What's in a name--I spent Friday in Kenai at a Senate Resources meeting that focused on Cook Inlet energy issues. One of the impending issues is  the potential closure of the Agrium fertilizer plant--challenged in the global market place and faced with higher costs for natural gas. I did take note of the Agrium general manager's name--a gentleman with the moniker of Bill Boycott. It sounds like a perfect name for a lobbyist focused on stopping a bill. Kind of like being a high school coach with the name Jim Baggs. Science and politics--Congressman Ed Markey, a Democrat, recently compared the behavior of Republicans to subatomic particles. Markey was referring to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which says the act of  measuring the position or momentum of a subatomic particle will change the position and momentum of the particle. He notes that is the issue with measuring the position and momentum of the Republican legislative agenda--the more it's measured, the more members' positions change and the more it affects the momentum of the legislation. Clearly Congressman Markey isn't just interested in civics, he also has a bent toward the sciences. Interns--I've been blessed with university interns over the years. The real value isn't the insights students gain about the legislative process but  the insights we get from energetic college students who come into the system asking questions. That's why I'm pleased to note the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation is establishing an internship program for Alaska college students. Any students interested can go to the corporation's website for details. Alaskan who?--An angry constituent let me know this week that Alaska (and Hawaii) are being left out of a performance bicycle sweepstake  promotion. The promo reads: "No purchase is necessary to enter or win. The sweepstakes is open to legal United States residents over the age of majority in their state. Sweepstakes are offered only in the continental United States (emphasis of bold type and underline is theirs)." He noted in an email to the sweepstakes sponsors that he feels "right welcome" and notes that they seem to be more comfortable with the purchases he makes than they are with the fact he's an Alaskan.
|
Sixteen years ago a constituent told me it's unproductive to ask: "whose fault is it?" It's far better, she said, to ask: "what can we do?"
Last week federal fishery managers, fish processors, commercial fishermen, and the environmental community put on their seven league boots and took a giant stride by taking the basics of her advice to heart. Working together, they set aside 380,000 square miles of water out along the Aleutian Islands to protect coral, sponge and other sea floor habitats.  They ended up with a plan that worked for everyone.
More than a third of a million square miles of set asides for ocean conservation is pretty impressive. Doing the set asides in a way that protects the economic viability of Alaska's most important coastal industry is even more impressive. All because everyone spent their time looking at what they could do instead of pointing fingers. A billion dollar trawl industry was protected. Important sea floor habitat, habitat that nurtures a productive marine environment, was protected. (It'd sure be nice if the legislature could do something like this with a fiscal plan, or health care costs, or PERS/TRS, or . . .)
The 'work together' paradigm used by the North Pacific regional council hopefully sets the standard for other difficult ocean issues Alaska faces. In the last couple of years, two comprehensive ocean commissions have recommended substantial changes in the way the federal government manages/protects our coastal and ocean environments. The Magnuson-Stevens fisheries management act is up for reauthorization this year. The Law of the Sea Treaty recipe with its multi-national allocation of ocean economic opportunities continues to prescribe behavior off the coasts of tidewater nations and states.
These broad multinational and national initiatives do, or will, set standards for present and future economic activity on our coasts and in our oceans. Within these broad recipes, Alaska policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels will continue to be challenged by natural and unnatural disasters (the latest unnatural disaster is the wreck of the Selandang Ayu) and by policy initiatives like Bristol Bay gas leases or potential methane hydrate exploitation offshore of the North Slope (methane hydrates are deposits of methane gas trapped in ice and are found both onshore and beneath the sea floor).
The ocean reports by the Pew Commission and the U.S. Oceans Commission both recommended big boosts in funding for ocean research.  The U.S. Oceans Commission recommends $5 billion in new research for our most uncharted economic frontier. But both commissions also recommend substantial changes to the management regime for our oceans. The funding recommendations make scientists and managers grin like Charlie the Tuna. The management suggestions engender tanker loads of skepticism.
For Alaska and Alaskans, some of the skepticism is warranted. The federal North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (one of eight regional councils composed of private/public sector professionals to manage offshore fisheries) is the successful management council. Of the 82 fish stocks managed by our council, all are healthy. That is not the norm for other fishery management councils.
Unfortunately for us, it's the performance of the other councils that led to recommendations by the Pew and U.S. ocean commissions to restructure existing levels of bureaucracy to address shortcomings. Our council is swept into the restructuring by the failure of other councils.
The short version of some of the U.S. Ocean Commission's recommendations (presented to Congress and now awaiting action) is that their suggestions further federalize ocean decision-making. Our successful NPFMC could mutate into a Regional Ocean Council that addresses fisheries issues plus other ocean issues. Above that council could be a new National Ocean Council and a new National Oceans Policy Advisory Board.
The danger, of course, is that the NPFMC system that works for us--healthy fish stocks, major ocean floor set asides that deal with conservation and economic concerns, decision-making shared by state, federal and private sector entities--may get lumped in with brand-spanking new federal oversight entities created because of the failures of the other councils. Lumped in with not just one new player in the ocean management game but with three new players.
Our ocean policy challenge, as Alaskans well-served by our council, is to make sure Congress doesn't walk away from a management recipe that works for us and toward new recipes that are experimental.
I visited Kenai last week as part of a joint Resources committee meeting. Pictured here is Unocal's Grayling platform in Cook Inlet taken from the Steelhead platform.
|
