By Ian Stanfield

Here are some words that you’ve probably heard: economic opportunity. The ability to take part in the global market is considered a benefit. We want job growth, we want opportunities to make money and better our living conditions. In this day and age, money makes the world go ‘round. So, what do you do if you’re locked out of the economic opportunities that most of us take for granted?

The bulk of Alaska is remote. Outside of the big population centers, access to basic amenities such as health care or consistent, good quality education isn’t guaranteed. Travel gets tougher and tougher, transporting goods becomes more expensive, and firms have little to no incentive to locate themselves in rural Alaska; Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the United States, as well as high unemployment.  Overall, the state’s 11% poverty rate is actually better than the United States average, but looking at Alaska’s census boroughs tells a different story. As you follow the coast up into the Bering Sea, the poverty rate climbs: 15% on the peninsula, 28% around Kuskokwim Bay, up to a whopping 38% when you reach Norton Sound. In the small towns and settlements dotted along the shoreline, citizens often practice subsistence lifestyles. The usual markers of a diverse economy – factories, farms, service sector work – are nowhere to be found. Their best, and often only, economic resource is the sea.

This is where Alaska’s Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program comes into play. Originally created in 1992, CDQ has been in its current form since its reauthorization in 2006. The idea behind the program was to increase Alaskan ownership of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) fisheries, which impoverished, primarily Native Alaskan communities in Alaska would otherwise be locked out of by overhead costs such as permitting. In order to qualify for CDQ, communities must be located within 50 miles of the coast, certified under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and reliant on BSAI fisheries for at least half of their fishing. In addition to ensuring CDQ communities’ ability to participate in BSAI fisheries, the program is intended to help economic development and alleviate poverty in its member communities.

Towards this end, the CDQ program allocates 10% of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of several BSAI fisheries to the 65 participating communities. Originally the communities were only allocated part of the pollock TAC, but the program has since expanded to include halibut, sablefish, cod, crab, and other valuable catch species.

In order to manage the quotas, the CDQ communities have been grouped into six regional groups. Each region has a non-profit group who manages their region’s share of the quota on their behalf. The six groups are Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association (CBSFA), Coastal Village Region Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA).

The CDQ groups have the full authority to make decisions independently or in cooperation with each other. They decide whether to lease their quotas to other fishing entities or manage their own fleets, whether and how to invest in processing plants, and how to spend the profits. There are some limitations on the groups’ spending, though. At least 80% of their profits must be spent on fisheries-related projects. The remaining 20% can be spent on non-fisheries projects, but must remain within their region.

In order to make sure that they invest in ways that will actually benefit their communities, the CDQ groups are mandated to have a board of directors comprised primarily of fishermen from their settlements. By keeping in communication with the villages, these groups have developed programs to meet the needs of their individual regions. Every one of the CDQ groups devotes at least some of their money to providing job and safety training for their citizens, as well as supporting local fishermen through things like loans and subsidies. Young college hopefuls can get scholarships; some of those students even come back to work for their CDQ group after graduation.

Spending isn’t limited to those sorts of long-term projects, either. Most CDQ groups help villagers get fuel, which can be expensive up north. NSEDC’s community benefits include substance abuse prevention. There are also efforts to reconnect culturally. Teenagers from Bristol Bay community can attend a BBEDC-sponsored summer camp focused on local salmon. CVRF’s Ciuneq program doesn’t just create college connections; it also introduces youths to elders from their communities who can share stories.

While research into the effects of the CDQ program has been limited, the results seem to be good. As with anything, though, there is still room for improvement. A New York Times article from 2013 describes the difference that the program makes through its absence, highlighting the difficulties for towns who face the same economic disadvantages as their neighbors while falling just outside of the 50 mile boundary to receive relief through the CDQ benefits. It also mentions an ongoing campaign: CVRF’s Just Fix CDQ, found both on CVRF’s site and on its own page. While the 10% quota given to the CDQ groups is consistent, the way that that quota has been divided between the six regions has historically been decided without transparency. One third of CDQ residents live in CVRF’s region, with another third in NSEDC’s; these are also two of the poorest CDQ regions. However, the quota distribution is entirely unrelated to the populations of each region. CVRF maintains that this causes people in poorer regions to receive less assistance per capita than those living in less populated areas, making it harder for them to better their lives. They say they only want for each CDQ resident to get an equal share.

This rallying cry isn’t echoed on any of the other CDQ groups’ websites. It’s easy to imagine why this might cause some friction. CVRF has the largest population out of any CDQ group, and a redistribution based on population would see a significant portion of the quota go to them. This would necessarily come at the expense of the less-populated CDQ regions, who still have their own programs to fund and low-income residents to assist. Their silence is in stark contrast to CVRF, where town after town is passing resolutions supporting a redistribution of the quota.

What is the solution? CVRF says a population-based redistribution. If the other groups have offered a counterproposal, they aren’t publicizing it in the same way. But for its faults, the CDQ program is still a unique attempt to provide disenfranchised groups with an entry into the national economy. If it is imperfect, its stumbling blocks can still be used to inform future efforts. The program, and the spirit behind it, is still laudable.

In the interest of sharing scientific knowledge, we do our best to cite sources that are free and available for all of our readers. However, sometimes we cannot avoid citing articles that restrict access with a paywall. If you are interested in learning more about a specific source, please reach out to kmartin8@uw.edu.