This study investigates the socioeconomic and cultural impacts of fisheries access limitation programs, such as limited entry and individual fishing quotas (IFQs), on Alaska Native villages in the Gulf of Alaska. The research documents how these programs have altered local economies, disrupted cultural practices, and contributed to outmigration. A 2024 survey of over 4,300 Koniag and Sealaska shareholders and descendants reveals that fishing is a central element of economic and cultural life, with 98% of respondents affirming its importance. However, 80% report that limited access to fisheries has led to significant community crises. Since the introduction of limited entry in the 1970’s, permit ownership in key fisheries has declined by 32%, with the Koniag region experiencing a more severe decline of 63%. Halibut quota ownership has also fallen by 69%. The Community Quota Entity (CQE) program, aimed at restoring some access, has had limited success. The survey results emphasize that fishing is a vital part of cultural identity and village sustainability, with 90% of respondents stating that village survival depends on access to fisheries. Strikingly, only 12-13% of respondents have any current engagement in commercial fishing; only 11% agree that the future looks good for young people who stay in the regional villages. In contrast, the Metlakatla Indian Community, while experiencing similar trends with limited entry and IFQs, manages their own active Tribal fisheries where fishing participation, youth engagement, and earnings are high. The study suggests that significant policy reforms to restore fishing access, especially for Indigenous youth, are necessary to avoid continued economic decline and negative social and cultural impacts. The report calls for targeted policies to support fishing livelihoods and village sustainability in the Gulf of Alaska.

Built entirely in-house by our growing storytelling team, Woven: Peoples & Place is our love letter to the Sustainable Southeast Partnership because as storytellers, we have seen and reported on the positive life-changing impacts of this work for many years. We believe in the power behind these stories and hope that you will too. These stories and voices are connected because we are connected: woven together we are strong. 

The Scenarios for the Future of Southeast Alaska are stories about what could happen in Southeast in the future, from 2025 to 2050. They are not stories about what will happen (forecasts) or what should happen (a vision). Rather, the scenarios hypothesize different ways the future could unfold for the region’s communities, economy, environment, and culture. The purpose of these stories is to offer a shared language for talking together about what is possible and what must be done.

The starting point for these stories is the current environment. While some things about the future are certain and constant, such as Southeast’s geography, these scenarios explore what is uncertain about the future, considering both factors within the region and external to it.

Sustainable Southeast Partnership Catalysts represent communities and areas of expertise and collaborate regularly across the region. Catalysts are ambassadors for our shared values and mission, and connect resources, people, ideas and networks. Meet the 2024 SSP Catalysts.

This long-form narrative discusses the inception and significance of the Sustainable Southeast Partnership through history, narrative and case studies. The benefits of SSP are interdependent and rooted in complex historical, cultural, and ecological contexts.

This report presents an impact evaluation of SSP. The outcomes and benefits of our work are identified, classified and then valued in dollar-equivalent terms. The purpose of this report was to examine and analyze, as rigorously as possible, the self-reported outcomes and benefits of participating in the network.

This report presents an abridged version of The Value of Collaboration impact evaluation and provides an overview of SSP’s overarching outcomes and focus areas, the community and regional surveys, the impact multiplier, monetary benefit, and cost-benefit ratio. The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the SSP has so far succeeded in its vision in measurable was in both community and regional levels.