Environmental and Human Security on Alaska’s Coasts

What is security?

Security has many definitions. Broadly speaking, security can be viewed as the protection of people from threats, harm and violence, and the defense of territories from attack, invasion and takeover.

Although policy perspectives on security have historically focused on state sovereignty, national security and the military, the close of the Cold War ushered in a broadening of the concept to include human security. Human security focuses on people and communities, rather than states and nations. This demonstrates a fundamental shift in thinking to one in which national and global actors should not only respect governmental sovereignty but also promote the defense of individuals and their lives, livelihoods and communities.

Today’s diverse security interests address a wide range of needs and actors. According to modern conceptions, security is multidimensional and multilevel. It includes physical, military, economic, environmental and cultural security. It exists at various scales: the individual, subnational community, nation-state and international. While the federal government uses a wide range of agencies (notably, but not exclusively, the military) to ensure national security, subnational governments and international actors also endeavor to protect security at their respective levels through a variety of policies and instruments.

Many security issues span multiple categories and levels. The figure on the facing page illustrates types of security issues at multiple scales for significant coastal infrastructure such as ports, extractive industrial projects, military installations, and community built capital such as sewer and water systems.

In Alaska, environmental change impacts military security. With melting sea ice comes new foreign military and commercial traffic to Alaska’s coasts, which U.S. maritime security vessels are currently underprepared to address in the event of an emergency. Environmental change also impacts physical and cultural security. Coastal erosion has sparked relocation processes for villages like Newtok and Napakiak. Warming temperatures impact migratory patterns of a wide range of subsistence animals and affects hunting, whaling and fishing practices.

The security landscape thus ranges from military protection of the U.S. homeland to safeguarding Alaska-specific Indigenous food security and well-being. Security is a complex network of various actors attempting to protect individuals, communities, institutions, territorial integrity and the international community. Central to assuring the security of these entities is protection of vital infrastructure in Alaska’s Arctic.

How does Alaska ensure the security of its coasts?

Coastal security in Alaska includes the protection of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people on Alaska’s coasts and in near-coast communities. It also includes the defense of Alaska’s coastlines to ensure state and national safety. These concerns are not simple to address, as they include a wide range of actors working to respond to coastal threats, increase protections and reduce risk. While Arctic security has traditionally fallen under the U.S. government’s remit, federal agencies cannot and should not address all concerns. The federal government, State of Alaska, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and private actors each contribute to Alaska’s coastal security. While the federal government takes the lead on national security issues such as coastal patrol and port protection, the state government influences all levels of security from local to international. However, the state government may be most responsible for individual and community safety, including food security.

The Alaska government addresses coastal security as both a part of its general policy towards the entire state and as a geographic space with unique characteristics requiring targeted responses. Alaska security agencies include the Alaska National Guard, State Defense Force, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, State Troopers, and Department of Fish and Game, among others.

Many state efforts focus specifically on the coastal regions. The Coastal Hazards Program of the Department of Natural Resources tracks flooding, erosion and permafrost degradation, and recently forecasted coastal infrastructure exposure to erosion. The Alaska Division of Spill Prevention and Response responds to oil spills on the coast, such as the tugboat diesel fuel spill near Sitka in 2022, in an effort to protect human health and the environment. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Ports and Harbors Section also focuses on the coast, and has partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate potential deepwater port locations in light of the increase in maritime traffic. As a product of this work, Nome’s port has been approved for expansion. Other state efforts with coastal region orientation include the Alaska Marine Highway System, the Alaska Naval Militia, and coastal-related subsistence programs and regulations.

How does a changing Arctic impact Alaska's coastal security?

The security of individuals, communities, and the state is difficult to achieve even within a stable context. In Alaska, a rapidly changing climate exacerbates the challenges associated with ensuring coastal security. The Arctic region is now warming three to four times faster than the global average. As we see in Alaska, melting ice and snow exposes more surface area on land and sea. This exposed surface area absorbs more solar energy, which in turn furthers sea ice loss, glacier melt, permafrost thaw and loss of predictable seasonality. Autumn and spring “shoulder seasons” behave in unusual ways that create challenges for planning and subsistence activities and damage to infrastructure. Although not all coastal problems result from climate change, changing patterns present new threats to coastal communities and the state.

Climate change can threaten existing infrastructure. For example, subsistence communities rely heavily on ice cellars for storing and aging whale and walrus meat. Many of these are failing, owing to permafrost thaw, poor soil conditions and increasing urban development. Changing environmental conditions can also produce flooding, which the Department of Homeland security identifies as Alaska’s most common disaster. Flooding repeatedly overwhelms water and sewer infrastructure in coastal villages that are considered “served” (with more than 55% of homes served by a piped septic tank and well, or covered haul system) and poses distinct health threats in the “unserved” communities such as those in Norton Sound and the Bering Strait (Wales, Stebbins, Shishmaref, Teller and the island of Diomede). For the coastal hub communities of Bethel, Dillingham, Kotzebue, Nome, Unalaska and Utqiaġvik, the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates $833 million will be needed over the next 50 years to protect infrastructure from damage due to flooding, erosion, and permafrost degradation.

In other cases, climate change necessitates new infrastructure. U.S. security policies are leading to major infrastructure and training activities along the northern and western Alaska coasts. The U.S. Air Force operates many long range radar sites on Alaska’s coastline. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District is planning a $400 million project to expand the Port of Nome.

The Corps of Engineers has also outlined the risks of coastal erosion and storms at Utqiaġvik. As a result, plans are underway for a $600 million coastal protection project, primarily a multilayered rock wall scheduled to begin construction in 2024 or 2025.  Most of Alaska’s coast, however, will have no such seawall, leaving it vulnerable to erosion. Careful planning must also take place so that seawalls are not accelerating erosion along adjacent coastal habitats and areas of community uses. The high rate of coastal erosion in Utqiaġvik has prompted the study, engineering and design of a revetted berm (seawall) across nearly five miles of coastline to reduce risks to life, infrastructure and cultural heritage and to protect Naval Arctic Research Laboratory facilities. Past storm events in Utqiaġvik, documented since the 1950s, have caused severe damage to homes, roads, vehicles, waste storage facilities and electrical utilities, representing a significant threat to safety and mobility for the community.

Another example of the Arctic local and state security challenges facing Alaska can be seen in Point Lay’s Comprehensive Plan (2017-2037). The plan links the area’s changing environmental conditions to community security threats and provides examples of adaptation responses. Similar to other coastal communities’ security concerns, failure of water and sewer is a threat to sanitation and health. Projects that address some security risks (such as loss of key infrastructure due to coastal storms, flooding and erosion) may also create new threats to coastal subsistence by introducing inappropriate building materials, processes and goals. This mismatch between infrastructure and community security has long been an expensive problem in the state and can be tied in part to the historical “boom and bust” cycle. Infrastructure projects with little community input often take place during economic booms and are completed in coastal communities when state coffers are flush, but then fail within decades due to poor design and implementation and lack of funding for upkeep during economic busts. Historically, Indigenous knowledge and subsistence practices have stabilized community well-being when infrastructure fails, but the latter is threatened by the magnitude and rapidity of recent change. Facing a rapidly changing environment, increasing pollution and rising fuel costs, the State of Alaska and local governments like boroughs and cities must also understand Arctic change and its impact on coastal security.

Policy implications of environmental and human security on Alaska’s coasts

While the federal government has primary authority over national defense and homeland security, Alaska’s terrestrial and marine territory is critical to national security. In order to create effective  human and environmental security from the international scale to small coastal communities, the State of Alaska  must make appropriate partnerships with federal agencies. While some coastal issues are solely the purview of the state, such as local and statewide legal regimes, there will always be feedback between national and state actions — these must be attended to avoid costly duplication, promote equity, and find practical Alaska-based solutions.