Spoils of the Sea Elude Many in an Alaska Antipoverty Plan
An award winning investigative journalist and a New York Times reporter published an article recently on western Alaska's fisheries and poverty problems. The subject has been wholey kept from national attention: by federal oversight bodies and Alaska state government. Just follow the money from the lucrative Bering Sea fisheries, which the western Alaskans were supposed to get a piece of. Self regulating leaders did, but not the populace. In many villages, you can afford food or heating fuel, but not enough of both.
Below is the article as seen in the New York Times. Following are some comments I've received from Alaskans.The NYT article has many comments under it.
Below is the article as seen in the New York Times. Following are some comments I've received from Alaskans.The NYT article has many comments under it.
Spoils of the Sea Elude Many in an Alaska Antipoverty Plan
By KIRK JOHNSON and LEE VAN DER VOO
AKIAK, Alaska — The humble pollock, great cash fish of the north,
conquered the world through the flaky bland hegemony of a fish stick. At
more than $1 billion a year, there is no bigger fishery for human
consumption on the planet.
But pollock was also meant to be a savior, part of a Washington-backed
antipoverty plan aimed at residents here on Alaska’s mostly undeveloped
west coast. A generation ago, organizers envisioned federally guaranteed
shares of the pollock catch that would create a rising tide of funds to
lift up poor, isolated villages where jobs and hope are scarce.
Pollock did succeed, wildly. The dollars that flowed into the Community Development Quota Program,
as the catch-share system was called, created a hydra-headed nonprofit
money machine. Six nonprofit groups arose on the Bering Sea shore, and
they have invested mightily in ships, real estate and processing plants.
Over two decades, the groups amassed a combined net worth of $785
million.
But the results on the ground, in rural community and economic
development, have been deeply uneven, and nonexistent for many people
who still gaze out to the blinking lights of the factory ships and
wonder what happened.
“You eat from one bowl,” said Ivan M. Ivan, 67, chief of the native
community here in Akiak, quoting the Yup’ik Eskimo cultural adage about
shared resources. “That didn’t happen.”
Collectively, the groups created tens of thousands of jobs and
scholarships in one of the poorest regions of the nation. But critics
say that community development, over time, got lost in a push toward
institutional sustainability — and in some cases lavish salaries for
leaders. Deregulation became self-regulation with a board of overseers
appointed by the groups themselves the only real watchdog in recent
years.
Meanwhile, a lopsided division of spoils among the groups has festered
into a conflict that some Alaskans fear could unravel the catch-share
project itself, which has done much good, they say, despite its flaws.
In 2011, according to the most recent figures, one group with a small
population got nearly 22 times more revenue per resident than another,
larger group, based on allocation formulas locked in by Congress in
2006.
The fate of places like Akiak, a village of 350 people about 400 miles
west of Anchorage, was dictated by a political compromise two decades
ago, when a line was drawn 50 miles from the Bering Sea. Villages inside
the line got pollock money. Akiak’s rutted dirt roads and 80 percent
unemployment rate, residents said, bespeak its outsider status, 20 miles
from that border.
Residents of Napaskiak, by contrast, a village of similar size 24 miles
away, get scholarships, free firewood, free tax assistance and
subsidized boat motors, all courtesy of the local catch-share group, the
Coastal Villages Region Fund, which also buys halibut and herring from local fishermen.
The rules were hard but necessary, said Dick Tremaine, an economist who
was a consultant to the state in the early 1990s. “This was a social
engineering experiment that had not yet existed,” he said.
But even communities within the line have seen uneven development.
The federal health clinic in the village of Teller, for example, in
Alaska’s northwest corner, went months without toilets last year after
its septic system failed. Doctors and patients used five-gallon buckets
instead, then stacked them in the street. Worse still, there were often
not enough buckets to go around. Cardboard boxes, lined with plastic
bags, then had to suffice.
Teller is not unique: 10 of 15 villages dotting the tundra along the
Bering Sea outside of Nome — all within the catch-share system — do not
have complete sewer service or running water.
“I can understand how C.D.Q.’s, in the early years, focused on the
development of businesses,” said Ed Backus, vice president for fisheries
at Ecotrust, an economic
development group in Portland, Ore., that works in Alaska, referring to
the Community Development Quota Program. “But over time as those revenue
streams really bulked up, which they have, I think it’s important to
remember the main mission of C.D.Q.’s is to really improve life in the
villages.”
Spokesmen for the nonprofit groups agreed that not every village has seen the same benefits.
Part of the problem is geography, said Simon Kinneen, vice president and chief operating officer of the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation,
which covers the northern corner of the catch-share region, including
Teller. “Developing fisheries and economies in our member communities
that do not have reasonable access to commercially viable fish species
is difficult at best,” he said in an e-mail.
A spokesman for the Coastal Villages Region Fund, Dawson Hoover, conceded that much more work should be done.
Under that guise, Coastal Villages, the largest of the groups by
population, with about 9,300 residents, began an effort last year to get
Congress to change how pollock and other fish are apportioned in
western Alaska — to a formula based on population.
The shift would greatly increase Coastal’s clout and income, and the
effort is creating sharp conflict with other groups that could get less.
“The groups with the largest amount of people receive less fish per
person,” Mr. Hoover said. “It’s just not fair.”
Many native subsistence fishermen, meanwhile, say the pollock trawlers
inadvertently catch too many salmon. Dozens were cited by state game
wardens last summer — and faced emotional legal proceedings this spring —
for setting their nets on the Kuskokwim River in violation of an
emergency fishing ban.
Joe Garnie, a former mayor of Teller, and a board member of the Norton
Sound group, said fairness depends on where you look. Imagine what might
happen, he said, if a lack of plumbing had led to similar unsanitary
conditions in a clinic in, say, Detroit. “In 15 minutes there would be a
federal investigation,” he said. “Why isn’t there one here?”
Part of the answer to Mr. Garnie’s question, is that the program grew up
without a yardstick, according to people who were involved in its early
years. And as each nonprofit group went its way, one-size-fits all
measurements no longer applied.
Coastal Villages became a vertically integrated seafood company. The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association,
another catch-share group, developed a separate economic plan for each
village. In Norton Sound, benefits were delivered mostly in the form of
community grants and scholarships, sending hundreds of Alaskans to
college every year and helping villages operate.
Federal rules are loose, requiring only that the groups spend 80 percent
of their money in fisheries. And in 2006, Congress stepped back even
further, allowing the groups to regulate themselves, with reviews from
Washington every decade. But in the first 10-year review, even the
self-regulating catch-share oversight board in Alaska said the data
measuring changes in poverty and quality of life in the villages was not
meaningful.
But there is no doubt that guaranteed pollock shares — later extended to
include, crab, pacific cod, halibut and other fish — created a new
empire. Coastal Villages now owns an entire fishing fleet based in
Seattle and Alaska. The Bristol Bay group owns half of the seafood giant
Ocean Beauty. The Glacier Fish Company, based in Seattle, is partly
owned by fish-quota groups. Four groups also invested in publicly traded
securities, totaling $134 million in 2011, or 28.8 percent of their net
assets. Salaries for top executives, meanwhile, have ranged in recent
years from $69,503 to $832,367.
The oversight board said in a recent report that in its first 19 years,
the program distributed $521 million in wages, training and benefits.
But the region’s troubles drag on. Of 65 communities within the 50-mile
boundary, including Teller, 38 are still listed as “distressed” at the Denali Commission, a federal agency that focuses on Alaska’s remote communities.
Joel Neimeyer, co-chairman of the Denali Commission, said it would be
impossible for one program to solve Alaska’s rural problems. The process
of giving people training for jobs, for example can, in a perverse way,
create a brain drain that leaves communities ever more locked in
struggle. People leave and get a taste of the outside world. “A lot of
them just never go back,” Mr. Neimeyer said.