On the far east side of Anchorage down a long and windy drive sits the Alaska Native Heritage Center. The large wooden structure is built on Dena’ina land, and has a low profile, the roofline sweeping from a shallow peak in the center nearly to the earth on either end, and blends in well with the natural surroundings. When we arrived, four youth were performing story songs and dances on a stage in the center of the building for a small but captive audience. We were given a private tour of the center by Yaari Walker, a St Lawrence Island (SLI) Yupik and Cultural Program Specialist who had been working at the center for nearly two decades. Behind the center is a tiny placid pond, reflecting the distant mountains and surrounded by several traditional structures representing the homes traditionally built and occupied by Alaskan Natives. In each, Yaari shared the cultural heritage of Alaskan Natives, as well as her own personal experience. She described the importance of family, community, and subsistence. The structures illustrate a rural, traditional lifestyle that is hard to find in modern times, but also cultures that are thriving and well.
Yaari Walker speaking with members of Arctic PIRE at the Alaska Native Heritage Center (photo credit: Carly Giddings)
Looking over the bucolic scene, it seemed an unlikely place to learn much about urban sustainability in Alaska. But 50% of Alaskan Natives live in the city of Anchorage, where they make up 14% of the urban population. Understanding urban communities therefore requires understanding the culture and experience of indigenous peoples, and understanding the importance of history and cultural heritage.
In Alaska, like many places in the lower 48, throughout the first half of the 20th century, indigenous children were forcibly removed from their homes and communities and sent to boarding schools run by missionaries where they were barred from speaking their native languages, banned from any other form of cultural expression including traditional dress and other customs, and in many cases experienced horrendous physical, sexual, and emotional violence. This was but one example of the systematic attempt to extinguish the culture of Native Alaskans. Fortunately, many Alaskan Native groups survived this trauma and actively engage in ongoing expression and preservation of their traditional cultures and languages, but the violent interruption impacted families and communities, and created a legacy of generational trauma. Children who spent their formative years in abusive boarding schools without the opportunity to bond with their parents and families became adults who were deeply scarred, often unable to form healthy bonds with their own children, and in many cases turned to drugs and alcohol as coping mechanisms. The era of boarding schools in Alaska led to the loss of languages, and the destruction of childhoods and created conflict for children who were taught to be ashamed of their culture and identity. The damage done by this and other anti-indigenous policies and practices continues to impact Native Alaskan communities who experience significantly higher rates of poverty, addiction, depression, and suicide than non-native Alaskans, both in urban and rural areas.
Subsistence activities continue to be an important part of both livelihoods and culture for native Alaskans, even those who live in Anchorage and other urban areas, something that was demonstrated by both Yaari Walker at the Alaska Native Heritage Center and by Dawn Biddison of the Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center at the Anchorage museum. Native peoples still identify with their ancestral home villages and regions even if they have never lived there themselves, and when possible, will return home during harvest seasons. Whaling continues to be an important part of life for northern coastal communities such as Nuiqsut and Kaktovik. Whales provide food, clothing, oil, and tools. But just like traditional practices in the past, whaling has come under attack by those who fail to understand either the cultural history and importance, or the sustainability of this type of whaling.
In cities throughout the circumpolar region, ethnic identity and the expression of that identity is important to both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Though difficult to quantify, cultural history and identity are important pieces to consider in measuring the social component of urban sustainability.
Kayaks built as part of a summer youth program at the Alaska Native Heritage Center (photo credit: Carly Giddings)
Last week, the Arctic PIRE team gathered in Anchorage, Alaska, to share ongoing research, to continue developing the Arctic Urban Sustainability Index (AUSI), and to meet with community stakeholders to gain a better understanding of what is important to consider when evaluating urban sustainability in the Arctic, and also to understand what the most important information or metrics that researchers can provide to policymakers and community leaders. Below are some of the highlights of meetings with stakeholders in Anchorage.
Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz (second from right) speaking with members of Arctic PIRE (photo credit: Carly Giddings)
Mayor of Anchorage Ethan Berkowitz defined sustainability for Anchorage as a city that is ready, connected, and inclusive, but also as an ancient idea that has long been practiced by Alaska Natives. For Alaskans, both native and non-native, self-sufficiency is an important aspect of sustainability and a point of pride, but also a real challenge- Alaska relies on a colonial model of exporting its raw materials and importing much of its work force. Mayor Berkowitz emphasized the need to invest in human capital, to increase local (renewable) energy as an opportunity to create self-sufficiency and also create local jobs. Finally, Mayor Berkowitz highlighted the need for more data, and more metrics, saying that there is a dearth of good city-level data that can inform good policy and practice.
Dr. Mara Kimmel, the First Lady of Anchorage, shared her aspirations and ongoing work in building resilience in Anchorage. Dr. Kimmel talked about creating a resilient city, but also one that is welcoming and inclusive for both indigenous peoples and immigrants. Dr. Kimmel suggested that policymakers and planners must work more directly with scientists who can provide the data for better decision-making, and that research questions should come from the communities that need the data.
Andy Baker, engineer and owner of Your Clean Energy, shared his experience working on renewable energy projects in the Anchorage area over the last ten years. Baker talked about the importance of the 2010 net metering policy in spurring renewable energy development in Alaska. Baker also highlighted his work on the Alaska SeaLife Center heat pump system that uses Resurrection Bay to heat both the aquariums and the space at the Center. Baker echoed others when he highlighted the importance of investing in education in Anchorage and beyond, particularly at a university level,
Steve Colt, a professor of economics at Alaska Pacific University, has a background in electric utilities and working on renewable energy and distributed energy systems in Alaska. He talked about some of the challenges of renewable energy in Alaska related to policy, infrastructure, and implementation, including multiple energy players in Anchorage and Fairbanks and the resultant fractured system that requires coordination. Colt also emphasized the need to expand the energy discussion beyond electricity generation to include heat and transportation, and suggested that the transportation sector may present the best opportunities for gains in sustainable energy.
Kirk Rose, Executive Director of the Anchorage Community Land Trust, talked about working on revitalization, particularly in the Mountain View neighborhood of Anchorage, where homes were built originally to accommodate temporary pipeline workers, and are now home to many of the city’s low-income residents. Rose emphasized the important role of the private sector in sustainable community development in Mountain View and beyond. The Anchorage Community Land Trust has worked with the local community on planning and development, and has also worked to purchase some of the most blighted properties to redevelop for businesses and enterprises that benefit the community. Rose emphasized that this is not charity work, but rather illustrates the opportunities for the private sector, which to date includes a credit union, health clinic, and office space for NGOs and community groups.
Yaari Walker, Cultural Program Specialist at the Alaska Native Heritage Center led a tour of some of the traditional structures used by Alaska Natives, while sharing some of the cultural history and her own personal SLI Yupik heritage. Walker leant important perspective to the culture and identity of Alaska Natives, and the importance of considering the way culture impacts Alaska Natives living in urban areas such as Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Dawn Biddison, Museum Specialist at the Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center gave a brief history of the experience of Alaska Natives under colonialism first by the Russians and later by the Americans. Biddison particularly highlighted subsistence as both a practical way of life and an expression of culture and history, and a thriving practice even among urban Alaska. She then led us through the new Arctic Studies hall which displays cultural objects that were carefully curated and informed by Alaska Native elders. The Center also allows primary research by Alaska Natives, has several interactive video displays to explain objects in the exhibit, and has created a series of instructional videos demonstrating traditional method for things like basket-weaving and sewing with sinew.
There has been a lot in the news over the past few months about Russia’s military activity in the Arctic, with many media channels portraying these actions as part of an aggressive geopolitical strategy, with a revived Cold War narrative from both the Western and Russian side. These sensationalist stories should be interpreted with healthy skepticism, as military activity in the region by an Arctic state is not unusual or unprecedented, and because the Arctic is a region that has a history of beneficial and peaceful international cooperation. However, we should not ignore the recent uptick in military activity (Figure 1) in the region because military investment is a strong economic driver of growth for urban centers in the Arctic.
Figure 1: The Arktichesky Trilistnik (Arctic Trefoil) complex of the Nagursky military base, on Franz Joseph Island. The most northern military base in the world. Photo Credit: RT.com
The growing accessibility of the Arctic region due to climate change will likely increase activity in the region, both commercially and militarily. Therefore, it is important to analyze the best practices for sustainable growth affiliated with military investment and to prepare Arctic communities for the benefits and drawbacks of such growth.
Military activity in the Arctic is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has a long history, especially in Russia where Arctic exploration and settlement has been happening for centuries. Due to the expenses associated with exploring such a large and remote territory, as well as the significant danger, the government was always involved, beginning with the earliest monarchies. Most explorers, Arctic or otherwise, were affiliated with their governments through their militaries. English Arctic explorer John Davis fought for England against the Spanish Armada in the 16th century, and Danish-born Vitus Bering, served under the flag of the Russian Imperial Navy during the 18th century. The militaries were often the only institutions with enough resources and experience operating in harsh conditions to support such wild and dangerous expeditions.
This trend of military involvement in Arctic exploration continued, and was not limited to Russian and European actors. Immediately following the purchase of the Alaskan territory in 1867, the US military
Figure 2: The Alaska-Canada Highway was constructed during World War II. Its purpose was to connect the lower 48 states of the US to Alaska through Canada. It begins in Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and runs to Delta Junction, Alaska. Photo Credit: Wikipedia
began to develop bases and send out geographical exploration missions. The development of Alaska continued throughout the early 20th century and was accelerated by World War II and concerns of a Japanese invasion into this northern territory. In 1942 US military needs resulted in the construction of the Alaska-Canadian highway (Figure 2), a 1,420-mile long road linking the continental United States with the Alaskan territory. This road was heavily used during World War II for the lend-lease program which saw the US deliver about 8,000 military aircraft to the Soviet Union using the Alaska-Canada highway and the Airbases around Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure 3). Following the war, the highway opened to civilian use and provides a vital overland route between urban centers such as Fairbanks and Anchorage and the rest of North America. The important highway remains in use today, and such infrastructure would never have been built without significant military investment. These are but a few examples of the effects of military activity in the Arctic, and how it can have a positive effect on the development of Arctic communities, given a climate of peace and cooperation.
Figure 3: A monument to the Lend-Lease Program during WWII, which saw the US transfer control of ~8,000 military aircraft to the Soviet Union. A poignant example of successful cooperation between two world-powers in the Arctic. Photo Credit: Dmitry Streletsky
in Tiksi, Anadyr, Vorkuta and Temp, and on the Kotelny Islands. As the North Pole represents the shortest air-route between Russia and North America, such investments have certainly not gone unnoticed by the US and their NATO allies, who have their own bases in the region (Figure 4). However, western media has greatly exaggerated the scope of these Russian military activities and has made considerable assumptions on Russia’s intentions when reporting on these issues. If the US military isn’t overly concerned, then the public should not be worried. The United States and its allies also maintain significant forces in Norway and other Arctic territories to balance out Russian military resources there. Moreover, the number and scale of Russian military operations in the Arctic remains well below Cold War levels. The fact is that as the Arctic warms and become more accessible, both in terms of resource extraction and the development of trade-routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, the region will take on a new significance in the global balance of power. Up until now, the permanent Arctic bases (Figure 4) that Russia has reopened have been support oriented, not being developed enough to support a full-combat presence.
Figure 4: A map of the various military bases either active or being reopened in the Arctic. Though Russia is increasing its presence, the new and renovated bases seem to be geared towards support and logistics for now. Map Credit: Business Insider
It is more likely that these bases will improve Moscow’s ability to keep tabs on activity in the Arctic, including the monitoring of conditions and ships on the Norther Sea Route, as well as serving as support bases to further develop the region. While these new military investments are strategic in nature and meant to assert control over Russia’s Arctic territory, they are not a viable platform for Russia to threaten the national security of the US.
Historically, military investment can result in the growth of large urban centers in the Arctic, and, more importantly, provide a significant economic boost to these cities. This was the case in Murmansk, Russia, a trading-post whose year-round ice-free harbor was strategically enticing to the Russian Empire in World War I. The construction of a railroad connecting the region to the rest of Russia resulted in the growth of the town and the construction of a port and naval base. The city continued to grow and was an important port during World War II and beyond, being nicknamed the “gateway to the Arctic.” The presence of the Northern Fleet of Russia’s navy in Severemorsk, just a few miles north of Murmansk, has continued to play an important role in the city’s economy, alongside the more traditional industries such as mineral extraction. Renewed investment in the Northern Fleet and the expansion of Russia’s nuclear ice-breaking fleet has resulted in the improved maintenance of infrastructure in the region, but has also supported the secondary economy with soldiers and officers representing a new and relatively well endowed customer base. Arctic cities in the United States also have benefited from military presence, with Fairbanks, Alaska playing host to several US Army and Airforce bases (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska, is one of many US military installations in the Arctic region. Photo Credit: MilitaryBases.com
The military built its first base near Fairbanks in 1939 and its presence has continued to support the growth and sustainability of the city, both in terms of infrastructure development and the growth of a secondary economy based on spending by military personnel. Though the US has pondered reducing the size of its military in Alaska, such a move no longer seems likely in the context of increased Russian activity in the region. The major cities of Murmansk and Fairbanks will continue to benefit from an existing military presence, while the urban areas such as Tiksi, Anadyr, Vorkuta and Temp could see significant growth from investments in transport infrastructure and the influx of military and research personnel.
However, it is important to realize that military investment can also have negative impacts on Arctic communities. Though there is no overt reason for concern, whenever you have an increase in military presence in a region, there is a heightened risk of an accident or conflict. This is especially true given the state of the broader globally oriented geopolitical situation currently. While military investment in the Arctic itself has been focused on scientific and support activities, which can be hugely beneficial to Arctic communities, an actual flare-up would be devastating. Luckily, there are still many voices of reason among the global community of think-tanks and policy advice institutions. The Brookings Institution published a report in 2016 calling for increased cooperation between the US and Russia in the spheres of research, natural resource exploration, and search-and-rescue (Figure 6).
Figure 6: A US Coast Guard vessel CG Svalbard W303 and the Russian vessel “Arctic Princess” outside Svalbard. Russia operates a sizable Arctic Sea fleet compared to the US, which only has one active Polar-class icebreaker. Both countries remain open to opportunities for cooperation in search-and-rescue and research. Photo Credit: Torbjørn Kjosvold/Forsvaret
This kind of press promotes a climate of healthy and honest dialogue between the two countries, while helping soothe fears over an arms-race in the region. Kenneth Yalowitz, Director of the Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown University, Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and former U.S. Ambassador to Belarus and Georgia, sees Russia’s military presence in the Arctic as defensive in nature, welcoming constructive Russian activity in researching climate-change, and supporting economic development. The Arctic region has long been an example of beneficial international cooperation and successful diplomacy, even in the face of broader geopolitical tensions, such as the peaceful resolution of the Russia-Norway Barents Sea territorial dispute (Figure 7). Therefore, it is imperative that all actors in the Arctic do their very best to conserve and further develop the precedent of strong cooperation in the High North, and not pay too much attention to the fear-mongering tales of aggression or tension in the region which have been propagated by the mainstream media.
Figure 7: 40 years of border dispute between Russia and Norway ended with the signature of a delamination agreement between the two countries. Another example of successful diplomacy between two Arctic states. Map Author: Luis Suter
Alaska Indigenous community leaders communicate their priorities to the U.S. delegation to the Arctic Science Ministerial. (Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class Connie Terrell)
For many years, international dialogue about the Arctic has focused primarily on the clichés of stranded polar bears and a romanticized vision of a final frontier. In reality, the Arctic is a region that is incredibly more intricate, with complex and intertwined social, economic, and environmental systems. One goal of this project is to increase awareness of the Arctic as a complex region among policy makers and the public. This week, Washington DC played host to the first White House Arctic Science Ministerial, where representatives of the eight Arctic States, fourteen additional States, the European Union, and Arctic Indigenous communities met to assert the importance of improving collaborative science efforts in the Arctic.[i] This is welcome news to our network, which very much look forward to contributing to this growing, and vitally important, dialogue.
As with any major political event in Washington DC, coverage from the media soon followed. The Washington Post wrote a featured piece covering the warming of the Arctic climate and the growing political attention on the region.[ii] One overarching theme throughout these different press briefings and articles is the focus on international cooperation. With so many different nations and communities represented in the region, it is important to include all these actors when planning for the future.
Another big focus of the White House Ministerial and its press coverage was the need to increase observational capacities in the Arctic. Accordingly, the meeting announced the “release of a new satellite-based dataset that maps elevations across the Arctic at a resolution of 8 meters, with an expected further improvement to 2 meters next year.”[iii] The ministers also highlighted a number of new projects in the region “to record and evaluate the large volume of environmental changes being observed by the Arctic’s indigenous peoples in and around their communities.”[iv] By inviting local populations to share their knowledge of changes and opportunities to adapt, these projects aim to increase the awareness of Arctic issues and help prepare the region to take advantage of the opportunities resulting from the the rapid changes already underway.
This digital elevation model is an example of the imagery that is being made available through increased scientific interest in the Arctic. Remote sensing in the Arctic is hindered by challenges like frequent cloud cover and a lack of sensor coverage. (Photo Credit: Paul Morin, PGC)
The same changes that affect local indigenous communities will certainly affect Arctic urban populations, and as a result will have secondary effects on the social and economic systems of the region. Our project aims to create an index to rate the progress of sustainable development plans initiated in the region. This project will help assess the progress of such developments, focused on integrating locally sourced knowledge from our vast network of international research partners. It is our hope that by building a tool to measure sustainable development plans across the region, we can encourage cooperation and mutual learning.
