Content questions?
Please write to the
contact listed at the
bottom of the page.

Technical questions?
Please Write:
OEMM Web Team

This page last updated:
July 14, 2008

Alaska Region

Background
[See Appendix B for a description of the characteristics of the Alaska Region and past and present MMS socioeconomic studies in the region.]

Issues

Major Issue: Understanding Dimensions of Impact Assessment

Component Issues:

Understanding Ripple Effects and Local Variation
Several participants made the point that social and economic impact assessment must be alert to the ripple effects that development projects may have far beyond their immediate vicinities and local variation in impacts within geographic areas. For example, the effect of cash and non-cash transfers well beyond the zone of immediate project impact may be highly significant. Also, these and other impacts may take different shapes at specific locales. Such variation can result from differences in geographic location and/or differences in local historical and social circumstances. With this in mind, participants agreed that it was important to address the questions:

It was pointed out that these issues were of immediate relevance to the Northstar and Liberty projects.

Taking Account of Scale and Hierarchical Levels
Participants pointed out that a researcher will get very different views of impacts on subsistence resources depending on the geographic scale or scope of observation and that fundamental impact issues may differ with scale or scope. This is particularly obvious in the case of mobile subsistence resources, such as caribou. Also, different questions arise for managing impacts as the geographic scope of concern widens and the locus of institutional concern moves from the local to regional and state levels. Participants expressed the view that in both research and management the MMS should undertake to articulate different scales and levels of concern.

Understanding Cumulative Impact
Participants agreed that it was important to assess the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, but that this was complicated. It was noted that local communities see a need for such assessment and often perceive a single development as the first link in a chain of development or as a new link in an established chain. Some in the North Slope Borough would like past impacts identified and measured before additional impacts occur. Environmental groups also are concerned about cumulative impacts. In addition, one participant stated that some reviewers of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (such as environmental groups, the North Slope Borough and Nuiqsut and Kaktovik villagers) say that they cannot assess them outside the larger, cumulative context. Another participant added that lack of cumulative context was becoming a legal weakness in EISs. Participants also pointed out that since the impacts of particular projects do build on and interact with impacts of previous development, better understanding of cumulative impacts would improve understanding of the impact of new projects and might suggest needed mitigation. Study of cumulative impacts might also make it possible to identify impact thresholds, that is, points beyond which additional incremental change would have clearly unacceptable effects (or, as one participant put it, points beyond which things could get no worse).

Several participants pointed out that focusing more attention on understanding cumulative impacts on the North Slope did not require starting from scratch. For example, a review of existing EISs and other studies probably would provide a wealth of relevant information. Census data, which goes back to the late 19th century, might prove useful. It also was suggested that academic historians probably had examined the history of oil and gas development on the North Slope. (If no such historical research has been conducted, it was noted, this might be a valuable study.) A study of the oil and gas industry from 1975 to 1995 ("Economic and Social Effects of the Oil Industry in Alaska, 1975 to 1995, Volumes 1 and 2", McDowell Group Technical Report 162, MMS-99-0041), completed in 1999, might serve as a model of a similar study focused on the North Slope.

The regulations for implementing NEPA promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508-8) call for assessing cumulative effects ("aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health"). Session participants commented that NEPA does call for assessing the effects of adding an additional project to an area already affected by existing projects. Session participants, however, were interested in defining the issue more broadly, taking into account the larger historical trajectory of oil and gas development effects and disaggregating the effects of oil and gas development from other trends and influences. Ideally, this would be done by employing a control entity not affected (or minimally affected) by oil and gas development. Nuiqsut and Kaktovik have already experienced impacts or will do so. It was suggested that other communities on the North Slope that had not received direct impacts could serve as control cases. Other participants suggested that one would need to go outside the North Slope Borough to find a control community and even there one could not find a community unaffected by changes wrought by oil revenues. Oil revenues have affected life in virtually all parts of the state. A control community, then, would be one that has been less affected by oil development, rather than one that has been unaffected. Because of differences in government policies, communities in the Canadian Arctic would not serve as good control cases.

Disaggregating Project Impacts
It was impossible to discuss assessing cumulative impacts without raising the issue of how the effects of oil and gas development could be distinguished from the effects of other processes of social and economic change. It was pointed out that even in assessing the impacts of specific projects, researchers were faced with the same question. One participant stated that EISs generally did not address this issue and thus left many questions unresolved. To distinguish project impacts from other trends it would be necessary to establish a baseline. The baseline itself would describe a dynamic situation and in many cases might have to be reconstructed from historical data.

Participants said that the oil industry itself is considering conducting its own assessment along these lines in the interest of protecting itself against future lawsuits. It was suggested that it might be appropriate to convene a conference or workshop to discuss the focus and design of such research. Such a conference might include North Slope local stakeholders, oil and gas industry representatives and relevant public agencies. Some thought that it might be preferable to give such a task to an uninvolved entity, recognizing that local stakeholders, industry groups and public agencies could still play a role in the endeavor.

Major Issue: Monitoring Key Indicators

The discussion of this topic took its departure in part from consideration of a brief outline of a study proposed in the Alaska Annual Studies Plan for FY 2000-2001 for implementation in Alaska in FY 2000-2004, "Monitoring Key Indicators of Socioeconomic & Cultural Change of Communities on the Alaskan North Slope." The proposed research would have the following objectives (as phrased in the summary presented by the session leaders):

The research would sample no more then 20 variables. Alaska Region MMS staff proposed that the monitoring system would provide a “ground truth” for assessing the cumulative effects of oil and gas development on the culture and economy of the North Slope. After considering the issues described below, participants suggested that, should the MMS proceed with a monitoring program, it should resist temptation to expand its ambitions. Instead, the program should be focused and limited in terms of both variables and geographic scope.

Component Issues:

Selecting Variables
Participants suggested several questions they would like such a monitoring system to address. These included:

Some participants raised issues concerning the methodology of monitoring. It was argued strongly that the most useful monitoring:

One participant noted that a review of large-scale monitoring studies with many variables conducted in Canada found that they were not useful in assessing impacts.

Selecting variables also entails asking how much change in a particular variable makes a difference and determining what kinds of change are both measurable and attributable to a specific project. The latter point harkened back to the lengthy discussion of how to disaggregate the effects of development projects from other trends and influences.

These general methodological points also stirred discussion of how to select variables of prime importance. Suggestions included:

Discussion of selecting variables was tempered by the dictum that it is better to measure an adequate variable twice than an excellent variable once.

Understanding the Effects of Cash Income on Subsistence Production
Some participants suggested that an appropriate monitoring program might help disentangle the complex relationship of cash income to subsistence production. It is known that an increase in cash incomes in Alaskan communities often leads to an increase in subsistence production, a phenomenon also observed elsewhere in the U.S. Higher cash incomes enable people to purchase better equipment for hunting and fishing, such as snowmobiles. The effect, however, appears to have an income threshold. That is, above a certain level, higher expenditures on equipment do not lead to increases in subsistence production: a $5,000 snow mobile may not increase hunting success any more than a $3,500 snow mobile. The effect varies by household as well, because households are not equally engaged in subsistence production. It is estimated that in some areas only 10% of households supply a community or social network with subsistence goods. Many questions about this phenomenon remain. For example, exactly who is increasing subsistence production? Young people? Parents? A few individuals in a larger social network? Who is most likely to engage in the cash economy as opportunities expand? Are there seasonal trends? How does the phenomenon vary across geographic areas?

Evaluating Measured Change
Participants emphasized that in designing a monitoring effort it was necessary to ask, "What is the value of a particular change? Is it good or bad?" It was pointed out that dealing with interactions among variables could make this very complex. For example, how does one evaluate an increase in cash income opportunities that reduces time available for hunting but makes time spent hunting more productive by financing the purchase of such equipment as snowmobiles? Evaluating changes, some participants pointed out, also requires taking into account the perspectives of the local communities.

Involving Local Communities
The entire monitoring effort, some argued, should be collaborative, involving local people in all phases of designing and carrying out the research. How, then, to engage local communities? Suggestions included working with existing local organizations or, as a starting point, a single community liaison. It was also pointed out, however, that many North Slope communities are already heavily burdened by outside institutions, such as oil and gas industry representatives, government agencies and researchers. Efforts are already underway to gather some of the data proposed for an MMS monitoring study. New studies should take care to build on existing efforts, both to avoid needless duplication and to avoid placing an undue burden on local communities. Nuiqsut, it was reported, had considered hiring consultants to serve as a buffer. It was also noted that a long-term monitoring project, conducted by Norman Wells through the University of Saskatchewan, had ended prematurely because local communities came to feel that it was too great an imposition.

Major Issue: Understanding and Using Traditional Knowledge

As indicated in the session leader’s opening presentation, questions of local involvement in research and decision-making are of great concern to the Regional Director and the Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Environment of the Alaska Region. They also arose throughout discussions of such issues as defining sustainability, conducting monitoring research and assessing its findings, identifying key research issues and predicting potential impacts. Part of the afternoon was allocated specifically to one aspect of local involvement, the collection and use of what has come to be known as traditional knowledge or, as many Alaska Region conference participants put it, simply TK. While it is easy to propose TK or community collaboration as solutions to research or management problems, session participants were keenly aware of many of the complexities involved.

Component Issues:

Defining Traditional Knowledge
Glenn Sheehan began the afternoon's discussion of TK by offering a definition. Following a definition given by Wenzel in the journal Arctic, he spoke of TK as "the accumulated body of information that may be said to form a world view...but it is also used to refer to data, meaning uninterpreted observations, and at other times to refer to information, that is to analyzed or interpreted data." He also noted that Wenzel also speaks of TK as "non-Western sources of information on environmental processes and elements.” "Weltangschauung", said Sheehan, is "the expression of traditional knowledge." Weltangschauung is usually translated as world view and refers to a person’s or group’s culturally constructed version of reality.

Sheehan also pointed out that there are elements of TK that have to be ignored if one is trying to compile a computer TK database, for example, the kinesthetic dimension of teaching and learning. This, however, he did not deem critical for the purposes of the MMS.

Another participant observed that in the environmental literature, the term traditional knowledge is used to describe three kinds of phenomena:

One participant expressed concern about treating TK as made up of separable parts, questioning whether, as a community process, it could truly be detached from its community base. He also observed that much TK concerning the material world also has a spiritual dimension. Yet another participant emphasized the similarity between TK and scientific knowledge, arguing that TK is based on practical experience. To illustrate his point, he spoke of how his own useful knowledge of where to put his trash out for pickup in his neighborhood was based on practical experience and observation.

Much of the session's discussion focused on TK as descriptive statements ("uninterpreted observations") about such aspects of the physical world as movements of game or weather patterns. Collecting and organizing the descriptive dimension of TK is the focus of an ongoing MMS study in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin planning areas. Sheehan pointed out that TK as empirical observations has proven invaluable in determining the size of the Bowhead whale population and can be highly pertinent to preparing EISs, designing mitigation and making other management decisions.

While other aspects of TK might not be of such immediate relevance to the MMS, participants pointed out that they could not be ignored. For example, different ways of explaining observable physical phenomena can easily lead to disagreements between local people and Western scientists and among local people themselves. It was also suggested that differences between TK and Western scientific observations could generate fruitful hypotheses for further research.

Some participants argued strongly that researchers and the MMS not neglect TK as a way of knowing. That is, they should approach TK as a dynamic and open process of knowing rather than a static collection of observations. As such, it can absorb as well as inform Western scientific knowledge and its study can be a collaborative process in which Western science and TK engage each other. One participant illustrated the potential for engagement between Western scientific and traditional knowledge by describing an effort to design an intervention program to reduce documented impacts of an oil spill for the village of Eyak. Throughout the endeavor, the social scientists described their work to local people in detail, introducing and explaining such social science concepts as “intrusive stress”, “avoidance behavior” and “corrosive community”. The villagers reportedly found the latter concept useful in understanding their own situation and this new understanding informed subsequent local efforts to strengthen community ties through traditional cultural activities, such as dance and music.

Collecting Traditional Knowledge
Participants made several points about the nuts-and-bolts of working with TK. Glenn Sheehan observed that the most efficient way to obtain TK was to work directly with current populations rather than trying to glean needed information from ethnographic literature. He also noted that it was probably better to use contract researchers, rather than MMS personnel, to collect TK. It was also asked, under what circumstances should researchers pay for TK? No definitive answer was given. (Questions about collecting TK also should be considered in the light of an approach to TK as process, as discussed above.)

Involving Local Communities
It was argued that simply "collecting" TK to use as a tool could be considered unethical. Both ethics and good sense called for involving local people in all phases of research and decision-making, including issue identification, baseline description, description of impacts and mitigation planning. In this way, TK in several dimensions is applied throughout the process. Such an approach also helps address local concerns that TK will be misused. An MMS staff member from the Alaska Region related how the simple practice of including local statements about environmental issues and conditions in EIS documents had proven beneficial. Members of the local communities appreciated it and highlighting their views helped start a dialog that affected the course of negotiation and mitigation decisions. (This issue also should be considered in the light of an approach to TK as process, as discussed above.)

Developing Protocols for Using Traditional Knowledge
Other questions of the ethics of working with TK also were raised: How should one deal with knowledge that is essentially proprietary? Can a protocol be developed for working with such TK issues? Some participants felt that developing such a protocol would be an extremely valuable contribution.

Using the Evaluative Dimension of Traditional Knowledge
Although the discussion focused on TK as descriptive observations, it also touched on the relevance of TK to evaluating, as opposed to measuring, social and environmental impacts. A broad definition of TK would include local concepts of the good life, a desirable future and so on. Hence, TK can be vital in assessing particular measured impacts or devising a locally relevant notion of sustainability. Similarly, in determining the focus of a social and economic indicator monitoring program, the evaluative dimension of TK can help identify what it is important to monitor. It was cautioned, however, that TK may not provide any easy answers because it is likely to be shifting and contested. That is, everyone may not agree and what they agree upon may change.

Major Issue: Understanding and Facilitating Stakeholder Participation

Looking to TK to help evaluate measured social and economic impacts raises the issue of stakeholder participation. Not only is understanding local goals and aspirations necessary to evaluating measured impacts, it is also the basis of genuine collaboration in any endeavor. There was strong sentiment among a few session participants for greater stakeholder collaboration with or participation in carrying out MMS responsibilities in Alaska. Some session participants agreed in principle with the statement that "collaborative research is a way of expanding the nature of and participation in discourse with stakeholders and helps to identify stakeholder issues." It was pointed out that in the scoping process, local community members already help set the direction of research. Other examples of fruitful collaboration also were given, such as a meeting between scientists and local whaling captains concerning the effects of seismic disturbances on Bowhead whales, which created lively dialog and led to proposals for several new studies.

Component Issues:

Involving Local Communities
It was observed that participation in lease sale advisory committees is often ample, perhaps because they offer an opportunity to have an immediate effect on important decisions. In contrast, in public hearings where immediate decisions are not at stake, participation is often wanting. It was clear, however, that stakeholder participation remains problematic.

Stakeholder participation in monitoring programs was proposed, but some thought that engaging people to take part could be difficult. It also was observed that the people of many North Slope communities suffered from "meeting fatigue." That is, so many oil and gas industry groups, researchers and government agencies sought their attention that they found it disruptive. (See discussion above on involving local communities in monitoring.) The MMS, too, contributes to pressures on local communities and was described by one participant as perhaps the "most disliked and invasive" agency on the North Slope. Yet, according to the same MMS observer, some local people also appreciate the agency's continued efforts to communicate, in contrast to other federal agencies that had retreated from dialog. Nevertheless, some local people also protest that, while the MMS purports to seek communication, the agency, in the words of the local people, "has no ears". That is, the MMS listens but nothing seems to come of it.

Coping with Unequal Power
The complaint that the MMS "has no ears" relates directly to an issue that arose at several points in the day's discussion: the difficulty of fostering collaboration and participation where one party has a great deal more power than the other. The power differential between the federal government and a small North Slope community is inescapable, yet there was strong agreement that it was important to create situations and processes in which discussion, negotiation and decision-making took place in a context that minimized the effects of inequality. For example, one participant described mitigation measures devised to protect subsistence that specified that if unresolved issues arose at a later date, the MMS would facilitate conflict resolution between the subsistence hunters and the oil industry. Another participant observed that, in his work with public participation, he had found that many local people find the NEPA process "their [form of] participation of choice" because it was "predictable" and "accountable" and the process as a whole was "fairly challengeable and accountable." It also was recommended that when stakeholder assessments of potential impacts differed from agency assessments based on Western science, it would be best to err on the side of caution, that is, on the side of stakeholder views.

Some participants thought that Albert Hirschmann’s concepts of voice and exit (elaborated in Voice, Exit and Loyalty, 1975, and A Propensity to Self Subversion, 1995) helped clarify the problem of collaboration in circumstances of unequal power. In brief, Hirschmann argues that situations of conflict or negotiation are shaped by the parties’ opportunities for voice or exit. Voice refers to any form of expression, including both verbal dialog and non-verbal expressive action. Exit refers to physically leaving the arena or dropping out of the interaction or confrontation. Lack of opportunities for voice can lead a party to exit, itself a form of expression. Absence of opportunities for either voice or exit is the worst case possible. The challenge to the MMS in Alaska is to create channels for voice for local communities that allow that voice to have real consequences in decision-making. This is especially important because members of Native Alaskan communities cannot remove themselves entirely from the process and consequences of oil and gas development.

Dealing with Diverse Local Views
It was pointed out that, in addition to coping with the impact of inequalities of power on collaboration or participation, one often must also contend with stakeholder perspectives that are diverse and changing.

Defining Stakeholders
It was noted that determining precisely who are stakeholders can be complicated. For example, environmental activists far distant from the North Slope may see themselves as stakeholders with regard to the fate of public lands.

For more information, contact Rodney Cluck.