11 Changes by Management Area, Rural-Urban, Local-Nonlocal
The initial distribution of QS and the way the QS distribution changes over time are topics of interest for those who have been concerned about the potential consequences of the new IFQ program. The previous chapter examined this topic by breaking out QS holders based upon the state where they reside. This section examines the topic using five resident types that were originally developed by Langdon to study permit holdings under Alaska's limited entry program. These resident types have since been used by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to monitor distributional changes under the program.1 They are defined as follows:
AK Rural Local (ARL): A person residing in an Alaska rural community which is local to the IFQ management area for which the QS applies;
AK Rural Nonlocal (ARN): A person residing in an Alaska rural community which is nonlocal to the IFQ management area for which the QS applies;
AK Urban Local (AUL): A person residing in an Alaska urban community which is local to the IFQ management area for which the QS applies.
AK Urban Nonlocal (AUN): A person residing in an Alaska urban community which is nonlocal to the IFQ management area for which the QS applies.
Nonresident: A person residing in a location outside of Alaska.
The decision rules for designating rural/urban and local/nonlocal classifications are described in Appendix I. Essentially, the rural/urban distinction is based on a population of 2,500 or more persons as of the 1990 census. Some communities with populations less than 2,500 are classified as urban because they lie on a road system and are within a certain radius of an urban center. For instance, Auke Bay is designated as urban, even though it has a small population, because it is situated on a road system and is within 20 miles of Juneau.2
Table 11-1a provides the initial distribution and year-end 1996 distribution of sablefish QS by area and resident type. For each resident type within an area it also shows the initial and year-end percentage of the area's QS held by that resident type, and the change in QS held by that resident type during the year.
As noted in Chapter 10, Nonresidents were initially issued the majority of the QS in all sablefish areas except Southeast. At year-end 1996, Nonresident QS holdings had decreased slightly in all areas.
The percentage of sablefish QS initially issued to Alaska Urban Locals was very low or nonexistent in the West Yakutat, Western Gulf, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea areas, but was 45.6% in the Southeast area and 17.2% in the Central Gulf. By the end of 1996, the percentage of QS held by AULs had increased slightly in the Southeast, Central Gulf and Bering Sea areas, and had decreased in the West Yakutat and Western Gulf areas.
The percentage of sablefish QS initially issued to Alaska Rural Locals was relatively small, ranging from none in the Aleutian Islands and very little in the Bering Sea to 14.3% in the Southeast area. By year-end 1996, the amount of sablefish QS held by ARLs decreased slightly in the Southeast, West Yakutat, Western Gulf, and Bering Sea areas and increased in the Central Gulf.
The percentage of sablefish QS initially issued to Alaska Urban Non-locals ranged from 4.4% in Southeast to 36.5% in the Bering Sea. By the end of 1996, the amount of sablefish QS held by AUNs decreased in the Southeast and Bering Sea areas and increased in all other areas.
Relatively little sablefish QS was initially allocated to Alaska Rural Non-locals. Area percentages of sablefish QS ranged from 0.2% in Southeast to 2.5% in West Yakutat. At year-end 1996 the amount of sablefish QS held by ARNs had decreased in the West Yakutat and Central Gulf areas and increased in other areas.
Table 11-1b provides similar information on the initial and year-end 1996 distribution of sablefish QS holders by area and resident type. The table includes data on the change and percentage change in the number of QS holders by area and resident type. The table also includes data on the percentage of QS holders in each area from each resident type and their average QS holdings both at initial issuance and at year-end 1996.
The number of QS holders declined and the average QS holdings increased in most of the area and resident type combinations. This again indicates that some consolidation of QS holdings occurred after initial allocation.
Table 11-1a. Initial Allocation and Year-end 1996 QS Holders by Management Area and Resident Type
Table 11-1b. Initial Allocation and Year-end 1996 QS Holders by Area and Resident Type
11.2 Net Result of QS Transfers, Migrations, and Revocations
The amount of QS held by each resident type may change for three reasons: QS can be transferred to other resident types; QS holders may simply change their place of residence (migration); or QS may be revoked. The previous section showed the extent to which QS has changed between five resident types from initial issuance through the end of 1996. This section provides data on how those net changes occurred.
Table 11-2 repeats some of the information presented in Table 11-1a. It shows the total QS initially issued to each resident type in each management area and also shows the total net change in the QS held by each resident type at the end of 1996. The other columns in Table 11-2 provide detail on the three actions that make the change: the net result of transfers, migrations, and revocations.
It is important to remember that the measures of transfers and migrations are net changes. For example, persons will move away from Alaska Rural Local places, which contributes to a decrease in QS held by that resident type. However, at the same time persons are moving away from ARL places, other persons are moving to them. Whether there is a positive or negative net QS change due to migration depends upon the total number of persons who migrated to and from the place and how much QS they hold.
Revocations will decrease the amount of QS held by a resident type. RAM Division may revoke QS after initial issuance when subsequent information provides details on a person's fishing history that was not formerly available to RAM. Revocations do not occur until the QS holder has been given an opportunity to appeal the administrative decision to revoke some, or all, of their QS.
Table 11-2 indicates that a good portion of the net QS changes between resident types was due to transfer activity; however, migration of QS holders was important. For example, Alaska Rural Locals in the West Yakutat area show a total net loss of 203,224 QS units, all of which was due to transfer activity. Alaska Rural Local persons also show a total net loss of QS in the Southeast area, however, the loss there was split almost equally between losses due to transfers (409,833 units) and losses due to migrations (459,877 units). In the Central Gulf, ARLs show a total net gain of QS. Most (1,408,594 of 1,755,130) of the QS gained in the Central Gulf by ARLs was through migration.
Table 11-2. Net Result of Sablefish QS Transfers, Migrations, and Revocations From Initial Issuance Through Year-end 1996, by Management Area and Resident Type
11.3 Details of Sablefish QS Transfers: To and From Each Resident Category
The previous section provided information on the net effects of QS transfers, migrations, and revocations, which are the three actions that may change QS distribution between resident categories. This section presents more detail on QS transfers. It illustrates how the net changes occurred in QS transfers: how many transfers there were and how much QS was involved in transfers to and from each resident category.
Table 11-3a shows again how much QS was issued to each resident category in each management area. It also shows how much QS was held by those persons at the end of 1996. Again, the changes between initial issuance and year-end 1996 will be affected by transfers, migrations, and revocations.
The net result of QS transfers involves transfers to and from persons in each resident category. Table 11-3a shows how many transfers resulted in a shift of QS away from persons in each resident category. It also shows the quantity of QS associated with those "transfers from" transactions. Likewise, the table shows the number of transfers and amount of QS that shifted to persons in each resident category. Finally, the last columns of the table show the net result of these from-to transactions.
Table 11-3b indicates the number of QS holders in each resident category at initial issuance and at year-end 1996, and the number of transfers to and from persons in those categories. A person may transfer some or all of their QS. Also, persons may transfer QS to more than one other person. For these reasons the number of transfers reported in Table 11-3 is usually not the same as the number of transferors or transfer recipients.
The last two columns of Table 11-3b show the total change in QS holders between initial issuance and year-end 1996. These columns indicate the overall net change in persons, and include changes due to migrations and revocations as well as transfers. Note that the corresponding last two columns of Table 11-3a show only the net change in QS due to transfers.
These tables show that the net result of QS transfers often involved large movements of QS both to and from resident types. For example, the net loss of 409,833 QS units to Alaska Rural Locals in Southeast involved the transfer of 1,494,679 QS away from this resident type and the transfer of 1,084,846 QS units to them.
Table 11-3a. Sablefish QS Transfers From Initial Issuance Through Year-end 1996: The Number of Transfers and the Amount of QS Transferred To and From Each Resident Type, by Management Area
Table 11-3b. Sablefish QS Transfers From Initial Issuance Through Year-end 1996: The Number of Transfers, Transferors, and Transfer Recipients, by Resident Type and Management Area
Tables 11-4a and 11-4b provide more data on QS transfer patterns by rural-urban and local-nonlocal resident types. QS transfers may occur between persons in the same resident category (intra-cohort) or between persons of different resident categories (cross-cohort). Cross-cohort transfers result in net changes in QS distribution between resident categories.
Table 11-4a allows one to compare intra-cohort and cross-cohort QS transfer rates in 1995, 1996, and over the entire two-year time period. For example, in Southeast in 1995 persons in the Alaska Rural Local category received 60.4% (325,940 QS units) of the QS transferred to them from other ARLs. This compares to 18.2% (99,269 QS units) in 1996. Over the entire time period from initial issuance through year-end 1996, 39.2% (425,209 QS units) of the QS received by ARLs came in intra-cohort transfers. The remainder of the QS received by ARLs came through cross-cohort transfers.
Table 11-4b provides similar information on resident category intra-cohort and cross- cohort transfers by management area; however, this table shows the number of transfers rather than the amount of QS transferred. The percentages of intra and cross-cohort transfer transactions can vary from the percentages of QS associated with these transfers because the amount of QS in a transaction can vary widely.
Both tables indicate that a large percentage of the transfers were across cohorts in most management areas and resident categories.
Table 11-4a. Intra-cohort and Cross-cohort Transfers of Sablefish QS From Initial Issuance Through Year-end 1996, by Management Area
Table 11-4b. Intra-cohort and Cross-cohort Transfers From Initial Issuance Through Year-end 1996, by Management Area