The Loss of Territoriality and Climate Change

The state’s opposition to the exercise of tribal jurisdiction over domestic violence crimes erects a serious obstacle to the ability of tribes to govern the wellbeing and safety of their own communities. As the ILOC report finds, the lack of a geographical base from which to root tribal authority does not condemn the ability of tribes to work as sovereign partners on these vital issues. The 2014 Defending Childhood report issued by the U.S. Attorney General stated, “these issues must be addressed at the local level, with the state working in partnership with tribes, to build local capacity to address public safety and access to justice” (Attorney General's Advisory Committee 2014, 136).

Chapin 2013). Thawing permafrost is altering wildlife habitat, increasing the frequency of wildfires that threaten communities, and changing the availability of safe drinking water sources (Chapin et al. 2014, 516-522). Community elders throughout the Yukon River watershed are noticing increased temperatures that impact snowpack, erosion, permafrost and river flow (Wilson, Walter, and Waterhouse 2015, 98). Climate changes have likewise adversely impacted livelihoods of people living along the Yukon River, including subsistence (Wilson, Walter, and Waterhouse 2015, 102). These impacts mirror those experienced by other indigenous tribes throughout the United States which include lost access to traditional foods, decreases in water quality and quantity, damage and loss to traditional lands, damages to community infrastructures, and the increasing threat of forcible relocation (Bennett and Maynard 2014, 298). These impacts are exacerbated by “historical events and contemporary conditions” unique to tribal communities throughout the country (Bennett and Maynard 2014, 298).

Indigenous knowledge gleaned from long-term observations provides data critical to long-term studies of understanding changing climates. This is especially the case along the Yukon River when the primary source of scientific data about the water quality is collected by the YRITWC Science Department, according to the former Science Director (YRITWC K-I 2).

Indigenous knowledge is vital to planning throughout the United States, and the “datasets on climate impacts on water in many locations throughout Indian Country, such as the need to quantify available water and aquifer monitoring, will be important for improved adaptive planning” (Bennett and Maynard 2014, 304). The tribes along the Yukon River are now the primary entity collecting scientific information relevant for understanding the impacts of climate change, and contain historical observations vital for assessing and monitoring environmental health in the form of traditional knowledge (YRITWC K-I 2).

CEUeTDCollection

An Alaskan representative to the White House’s Task Force on Climate Change and Resilience identified the challenges to Alaska tribes arising from the loss of territoriality on the ability of tribes to respond to climate change. Not only is vital traditional knowledge neglected by policy makers and planners, but due to the impacts of ANCSA and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Venetie case, tribes lack critical governance tools such as regulatory authority necessary to respond to the challenges their communities face related to climate change.

The Task Force representative explains,

With regards to climate change . . . place-based knowledge [is] so important. Traditional knowledge does not only help tribes, but the states and the country because the people have a depth of understanding of the environment that is probably underutilized (Expert K-I 3).

This perspective was integrated into the final recommendations released by the White House Task Force,

The Federal Government must fully incorporate its government-to-government relationship with Tribes and Alaska Native communities into existing programs and activities that relate to climate change by enhancing self-governance capacity, promoting engagement of State and local governments with tribal communities, and recognizing the role of traditional ecological knowledge in understanding the changing climate (The White House 2014, 8).

The lack of territoriality implicates community resilience by impeding the capacity of local governments to respond to acute and long-term shocks. The changing climate is opening oceans and extending ice and snow free seasons, creating unprecedented opportunities for economic development projects that require access to natural resources and the means to transport resources to market. With increases in these economic opportunities, communities must be prepared to address both the “perceived threats and anticipated benefits” (Chapin et al.

2014, 522). However, Alaska tribes lack governance authority necessary to create public policies related to climate change because of the lack of territoriality. This means that Alaska

CEUeTDCollection

tribes are again placed at a disadvantage when compared with other local governments and tribes in the continental United States, with very specific consequences to Alaska tribes including the lack of authority to tax and regulate. One of the recommendations contained in the White House Task Force report would be to offer economic incentives and technical assistance for tribes and communities that create “climate-smart land use and development that actively assesses and manages climate-related risks. State and local governments, tribes, and territories that employ such practices should receive preferential consideration” (The White House 2014, 11).

Similarly, the White House Task Force called for the full integration of Alaska Native tribal communities in subsistence governance. In the recommendation designed to promote communities in promoting their own food security, the Task Force recommendation reads:

Support subsistence activities central to the economic and food security of tribal, Alaska-Native, territorial, indigenous island, and other communities. These communities and their representative jurisdictions must be fully integrated into resource governance decisions that affect their food sources, including the Federal Subsistence Board, fishery management councils, and co-management organizations (The White House 2014, 29).

However, as noted earlier in this chapter, the subsistence management system does not allow for tribal integration into resource governance decisions that affect food supplies (see below). Without commensurate systematic changes that recognize and integrate tribal governments as governments into subsistence management regimes, this recommendation is moot.

Just as global, national, and state governments and institutions evolve to adapt to the changing climate, tribes need governance tools to effectively respond to the needs of their communities. “To be effective and culturally appropriate, it is important that such institutional frameworks recognize the sovereignty of tribal governments and that any institutional development stems from significant engagement with tribal representatives” (Bennett and

CEUeTDCollection

Maynard 2014, 307). Land-based governance, or tribal territoriality, is a critical tool necessary to promote policies of resilience and adaptation, but one that is foreclosed to tribes in Alaska.