|
- Anita
Maurstad
- Norwegian
College of Fisheries Science
- University of
Tromso
- Dept of
Social Science and Marketing
- Tromso,
Norway
Issues Position Paper for
'Eco-Knowledge Working Seminar'
Dear organizers and
participants
For my 'Issues Position Paper' I
use a shortened version of an article to be published in a
book edited by Barbara Neis and Larry Felt, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. Johns. The title of the book
is not set yet, but my article bears the name: 'Trapped
in biology' - an interdisciplinary attempt to present
fishers' knowledge. The article deals with my main concerns
regarding science's new interest in fishers' knowledge.
Based on my own participation in an interdisciplinary
approach to collecting and presenting fishers' knowledge of
the local marine environment in northern Norway, I discuss
how this approach may result in a narrowly defined
scientific construction of fishers' knowledge. I
particularly focus on how this scientific construction is
influenced by the scientists' perceptions of what is
interesting, perceptions that are informed by the sciences'
relations to the established fisheries management. I believe
these concerns should be dealt with methodologically, but I
am not sure they can be fully resolved by research designs.
I look forward to upcoming discussions at the
workshop.
Introduction
After 100 years of development of
scientific knowledge on fisheries management, many fish
stocks are severely overexploited, and an evolving
literature argues that fishers' knowledge should have a more
central position in management1
. The benefits of doing so are mainly twofold: Fisher's
knowledge of the local marine environment is seen as means
to improve and complement the traditional knowledge base of
fisheries management. Secondly, it is seen to increase the
legitimacy of resource management institutions.
These prospects have been the point
of departure for a research project in northern Norway
involving four important parties: Fishers, a biologist, a
social scientist and the existing fisheries management
establishment. During 1994-1996, we, the researchers,
collected fishers' knowledge in the northernmost county of
Norway, Finnmark. The interdisciplinary approach to
interviewing fishers was seen as necessary at the outset.
Both questions and perceptions of answers are filtered
through the lens provided by our scientific knowledge.
Joining the forces of the two disciplines, we could enhance
our possibilities of collecting, understanding and
presenting this knowledge. Joining forces, however, implied
negotiating a common approach to understanding fishers'
knowledge. In the following I will discuss how this approach
was informed by various interests and how these
interests influenced what we came to present as
fishers' knowledge. At the outset our focus was broad. It
was guided by the interests of our respective disciplines,
as well as interests formed by our experiences from former
fishing activity. As the project developed, its scope was
narrowed. This change could be explained by practical
reasons. The project was pretentious, and time constraints
did not allow us to find answers to all our questions. I
argue however, that this is not the most interesting, nor
the most important reason for the narrowing of scope.
Rather, I will show how the change in focus was informed by
the relationship between our disciplines and the existing
fisheries management establishment.
Collecting fishers'
knowledge
The fishing villages in Northern
Norway are small and scattered along the coast. Some village
hold five fishers, others hold 20, and very few are larger.
Some places the distances between the local waters are far,
other places one finds five villages within a range of 150
km. We started in a village at the very border of Russia,
and drove westwards, aiming at interviewing two or three
fishers in every village, dependent on the amount of fishers
using the local waters. We obtained information on who to
interview partly through the public records and partly
through talking with the local fishing administrators. We
picked informants that differed with respect to age,
activity and vessel type. Having made a list of informants
we wanted to talk with, we phoned them and asked for
interviews the following day. Most interviews took place in
fishers homes. Some were seated in fishers' cottages or on
board their vessels at the dock.
Our initial focus was broad. On the
one hand we searched for knowledge on local stock biology.
On the other we had the question of what 'fishers'
knowledge' was, and particularly how it was founded in the
performance of the fishery. We thought that the best
starting point was to question local activity and local
biology, but simultaneously follow what fishers saw as
important as well as how they reached these conclusions. By
a somewhat open, unstructured focus, we would try to situate
the project's particular interest in local stock biology in
a broader frame and understand the social embeddedness of
the biological information.
The first interviews went fine. We
were immediately surprised by all the information we
obtained in our interviews with coastal fishers of Finnmark.
The talks on local amounts of resources centered on their
presence in time and space, as well as the fishing pressure
they were exposed to regarding number and type of boats and
fishing time. We drew the information onto maps. A color-set
of pencils had been purchased to separate between the
different species. The color-set contained six colors. We
found it was not enough - the local waters contained so many
different resources. None of them was unknown to us, but we
had not prepared for the detailed knowledge fishers had on
the presence and behavior of various commercial and
non-commercial fish resources.
We also started the process of
learning what kind of knowledge system we were meeting. We
saw how fishers gained their knowledge partly through
experimenting, and partly through talking with other
fishers. We saw that the experimental strategies differed
between fishers, and so did their expression of what was
knowledge. We met 'masters' and we met 'apprentices' in the
sense that some were reckoned as knowledgeable, and others
were not. We were to learn more about these and other social
aspects of the fishery, but first we had to deal with some
murky clouds appearing in our own relationship.
After each interview we were
normally excited and thrilled by the ways things were
running. One day, however, we found ourselves arguing. The
biologist, Jan H. Sundet, complained that the interviews
were not structured enough. We were interested in far too
much, and we would never get through our list of informants
if we were to go on like this. I liked our style, I found
the many aspects interesting, and I thought absence of
structure was a way to avoid guiding fishers to our
scientifically biased want for certain answers. Sundet found
that the unstructured form of the interviews gave little
room for the biology he was interested in. Having recently
come from an interview where the fisher had made many
interesting comments about how the institutions for
management worked, as well as how the relations to other
fishers influenced his decisions in fishing, I did not see
his complaint as relevant. I had been unable to follow up on
the fisher's talk, since Sundet asked too many questions, I
thought, on conventional biology.
Another matter was how to talk with
fishers. I was trained to question all my assumptions. I
asked fishers to explain things further by posing questions
to which I thought I had answers, wanting them to express
their own views. On many such occasions, Sundet would answer
me - presenting the correct scientific answer. I was
furious. I had not traveled 700 km to interview him! One
time I took the discussion further during the interview:
'But how do we know this for sure - couldn't there be other
explanations?' Sundet, being equally annoyed by my
repeatedly asking what seamed to him to be stupid questions,
answered: 'Some things are true'.
How to perform interdisciplinary
work was a dimension we continuously had to deal with. We
had a standing discussion on what we should do, and
as time went by we were to gain multiple experiences on what
we were doing. At that time however, we saw this
first discussion as critical. It could imply that our
interdisciplinary work was a wrong approach. The setting of
the interview did not provide enough space for our two
different professional perspectives on what was fishers'
knowledge. We reconsidered our approach. We decided to be
clearer as to what information we wanted, as well as how to
gain it. We decided to go on with interviews because we did
not have time for longer stays in each community. We also
decided to set a more structured focus on local biology and
local activity. From following what fishers saw as
important, we decided to define the importance ourselves to
a stronger degree. We stopped questioning how fishers
obtained their knowledge. We no longer searched for what
fishers' knowledge was, but decided to narrow our focus to
fish' presence in time and space in local waters, as well as
the fishing pressure this fish was exposed to.
We still saw the interdisciplinary
dimension as fruitful. Acknowledging the difference in
perspectives, we also tried to improve our cooperative
performance. We structured the professional space we had
with regard to dividing the time of the interview between
us. To remind us of this during the interview, we developed
signals for 'ok, your turn'. A kick in the leg meant 'shut
up - this I want to follow'. With our new understanding of
the necessity for professional space, this worked - although
it did give some bruises.
We proceeded doing interviews
together, the way we now knew was wise: Being polite, giving
each other space - and sometimes fighting over it. We
continuously discussed interpersonal and interprofessional
aspects of our collaboration. At one point we found that the
concentration on biology was too dominant, and discussed
other communicative ways of dealing with this. We found that
if the interview started with biology, the conversation
would concentrate on it for the whole interview. Starting
off with characteristics of the social world was a better
approach. So we did. And went on.
At some point in time we found
ourselves switching roles. While I was asking about fish
biology, Sundet was dealing with the social characteristics.
Amused by this, we saw our development from the initial
problems as a success.
A factor adding to our success was
that we were well received by fishers. After some initial
skepticism, fishers appreciated that we, the scientists,
came to talk with them. They gave many examples of
encounters with 'ignorant experts' - referring to
academically trained persons who saw themselves as
knowledgeable, but who, for lack of knowledge regarding the
fishery, could only give poor advice. It was strange to sit
there and be one of these experts, but obviously not
reckoned as one. The fact that we talked a northern dialect
of Norwegian could be one explanation for not being regarded
as such. The people of the North have for long suffered from
a complex of being inferior to the South, and after
revitalization in the 70s, the pendulum has now turned. To
many Northerners it is the people from the South, and
especially the experts, who are regarded as lacking the
proper knowledge (Eidheim 1993). Our experience from former
fishing activities also contributed to our success. We were
regarded as knowledgeable in more than our scientific
training.
We also saw our change in focus as
successful. From that of the open, somewhat agnostic
perspective towards fishers' knowledge, our project was now
concentrated around two aspects - local biology and local
activity. We no longer had the learning process of fishers
as a main focus. Neither did we try to grasp the holistic
nature of the fishery - how the fisher's activity related to
other members of the household's activities, how
technological choices and political aspects interfered, in
short its broader framing. But we got a lot of information
from fishers. Some filled in and enhanced the existing
scientific knowledge on biological processes, like the
stories on local migratory patterns of different species of
fish. Other information was completely different from what
Norwegian biologists previously have dealt with, like talks
of 'motherfish', the influence of moon phases on the
fishery, and how fish started to eat stones before they sat
off to leave the local waters. At the outset of interviewing
fishers we had been very interested in such talk, but now,
having structured our approach, there was not much time to
follow up on these aspects - they became 'curiosities'. We
did get some stories, but in stead of exploring these, we
centered the talks on local presence of fish and fishers -
we sought information on local biology as well as local
activity.
Writing fishers'
knowledge
In our first joint publication
(Maurstad and Sundet 1994) we talked of our project as a
success. The occasion was a meeting in the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Research on
the cod, as well as other commercial resources in the North
Atlantic, is organized through ICES, and Sundet's colleagues
from the whole of the North Atlantic region were there. We
presented a paper stating the importance of fishers'
knowledge - focusing on the detailed biological knowledge
the interviews had revealed. One concern though, was how to
present it. We had drawn fishers' information on maps during
the interviews. Publicizing these maps meant that fishers'
oral knowledge would be in print, and we were hesitant to
reveal this information. Fishers had told us of their
fishing places, and in printing these locations on paper, we
would reveal secrets. To avoid this, we exemplified our
findings by presenting the biological information on a map
of an anonymous fjord.
We discussed the problem of rights
to fishers' information at the ICES meeting. Later we took
the discussions further. We took them to seminars with
colleagues, and we discussed it with fishers. We were given
various reasons for not to worry. Some colleagues, both
biologists and social scientists, said that this knowledge
was too important not to publicize. The fight for rights in
the coastal zone is increasing, and mapping the local
fishery was a good way of documenting the ongoing activity.
Others, among them fishers, stated that most knowledge of
local fishing places was common to local inhabitants, and
that which were not, we could avoid printing. To both
arguments I protested on the grounds that knowledge was
common within a cultural setting. Foreign travel agencies
did not know the code of conduct, and this could imply
future problems concerning property rights to local fishing
places.
As time went by, I started to feel
that my fear was exaggerated. My opposition towards
publicizing diminished. I was fascinated with all the
information we had received and my agenda changed: I
realized that convincing my scientific colleagues of
the value of fishers' knowledge would not be difficult.
Scholars in the field already agreed to the necessity and
usefulness of understanding fishers' knowledge. Besides,
convincing more social scientists would result in little
extra power for the cause - integrating fishers' knowledge
into management. It was the biologists who had the 'red
phone' to the conventional procedures of management. My line
was never installed, and I had to use messengers to get my
mail through. Using the biological knowledge of fishers and
mailing it through Sundet was a smart way of convincing
other biologists and management people, I thought. Mapping
the knowledge of fishers was a particularly convincing
approach. It would be a representation of fishers' knowledge
that they very well could relate to. As Latour (1990)
states, it would be a good 'immutable mobile' - a symbolic
representation which was viable through time and space. It
would be represented on paper forever, and be a valid proof
of fishers' important knowledge.
In our next publication (Maurstad
and Sundet 1998), discussions of the problem of the written
imprint of fishers' knowledge were absent. We presented a
map containing information about fishing places. It was not
very detailed with regard to particular fishing spots, but I
do not think this was the most important reason for the
absence of discussions on publicizing. Rather, it was of
such importance that it could not stay in our notebooks. It
revealed 44 spawning places for coastal cod in the county of
Finnmark 2.
Previous scientific knowledge had anticipated the existence
of 5 or 6 local stocks. Our results showed that this number
was severely underestimated. Assuming that each stock has
its own spawning site3
, 44 recorded spawning sites imply 44 different stocks. Our
presentation of the 44 local spawning places for cod was a
strong indicator of sub-groups of coastal cod and it had
important management implications. Today the annual Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) of cod is set on the basis of
biological investigations of one stock of cod. From a
biological point of view, the 44 spawning places indicate 44
stocks, thus 44 management regimes. And, since our
investigations only counted Finnmark County, there would
probably be many more local stocks to find, as our project
developed to reach further south on the coast of Norway. Our
project did not only generate interesting biological
information. It was a real proof of the value of
interviewing fishers. Finding the 44 spawning grounds
through traditional scientific research would have been
extremely costly.
Scientific construction of
fishers' knowledge
Starting out from the idea of
gaining a broad understanding of fishers' knowledge, we
narrowed this focus as our project developed. We lost track
of the relevance of situating fishers' knowledge in a social
frame. I see this development as a result of a social
scientist's and a biologist's negotiation of, not only what
is fishers' knowledge, but also a future place for fishers'
knowledge in fisheries management institutions. Our focus in
the project, both initial and refined, is linked to our
definition of 'allies', their interests and powers (Callon
1986). I found it hard to explain the management relevance
of the questions and topics I were interested in. They were
interesting for social scientists. I could deal with these
issues and head towards a career in social science, but what
strength would that have in convincing the established
fisheries management that fishers knowledge should have a
more central position? Social science is interesting to
social scientists, but not necessarily to managers. Writing
for social scientists is writing for another audience than
the one who need be convinced. Rather than following the
social scientific aspects I saw as interesting, I conformed
to what the established fisheries management, with biology
at the lead, wanted: Strict information on local biology.
The project generated interesting
biological information. And as such it shows the value of
talking with fishers. It generated a lot of information that
was not known to the biologists. I came to see this
information as useful for more purposes than understanding
nature: Showing that fishers knew more than biologists on
certain issues might convince Sundet's colleagues and
management representatives into being 'allies'. The evidence
could not be overlooked. Rather than putting effort into
understanding the complexity of fishers' knowledge, it was
best to leave this to other researchers, or later projects.
The change was regrettable in that there were many social
aspects we could not follow. But, in making 'allies' I saw
no other option.
Fishers seemed to appreciate our
focus. We were well received by them. They gave us
biological information, and many advocated that they
appreciated the fact that scientists asked them about local
conditions. Perhaps many of our informants would agree to
the way Bill Broderick expressed it at a workshop at
St.John's, Newfoundland. Integrating fishers' knowledge into
management was the topic of the workshop, and Bill
Broderick, Inshore Vice-President of Fish, Food and Allied
Workers, Newfoundland, stated that he was glad that it was
finally recognized that fishers were "the Ph.D.s of the
fishing grounds." My worry is that he is wrong here. When
we, the researchers decide, not only what is interesting,
but specifically what of fishers' biological
information which is interesting, I would say that fishers
are not the Ph.D.s, they are the research assistants
of the fishing grounds. In light of the underlying goal of
projects like ours, we must then ask: Will placing fishers
as research assistants for the biologists have the effect of
leading to better management?
I see the growing interest in
fishers' knowledge as triggered by the existing resource
management regime's failure to reach its goal of sustainable
resource use. 'Fishers' knowledge' is expected to improve
fisheries management, and the question is how this knowledge
may contribute to our understanding of management of
resources. If science is right, we should pursue fishers'
biological knowledge. This will improve science and thus
management. But what if science is wrong? What if our search
for better management implies solutions sought beyond
natural science? Holm (1996) stresses that the basic
assumption for modern management regimes is that predictions
are possible - that knowledge about human, as well as
environmental impacts can be calculated. Continuing
strengthening the existing system of management, as we do
when regarding the solution as more biological information,
indicates a belief in its success. But Holm criticizes this
idea, and he asks: What if these assumptions do not hold?
What if predictions are not possible? A regime with less
omnipotent managers, low intensity in investments and large
safety margins, would be better off dealing with such
prospects, argues Holm. Wilson et al., (1994) take a
similar approach. In criticizing the insecurity following
traditional stock assessment, they advocate that focus
should be set on how the fishery is performed; where,
when and how people fish, as opposed to today's
scientific focus on how many fish swim in the sea. By this
we could learn more relevant information as to how to manage
the fisheries.
The consequence of what these
authors discuss, is a change in focus of what is fishers'
knowledge from that of questions relevant for today's stock
assessment procedures. It implies a focus on performance, on
social aspects of the fishery. We thought we could deal with
both the social and the biological in our project. We wanted
biological information, but we wanted to situate the
biological information in a social frame. The biologist was
not able to do this on his own and worse: Neither was I, the
social scientist. In retrospect, I see our belief in the
task as naive. We could very well obtain information on
biological and social aspects of the fishery. We learned
about 44 local stocks of cod. We learned about code of
conduct in fishing this cod. Fishers' knowledge is
interdisciplinary. They know where the fish is and how it
performs locally, but they also know of code of conduct.
Customary law, practiced by fishers, is embedded in practice
rather in formal juridical procedures. Their implicity and
contextuality makes up a very different property rights
system which is not recognized in Norwegian law and to a
large extent ignored by scientists (Brantenberg forthcoming,
Maurstad 1995, 1997). These biological and juridical aspects
can be detected when studying the fishery. The problem is
however, how to bring this information further, to the
management bodies. The fishery management establishment is
segmented and the experts in law and biology sit in
different offices. Which of these doors do we knock to
present the fact that fishers biological information is
embedded in a informal system of law? There is no section
that can handle any attempt to integrate knowledge on code
of conduct with knowledge on local biology.
But it is important. Not only for
understanding this knowledge, but for not distorting
fishers' system of knowledge. Mapping fish' presence in time
and space in local waters may influence fishers' rights
systems. Fishing places means different things to the fisher
and the researcher. For the latter fishing places represent
hard data telling of an objective truth about the world. The
fisher depends on this truth, but access to it is subject to
an intricate system of rules of the road. A book with
detailed maps might very well change these rules. We have
copyrights of the content of the articles we write. What are
fishers left with when we have written their story - the
promises of science?
On the other hand one must question
the power that such maps have for influencing the truths of
the biological discipline. The data on 44 local stocks of
cod are not easily available to biologists since they are
published in a social scientific character. How could they
be translated into biology? How many fishers need to
describe a spawning ground before the ICES will acknowledge
such qualitative information as relevant? I could follow up
and ask: How many fishers need to suggest the influence of
the moon, or the importance of motherfish, or other aspects
that so far is not a part of traditional biological resource
management knowledge, before ICES will suggest a research
program investigating it further? And if they do, will they
ever, with the existing scientific tools, be able to
investigate these matters?
Conclusions
Setting focus on aspects defined by
natural science as relevant, we deal with an excerpt of
fishers' knowledge. Validating fishers' knowledge in ICES'
institutions may lead to new truths, but most probably
truths that support the existing scientific knowledge. A
consequence of following the existing track is that there is
a danger that instead of learning from fishers on how to
manage resources, we teach them more about what is proper
knowledge. Fishers have learned from science what is
relevant, ever since science started manifesting itself.
They have tried to speak the proper language, but when they
name certain biological connections, scientists can easily
dismiss this knowledge with reference to wrong facts,
ridiculing the fishers' knowledge (Eythórsson 1996).
Now, after interviewing them for a slice of their knowledge,
they know more about the stock assessment knowledge, and can
start to comply - if they want to be taken seriously, by the
serious people. By this we do not get in touch with any new
knowledge system. We only follow the path we know. So the
paradox is that instead of opening up how fishers' knowledge
can be relevant to management - in a way we are not aware of
yet - we are in danger of lessening the opportunities of
ever finding answers beyond the scientific we already know -
on how to manage resources.
It is also a question of power.
With science at the lead, and fishers as research
assistants, fishers may be left with a weaker position than
had they not had a place within the present management
regime. If fishers are invited inside the management
agencies on the grounds of acceptance of a small part of
their knowledge, I think science's position as the truthful
producer of knowledge might be strengthened further, and it
may monopolize the search for, or creation of truths.
As should be clear by now, I see
many obstacles to integrating fishers' knowledge into
management practices. I do not reject the idea, though.
Rather, we should continue, and learn from experiences so
far on how to go about. I have been critical to many aspects
of our work, but I have also discussed how our joint forces
are fruitful. Our interdisciplinary work has taught us an
important lesson of what we extract from fishers' knowledge,
and that we have work to do in understanding our own
knowledge systems as much as those of fishers'. As such, I
see our project as fruitful. I became 'trapped in biology',
but my interests in what we were doing increased during the
project. At the same time as I was studying fishers'
knowledge, I was studying our own. Through
reflecting on how we managed our various interests through
the project period, it was possible to see the more systemic
aspects of interaction between social sciences, biology and
fishers' system of knowledge, and how these interests are
formed by the very institutions we are to present the
knowledge for.
Unidisciplinary work would not have
given these lessons. They would however, give time to
develop specific professional aspects fuller. But
unidisciplinary projects have limitations. I have criticized
a strictly biological approach to translating fishers'
knowledge into science. I am also critical to a strictly
social scientific. Sundet is right in the outburst I
referred to earlier: 'Some things are true'. As a social
scientist with a constructionist perspective on the world
this fact is hard to grasp. But as Johannes (1993) also
points to, social scientists often know too little biology
to deal with the biological information that fishers hold.
Thus, I think the prosperous way to understanding fishers'
knowledge and improving fisheries management lie in
interdisciplinary work. But integrating fishers knowledge
into management on the premises of existing management
procedures may prove to leave the concept of fishers'
knowledge little chance as a resource for understanding how
to deal with management of fish and fishers. In
interdisciplinary work on gathering fishers' knowledge, the
dilemma is that the focus of social science seems to be of
lesser relevance than that of biology. I see it as necessary
that social scientists partake in this project, but
carefulness should guide our future participation as social
scientists. We are in danger of becoming the useful idiots -
helping the biologists in drawing out aspects that they can
use for their social construction of nature. My worry is
that the meeting we help to arrange between fishers and
scientists, will lead to the strengthening of science's
position in management, this time justified by knowing it
all - having incorporated fisher's knowledge. I think the
most important lesson from our project is that we have just
begun to explore how fishers' knowledge is a resource when
it comes to improving management regimes.
REFERENCES:
Berkes, Fikret (ed.) (1989) Common
Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable
Development. London, Belhaven Press.
Brantenberg, Terje (forthcoming)
Samisk sedvane og norsk rett. In Ivar Bjørklund:
Samisk ressursforvaltning og rettighetsutvikling. Ad Notam
Gyldendal, Norway.
Callon, Michel (1986) Some elements
of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops
and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. pp. 196-223 in J. Law
(ed.): Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of
Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dyer Christopher L. and James R.
McGoodwin (eds.) (1994) Folk Management in the World's
Fisheries. Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management.
University Press of Colorado.
Eidheim, Frøydis (1993) Sett
nordfra: Kulturelle aspekter ved forholdet mellom sentrum og
periferi. Oslo. Universitetsforlaget.
Eliassen Jens-Eric, Ivan Ahlquist,
Jan H. Sundet, Eirik Berg, A Lørstrand, Dag Terje
Jespersen, Stig Skreslet and Svein H. Rubach (1993) Coastal
and Fjord Resources off Finmark and Troms Counties, Norway,
based on the 1992 Survey. Rapport 9/1993, Fiskeriforskning,
Tromsø, Norway.
Eythórsson, Einar (1996)
«Men han tager som regel feil». Kunnskap og
modernitet i den 'gamle' hvalfangstdebatten i Nord-Norge.
Heimen bind 33;289-300.
Freeman, Milton R. and Ludwig N.
Carbyn (eds.) (1988) Traditional Knowledge and Renewable
Resource Management in Northern Regions. Occasional
Publication Number 23, Canadian Circumpolar Institute.
University Of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Holm, Petter (1996) Fisheries
Management and the Domestication of Nature. Sociologica
Rurealis. 36(2):177-88.
Inglis, Julian T. (1993)
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases.
International Program on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge/International Development Research Centre,
Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.
Jakobsen,Tore (1987) Coastal cod in
Northern Norway. Fisheries Research. Vol.
5:223-234.
Jentoft, Svein (1989) Fisheries
co-management. Delegating government responsebility to
fishermen's organizations. Marine Policy,
April:137-154.
Johannes, Robert E. (1993)
Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management
with Environmental Impact Assessment. pp. 33-39 in JulianT.
Inglis: Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and
Cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge/International Development Research Centre,
Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.
Latour, Bruno (1990) Drawing things
together. pp. 19-68 in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.):
Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Maurstad, Anita (1995) Customs in
Commons - Commons in Court. Paper prepared for the 5th
Common Property Conference of the International Association
for the Study of Common Property, May 24-28, 1995,
Bodø, Norway.
Maurstad, Anita (1997) Sjarkfiske
og ressursforvaltning. Avhandling for Dr.Scient-graden i
Fiskerivitenskap, Norges Fiskerihøyskole,
Universitetet i Tromsø.
Maurstad, Anita and Jan H. Sundet
(1994) Improving the link between science and management:
Drawing upon local fishers' experience. Paper prepared for
the 82nd International Council for Exploration og the Sea,
1994 Annual Science Conference, St.John's, Newfoundland,
Canada, 22-30 September.
Maurstad, Anita and Jan H. Sundet
(1998) The Invisible Cod: Fishermen's and Scientist's
Knowledge. pp. in Svein Jentoft (ed): Commons in Cold
Climate: Reindeer Pastoralism and Coastal Fisheries.
Casterton Hall: Parthenon Publishing.
(Forthcoming).
Neis, Barbara (1992) Fishers'
Ecological Knowledge and Stock Assessment in Newfoundland.
Newfoundland Studies 8 (2):155-178.
Neis, Barbara, D.C. Schneider, L.
Felt, R.L. Haedrich, J.A. Hutchings and J. Fischer
(forthcoming): Stock Assessment: What Can Be Learned From
Resource Users? Submitted to Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
Pinkerton, E. (ed.) (1989)
Co-operative Management of Local-Fisheries: New Diretions
for Improved Management and Community Development.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Pinkerton E. og M. Weinstein (1995)
Fisheries That Work. Sustainability Through Community-Based
Management. The David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Smith, E. (1991) Chaos in Fisheries
Management. Maritime Anthropological Studies.
3(2):1-13.
Wilson, J.A., J.M. Acheson, M.
Metcalfe, and P. Kleban (1994) Chaos, complexity and
community management of fisheries. Marine Policy. 18
(4) 291-305.
NOTES
1. Freeman and Carbyn
(1988), Pinkerton (1989), Berkes (1989), Jentoft (1989),
Smith (1991), Neis (1992), Neis et al., forthcoming, Inglis
(1993), Dyer and McGoodwin (1994), Wilson et al., (1994),
Pinkerton and Weinstein (1995).
2. In ten of these sites
there were no spawning today. According to the fishermen,
these local spawning grounds were heavily fished upon by
Danish seines in the 1960s - and early 1970s to such a
degree that the spawning stocks
disappeared.
3. A fish stock is normally
connected with one particular area where the mature part of
the stock migrates annually in order to spawn. One could
question whether one stock may have several spawning sites,
but no such evidence is revealed from the tagging
experiments in these areas (Jakobsen 1987, Eliassen et al.,
1993).
|