COMMUNITY, FISHING CULTURE, AND
FORMS OF CAPITAL
COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF ALASKA’S BRIEFING PAPER ON MSA REAUTHORIZATION
WHAT
IS AN ALASKAN FISHING COMMUNITY?
It is interesting to read the State of Alaska’s recent
Briefing Paper on MSA Reauthorization, released on November 11, 2005. In the preface
it notes that “it is committed to the protection of Alaskans and Alaskan communities…and to achieve the best results
for Alaskans dependent upon our fisheries resources.”
Then,
under 16 U.S.C. 1802, the State proceeds to redefine “fishing community” to mean a community which is substantially
dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fisheries resources to meet social and economic needs
and included vessel owners, operators, and the United States fish processors that are based in such community.” The
State contradicts its intent to protect Alaskan fishermen and their communities by allowing the expansion of the definition
of a fishing community to include processor companies.
If the State seeks to protect Alaskans and Alaskan fishermen and
their communities, then somehow it has missed the policy “boat” and has not only negated a previous definition
of “community” in their study of the Alaskan salmon industry but missed the obvious fact that nearly all of the
current corporations benefiting from the large and healthy fisheries in Alaska, are based in the Pacific Northwest and Japan.
The State fails to understand that corporate ownership of the companies that operate in Alaskan coastal communities does not
benefit the “whole” unless it perceives that corporate ownership and transfer pricing are beneficial to Alaskans.
In fact, it doesn’t even benefit the coffers of the State and only reflects a power shift in the politics of resource
ownership-to other states or countries. Economic capital is draining out of coastal communities because of corporate ownership.
WHAT
IS A FISHING COMMUNITY?
PROTECTING
HUMAN, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL CAPITAL
“Fisheries
are a human phenomenon…fisheries are places where human activities are linked with marine ecosystems and renewable resources.
Human fishing activity is the defining attribute of a fishery….if fisheries management is to be more successful in the
future it must integrate social and cultural concerns with the management of natural resources…ultimately the
level of its success will rest upon how well it promotes the well being of people living in fishing communities (The Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Understanding
the Cultures of Fishing Communities: A Key to Fisheries Management and Food Security 2001).”
According to another definition of fishing community, in MIT’s (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Sea Grant
study about New England fishing communities, it defines a fishing-dependent community as “the social, economic, and cultural
relationships between fishermen and their communities.” Benefits that flow from these relationships are multiplied through
a series of networked community exchanges and transformations based on different forms of capital: human, social, and cultural.
It defines them as Natural Resource Regions.” The study goes into great detail about the importance of other forms of
fishing community capital than economic: that is, social, human, and cultural capital. Cultural capital is defined “specific
behaviors, values, and skills transmitted among and between members of a population, including across generations, applied
to their adaptation to specific environments including the transformation and utilization of natural, human, and social resources
in those environments…if the disruption is too great (to a social organization or community)..then systemic collapse
may take place.”
“Furthermore,
a fundamental premise of the regional model (for a fishing community) is that the use of natural resources for one’s
primary livelihood engenders relationships of dependence between fishermen and their support networks. Significant changes
in access to fisheries resources, thus has a multiplier effect across these personal networks that affects all levels of the
social structure, including communities, businesses, organizations, families and individuals.”
This approach devises a framework to study and assess coastal communities as “Natural Resource Regions” (NRR).
In addition, the NRR is discussed using the flow and networking between coastal fishing communities. The regional approach
is expanded upon in this context because of the trend for scientists to use larger more expansive systems when dealing with
flows between communities. They find it more pertinent to examine communities as part of a region in which flows of capital
are looked at within the larger scale of a region. Other literature about resource-based communities echoes this model. (MIT Sea Grant).
http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/aqua/cmss/marfin/framework.html)
FISHING: RENEWABLE RESOURCE COMMUNITIES
The research by Picou and Till in 1999 explores the many definitions of community and community subsets, fleets,
fishermen, and gear types which rely on adjacent natural resources, as “renewable resource community: the ecological
symbolic approach (Picou, Till, 1999: 2). Their theoretical approach identifies an RRC (renewable resource community) as “a
population of individuals who live within a bounded area and whose primary cultural, social, and economic existence is based
on the harvest of renewable resources. (Picou and Gil 1999:2). This approach makes direct links between seasonal ecosystem
cycles and cultural region, a geographical location, a place where people share similar interests and “exist in exchange
relationships with their biophysical environment and their collective interpretation of this relationship is essential for
community equilibrium (Picou, Gill, 1999:2).” This interpretation provides the foundation for the strong sense of place
that fishermen feel on the fishing grounds.
DEPENDENCY ON FISHERIES-THE MOST TO GAIN AND THE MOST TO LOSE
Take Kodiak Island fisheries for example. It is the most fisheries-dependent and diversified fishing community in Alaska, according to
the State of Alaska Salmon Industry Baseline Study from 2003. The State of Alaska did the only
study about the dying salmon fishery and assessed the economic impacts of low prices on fishing communities around the state—to
establish a baseline of information. No assessments of processors or corporations were included.
The
working definition in the State’s study of a regional fishing community measured the number of boats, permits, fishermen,
crewmembers, fisheries, wholesale values, percentage of income figures, and ex-vessel values of regional salmon fisheries
that are prosecuted around the Kodiak Archipelago and did not include processors in the definition of fishing community and
economic impacts due to low salmon prices. It measured the human, built, and financial capital investment of fishermen in
the fisheries.
Let’s
be honest, there has never been any love lost between fishermen and processors. Fishermen do not regularly mix, unite or form
relationships based on mutual reciprocity (social capital) sign lucrative contracts for sustaining the harvesting sector (financial
and economic capital), and are in fact, at odds with each other because the two groups have opposing economic goals: fishermen
need higher prices to survive, and processing corporations desire to pay the lowest prices for fish that they can.
Witness
the demise of the Kodiak salmon fishery which once boasted a fleet of nearly 600 permits.
Because
of that inverse relationship, over 50% of Alaskan salmon fishermen and their businesses collapsed. This will be true if any
rationalization plan reduces the numbers of harvesters to achieve
so-called
benefits within the ground fisheries. Over-capitalization happens because prices are high and vessels can make a living, when
prices fall or one entity seeks more political and economic control over a resource, then “rationalization” discussions
begin. Rationalization is only an academic term which means reduction in harvesting capacity.
Processors already hold an excessive amount of economic and political power over Alaska’s fishing
fleets. In a recent survey of Kodiak salmon fishermen, the majority replied that they had been threatened by local processors
that they would lose their salmon market if they didn’t deliver their cod, herring, or halibut market if they delivered
any other species of fish to another processor who may have been paying more. Additionally, halibut IFQ’s and access
to those are regularly used as economic leverage for tendering contracts. If fishermen want a lucrative tendering contract,
generally they supply their halibut or other fish species to that processor only or are offered the right of first refusal.
Additionally, the corporate structure of the processing business in a coastal community, exports up to 90% of the value
of the Alaskan fisheries resources that it buys from fishermen and reaps the highest profit where its distribution warehouses
and corporate headquarters are. This does not benefit coastal communities when only the smallest portion of the overall profit,
remains in the Alaskan fishing community as the “ex-vessel value.” Take for example, wild salmon-whose sales are
“red hot” in the domestic market. The sockeye price in Kodiak was 76.5 cents/lb. and the wholesale value of Alaskan
wild salmon in California, is $7.00 per/lb. nearly 9 times the value exported from the community.
Clearly, the benefit for the community would be to retain more of the value of fisheries resources adjacent to coastal communities.
Will this occur if communities and the State do not reinvest in and support harvesters?
So
how can the State, state in its justification of the MSA paper, that the processing sector is an integral part of a community
when, “it” is not a resident, “it” takes the majority of value from the fishery and exports it, and
that “it” is “as important” as the harvesting sector? The State is wrong in its justification and
this definition will not protect the interests, and the futures of crewmembers, operators, fishing families and communities
around the State.
Fishermen, crew, operators, and vessel owners are the fundamental human, social, and cultural capital around
which all fisheries revolve. True, having a market is important, but with the domination of large corporations buying
the vast majority of seafood, the introduction of processing quote shares,
goes
solidly against the grain of protecting coastal communities and their fishing cultures because they give the processing sector
an inordinate amount of political and economic power over many livelihoods, and the lack of competition in markets further
adds to the demise of Alaskan fishermen, and in turn, their communities.
The State is playing a damaging game of policy poker with the processing lobbyists and toying with their own
best assets: people’s livelihoods. By not supporting the integral importance of coastal assets for its own resident
fishermen, crew, and operators who rely on access to fisheries, stable prices, and markets, it has rushed headlong into another
contrived resource ownership schemes, providing a weakened foundation for fishermen to survive.
WHAT
IS A DYING FISHING COMMUNITY?
According to the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Sea Grant study about New England fishing communities,
it defines a fishing community fishing-dependent community as “the social, economic, and cultural relationships between
fishermen and their communities. Benefits that flow from these relationships are multiplied through a series of networked
community exchanges and transformations based on different forms of capital-human, social, cultural. It defines them as Natural
Resource Regions. (MIT-Sea Grant).”
Further,
in the study, “Dyer and Griffith isolated five variables that help identify community dependence on a fishery. These
are relative isolation or integration of fishery-dependent people into alternative economic sectors, vessel types/gear strategies
within the port’s fisheries, degree of regional specialization; percentage of population involved in fishery or fishery-related
industries; and competition and conflict within the port among different components of the fishery (MIT-New England’s
Fishing Communities).”
It
goes on to define a dying community through “Dyer and Padfield’s work: describes declines as including (1) abandonment
of a natural region, (2), decay of a socio-cultural system or civilization and (3) extinction of a particular form of association.
Their “form of association” is synonymous with the totality of interdependent relationship- or total capital-that
defines a community. Furthermore, the social and cultural fabric
of individual communities is interwoven through a series of regional exchanges-economic, ritual, and otherwise. The exchanges
define the degree of community dependence on the marine environment, and can be linked to varying regional and extra-regional
influences of the marketplace, changing environments, governance, and extraction technologies.”
POLICY
IMPLICATIONS AND FORMS OF CAPITAL IN FISHING COMMUNITIES
In the literature review and material for my Master’s thesis about fishermen, fishing cultures,
and fishing communities I have not come upon one definition that includes or mentions the processing sector, or corporate
ownership of fisheries resources, as beneficial to fishing communities. The literature about Alaskan coastal communities
analyzes the many meanings of community culminating in the capital analysis of Alaskan coastal communities: natural, human,
physical, built, financial, political, social, cultural, and community capital. Understanding current issues within fishing
communities involves the analysis of forms of capital that comprise a community as well as the exploration of how communities
are defined. Research about “Alaska’s Changing Coastal Communities” has laid
the historical foundation of the importance of wild salmon to culture, economy, to communities, to a way of life, and sense
of place. The fundamental concept is that communities of harvesters are assets, and are not only making a living, or providing
sustenance, but creating deep bonds with fellow fishermen and families through their shared occupation. That is why policies
which destroy the basis of fishing communities and threatens fishing economies and culture, are the wrong policy direction
for the State to embark on.
WHAT
DEFINES A COMMUNITY?
There
are other forms of “community” which more accurately describe fishing communities.
Rural experts describe community with different characteristics. Community is a place where or location in which
members interact with each other. Community also describes a shared sense of identity held by a group of people who may share
the same geographic place and is a distinct social grouping (Flora, Flora, and Fey, Bender: 1978: 7-8) Additionally, a community
of interest may be a sense of identity shared by a group of people not necessarily in the same location. The concept of sense
of place is different for rural communities, in that people share culture and the environment. The geography of the area of
land, or the ocean surrounding the community provides a strong, shared sense of place. This definition is completely different
than the realm of defined areas such as cities, counties, or country.
COMMUNITIES AS NATURAL RESOURCE REGIONS
Yet
another aspect of communities involves those that are located near the natural resources and in which the economy of the community
relies on those assets. MIT Sea Grant developed a “regional ecosystem approach” to study
New England fishing communities modeled after Bennet’s human resource model of the study of adaptive strategies of social
groups…
OCCUPATIONAL COMMUNITIES
Similarly,
studies of resource-dependent logging communities look at the social-psychological perspective that relates to the idea of
identity of the worker who makes a living from the forests.
Membership
in the community is based on the commonalities shared as loggers and their families. Social interactions are the essence of
the place-based work they share. (Carroll: 1995). “
“Occupational
communities create and sustain relatively unique work cultures consisting of among other things, task rituals, surrounding
relatively routine practices, and for the membership at least compelling accounts attesting to the logic and value of these
rituals, standards, and codes. (Van Maanen and Barley, 1984: 287 Community and the Northwestern Logger)…”Members
of such communities will not only see themselves in terms of their occupational role, they also value this self-image. This
process is unlikely to occur among people who are in occupations that do not have workers who have an instrumental orientation
towards their work and who wish to escape totally from their work once they leave the work place (Salaman: 1974: 22-23).”
Members
of occupational communities also count on each other to validate one’s self image. This definition is marked by high
levels of involvement in work and symbolic attributes, leads to “we” and “they”. There is a belief that they possess, identify with the work as dangerous, valued skills, and sense that
reinforcement of self conceptions and common attitudes, values, norms, one is responsible for well-being of others. They reinforce
self conceptions, attitudes, values and norms, leads to a unique social reality and communicate to each other in complex combination
of codes which are occupationally specific (Carroll).” For members, work and non-work social relationships are not entirely
inseparable: they tend to overlap. Work relationships are incorporated into the individual’s personal life.
COASTAL COMMUNITIES SOCIAL CAPITAL AND RESOURCE-BASED RURAL COMMUNITIES
Forms
of capital that contribute to civic engagement and community betterment are indicative of fishermen and their families’
behavior. DeToqueville saw that Americans organized their social connections to accomplish different collective purposes,
promoting interaction that strengthen members’ commitment to particular values, goals, and in seeking to
carry out those goals, forges a common identity (Flora, Flora Fey).”
Social capital is the result of human interaction and the basis for community life. Its generation is
derived from groups, is interactive, and involves reciprocity, and mutual trust. Social capital also, can be generated by
a community which has a common vision of the future. Putnam describes social capital as referring to “features of social
organization, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate the coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social
capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and built capital” (Putnam 1993). Often social capital is produced
through the collaboration of community members as they work toward a common vision, or project. This concept has been studied
for decades; Emile Durkheim developed a social framework using “civil religion, patriotic beliefs, and rituals that
unite each other (Flora, Flora, Fey/Emile Durkheim). Durkheim also
stressed
that social capital required an ongoing replenishing of mutual reciprocity, exchanges, and through constant reinvestment in
the relationships.
Pierre Bordieu saw that potential resources that are derived from “a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition and membership in a group that provides its members with the backing
of the collectivity-owned capital (1986-Flora, Flora, Fey).”
Development of civic associations building social capital—promoting interaction that strengthens members’
commitment to particular values and goals, forging a common identity (Flora).”
Some literature indicates that a “community is an occupational community with a shared system
of beliefs, activities, and commitments, and are connected by bonds that establish a common purpose, fate, a personal identity,
a sense of belonging, and a supportive structure of activities and relationships (Selznick-In Search of Community). Similarly,
Esbjornson speaks about communities which show the ethic of mutual help and cooperation, particularly after a catastrophic
event, like a flood, when the entire community came together to address a common purpose. This author agrees that communities
are held together and created through common values: sharing, mutual, help, consolation, neighborly support and concern—sharing
grief, organizing help for grieving families, long term friendships form from living in a community for 40 years.
In the article, (Does Community Have a Value? Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and
Place) character of a community largely reflects the particularities of the customs, language, and institutional life; a heritage
of significant events and crises; historically determined attributes as size, geography, and demography. Community is formed
through a shared mutuality, and the purposeful quest, and opportunity for comprehensive interaction, commitment
and responsibility. Other foundational concepts involve historicity (bonds of community are strongest when they are fashioned
from strands of shared history and culture). Rootedness, belonging,
make for individual well-being, commitment to others, sense of history, and collective judgment.” Another important facet of occupational workers is the concept of identity: a shared history produces a
sense of community, and this sense is manifested in loyalty, piety, and distinctive identity. Effort to create community fosters
such feelings and perceptions. Identity is a result of socialization, families, other institutions, (Selznick). This theme
is repeated in other literature, that interaction within a community is built up a meaningful interaction, and in that we
make sense of our lives. (Moore: Chronicle of Community (Chautauqua) Chautauqua stresses
that people must determine the solution that is right for their community.
Another definition: “ a community is the means by which people live together, enable people to protect
themselves, acquire the resources to provide for their needs, provide intellectual, moral, and social values that give purpose
to survival (Moore: Chronicle of Community) members share an identity, speak a common language, agree upon role definitions,
share common values, membership status, social boundaries.”
Other important facets of “community”
Mutuality- supported by interdependence and reciprocity. Expresses the need for each
other, if nothing is to be gained from reciprocity and cooperation community will not emerge. Mutuality, groups as unities,
from association to community mutuality goes beyond exchange to create enduring
bonds of interdependence, caring, and commitment, reciprocity to solidarity—fellowship.
Plurality: community draws much vitality from intermediate associations, vehicles
of meaningful participation. People can lose the benefits of community membership when stripped of their group attachments.
Participation: social participation reflects and sustains community as it entails
multiple memberships, diverse commitment….single minded activities limit contributions to community.
A flourishing community has a high level of participation in groups and organizations.
Strong communities imply strong local economies, communities of interest, common dependence on a common life,
and a common ground. A community is placed, its success cannot be divided from
the success of its place, its natural setting and surroundings, its soils and forests, grasslands, plants and animals, water,
light, air, the two economies, the natural and the human support each other; each is the other’s hope of a durable and
livable life. (Wendell Berry: Does Community have a value?)
CONCLUSION
Studies about fishing communities are very clear. Any management changes to the integrity of a fleet, a group
of fishermen, and their livelihoods entails great risk for the coastal community in which they reside and participate in local
fisheries. Policies which don’t protect fishing livelihoods, and the essential facets of community, the forms of capital:
natural, cultural, social, human, built, economic, and community, are dangerous and harmful to coastal economies. It’s
time for all residents to be informed about what exactly constitutes a “fishing community.”
Lacey Berns
Humboldt State University
Masters Program in Environment and Community
Government and Politics
Excerpts from draft thesis:
“Alaska’s Changing
Coastal Communities-A Case Study of Kodiak Island: Implications of Low Salmon Prices and Sustainability.”
1620 Kristin Way
McKinleyville, CA 95519
707-838-8009
laceyberns@gmail.com
