INFORMING DEMOCRACY FOR THE ATOMIC AGE
THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF TRIBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
David F. Conrad
Director, Tribal Environmental Program
Council Of Energy Resource Tribes
Lawanda Johnson
Research Associate, Tribal Environmental Program
Council Of Energy Resource Tribes
ABSTRACT
The Federal government faces the daunting task of cleaning-up sites remnant of the country’s Cold War legacy. Unlike the years of heightened nuclear weapons production, the clean-up initiative set forth by the Department of Energy today requires the development of decision making guidelines to be determined by citizens, stakeholders, Tribal and State governments. Currently, Tribal governments are examining the establishment of environmental programs that institutionalize a decision making process based on what can be coined as the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. The Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle translates an ethic of accountability based on the traditional beliefs of Tribes. The Department of Energy, in an effort to develop an inclusive decision making process, has initiated the National Dialogue (now referred to as the Cross-Site, Cross-Stakeholder Dialogue, which we will refer to as the "Dialogue"). The Dialogue forum seeks the input of the American public in order to provide publicly acceptable guidelines in the DOE decision making process. The focus of this paper is to introduce the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability and the importance of understanding Tribal decision making and planning efforts, and to discuss the Dialogue as an example of how the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability can be applied. In the analysis of the Dialogue and the Tribal Principle, the paper highlights America’s individual and collective responsibility in national decision making scenarios.
INTRODUCTION
"The Dialogue’s aim has been to enable citizens and stakeholders to voice their concerns and interests related to nuclear material and waste management across the nuclear weapons complex. By taking a national perspective, these concerns and interests can be translated into decision-making guidelines for DOE decision making. The dialogue is not intended, however, to provide DOE with specific decisions on nuclear material/waste management. Rather, it will help develop guidelines for decision making at the national and cross-site level, recognizing that ultimate responsibility for decisions lies with DOE" (LWV, 1998)
The national League of Women Voters, in the above passage, outlines the beginning of a framework on which to establish a new nuclear democracy. Such a framework involves the formation of guidelines and principles upon which decisions can be made. Most importantly, the League recognizes and acknowledges that the participation of the American public and other stakeholders in setting these guidelines is essential to the development of a sound set of criteria. The significance of how the LWV and the DOE have come to such a recognition and supported the formation of a National Dialogue can not be overlooked.
The U.S. Department of Energy under the administration of former Secretary O’Leary and former Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Thomas Grumbly, heard the call for a National Dialogue from stakeholders across the former nuclear weapons complex. The Department’s response was to initiate the National Dialogue through a cooperative agreement with the League of Women Voters Education Fund. The effort under the convening guidance of the League of Women Voters has been to define a process to lay the necessary educational groundwork to support the Dialogue. The Dialogue itself is meant to assist the Department by initially outlining values and principles the federal government can use in making sustainable and implementable national defense-related nuclear waste siting decisions. Ultimately, this paper asks whether the conceptual model of the Dialogue meets the standards of the Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle.
BACKGROUND
The secrecy surrounding the development of nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War was necessary to achieve the singular mission of the weapons complex. Workers focused on tasks at hand and were not encouraged to inquire about the ultimate objective of their work. The working environment necessary for nuclear weapons production stands in stark contrast to one of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) mission today. The Dialogue supported by DOE is the antithesis of this original weapons production management design.
The command and control management style (or some would argue "culture") of the nuclear weapons complex were appropriate for the purpose of producing plutonium and building nuclear weapons. This style of management reigned for nearly half a century and admittedly, managers heading the Cold War efforts could not change overnight. Yet, the psychological effect of the Cold War management left lasting impacts on many present and former weapons complex workers. Symptoms include distrust of the public; over-confidence in technical knowledge; and seeking approval for a job well-done, yet unheralded by the nation.
The fractured community built around weapons production caused the symptoms of what we believe to be a natural outgrowth of their disconnection with the rest of society. This disconnection seems to perpetuate itself through distrust compounded by a political system based on competing special interests. To address the environmental damage we also need to reconnect these segments of society on many levels (in an exchange both technically and socially).
A binding national self-consciousness needs to be revitalized in order to devise guiding principles or criteria for national decisions. Individuals must begin by acting not as competing multiple interests (as may work in economic models of reality) but as supporting multiple interests, as is appropriate for the task we now face. The Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability, which we develop in the next section of this paper, illustrates how the concepts of individuality and community formulate the basis for a more open and inclusive decision making process.
The simple sum of individual citizens does not constitute a country. Individuals enter into a community and pledge allegiance to principles upon which a country is built. Allegiance is paid to those principles which facilitate the formation of the public or the community. Without interaction and interdependence, the community suffers and foremost, the individuals suffer. The challenge of the Dialogue is to see whether community can be fostered throughout the nation, as a nation. Such a challenge requires everyone involved to actuate a high brain function which is rarely exercised.
What follows in the next few pages are an introduction to the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability and a discussion of the early development of the Dialogue. The Tribal Environmental Accountability principle lays out a type of decision making used by sustainable communities and the process in which they have incorporated the cohesion and flexibility necessary for survival lasting thousands of years. Afterall, the ultimate challenge posed by the Dialogue is to determine a way to outlive our own nuclear waste. Only then can we be said to have won the Cold War.
THE PRINCIPLE OF TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
The nuclear weapons complex handles remedial waste from past nuclear weapons production by the United States. Geographically, the complex is contained within 14 major federal facilities in 13 states across the country, and covers 3350 square miles (Gerrard, 1994). The generation of nuclear material and waste at these sites resulted in impacts to communities far and wide; and the effects have extended beyond the boundaries of the military reservations into the communities of many regions in the country.
Separate programs have been sponsored by federal agencies to remediate and to store the nuclear material and waste, and to include the American public through local citizens’ boards and groups. As greater attention was placed upon the management of nuclear material and waste, the American public either felt left out of the decision making process or felt they had very little input into the final decisions. The American public need not have to feel as though they have little say in the actions which will affect their futures.
More than ever, the management of nuclear material and waste requires key stakeholder participation and input in order to provide decision making guidelines for the US Department of Energy. By supporting the Dialogue, the DOE encourages the formation of a national perspective on nuclear waste and the development of a basis for explaining decisions the Department makes. Such a dialogue benefits the DOE because the dialogue elicits sound decisions based on rational decision making. A process inviting an informed dialogue among individuals with different viewpoints fosters the development of an accountable nuclear material and waste management program.
The Dialogue, a decision supporting process nurtured by former Secretary O’Leary and Assistant Secretary Grumbly, can historically be found in processes developed by American Indian Tribes. The decision making processes formalized by the Tribes has its roots in what we call the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. Based on the Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle, a decision making process such as the Dialogue can produce defensible decisions.
American Indian Tribes have many commonalities of ideology about human life and the interaction with the natural world. Tribes have an ethic about the interconnectedness of the world which shapes Tribal decision making. Undoubtedly, Tribes from across the country have unique customs that distinguish one from the other. Though such differences exist, Tribes share a similar ethic explaining the relationship between humans and the natural world, the necessity to protect and enhance the natural world for continued sustainability, and the responsibility to consider the well-being of future generations.
The formulation of a Tribal ethic begins in the origin stories of a Tribe. In the origin of the people, stories outline the history of the world, the formation of people and their relationship to the creating force, and these lessons are used to shape an ethic of accountability to that from which we come. Today, Tribes continue to draw from the histories and the ethics shaped by those accounts to develop an inclusive decision making process based on a principle of accountability. For instance a commonly held Tribal belief is that all parts of the Tribal community are necessary and sacred in sustaining the community; individuals, families, clans, geographic divisions, and whole Tribes. Furthermore, human identity is connected and beholden to various aspects of the natural community (i.e. wilderness), and therefore there is no clear delineation between natural and human communities. These relationships are fundamental to the Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle. The Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability is the responsibility to make integrated, sustainable, and implementable decisions in a comprehensive process that recognizes future impacts. In order to reach this point one must understand who s/he is and their role in the world; individual place, potential, and authorities are all related to Tribal social order and spirituality. The determination of personal impact requires and individual to question how his/her actions can affect outcome based on highly developed Tribal understandings of creation.
Tribes have personal roles and responsibilities ingrained in their social orders. Tribal leaders draw upon the strength and wisdom of this order to examine questions of importance. Within this social order people are afforded roles which means that they are also restricted from other roles and activities. This teaches the individual self-restraint and respect for the roles of others. Whereas in western thought a division of the human and "the natural world" exists, and self-restraint is viewed as an unwillingness to "progress." It is this inclusiveness which gives rise to the phrase we coin in this paper, called "the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability." The principle answers to why it is important to consider the future impacts of today’s decisions in the environmental realm. The importance of examining the impacts our decision making bears on the future can not be overstated. For example, Tribal leaders are keenly interested in "endstates." Additionally, there are efforts currently underway to build models which integrate tribal understandings of creation with western technical models of systems to provide a more intensive examination of these "endstates" (Harris, 1998).
The follwing four assumptions are integral to the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. They are:
In being mindful of possible future consequence, decision makers have to understand the reasoning which results in action and the manner in which those actions are followed through. The percieved reality of present conditions in the world and scrutiny thereof become the basis for reasoning. In order to contemplate and to attend to the needs of the community demands selflessness when considering impacts of decisions. Selflessness, when speaking for a community, can only be achieved if the representative has attained the people’s confidence, acceptance, and their authorization. For a leader to reach this state requires demonstrated connections to tribal traditions, respect for individuals, and a proven track record of sound decision making in other instances. The leader is then capable of acting and thinking within the community consciousness, which is a gauge of relevance and priority setting. After an examination of how the future directly affects today’s decision making, decision makers can truly make credible, justifiable and logical decisions.
The ethics shared by Tribes require today’s Tribal leaders and decision makers to welcome and to examine differing viewpoints. The Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability recognizes that community members or citizens may not share the same outlook though they share a common ethic. In implementing such a process based on Tribal ethics, Tribal leaders and the decision makers take the responsibility to not only listen to the voices of Tribal members, but to devise and to implement action based on the what is relayed to the leaders. An inclusive decision making process encourages an examination of the impacts to the present livelihood of the Tribe, to the surrounding natural world, and to the future generation. The Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle evolves from an ethic which encourages an inclusive form of decision making.
The Tribal Principle of Environmental Accountability underlies and supports a logical, rational, and effective decision making process. Decisions made by leaders are not only sensible and discerning; decisions based on the Principle are defensible and legitimate. By following through on decisions developed by consensus, leaders are justifiably bound to stand by their decisions since their actions will correlate with the fundamental interest-based criteria set by the people. In addition to the interest-based criteria, the deliberation itself is of great importance in oral tradition communities. In Tribes with long histories of oral tradition, speaking, presence, and memory are highly valued traits. Therefore decisions are not deliberated, made, or pronounced frivolously.
Conceptually, one can recognize and appreciate the necessity to consider impacts of current decision making on future generations. On the other hand, people may have difficulty in comprehending the practical application of the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. Fears of inefficiency and unruliness arise. Actually, such an inclusive decision making process based on the principle of tribal environmental accountability contributes to decision making based on criteria set by input from people or key stakeholders. The decision making process becomes cumbersome only after leaders and decision makers are required to include the public after a decision has been made.
A decision making process that encourages individuals and groups with different outlooks to come together, to learn, to discuss and to comprehend the impacts of nuclear material and waste can help devitalize the NIMBY mind-set. The NIMBY mind-set is a consequence of the failure of individuals to accept responsibility for what is produced in their country. In fostering dialogue between individuals, each can learn to recognize commonalities both positive and negative, and the need to provide and ensure a sustainable future.
The relevant message the Tribal Principle of Environmental Accountability imparts here is that no one can remain oblivious to and ignore the impacts and implications for management of nuclear material and waste. A dialogue integrating the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability motivates people with diverse perspectives to confront nuclear waste and to make decisions that can benefit the public rather than one single group or community. Moreover, the Principle does not allow individuals to refrain from having to face the consequences of the nuclear material and waste.
NATIONAL DIALOGUE EFFORTS TO DATE
A number of stakeholder groups have been requesting the type of dialogue envisioned as the National Dialogue. The Nez Perce Tribe’s Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Department wrote to the Department of Energy requesting an organization such as the National League of Women Voters, reputed as a neutral supporter of education and democracy, to convene a national dialogue to address DOE clean-up. The League of Women Voters Education Fund undertook this action and has moved forward in developing the inclusive dialogue process. The next few paragraphs outline the progress of the Dialogue to date and evaluate the action against aspects of the Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle.
The Department of Energy’s Office for Environmental Management (EM) invited a number of individuals to deliberate the prospects of successfully holding a national dialogue like the one called for by various stakeholder groups. The group consisted of individuals with expertise in conducting work shops related to DOE EM issues. By convening such a group, DOE EM could gauge the success of implementing a national dialogue across a wide spectrum of viewpoints, strongly held beliefs, and values. This action could be said to be consistent with the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability if we assume the individuals are legitimately connected and authorized individuals who can speak from a community knowledge base. Examining this question, however, is beyond the scope of this paper because different organizations and communities grant this authorization in different ways and this can not be discussed adequately at this point.
As more representatives joined the Dialogue scoping group to examine the need, vision, concept, and necessary steps to achieve the goals of the Dialogue, the perspectives of the group widened. The group’s examination of the vision and goals of the dialogue is consistent with the Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle, except that it remains centralized, or only discussed within this group. The centralization of the dialogue while waiting for federal authorization to proceed was necessary in order to facilitate the initiative at a wider more national level. Though this central core group facilitates the Dialogue, it did not and does not constitute the decision making body making DOE clean-up decisions nor the Dialogue itself. Therefore, an arrangement where a central body guides the development of the dialogue, conceptually, fits the Tribal Principle. The Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle does not necessarily assume that final decision making occurs at the community level, but it does assume that at least guidelines for decision making evolves at the community level. Decision making may continue to lie with the chosen leadership.
As the Dialogue gained momentum and support within DOE, federal counterparts wanted answers to a number of questions regarding the intent and definition of the effort. This request for clarification and a more developed scope is in accordance with federal project management. Another viewpoint is that the Dialogue is fundamentally counter to the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability because the Dialogue would be the first, fundamental, and completely necessary step to making any decisions of this nature. In other words, there would be no question as to its worth. Under the regime of a Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle, this would have been the first step, and we would have been well underway with this Dialogue years ago. Therefore to begin the Dialogue now, and then to question its value, is what is contrary to the Principle, not that it there will be dialogue.
The schedule of decisions at DOE sites and in various stages of on-going decision making processes required the group to plan for pilot field workshops to provide feedback on the process and idiom for discussing the development of values and principles for EM’s use in making its decisions. This stage of the Dialogue is consistent with the Tribal Principle of Environmental Accountability because it is sharing the thought and soliciting input. The incorporation of the Dialogue into the national DOE schedule of decisions regarding federal facilities proved to be a challenging step. The proposed pilot field workshops designed for citizen and stakeholder feedback had to coincide with the previously planned schedule of decisions at DOE sites. Grafting the meeting dates of the Dialogue with DOE’s schedule of decisions was necessary to solicit input. This stage of the Dialogue, though a pragmatic compromise for strategic benefits, is questionable in its consistency with the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. During the Dialogue workshops the citizenry can provide input on federal decisions regarding the clean-up of DOE sites.
Throughout the planning process for the Dialogue, the Dialogue has drawn criticism at different times from citizen advisory boards, grassroots representatives, and State leaders. The Dialogue appeared to jeopardize previously established groups, and had been viewed by those groups as an unproven alternative process of decision making. Additionally, these groups saw the Dialogue as exclusionary due to the small working group and the limited number of workshops being proposed. The recommendation to stop the Dialogue is counter to the Tribal Principle because it is limiting the national deliberation. The temporal aspects of the nuclear waste issues require full dialogue, and can not be said to be the sole purview of any one section or geographical representation of people.
The groups sharing greatest concern can prove invaluable in providing input to the Dialogue. Without the participation of citizens advisory boards, grassroots organization, and State leaders and representatives in the Dialogue process, informed, credible, and authoritative decisions can not be made. The Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle can welcomes the criticism of other groups because the Principle requires input from those not sharing the same viewpoint. On the other hand, in cases where stakeholder groups recommend the cessation of the Dialogue, such action runs counter to the Tribal Principle. The advocation to stop the Dialogue limits the decision making process.
Until this point, the question of whether the Dialogue fits within the scope of the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability remains unclear. Yet, forthcoming actions of the Dialogue reveal that ultimately the Dialogue may be impossible to accommodate within the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. Conceptually, the Dialogue was created because the DOE recognized that impacts will occur, accepted that they will occur, realized that actions decided upon today will affect future generations in one way or another, and decided that inaction could lead to greater and much more damaging consequences. In the final analysis, fine tuning of the Dialogue concept to fit an ongoing separate decision making track would run contrary to the Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability. The proposed national workshops focus on gathering input from the American public and stakeholders on decisions that are precariously close to being determined, prior to adequate deliberation on a national basis.
The Tribal Principle can be instructive at this juncture. We can understand that the Department of Energy is moving ahead with an established decision making process defined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental command and control regimes such as CERCLA where the subjects for consideration are prescribed and require a great deal of technical information. Environmental decision making, begun under a commonsense approach in an attempt to account for various aspects of the environment has become distant from the community it is meant to serve (in protection of human health). We believe the shortcoming is in how the nation (people’s common perception of community) is connected to the environment. Through the Dialogue, people who understand the decision making process under NEPA, but who also understand its shortcomings are willing to grow intellectual connective tissues back to commonsense (or the way people make serious decisions in their everyday lives). Through this Dialogue we have the prospect of facilitating the way society connects the mental image of nationhood with the environment. Through a deliberative decision making process which combines a great deal of technical information with relevant and evolving community perception, the participants in the Dialogue are creating a new, more meaningful way of making decisions. If it were not for the deep ethical dimensions of the questions before us, we doubt if this decision making breakthough would have been possible so soon. A greater deliberate effort among Tribal representatives to further define the Tribal Principle of Environmental Accountability could serve to smooth the way for the United States, as a whole, as it inches toward equitable decision making on a national scale, related to nuclear waste management.
SUMMARY
The paper discussed and provided examples of how the Tribal Principle Environmental Accountability can be incorporated into current initiatives by the Department of Energy in its efforts to clean up the nuclear weapons complex. The Principle of Tribal Environmental Accountability is not fully achieved by the Dialogue, yet as we work through the development of the Dialogue we can see where the Principle can be instructive in the decision making process. The main purpose in outlining the Dialogue was to demonstrate how the Tribal Principle of Environmental Accountability realistically could be used to make more defensible decisions in environmental clean up. The discussion of the Principle leaves many questions to be answered and uncovers further topics for research. Though before any of those topics could be revealed, the Principle had to be iterated. The Principle reflects the viewpoint from which Tribal decision makers aspire to formulate their decision making processes. Yet, many questions remain. Other topics for further research include the prospects for developing a national environmental consciousness in which there would be discussion on the concept of stakeholder versus citizen, budget versus democracy, knowledge versus wisdom can be explored and analyzed.
Another important topic stemming from this paper is Tribal leadership in a nuclear democracy in which the incremental change can be facilitated by Tribes who understand and are willing to further develop the concept of Tribal Environmental Accountability Principle. All of these topics, including this paper’s main topic require further inquiry and development by Tribes and other governments which are beginning to accept the notion that power lies not within few, but all.
REFERENCES