Background Information

In Alaska today there are six villages identified by the state and federal government and governmental agencies that have an immediate need to respond to severe erosion and flooding. They are Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Kivalina, Newtok, Unalakleet, and Shaktoolik, Alaska. In a number of these villages relocation is the only long-term, viable solution.

The Alaskan case studies for the MOVE project is a study of future, environmentally-induced relocations and an exploration into the processes, decisions, and discourses that are carried out in both local and state contexts during planning procedures. In the last year the Alaska researchers have visited the village of Koyukuk and spent three weeks in Shishmaref, Alaska. Interviews were conducted with current and former governmental leaders in the village, as well as elders, concerning potential relocation, planing procedures, and thoughts on the original settlement of, living in, and leaving Sarichef Island, the island where the village of Shishmaref is located.

Fieldwork was also carried out in a series of government agency meetings that took place in Anchorage, Alaska. These meetings were open to the public and brought together agency workers and policy makers from the State of Alaska and the US federal government to discuss immediate planning strategies for the six villages to prevent disaster. MOVE researchers observed the meetings and were in contact with policy makers afterwards via personal communication and email. Interviews and possible participant observation with state and federal government workers will be conducted in upcoming years of MOVE.

Situating Research

In the past century, much consideration has been given to how governmental policies, interactions between local and global economies, and conflicts have influenced the movement of people around the globe. While archeologists discussing the past have often (as a colleague recently reminded me) attributed the movement and migration of people almost exclusively to environmental drivers, modern migration theories in the social sciences are often focused on other push and pull factors.

There is a rapidly growing group of researchers, however, that are increasingly interested in how the environment has continued to and will continue to influence migratory patters, particularly in an upcoming century of climate change and sea-level rise. These researchers are also concerned with how environmentally-induced migration, which includes both international and internal-migration, will be managed and what policies and procedures will be written to help displacees succeed in new environments. This case study falls into this emerging category of research.

Something to think about

“They come here and said pretty, nice things about what they would do to help our village, but I read it and it makes it where it’s only their decision and I don’t think that’s right.”
-Daniel Iyatunguk July 2008

“People aren’t talking about the past, about why villages were here in the first place. And they’re not talking about the future - what it is going to be like for our kids.”
-Tony Weyiouanna July 2008

There is political desire on the part of state agency workers to include local voice in decision making, but procedures elucidating how to include this voice and funding to secure participation are missing. This has translated into concern among some Shishmaref residents as to what extent local people have control over their own future and outcomes of the planning process.

In response, villages have implemented a number of strategies in order to control future relocation policies and to exercise political will in planing procedures. These include setting up websites to accept donations, employing political lobbyists, and encouraging media coverage of the potential flooding disaster. In one case, the village of Kivalina has sued eight oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company for the cost of their relocation arguing they are victims of climate change.

The Alaska case studies highlight a resistance to government controlled relocations, even when relocation itself is desired. Communities in Alaska, having witnessed and being aware of relocations of other indigenous groups off of their traditional land, are actively pursing ways in which to be involved in government planning procedures. There is good evidence that the locations of villages today are the direct result of early missionaries who ignored local knowledge about ecological conditions. The social-historical processes that led to contemporary vulnerability are being explored in conjunction with current government planning strategies in order to understand how local input can, in fact, be a primary factor in sustainable development.

Moving an Iñupiaq Village: Negotiating Forced Settlement, Relocation, and Socio-environmental Changes in Kivalina, Arctic Alaska

A Legacy of Relocation: Remembering the Past and Discussing the Future in Kaktovik, AK