Collaboration versus communication: The Department of Energy's Amchitka Island and the Aleut Community

Abstract

Increasingly managers and scientists are recognizing that solving environmental problems requires the inclusion of a wide range of disciplines, governmental agencies, Native American tribes, and other stakeholders. Usually such inclusion involves communication at the problem-formulation phase, and at the end to report findings. This paper examines participatory research, the differences between the traditional stakeholder involvement method of communication (often one-way, at the beginning and the end), compared to full collaboration, where parties are actively involved in the scientific process. Using the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a case study, we demonstrate that the inclusion of Aleut people throughout the process resulted in science that was relevant not only to the agency’s needs and to the interested and affected parties, but that led to a solution. Amchitka Island was the site of three underground nuclear tests from 1965 to 1971, and virtually no testing of radionuclide levels in biota, subsistence foods, or commercial fish was conducted after the 1970s. When DOE announced plans to close Amchitka, terminating its managerial responsibility, without any further testing of radionuclide levels in biota, there was considerable controversy, which resulted in the development of a Science Plan to assess the potential risks to the marine environment from the tests. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) was the principle entity that developed and executed the science plan. Unlike traditional science, CRESP embarked on a process to include the Alaskan Natives of the Aleutian Islands (Aleuts), relevant state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders at every phase. Aleuts were included in the problem-formulation, research design refinement, the research, analysis of data, dissemination of research findings, and public communication. This led to agreement with the results, and to developing a path forward (production of a biomonitoring plan designed to provide early warning of any future radionuclide leakage and ecosystem/human health risks). The process outlined was successful in resolving a previously contentious situation by inclusion and collaboration with the Aleuts, among others, and could be usefully applied elsewhere to complex environmental problems where severe data gaps exist.

A State‐of‐the‐Art Review of Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Pollution

“…For example, many IPs participated in Canada's Arctic Environmental Strategy to include a Northern Contaminants Program (Selin and Selin 2008). Other examples include changes in Indonesian law to add indigenous permits for mining (Spiegel 2012), use of impact benefit agreements (Wright and White 2012); creation of IP corporations and contracts for running oil concessions (Dana et al 2008; O'Faircheallaigh 2013), community mining consultations (Walter and Urkidi 2017), or participatory mechanisms to involve IPs in pollution assessments (Burger et al 2009).…”

Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada

“…Similarly, Davidson-Hunt and O'Flaherty (2007) suggest ways in which First Nations peoples can be engaged more effectively in planning processes, but characterize First Nations as communities or partners. This characterization of Indigenous peoples as or equivalent to stakeholders in the environmental collaboration literature is common (e.g., Burger et al, 2009;Spellecacy, 2009;Jackson et al, 2012;Bark et al, 2012). Indeed, the perspective of Indigenous peoples as equivalent to stakeholders is deeply engrained even among authors who are aware of Indigenous perspectives on these questions.…”

Health Risks to Ecological Workers on Contaminated Sites - The Department of Energy as a Case Study

“…These lands, for example at Hanford (Washington) and Savannah River (South Carolina) have endangered and threatened species, as well as valuable, rare and unique ecosystems that have been undisturbed by people for 75 years. The Amchitka nuclear test site in the Aleutians was not only large, but remote, and contamination of its resources were of great concern to native subsistence communities [23]. Avoiding destruction of these ecosystems, while remediating contamination, is an important societal goal [23, 24].…”

“…The Amchitka nuclear test site in the Aleutians was not only large, but remote, and contamination of its resources were of great concern to native subsistence communities [23]. Avoiding destruction of these ecosystems, while remediating contamination, is an important societal goal [23, 24]. Many of the buffer lands on these DOE areas have been protected by the DOE as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs [24]), both for protection and research.…”