socioeconomic impacts of crab rationalization on the...

Socioeconomic Impacts of CrabRationalization on the Aleutian East

Borough Communities of False Pass,Akutan, and King Cove

Dr. Marie Lowe Dr. Gunnar Knapp

Assistant Professor of Anthropology Professor of Economics

Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)

University of Alaska, Anchorage

In consultation with: Dr. Steve Langdon, Professor of Anthropology,University of Alaska, Anchorage

“Families are leaving False Pass…One reason: Rules designed to make

the crabbing industry more efficient put many locals out of work”

Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 11, 2006

Outline

• Overview of Crab Rationalization

• Purpose of Study

• Overview of Study Communities

• Historical Fishery Participation

• Direct Impacts

• Community Perceptions of RationalizationEffects

• Conclusions

What is Crab Rationalization?

The Crab Rationalization Programallocates BSAI crab resources amongharvesters, processors, and coastalcommunities. (NOAA Fisheries)

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

ISER Study

• Commissioned by AEB & King Cove

• Undertaken January-August 2006

• Final Report to be Completed in October2006

• Goal: Analyze initial and potential futuresocioeconomic impacts of BSAI crabrationalization on study communities

The study focuses on community-specific impacts, it does not:

• Examine changes in efficiency forharvesters or processors.

• Analyze general economic effects of crabrationalization on crab markets or ex-vessel prices paid to crab fishermen.

• Determine whether or not the fishery issafer or ecologically sound

Major study goals:• Describe direct impacts of crab rationalization on

study communities (jobs, income, etc.) in firstyear.

• Discuss potential indirect impacts drawn fromethnographic field study conducted in eachcommunity.

• Contextualize crab rationalization within therange of restricted access management planscoastal Alaskan communities encounter.

Methodology

• Literature review including extensive examination of historicalcommunity ethnographies

• Analysis of federal and state data for crab fisheries

• Community Fieldwork:

– Structured interviews with key informants from each community who areinvolved in the fishing industry

– Unstructured interviews with plant managers and an outside crab boatowner/skipper

– Informal conversations with residents– Informal conversations with processing workers– Focus group interviews with community youth– Participant observation at community events, gatherings, workplaces

and homes

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

False Pass, Akutan and King Cove

Differ greatly in their demography,economies, and in their relationships tothe processing industry.

Study CommunitiesFalse Pass Estimated ResidentPopulation: 35-44

False Pass

• 3 residents hold 15 permits for halibut, herring,groundfish, salmon, bairdi crab

• 11 CFEC registered vessels, avg length 31.1’(not necessarily FP residents)

• CDQ Community

• PPSF processor burned in 1981; APICDA isbuilding a small processor in the community

Akutan Estimated ResidentPopulation: 80

Akutan

• 8 residents hold 11 registered permits forhalibut, sablefish and groundfish (jig)

• 7 registered vessels: one 32’, one 28’, one 24’,four skiffs

• CDQ Community

• Trident Seafoods has the largest processingoperation in North America based in Akutan. Itis a multi-species processor.

King Cove Estimated Resident Population: 493

King Cove

• 58 residents hold 119 registered permits in 2006 forhalibut, herring, dungeness crab, king crab, bairdi crab,cod, octopi/squid, and salmon.

• The majority of community participation in fisheries is bycrewmen.

• 75 registered vessels; avg length 30.3’

• Non-CDQ Community

• PPSF operates a multi-species processor in King Cove

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

All three communities have long historicalparticipation in BSAI crab fisheries.

Buddy Bendixen, age 80, King Cove, Pioneered BSAI Crab Fisheries in 1950s

Historically, King Cove residents have held permits in many different crabfisheries. The majority of these permits have been in fisheries other than the

major rationalized crab fisheries—but opportunities to participate in thesefisheries have declined over time.

King Cove: Number of Permit Holders, by Crab Fishery

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Bristol Bay King Crab Fisheries

Bering Sea Tanner Crab Fisheries

All Other Crab Fisheries

Note: each line in

the graph represents

a different type of

permit.

King Cove residents have historically participated in localcrab fisheries when they were open.

Opportunity and Participation: Alaska Peninsula Tanner Crab Fishery

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Tota

l pounds landed in f

ishery

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pe

rmits f

ish

ed

by K

ing

Co

ve

re

sid

en

ts

Total landings in fishery (all participants) Permits fished by King Cove residents

If Aleutians East Borough fishermenhave the means to participate in afishery, they will.

Traditionally, residents of BSAIcommunities take advantage of anylocal economic opportunity they can.

In every fishery group, the number of individuals holding permits hasbeen declining since the 1990s or earlier.

King Cove: Number of Permit Holders, by Fishery Group

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

All FisheriesCombined

Salmon

Sablefish

Halibut

Other Groundfish

Herring

Crab

In recent years for the currentlyrationalized fisheries, fishermen haveparticipated as crew rather than as permitor boat owners.

Ignaty Philemonoff, age 37, Akutan, 9 YearHistory on Crab Vessel, F/V Northwind(Seattle), that Leased Out Its Quota in2005-2006

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

Direct Impacts of CrabRationalization

• Loss of crab fishing crew jobs

• Fewer boats delivering crab

• Lower sales for support businesses

Estimated Direct Impacts of Crab Rationalization(Changes from 2004-05 to 2005-06)

No effect on fishing jobs

About $30,000 decline in sales for pot storage business

False Pass

Loss of 4 fishing jobs

About $10,000 decline in sales for dive service business

Akutan

Loss of 20 crab fishing jobs

66% drop in households participating in fishery (18 to 6)

79% drop in boats delivering crab to King Cove (65 to 14)

About $1 million loss in income for five support businesses(pot storage, moorage, trucking, filters, bar)

King Cove

Estimated impactsCommunity

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

AEB Fishermen Mean Perceptionsof Management Plans

1=Extremely Helpful 2=Helpful 3=Neutral 4=Harmful5=Extremely Harmful

King Cove/FP n=15Akutan n=7

0

1

2

3

4

5

Salmon LE IFQ Pollock Co-

Ops-P

Pollock Co-

Ops-C

CrabRat CDQ-P CDQ-C GOA

Management Plan

Rati

ng King Cove/FP

Akutan

“It didn’t do anything for the guys that actually do thework. All these boat owners ended up with this quotaand it was built by guys like myself; guys that were ondeck all those years – they didn’t get anything out it.Those quotas were built on their sweat and blood andthey never gave us a damn thing… I have been on theBering Sea for 30 years; I have more dead friends thanlive ones. Ones that are left should have got somethingout of this. I would gladly give my quota back if theywould re-do the whole thing and give the crewmensomething. In a bureaucracy that isn’t going to happen.”

Rob Trumble, age 49, King Cove, Awarded Captain’sShares but doesn’t have enough to fish them.

“It was put together by a group of too many specialinterests which captured the fishery for themselves—ithad nothing to do with the people that participated. Theykeep saying it was the boat owners and the processorsbecause they had so much invested but not one boatowner would’ve made a dime if they didn’t have skippersand crews…everyday that they were out there they werejust as valuable—they were more valuable than theengine of the boat really. If you didn’t have a crew, younever caught a crab. I don’t know one boat out therethat went out without a crew member. Or a hiredskipper! A boat just cannot go without a skipper andcrew. It’s just high-powered interest groups that setaside a gold mine for themselves.”

Ken Mack, age 46, King Cove, 27 years crab fishing history

AEB FISHERMEN INTERPRETATION OF ALLOCATION PIE

Boat Owner

57%

Skipper

15%

Crew

28%

In all three communities, residentsindicated that the most important effectsmight be associated with a restriction ontheir option to participate in the crabfisheries in the future.

Outline





• Direct Impacts


• Conclusions

Preliminary Conclusions

• False Pass and Akutan experienced fewernegative impacts from crab rationalizationthan King Cove.

• This is primarily due to their smallpopulations and fleets as well as theirparticipation in the CDQ program.

• AEB community participation in crab fisherieshas been primarily in vessel crews and in fisherysupport industries.

• The crab rationalization program reduced thefleet and excluded crew fishing history. Thisimpacted jobs, support industry income andcommunity resident share in the fishery.

• Potential long term impacts of the programcontextualized within other forms of restrictedaccess in fisheries include the absence of entry-level participation especially for the youngergeneration in these communities.

• Traditionally, residents of the AlaskaPeninsula and Aleutian Islands have hadto employ “opportunistic” economicstrategies to survive in their homecommunities.

• This flexibility in “combination fishing”diminishes with increasing restrictedaccess in Alaska’s fisheries.

socioeconomic impacts of crab rationalization on the...

Documents