Category: Uncategorized

Faculty, friends, and family honored the Department of Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development graduates (and one Tribal Management graduate) with a potluck tonight at the RSS Gathering Room tonight. Students received graduation gifts and shared a bit about their experiences and plans for the future. Congratulations to our graduates and their families!

 

DANSRD graduates who could not make it to the potluck are Hitomi Marsh, Kyla Phillips, and Inuuraq Moss. Congratulations ladies, and we missed you!

There has been a lot of talk about “responsible development’ in Alaska recently. The Pebble Limited Partnership assured the public they will develop a “responsible’ plan for the mine.[1] The Alaska Delegation repeat the mantra that oil and gas development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will be “responsible development’. U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, just announced the “next step for responsibly developing the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019-2024‘.[2] Can we believe that the inclusion of responsibility will make these development projects acceptable?

If the justification for allowing development is down to paring it with responsibility we need to examine and understand what this actually means. What is “responsible development’, who does it and who holds them responsible to what standards? How far does responsibility extend?

Insisting that development will be “responsible’ allows everyone to walk away feeling good about the future. “We’ will do this “responsibly’ so everything will be OK. There will be no negative impacts on the environment or the wildlife that lives there because we will be responsible. People who never supported that development before can now feel comfortable. People who live far away will sleep easier knowing that only responsible development will take place in those remote pristine locations they value so highly but will likely never visit. Really though, should anyone be so complacent … should anyone actually believe that if responsible is hyphenated with development everything will be OK?

I worked in heavy industry for over twenty-five years and must question why we are suddenly talking about “responsible development’ when it has been my observation that most if not all industrial developers in this country already believe they are working responsibly. The discussion about developments  such as ANWR drilling and Pebble Mine is not and should not have ever been about whether development will be responsible; it is about whether development should take place at all. For many years that was the focus of the argument and those who wanted to preserve the Refuge for its intended purpose were the winners because they held the stronger position. Rational people, including people like myself who were generally pro-development, understood that, no matter how responsibly people worked, there were risks inherent to industrial development that we simply should not take in some places. The Refuge is one of those places and the addition of responsibility has not changed that.

Ordinary citizens behave responsibly in response to something; a law, a custom, a social norm, a duty to family or community. We have a moral and/or legal obligation to behave correctly towards something or in respect of it.[3] Often we behave responsibly absent anything actually requiring us to do so; we may return lost items or assist strangers because we believe it is the “right’ thing to do and not doing the right thing would be irresponsible. How does this translate into responsibility for an industrial developer … to whom or what are they being held responsible and who is doing the holding?

Developers are held responsible to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction where they are developing, and compliance will depend on the strength of the rule of law in that jurisdiction. They may be involved in activities related to “corporate social responsibility’ (CSR), but when it comes down to implementation of projects they will do what is required for legal compliance and no more. They will not be doing the corporate equivalent of voluntarily returning lost items or assisting strangers in the course of their development projects because nothing requires this, and doing so could even be construed as irresponsible use of assets by self-interested shareholders. To the contrary, if there is an accident or a broken law, corporations will be looking for ways to divest themselves of as much responsibility as possible as quickly as they can in order to protect their interest and those of their shareholders. We might examine how long Exxon spent fighting liability for the damages incurred by Alaskan coastal communities after the 1989 oil spill[4] or the way in which British Petroleum (BP) limited its responsibility (and billed the U.S. public by deducting court expenses as ordinary business costs on tax returns) after the Deepwater Horizon deep water drilling blow-out in 2010[5] to see how corporations address responsibility when an accident happens.

If the issue of direct responsibility for accidents is not enough to make us rethink development activities in areas where proper response is difficult or impossible, there is also the question of extended responsibility for things like climate change and air pollution resulting from the burning of the fossil fuels. When the Native Village of Kivalina brought federal suit[6] against multiple industrial defendants in 2008 in an effort to hold the industries responsible for their contributions to global warming, the suit failed. None of the defendants admitted any responsibility for the damage in Kivalina. More recently in 2017, three cases were filed in California state court that “seek to hold major fossil fuel companies liable for the effects of sea level rise they allege to be caused by climate change.’[7] Most current, in January 2018, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a lawsuit against five major oil companies that will seek to collect damages to pay for the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change on the City.[8] These suits seek to hold corporations responsible for the damage caused by the use of their products rather than any damage caused by extraction and it remains to be seen whether the courts will find that their responsibility extends that far.

Climate change is not the only area where responsibility should be questioned. Two new 2017 studies, from Imperial College, London, and UNICEF, “Impact of London’s road traffic air and noise pollution on birth weight: retrospective population based cohort study’[9] and “Danger in the Air: How air pollution can affect brain development in young children’[10] discuss the dangers that air pollution presents to unborn children. According to the Guardian, the studies found: “Air pollution significantly increases the risk of low birth weight in babies, leading to lifelong damage to health, according to a large new study. The research was conducted in London, UK, but its implications for many millions of women in cities around the world with far worse air pollution are “something approaching a public health catastrophe’, the doctors involved said. Globally, two billion children — 90% of all children — are exposed to air pollution above World Health Organization guidelines. A Unicef study also published on Wednesday found that 17 million babies suffer air six times more toxic than the guidelines.‘[11] Which companies, we must ask, will voluntarily admit responsibility for damage to unborn babies that results from the use of their products?

There is no real answer to what constitutes responsible development but one thing we know is that it will result in changes to the landscape and for the inhabitants. It also, in the case of minerals extraction, results in products that contribute in large amounts to human and environmental damage whether development is conducted responsibly or not. What do we really expect here from a “responsible’ company? Can we expect them to voluntarily restrict activities that will contribute to long term damage to the environment if no laws require them to do so? If we want to keep the bar for responsibility high we need to keep laws and regulations in place requiring this.

Responsible does not mean small; a very large development can be conducted in compliance with the law. Responsible has nothing to do with jobs; new projects do not require job creation. Responsible does not mean accident free; it means companies will make reasonable efforts towards prevention. It is unlikely that BP would admit to being irresponsible in their management of the Deepwater Horizon.  Trans Canada, the owner-operator of Keystone pipeline that leaked 210,000 gallons of oil in November 2017[12] is not going to say they were being irresponsible in their maintenance of the line. If there is any “irresponsible’ behavior found it will be up to a judge in a court room to find it. The companies will say they were doing everything they were supposed to and the problem is, they are probably correct. This is why it is so important to question just what exactly the standard of responsibility is when a company is involved in development and make sure those standards are not reduced.

The Story of the Kulluk

For an Alaskan example of responsibility gone awry we can examine the grounding of the Kulluk offshore drilling unit while in transit from Unalaska to Seattle for repairs in December 2012. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Marine Accident Brief provides some information about responsible parties:

• Tow master, on board the Kulluk’•overall responsibility for controlling the movement of the Kulluk and operation of all assisting vessels during the tow, from unmooring in Alaska to mooring in Washington state, as well as interfacing with the Kulluk crew and other personnel
• Offshore installation manager (OIM), on board the Kulluk’•in command of the Kulluk
• Shell’s Alaska marine manager’•Shell shoreside manager, located in Anchorage; oversight responsibility for planning and managing Kulluk rig moves
• Aiviq master–in command of the dedicated tow vessel and its crew; legally responsible for the tow once the towline was made fast and the vessels were under way[13]

And: “The towing plan was developed by Shell’s Alaska marine manager and reviewed by the Aiviq master, the Shell Alaska operations manager, Alaska drilling manager, logistics team lead, health safety and environmental team lead, emergency response specialist, tow master, Noble Drilling Kulluk rig manager and operations manager for Alaska, and the GL Noble Denton warranty surveyor. The Shell Alaska operations manager was the final approval authority. Because he was on vacation at the time the tow plan was approved, a subordinate whom he had designated approved the tow plan in his place.’[14]

The NTSB Brief indicates that “The series of failures that led to this accident began when Shell failed to fully address the risks associated with a late December tow in Alaskan waters, and ended with the grounding of the Kulluk. Although multiple parties were involved in the review and approval of the tow plan, the ultimate decision to approve and implement the tow was Shell’s. The dynamics of a single entity approving a go/no-go decision in the face of risks, with multiple parties involved, have been addressed in studies of previous catastrophic events. This research demonstrates that, even with formal review processes involving multiple entities, the ability of parties involved in a decision to articulate and draw attention to risks is limited when a single entity bears ultimate decision-making responsibility and at the same time favors a particular outcome of the decision. For this reason, Shell, as the organization responsible for designing, approving, and implementing the tow plan, is considered to be ultimately responsible for this accident.’[15]

The Kulluk incident (in which there was no loss of life and no environmental damage) indicates that, even when many people involved are trying to be responsible accidents still happen. The Brief states “The potential hazards facing the transit were known. The day after departure, the Aiviq master wrote an e-mail to the Kulluk tow master stating, in part, “I believe that this length of tow, at this time of year, in this location, with our current routing guarantees an ***kicking.’[16] None of the responsible parties stopped the tow.  Also of concern when we think about responsibility is the reason for the tow to Seattle; “Shipyard capabilities and equipment in the Seattle area were deemed more suitable for performing the Kulluk’s planned maintenance and repairs than facilities available in Alaska,…’[17] Is Alaska being irresponsible in encouraging offshore drilling activities when insufficient support infrastructure for maintenance and repair exists in the State?

Will companies volunteer responsibility?

Examining the track records of companies in other countries may also help us evaluate future responsibility. CSR may be prominent in the public relations materials on a corporate website but how are they actually behaving in other jurisdictions? Are they taking the moral high ground and conducting business the way we would want them to here, or are they involved in corrupt business practices because they can get away with it or because that is “normal’ in that country. The oil and gas industry lobbied to have the Trump administration repeal a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation requiring oil and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments in February 2017.[18] This action reversed much needed anti-corruption reforms regarding how the mining and oil and gas industries do international business and allows them to hide payments to national governments.

In case we think this would not concern us in Alaska let us remember that these multinational companies are doing business here. In November 2017 the Trump administration issued Eni US, a unit of Italy’s Eni, a permit to explore for oil from an artificial island in the Beaufort Sea.[19] ENI has a corporate governance section on its U.S. website and cites “integrity and transparency’ as their key principles.[20] The site makes no mention of ENI’s current involvement as a defendant on trial in Milan, Italy, against charges of corruption over a $1.3 billion oil deal in Nigeria together with Royal Dutch Shell.[21]  While the outcome of the case may find both companies to be innocent of illegal dealings in Nigeria, their ongoing involvement in locations where corruption is the norm might raise some questions about the company’s commitment to integrity and transparency. Can we really expect companies that hide behind the “that is how they do business here’ excuse when accused of involvement in corrupt practices elsewhere to behave responsibly here unless laws make it very clear that they must? In the Kulluk incident, the NTSB Brief indicated that Shell might have incurred millions of dollars in state property tax had the Kulluk remained in Alaska into 2013.[22] Was Shell choosing responsibility to its bottom line over responsibility to the environment and the crews of the Kulluk and Aivik? They were not breaking any laws by proceeding with the tow.

If we are to be truly responsible to land and wildlife we will not allow industrial development in some locations at all. If we are responsible … and honest … we must admit that oil spills and industrial accidents are a part of the industry and, no matter how responsible companies are, they will happen. Down-stream effects of oil and gas development are inevitable; do we want to live with those? Some examples such as ocean plastics[23], ocean acidification[24] and severe air pollution[25] may be life threatening; do we want to make that choice?

If “responsibility’ does not eliminate spills and accidents, does not control size, guarantee jobs, or reduce pollution, and does not protect against corruption, then any development that takes place in ANWR will be business as usual, just like any other development. Is that what we want?

 *Parts of this article were published in abbreviated form in the January 21^st edition of the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer Community Perspectives entitled “Examining ‘Responsible Development’ of ANWR’

[1] Harball, Elizabeth. With new life under Trump administration, fresh Pebble Mine details released. Alaska Public Media. January 5^th 2018 https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/01/05/with-new-life-under-trump-administration-fresh-pebble-mine-details-released/

[2] Secretary Zinke Announces Plan For Unleashing America’s Offshore Oil and Gas Potential. U.S. Dept. of Interior Press Release January 4^th 2018. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-announces-plan-unleashing-americas-offshore-oil-and-gas-potential

[3] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/responsibility

[4]Rosen, Yereth. Exxon Valdez oil spill saga reaches anticlimactic end in federal court. Anchorage Daily News. October 15^th 2015.  https://www.adn.com/environment/article/exxon-valdez-saga-reaches-anticlimatic-end-federal-court/2015/10/16/

[5] Laursen, Wendy. Winners and Losers in Deepwater Horizon Payout. The Maritime Executive. April 5^th 2016 https://maritime-executive.com/article/winners-and-losers-in-deepwater-horizon-payout

[6] Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al. 696 F.3d 849 (2012)

[7] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0ffacf4b-0828-4dab-8675-1d0ab3670f2e

[8] Neuman, William. To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes On Oil Companies. January 10^th 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/nyregion/new-york-city-fossil-fuel-divestment.html?_r=0

[9] Toledano, Mireille B et all. Impact of London’s road traffic air and noise pollution on birth weight: retrospective population based cohort study Imperial College. November 2017 https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5299

[10] Danger in the Air. UNICEF, Division of Data, Research and Policy, December 2017   https://www.unicef.org/environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/707/Danger_in_the_Air.pdf

[11] Carrington, Damian. Air pollution harm to unborn babies may be global health catastrophe, warn doctors. Guardian, U.S. Edition December 5^th 2017.    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/05/air-pollution-harm-to-unborn-babies-may-be-global-health-catastrophe-warn-doctors

[12]Gonzales, Richard. Keystone Pipeline Oil Spill Reported In South Dakota. NPR November 16^th 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/16/564705368/keystone-pipeline-oil-spill-reported-in-south-dakota

[13] NTSB Marine Accident Brief. Grounding of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Kulluk NTSB/MAB-15/10 pages 2 and 3

[14] NTSB Marine Accident Brief. Grounding of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Kulluk NTSB/MAB-15/10 page 3

[15] Id page 12

[16] Id page 5

[17] Id page 3

[18]C.K. Economist Blog February 17^th 2017. Donald Trump signs a law repealing a disclosure rule for oil companies https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/big-signing

[19] Gardner, Timothy. Trump administration permits ENI to drill for oil off Alaska. Reuters, November 28^th 2017.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaska-oil-eni/trump-administration-permits-eni-to-drill-for-oil-off-alaska-idUSKBN1DS33B

[20] https://www.eni.com/en_NA/eni-north-america/eni-profile/corporate-governance/corporate-governance.shtml

[21]Reed, Stanley. Shell and Eni to Be Tried Over $1.3 Billion Nigerian Oil Deal. New York Times. December 20^th 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/energy-environment/shell-eni-italy-nigeria.html

[22] NTSB Marine Accident Brief. Grounding of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Kulluk NTSB/MAB-15/10 page 3

[23] Mathew Taylor. $180bn investment in plastic factories feeds global packaging binge. Guardian Tuesday December 26^th 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/26/180bn-investment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-global-packaging-binge

[24] James Ayre. Ocean Acidification Increasing Rapidly In Western Arctic Ocean. March 3^rd 2017 https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/03/ocean-acidification-increasing-rapidly-western-arctic-ocean/

[25] Shreya Goswami. If you’re pregnant, the pollution can seriously harm your baby. December 12^th 2017. https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/health/story/air-pollution-harmful-baby-pregnancy-exposure-birth-defects-health-lifest-1105517-2017-12-12

Grades are a difficult subject for both faculty and students. For faculty, how do we judge the work of another person? How do we guide students towards excellence in so many different areas, balancing various Western academic requirements while encouraging students to find their own place culturally and conceptually? How do we use grades to motivate students to work harder versus driving them to give up? How do we reward perseverance and hard work as well as excellence? What is fair for students in different circumstances?

For students, how do I meet the expectations of the class? What are my personal strengths and interests and how can I call on them in this class? How much time can I, or do I want to, spend on this assignment? How do I get my point across to the faculty and fellow students? Do I have to give up pieces of myself to get a good grade?

In my classes there are many ways to get an “A’ and the path will be different for each student. Personally, I like to think of grades in culinary terms. We all love food and we all need food to grow and thrive, but we can’t always get or prepare the food we want. So, here is my culinary classification of grades based on some of my culinary experiences.

An “A’ grade is the highest level of excellence: the pinnacle of taste, skill, and nutrition.

• A gourmet four course meal with a fancy dessert (any cuisine, but for the dessert something decadent with dark chocolate is my preference, in case, like, you wanted to cook for me). However, if you start making me bacon foam or deconstructed something you had better be able to link your theoretical food to real world applications. And if you start telling me that reindeer MUST be cooked such and such a way because Science (or Tradition, or your personal preference) I’m going to ask you to examine and define your theoretical paradigm. Actually, I’ll ask you to do that anyways.
• Fresh frozen whitefish dipped in seal oil.
• A culinary fusion of traditional and modern flavors. I once had lemon pepper mikiaq (fermented whale meat) that totally blew my mind, and my taste buds.
• Just trih (troth, masru, mousefood, Indian potato, Eskimo potato). Simple, basic, but so good and you harvested it yourself.
• Indian ice cream made with moose meat and ch’aghwah ghwąįį (bone grease) and whipped by hand. Never had it, but the process sounds pretty impressive.

A “B’ grade is still very good and it also can be earned in many ways. I think of a “B’ grade as the comfort food of grades.

• Moose soup. Now, some will say this is an “A’ and sometimes it is, but your basic moose soup is comforting and warm. Not too fancy, but good to make and eat whenever you need a good meal.
• Homemade macaroni and cheese. Seriously, I’ve loved it since I was a kid. Don’t judge me.
• Bella biscuits (You Fort Yukoners know what I mean).
• That Jell-O and fruit salad your sister always makes for the holidays. Actually, not my favorite, but my husband really likes it.
• Fry bread. Not the most nutritious, but hard to make right and oh so delicious.   You know you love it.

“C’ grades are ok. Still acceptable, and often the best you can do at that particular time. There’s no shame in that. A “C’ grade is the quick packed lunch, just getting something good in the belly of grades.

• Pilot bread and jarred salmon. Now, if you jarred the salmon yourself that might be a higher grade, but sometimes you have to just grab what your grandma gave you out of the cupboard and go.
• A veggie tray that you selected the veggies and chopped yourself with a couple of good dips. If you grabbed a pre-chopped veggie tray from the supermarket I’m going to appreciate the healthy vegetable angle, but I expect a bit more effort.
• A homemade meat and cheese sandwich with mayo and mustard (the good kind) on store bought bread. Yeah, you slapped it together, but it’s still pretty tasty and gets the job done. Homemade bread may elevate this.

A “D’ grade is not so good, but it does happen occasionally, and there aren’t that many ways to get one. A “D’ grade is the fast food of grades (I expect some people will disagree with me on this).

• That pre-cut veggie tray from the supermarket. Or the pre-made sandwiches. Or the frozen cheesecake bites. I know they can be great for a potluck, but they definitely aren’t the star and you only do it when you are really short on time.
• Anything from McDonald’s. Or Taco Bell. Or any of the others. I may like the taste of McDonald’s fries, but they give me a serious stomach ache.

An “F’ grade says either something came up that kept you from putting in effort or you simply couldn’t be bothered. An “F’ grade is the spoiled food of grades.

• That freezer burned fish from three years ago you found in the corner of your chest freezer that your teenager missed when he was supposed to be cleaning it out last summer.
• Thanksgiving leftovers a week later. Are they still edible? I don’t want to risk it. This usually happens when you don’t plan to use your leftovers in a timely manner. Yes, this happens to me all the time.

We may disagree about what actually qualifies as an “A,’ “B,’ “C,’ or “D’ grade (I think most of us agree about what makes an “F’). Some of us are all about the flavor. Others care more about how hard it is to prepare or that you harvested it in the correct way. A good meal can be brought low if you use canned peas (for me, anyway). A quick snack can be elevated when you use the wild blueberry jam you jarred last fall. We may want to sit down to a great meal every day or we may only enjoy them once in a while. Every faculty is different and every student is different, but we can all sit down for a good meal at the table together.

What are your favorite foods and where would you put them on the culinary classification of grades?

Has “development’ somehow become a bad word because of how it has been pursued in Alaska? Do some of us tend to shy away from serious discussions about development because the word has become synonymous with big business, oil and gas and mining and we see ourselves in opposition to these pursuits, believing that they can only bring destruction to rural and Native communities and the lands they depend on? If this is the case it is time for a second look at development and how we approach it because history shows us that development in one form or another has been with us since the dawn of time. It will affect us no matter what we do so if we can control those effects we will be much better off. We cannot expect to control them if we do not participate in the discussions.

Development of some kind is coming to our communities whether we like this or not. The questions we must answer are what kinds of development do we want and how to best attain them? Where do we see our communities twenty or fifty years from now and how do we want to get there? What do people in those communities really want to see in terms of development and how are they going to implement that vision? Can we come to an agreement about what people mean when they say they want development, or that they do not want it?

It is not enough to blindly oppose all “development,’ digging in our heels and refusing to move forward, and we must be realistic about the things we do oppose. This is where discussion comes in; if we oppose something have we really thought through our reasons for opposition? If the development we oppose would put local residents to work, and there are community members who want this, have we come up with a viable alternative? It simply is not sufficient to throw out vague statements about “alternative energy jobs’ if we oppose oil and gas development unless there is some real possibility of those jobs being available.

How can we change the conversation? First we need to be realistic about the future of the communities; if they are to be healthy safe places to live and raise families they will need to have healthy economies. No amount of language revitalization or cultural revival can substitute for economic stability. Only the very smallest most remote communities might be able to contemplate a future dependence on subsistence resources alone and even the people in those communities need some money to get by. It will be “subsistence and’ not “subsistence or’ going into the future and what the “and’ will look like depends on how we approach development and economics in each community. Instead of avoiding development we need to engage with it head on and put our research efforts into identifying and implementing development projects that will actually improve and sustain rural economies.

What do we really need? Is it jobs, is it better infrastructure, cheaper energy, better transportation … is it just one of these things or varying combinations of all of them? What kind of jobs do people in rural communities really want and what changes are they willing to accept in those communities in order to have those jobs? All of these questions and more are ones that Rural Development (RD) majors need to be trying to find answers to as they go through their academic programs.

This is hard work. It involves looking at the money and it involves talking to people with very different views on development from those we may hold dear ourselves. It requires that we learn “new stuff’ about development and the different options that are available. We have to take a long hard look at the community involved to try to figure out what kind of development is right. We have to make sure the people from the community have a space where they can speak honestly about what they want. We have to let go of ideas about all development being “bad’ and instead differentiate clearly between development we want and development we don’t.

Development includes a huge range of opportunities in Alaska, opportunities that can really help build sustainability in rural and Native communities which will in turn allow things like language and culture to thrive. No community survives for long without a functioning economy. For hundreds of years what we call “subsistence’ today formed the economies of Native communities in Alaska but those economies and the technology that supported them were not static; they developed as time went by and new tools became available via trading relationships and invention by community members. Today many communities retain aspects of subsistence as integral parts of their economies but those economies have developed and now include many things that were not there fifty or a hundred years ago. It is those things, some of which have been very positive, that we need to talk about in our development discussions.

Development is not just about ANWR or Pebble Mine or drilling for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea; it is also about the wood burning boiler and greenhouse at the school in Tok, the wind farm in Kongiganak, mariculture and kelp farming in Southeast and hydroponic farming in Kotzebue. Development is about Igiugig finding a way to recycle so that they can extend the life of the landfill, local guys manufacturing aluminum skiffs in Naknek or running small businesses in Bethel, and small scale hydro projects around the State. It is about sustainable forestry projects, expanded reindeer herding programs, bison ranches, growing industrial hemp for building and other products, and cultivating specialty crops like peonies and Rhodiola Rosea for export.

Development needs infrastructure; better roads, energy efficient homes, high speed internet, cheaper transportation and better access to health care. Development means making sure that communities have proper law enforcement and tribal and local governments have systems in place to prevent corruption. It means finding ways to respond to climate change and mitigate its effects in Native and rural communities. All of these and more must be part of the development conversation and they all provide opportunities for students.

When Congressional delegates and business leaders make sweeping statements about “all Alaska Natives want development’ and “large majorities of Alaskans support development’ they are very likely being truthful, but something important gets lost in that conversation. If “development’ means affordable energy, better schools, more job prospects and safer communities it is probably safe to say that a majority of Alaskans, Native and non-Native are in support. If on the other hand, “development’ means all of the above but only at the expense of the environment and overall quality of life, and the benefits do not accrue to those closest to the development project but instead line the pockets of people far away, then the numbers of those in support are likely to be much smaller. The second kind of development is the colonial style and it would be very interesting to find out how many Alaskans really support that.

We can move away from colonial style development where “natural resources’ are extracted and profits go out of state, and we can move away from development that contributes to climate change but neither of these things will happen if we opt out of the conversation. These things will not go away overnight, and we need to accept that, but they will go away much faster if we are able to bring viable alternatives to the table. As long as those alternatives are lacking, the State will continue to default back to promoting large scale resource extraction because nothing else is on the table that they think will work.

As Rural Development practitioners we must work to bridge the communications gap. Find out what people really want and convey an honest message. Do the kind of surveying that produces accurate data, not the kind that skews answers to fit with political or personal goals.  Be willing to talk to “the other side’ not just with those who share our own position. Study the economics of development and come up with proposals that are feasible. Look beyond the short term profit motives of colonial style development and consider long term schemes that will grow slowly and sustainably over time. If we want our communities to be vibrant healthy places to live in fifty years’ time then our development language and planning needs to reflect that. If the State of Alaska shares that goal then we need to develop shared language on how we will all achieve it and we can only do that by talking with each other.