Toward more holistic planning

In this subsection, I wrap up my discussion of strategies for improving plans and planning processes by addressing the compartmentalized nature of planning and the lack of provisions for subsistence in HMPs and other ANV plans.

FEMA’s rigid format for HMPs has the effect of segregating hazard mitigation analysis from the rest of community planning. If ANVs or other communities want to develop comprehensive plans that weave hazard mitigation into other goals, such plans should be accepted by FEMA, as long as the required HMP components⁶³ appear in the plan. FEMA should use its HMP

regulations as a floor, not a ceiling to stifle integrated plans. While it is true that a community can develop a separate comprehensive plan that incorporates an existing HMP, it would be a better use of community and external resources to combine these planning processes.

Even with its rigid format, an HMP should be able to accommodate mitigation action items related to subsistence. It is significant that subsistence is mentioned as an important value in so many ANV plans, yet very few plans contain strategies for addressing climate change impacts to subsistence. One way to better provide for subsistence resources in HMPs is to include them in the community assets section and put a value on them, so that they can be analyzed in the cost-benefit analyses required for HMPs. For example, McGrath’s 2007 HMP lists the Kuskokwim River Watershed as a subsistence resource under a section called Cultural and Historical Assets (Rural Alaska Mitigation Planning 2007). HMPs could also describe thinning ice as a natural hazard and suggest mitigation action items that increase hunter safety in the face of thinning ice (i.e., portable beacon locator devices or VHF radios that hunters could check out from a

community bank). For plans that do not require a specific format, the Nome Adaptation plan serves as an example of how subsistence could be incorporated into actionable goals.

Finally, there is a need for planners to fully read and integrate past plans, rather than just citing their titles to satisfy the requirements for HMPs (see 42 CFR §201.6(b)(3)). While it is true that community needs and values may change over time, reading past plans could give insight into why some action items were considered but ultimately rejected.

In summary, although planners and ANVs may be forced to grapple with fragmented planning processes, they should strive to bring together the goals and knowledge that emerge from these separate processes and not lose sight of important community needs such as subsistence.

63 See 44 C.F.R. 201.6 (Local Mitigation Plans) and 201.7 (Tribal Mitigation Plans).

59

6. Conclusion

ANV climate change planning is underway. Often this planning is done for communities, with little actual community involvement, more so than in and by communities, at least when it comes to formal, written plans. Written plans addressing climate change impacts and adaptation most often take the form of HMPs rather than stand-alone adaptation plans or comprehensive plans.

As with a number of other U.S. communities, ANV HMPs are often done by contractors with little community involvement or specificity. There is not a holistic effort to plan for the range of climate change impacts experienced by an ANV, particularly those related to subsistence. Many plans seem inaccessible to community members and unlikely to be implemented.

There is a need for a more collaborative effort that uses the Western knowledge and funding of outside entities, but includes and builds community knowledge. Both those within ANVs and those outside can take steps to build connections that will facilitate collaboration. Within ANVs, leaders can facilitate collective action by bringing community members together around

traditional meals and activities. Outside entities and planners should recognize the importance of traditional meals and activities and incorporate climate change planning into collaborations that have already withstood the test of time. Building connections is not an event, but an ongoing process that can facilitate the creation of adaptation plans as well as the implementation of adaptation actions.

Many of my suggestions relate to the need for outside planners and decision-makers to come closer to ANVs, improve understanding of community needs, and allow planning processes that better accommodate these needs. My suggestions also relate to the need for ANVs to find some way to maintain the ties that hold their communities together, so they can act collectively to plan for and adapt to climate change. These suggestions are generally consistent with the findings in the collaborative planning literature on the importance of connections, trust, and meaningful participation in planning processes. They are also consistent with findings in the indigenous planning literature that much of the mainstream planning literature does not sufficiently account for the particular situations of marginalized populations.

What perhaps sets my findings apart from other studies on planning processes is the stark difference between the participants in the Alaska planning processes that I studied. At one end are ANVs—often small and remote, with distinct values, needs, and lifeways that persist in the face of climate change and colonization. At the other end are urban-based planners and decision-makers leading Western-style planning processes with little oversight or evaluation across this expansive state. ANVs have little involvement in the initiation and process of outside-led

planning, and they lack the means to implement these plans on their own terms. Thus, even while some outside planners see the process of planning as helpful to ANVs, the current process is not translating traditional means of indigenous planning into planning documents that serve the ANV needs. Rather, it produces plans that may be factually inaccurate and impossible to implement and amounts to a failure of climate justice.

60

ANVs adaptation to climate change will be achieved not by external entities cranking out generic plans for ANVs. Each ANV will need to come together with a common vision and support local leadership to build on that vision in collaboration with external partners. In turn, external partners should make the effort to ensure that planning is carried out in a manner that fosters meaningful participation from ANVs.

61