals, that it’s nearly impossible to know what is or is not already going on, let alone attempt to form it into a coherent plan and to distill it into guidance for decision makers. Faced with such diversity, we decided that it would be unprofitable to construct an environmental R&D plan with a purely bottoms-up, or discipline-based approach. Rather, through an informal survey sent to state and federal resource agencies, environmental organizations, and other key stakeholder groups with an interest in environmental issues, we have attempted to identify the most important major themes. We also suggest ways to focus the multiple disparate efforts more efficiently, and we address what we have found to be some major gaps in the current efforts. An apt analogy might be that with so many trees, we have thus far overlooked several forests. The Dominant Themes 1. Fish and Wildlife. By far, the main concern of respondents to our survey was the need for enhanced assessment of fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats. Fish and wildlife are mainstays of subsistence, and centrally important to tourism and recreation industries. Alaska’s fisheries, of course, have the added significance of being the largest and most productive in the US and supporting a significant proportion of the state’s population. 6 Populations of both fish and wildlife in Alaska are characterized by a diversity of species in widely varying, and changing, habitat. While there are a relatively small number of commercially (and subsistence) dominant species, their behaviors throughout their life cycle, their food webs, their predator-prey and habitat utilization relationships, and the impacts of human activities on the species are complex and in many cases not well understood. Federal and state agencies have spent -- and continue to spend -- hundreds of millions of dollars on fish and wildlife studies. As a result of these efforts, we have quite reasonable stock assessments, and fishing and hunting are both well managed, particularly when compared to other parts of the US. What is missing however, and what is becoming widely recognized as critically important, is adequate understanding of interactions between environmental and ecosystem variables and target species, particularly given the stresses associated with climate change and the environmental impacts of other human activities. Changes in the Bering Sea serve as an example. It is one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world, with an impressive diversity and abundance of organisms at all levels. A dramatic “regime shift” related to large-scale atmospheric processes occurred in the late 1970s, producing a major reduction in winter seasonal extent and persistence of sea ice, and an increase in the heat content of shelf waters. Accompanying these physical changes were changes in spring phytoplankton blooms, consequent variations in zooplankton populations, major increases in jellyfish, declines in some types of animals and birds, and a major shift in the composition and balance of fish species. Temporally related changes include the long-term decline of Western Stellar Sea Lions (80% in the last 30 years) and reductions in the populations of sea otters and harbor and northern fur seals. The research community has responded strongly to these changes. Both the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NSF have sponsored and continue to conduct major research programs in the Bering Sea, and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission launched a five-year international study of the reduced production and growth of salmon in the area. Given the economic impact of restrictions on fisheries, the US Congress increased funding for Stellar Sea Lion research by an order of magnitude, to over $40M a year, and provided additional federal funds to support the state’s salmon research efforts. The North Pacific Research Board has commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to develop a long-range science plan for the Bering Sea as well as the adjacent North Pacific and Arctic oceans; this should be available by late 2004. Yet, in spite of these and related efforts, we still do not understand the reasons for many of the observed changes, nor are we even close to being able to predict them. There are long lists of good questions that can and should be asked about a very large number of species and geographic locales, both marine and terrestrial. In some cases, Stellar Sea Lions being an example, the attention focused on a single animal may be the best way to rapidly produce results. Similarly, interest in economic development or the protection of a particular species or habitat (e.g. Gorgonian corals along the Aleutians, caribou interference with reindeer herds on the Seward Peninsula, oil production in ANWR, or development of a natural gas pipeline) may require intensive study of specific regions. Indeed such surveys, for anthropological as well as ecological purposes, must accompany virtually any significant construction project. In general, however, we believe that for the purposes of state planning, it is far preferable to build a broad and deep capacity for what is coming to be termed “ecosystem-based management”. While this procedure for managing resources based on ecosystem concepts is not yet well defined, the basic idea is to develop sufficient knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological processes and their interrelationships that interactions among plant and animal species at all trophic levels can be understood and modeled, and thus serve as the basis for decisions about human intervention. This requires detailed, thorough, and lengthy study of habitat, environment, and the target species themselves, and is based on the assumption that a long-term commitment is needed to really answer the questions being asked (as opposed to responding to short-term crisis-of-the-day needs). Critical elements of an associated research agenda include long-term monitoring of a wide range of parameters, “process” studies to improve understanding of the mechanisms of interaction among variables, and models that incorporate the knowledge of process and are able to assimilate the data from the monitoring systems in order to produce nowcasts and forecasts, as well as decision-making tools to assist in evaluating cumulative impacts. NOAA’s National Weather Service is a rough model of the type of “systems” approach we suggest be applied to a much broader range of variables. While we recognize that the development of “ecosystem-based management” for Alaska’s fisheries and wildlife will take decades (if indeed it is achievable at all), we suggest that approaching the task from this perspective will be more effective and less costly than trying to address the huge list of important questions about individual species and areas one by one. Further, we suggest that the monitoring systems, models, and decision-making tools that would be developed as part of this approach, and the vastly improved coordination among sponsors and performers that such an effort would demand, would help us address the other major environmental and economic themes, discussed below, at the same time. 2. Local Impact of Human Activities. In addition to their impact on fish and wildlife, human activities play a central role in the management of other Alaskan natural resources. While an “ecosystem based” philosophy is appropriate as an overall approach to management of these activities as well, we cite as examples four aspects of the interaction between humans and the environment that will be particularly important for Alaska over the next decade, and thus warrant special, dedicated attention on the part of the state: -- Cumulative Impacts of North Slope Oil Development (including offshore). An NRC report on this topic is due in early 2003. At stake in the related discussions (and inevitable litigation) are the conditions under which industry will likely be willing to participate in future oil and gas development projects (e.g. at ANWR) and the costs and extent of infrastructure removal and restoration of the natural environment to a “before development” state. The overall issue of future US energy supplies obviously has many dimensions that go far beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, just as the Exxon Valdez oil spill had ramifications that extended well beyond the boundaries of Prince William Sound, so will environmentally-based decisions about the North Slope have a dramatic impact on Alaska’s economy and life styles, and the nation’s energy future. -- Mining. The value of minerals production in Alaska grew rapidly in the 1990’s, and exceeded seafood starting in 2000. Mining developments are driven heavily by global economic considerations, but environmental impacts and regulations and transportation infrastructure influence costs and thus the feasibility and location of investment. Environmentally-oriented R&D issues related to mining are generically similar to those for oil and gas, and include local impact, restoration, pollution mitigation, and the impact of transportation to and from the mining sites. Additional issues for some minerals include requirements for, and impact of, smelting or other processing. As with oil, much of the “value added” activity associated with mining is conducted elsewhere (e.g. Red Dog zinc shipped to Belgium), at least partially because of environmental regulations. -- Alternative Uses of Wilderness areas and Alaska’s Waters. From an environmental perspective, one issue in forests, especially in the Southeast, is the availability and resilience of non-timber products such as mushrooms and herbs. As with fish and wildlife, this is very much an ecosystem-based management issue. The main alternative uses of wildlands and marine areas are generally tourism and recreation. Tourism, however, can have as much, if not more, environmental impact than extractive industry, and similarly requires regulation in terms both of type and magnitude of use. The cruise ship industry is a case in point. Recreation, distinguished here from tourism by its importance to the local populace, has similar environmental issues, as seen in recent restrictions on snow machines near Denali and in the Chugach, and problems associated with increased private recreational vessel use of Prince William Sound. -- City and Village Infrastructure: Health and quality of life are strongly influenced by the quality and nature of housing, heating, power, water, and waste management. As with the other issues in this general category, there are environmental as well as technical and economic considerations associated with infrastructure decisions; these may be complicated by remoteness, extremes of temperature, ice, snow, or rain, and demographic changes. Alternatives to diesel-based power and heating in rural communities are of particular interest because of the impact on the environment of delivery systems (barge, air) as well as local emissions and spills. Proper waste disposal, again particularly in remote communities, is also a serious concern. Another issue likely to be of increasing importance in the near future is the impact of climate change on infrastructure. Melting of permafrost, seasonal changes in precipitation type and amount, and increased erosion can cause serious disruption, of which the need to move the village of Shishmaref is the most dramatic recent example. Although environment is only one consideration when considering the challenges and opportunities associated with these types of human activity, it can be the dominant one. Given the importance of these issues to the State, and the nature of associated laws, regulations, and advocacy groups, it would be imprudent to leave R&D about them up to either industry or the federal government. In addition to monitoring, modeling, and process studies, we suggest that for ecosystem-based management the state needs to ensure that it has adequate access to scientific and technical expertise in the many fields of environmental biology, chemistry, physics, and engineering needed to understand the environmental characteristics and impacts of such activities. The analytical equipment needed to diagnose them in both the field and the laboratory is also necessary. Perhaps most importantly, the state Government should work with the federal agencies, industry, and local stakeholder groups to ensure that it identifies the most important issues and augments the efforts of others in a focused way. We should have well defined state positions on these issues in advance of the need for final decisions or litigation. 3. Climate Change. Alaskans, as well scientists of all nations working in the Arctic, were concerned with climate change long before it became a topic of national and international focus. This is due to the amplification of change in northern areas, our vulnerability to change, the extreme range of conditions across our vast state, and the close linkages between our lifestyles and nature. Since the 1960’s, Alaska has experienced a rise in average temperatures of about 5F in summer and 8F in winter. This warming has resulted in extensive melting of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, reduction of sea ice, and increased precipitation. In addition to this secular trend, we are subject to the cyclical impacts of El Niño/La Niña, and Pacific and Arctic oscillations. On a shorter time scale, both the timing and the nature of atmospheric processes have changed, to the extent that neither numerical weather forecasting techniques nor predictions based on traditional knowledge are reliably skillful7. All of these changes have, in turn, impacted our ecosystems and our infrastructure, and through them our livelihood, particularly for Alaskan Native communities where subsistence is economically, spiritually, and culturally a central aspect of life. For all of these reasons, the University of Alaska has developed world-class capabilities in many of the disciplines associated with climate change and ecosystem responses to it. This expertise, and the global importance of Alaskan and Arctic weather and climate processes, gives us both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute significantly to the massive scientific efforts needed to understand the nature and cause of change, and to respond to it. Climate change research is widely recognized as so important, and requires such a wide range of investigations, that it is better organized at both the national and international levels than most other areas we discuss. Within the US, the Bush administration has established the interagency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to coordinate and provide direction to research efforts in the areas of climate and global change. CCSP has two major components. The first is the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was codified by act of Congress in 1990. The second is the new Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), announced by the President in June 2001, which accelerates key areas of USGCRP research and is specifically designed to reduce significant uncertainties, improve global climate observing systems, and develop resources to support policy and decision making. The draft Overview of the CCRI Strategic Plan states that its goal is “to measurably improve the integration of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems and resources,” with deliverables starting in 2-4 years. There is a parallel Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) to “coordinate and develop a comprehensive, multi-year, integrated climate change technology R&D program for the United States”. CCSP can be considered the central US contribution to a broad set of global-scale international programs associated with the multiple dimensions of climate and its impacts. In addition to the national and global programs, some initiatives are focused specifically on the Arctic, both for its own sake, and as a “sentinel” or driving mechanism for broader aspects of change. The principal US program of this type is the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH). Its science plan proposes a multi-year, multi-disciplinary set of observations, process studies, and analyses, to be sponsored by nine federal agencies that together form its Interagency Working Group. NSF’s Office of Polar Programs is expected to be the primary funding source for SEARCH; to date, the only significant part of the effort that has been started is the hydrological component, CHAMP. International cooperation is essential for Arctic studies. The International Arctic Research Center at UA Fairbanks is playing a significant role in fostering such collaboration through its close relationships with Japanese government, quasi-government, and university scientists, and through the promotion of field programs in the high Arctic with Russia and Canada. Recent discussions among both scientists and government leaders show promise for the eventual establishment of an international monitoring network in the Arctic ocean, which will be required to address critical questions about the mechanisms and timing of change. Another important circumpolar effort is the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, being conducted under the aegis of the Arctic Council. UA hosts the ACIA Secretariat, and the US representatives to the Arctic Council group, that will draft policy recommendations after the science document is in final form this spring, are from Alaska. From a local and human perspective, equally important as climate, is weather. US weather forecasts are based upon the output of global and national numerical models that are run by the National Weather Service on dedicated supercomputers in Maryland. Guidance from these models is supplemented by local observations and analyses at NWS offices around the nation; the three in Alaska are in Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks. Although the models are quite sophisticated, they are generally optimized for predictions for major population centers and for forecasts of significant hazards such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Their results are significantly less skillful in areas like Alaska, where observations are relatively sparse and some Arctic atmospheric processes are not fully captured in the model physics. Further, neither the resolution of the predictions, nor the parameters forecast, are fully adequate for the needs of Alaska’s scattered population, either on land or at sea. And as noted above, there has been enough change in both climate and weather patterns over the past few decades, that traditional methods of weather forecasting are no longer reliable. To address these issues, university and NWS representatives have held meetings over the last year to discuss both the human dimensions and the science of weather forecasting for the region, and have proposed a number of steps toward improvement. It is expected that some of these (e.g. reanalyses of past forecasts, process studies to improve the representation of Arctic conditions, and comparison of traditional knowledge with computational techniques) will simultaneously benefit climate studies. While the overall responsibility for organizing and funding major climate and weather studies lies with the federal government, the state needs to help ensure that adequate attention is paid to regional concerns, and in particular to the central role of the Arctic. In large part this can be accomplished by promoting and sustaining research expertise in the University and state agencies, and through taking a leadership role in the various national and international fora that deal with climate issues. Additional state actions to support climate and weather research can include support for the research facilities and the infrastructure needed for Arctic field work, as well as provisioning for “climate quality data” in plans for enhanced marine and terrestrial observation and monitoring systems. Basically, climate will continue to be a major focus of national and international attention for many years, and it will be important to consistently emphasize the unique importance of our region to this research and the unique vulnerability and sensitivity of our people to the impacts of change. As America’s only Arctic State, Alaska has the responsibility, for both its own sake and for the rest of the world that is affected by Arctic processes, to ensure that international and national R&D programs pay appropriate attention to Arctic issues. 4. Contaminants. While Alaskan’s are generally cautious about management of their own pollutants (although note our cautionary concerns about the impact of community infrastructure), and the vast majority of the state is pristine, past activities in the state -- notably military -- and global processes are cause for both concern and research. Regarding local sources, the federal agencies assigned responsibility for cleanup, together with the local population, have generally done a good job of identification and planning. Remediation will likely be quite slow, but it is unlikely that there are many major unknown hazards in most areas. The one major exception is Amchitka. At issue is the potential for leakage from the explosion cavities, due to geological changes induced by tectonic forces. ADEC has consistently pressured DOE for assessments that are based upon geophysical and chemical research in the field, not simply models. A scientific plan for Amchitka stewardship has been prepared under the aegis of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), and DOE funding to start the required studies is expected this year. The most serious contaminants, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (e.g. PCBs, dioxins and furans) and heavy metals, reach Alaska primarily by atmospheric and ocean transport. POPs and heavy metals remain in the environment long after they are released, and move from air and water into soil, plants, animals, and eventually to humans via the food web (POPs accumulate in fat, whereas heavy metals generally accumulate in organs and muscle). Adverse health effects to humans and wildlife can result in reproductive, immunological, neurological and developmental effects, and cancer. In humans, these health effects are more likely to be discerned in fetuses and children than in adults. There are many important and unanswered research issues associated with these environmental contaminants. One set of questions is associated with sources, processes and pathways of transport, the physics and chemistry of deposition, accumulation and change, and the levels and concentrations of various pollutants and their byproducts in the air, water, ice, snow, and soil. A second set concerns the biological and chemical processes by which these contaminants enter the food web in plants and animals, and the processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification, including variations by species, organ, and geographic location. The third set addresses their effects on people, particularly on those that rely on wild foods for a significant part of the diet, and even more particularly upon fetuses and infants. Like climate change, considerable international attention has been focused on these problems. Spurred by concerns over DDT and PCBs, a Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution has provided some controls in many Northern Hemisphere countries for many years; these controls were extended globally and to additional contaminants in the Stockholm POPs Convention of 2001. Efforts are underway to develop similar international instruments governing mercury and other heavy metals. Much of the credit for stimulating global interest in controlling these contaminants is due to concerns expressed by the Northern Indigenous Peoples who are most directly affected by them, and to the results of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) of the Arctic Council. AMAP issued its second report late in 2002. That report initially contained several statements about the impact of contaminants on the health of Alaska Natives, with which knowledgeable Alaskan representatives do not agree; the report has been corrected. Much of the reason for these disagreements stems from that fact that Alaska has not collected, analyzed, or documented adequate information related to any of the three major sets of questions about POPs and heavy metals in our environment. US/Alaskan contributions to AMAP have in general been very weak compared to those of other northern nations, and there is no organized program to study this problem. Canada, by contrast, has an extremely large, well organized, and active Northern Contaminants Program. We believe that this is one topic where it is very important for the state to take the lead in developing, organizing, and funding -- with federal support -- a major research and monitoring program. Alaska Natives and other rural Alaskans are major consumers of wild and traditional foods. They need information in order to make informed choices on what foods they should be eating and whether the presence of contaminants outweighs the overall benefits of a traditional diet. Similar considerations impact the marketability of Alaskan wild seafood. Sound, reliable, and adequately specific advice is not now available, and will not be in the absence of a dedicated research-based program. It is very much in the interest of the state to lead the requisite research.
-- Preserve and enhance scientific excellence where it already exists, and build capacity in additional key disciplines, -- Develop Download 338.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|