|
- John
Phyne
- Department of
Sociology and Anthropology
- St. Francis
Xavier University
- Anitgonish,
Nova Scotia
Investigating Local
Ecological Knowledge in the Eastern Canadian Fishery:
Conceptual, Contextual and Methodological
Issues
Introduction
The issue of what constitutes
"ecological knowledge" is germane to many debates over the
sustainability of common pool resources. For the most part,
the knowledge of the users of common pool resources has not
been incorporated in public policies. The issue of the
extent to which such knowledge can be incorporated into
public policy is now pivotal to the future of common pool
resources. In the case of the Newfoundland cod fishery,
fisheries scientists and social scientists have collaborated
over the use of interdisciplinary research for formulating
public policies. This is critical given the collapse of
Northern cod stocks in 1992.
The objective here is to discuss
some of the conceptual, empirical and methodological issues
necessary for investigating local knowledge claims
pertaining to the fishery and its marine environment. In
doing so, I will steer between "positivistic" and
"hermeneutic" poles of inquiry. By this, I mean that "local
knowledge" claims cannot be reduced to, or rejected by, the
linear forms of inquiry present in positivistic science. In
addition, one cannot reify the "knowledge claims" of local
users of the fishery resource. The institutional, social,
cultural and biographical contexts behind the meaning frames
of "local knowledge" must be critically scrutinised. What is
meant by these contexts will be discussed below. One must
systematically inquire about "local knowledge" claims by
developing a methodology for comparative research settings.
Such research can facilitate both theoretical generalisation
and public policy recommendations.
This remainder of this paper will
be divided into three sections: First, there will be an
overview of social scientific accounts of "ecological
knowledge". This will be followed by a discussion of the
need to investigate the impact of institutional, social,
cultural and biographical factors upon the development of
local ecological knowledge (LEK) claims in the Eastern
Canadian fishery. Third, a multi-stage research methodology
will be discussed as a good mechanism for investigating LEK
claims.
This essay is not based upon any
previous participation in research pertaining to the LEK
claims. In addition, the issues discussed here pertain to
LEK claims of fish harvesters. No attempt is made to discuss
the knowledge claims of the First Nations or fishery
scientists. But, any full-fledged methodology for exploring
knowledge claims over fish stocks and the marine environment
will have to incorporate both of these viewpoints. For those
readers engaged in interdisciplinary research on LEK, some
of what is presented here may seem either redundant or not
in need of investigation. Despite this, what constitutes LEK
is a multifaceted phenomenon, and depends upon a variety of
contextual factors that may not be reproducible from one
setting to the next.
What is Ecological
Knowledge?
While biologists have long
considered the issue of ecology, it has a recent history in
the social sciences. In the 1920s and 1930s, the "Chicago
School of Sociology" developed a human ecological model to
conceptualise the relations of humans to each other within
the spatial confines of Chicago. Park and Burgess reflected
upon immigration, settlement and ensuing social conflict as
reminiscent of the invasion, competition among and
displacement of species within an ecosystem. For researchers
in the Chicago School, one"s location in space was
indicative of behavioural patterns ranging from crime to
mental illness. While some consideration was given to the
perceptions of immigrants in the ethnographies produced by
the Chicago School, the mapping of the spatial patterns of
behaviour is the greatest legacy it left to fields as
diverse as criminology and social geography. Here,
ecological knowledge is derived from social scientific
accounts that are biased towards the "positivistic" pole.
Moreover, this research is based upon behaviour in urban
space and the use of resources is not a
consideration.
A greater consideration for
ecological knowledge as being linked to the knowledge claims
of users is reflected in the research accounts of the human
ecology school and the common property research tradition
which is linked to that school.1
Anthropologists ranging from Steward to Harris have focused
upon the material basis of resource use, and the
relationship of this to the knowledge claims and cultural
practices of resource users. Harris" famous accounts of
"sacred cattle" and "abominable pigs" shows the rational
kernel behind ostensibly "irrational beliefs" and practices.
A major undercurrent coming out of this research is the view
that the users of natural resources know a great deal about
what is necessary for sustainable livelihoods. The subtext
is that "official scientific accounts" are not necessary for
sustainable resource use.
The human ecological model has
informed one of the traditions in common property research.
Studies ranging from Netting"s analysis of resource use on
the Swiss Alps to McCay"s work on fisheries demonstrate that
resource users not only have knowledge about the resource
base, they also make use of informal rules (which are
sometimes formalised) to stint access to the resource. This
argument emphasizes that common property resource users can
engage in the sustainable use of resources. As such, it
validates the accounts of resource users and is biased
towards the hermeneutic pole of social inquiry.
Nevertheless, some human ecological accounts are based upon
holistic and evolutionary schemes, which give little room
for the knowledgeable social actor.
Rural sociology and the sociology
of the environment have also touched upon the issue of
ecological knowledge. As Buttel noted in his 1992
Presidential address to the Rural Sociological Association,
concern for the material infrastructure of the environment
dominated rural sociological concerns long before urban
sociologists placed environmental issues at the centre of
the discipline. While the breadth of issues covered in rural
sociology and the sociology of the environment is quite
vast, these areas have converged in discussions over how the
industrialisation of the resource base threatens the
ecosystem upon which it rests. Controversies over finfish
aquaculture, bovine growth hormone and "mad cow" disease
show that "official natural science" has become subject to
as much diversity and dispute as its social science
counterpart. Given such controversies, concern for
sustainable development has ushered in the need to consider
the knowledge claims of a multiplicity of resource users.
Once again, research is divided between those that favour an
endorsement of hermeneutic claims to those that favour more
positivistic accounts. This is exemplified in the 1991-92
debate between Kloppenburg and Molnar in Rural
Sociology.
Finally, the issue of what
constitutes ecological knowledge requires some consideration
of arguments from within the field of the sociology of
knowledge/science. While this subfield has considered
knowledge to a greater extent than the areas mentioned
above, the issue of ecology has only recently become central
to debates in this area. The social determination of
knowledge is the major insight from the sociology of
knowledge/science. Knowledge claims cannot be divorced from
their social context. Even "objective" "official science"
cannot escape from social influences. Social interests
influence not only what type of knowledge is necessary, this
also structures how knowledge claims are filtered through
public policies. For example, the use of fishery science to
measure fish stocks was structured by the industrialisation
of fishing fleets in the post-war era. While a social
constructionist perspective more heavily influences his
work, Finlayson shows how political and economic interests
have shaped how fish stock assessments enter fisheries
policy. Recent directions in the sociology of
knowledge/science have been influenced by phenomenological
and postmodern trends that have attempted to elevate local
knowledge claims as critical for balancing the hegemony of
official science. Wynne"s account of the knowledge claims of
sheep farmers whose fields were exposed to radiation shows
the limits in official scientific accounts of such
radiation.
Despite reference to ecological
knowledge in each of the areas discussed above, we are still
left without a coherent understanding of what constitutes
such knowledge. This is because social science largely deals
with human interaction and social organisation in a way that
references the environment as an add-on. Nevertheless, any
social scientific account of ecological knowledge will be
marked by the location of social sciences between
positivistic and hermeneutic modes of inquiry. In order to
define ecological knowledge, two things are necessary.
First, we need to discuss what constitutes knowledge.
Second, we need to define ecology.
All knowledge rests upon claims
derived from empirical observation that are subject to
interpretations shared by others. This means that
knowledge is rooted in intersubjective human experience.
However, as the literature discussed above indicates, such
claims are referenced by the institutional, social, cultural
and biographical situation of human actors. In terms of LEK,
this refers to how the political economy of resource
production, especially as it is embedded in
industrialisation, official science and public policy
(institutional), the class, gender, race/ethnicity and
kinship relations among resource users (social), material
and non- material practices (cultural) and individual
experiences (biographical) feeds into knowledge claims.
Intersubjective experience occurs against a macrostructural
backdrop.
Ecology, at a basic level, refers
to the interaction of at least two species within a spatial
confine. This is also an ecosystem A difficulty here is
defining the parameters of an ecosystem. Since we are
dealing with the harvesting of a renewable resource, the
ecosystem in question must incorporate the contextual
features discussed in the previous paragraph with the
ongoing relations of coastal residents to the marine
environment or ecosystem. The difficulty here is that the
nature of the relation varies depending on the context.
Given this caveat, we can define the marine ecosystem as
the interdependent relation between human and non-human
species within the spatial confines of aquatic resource use
that has been reproduced from one generation to the
next. That is, the ecosystem is not a static entity, and
changes in the nature of social organisation and/or
non-human species interactions can alter what constitutes
the parameters of the ecosystem. For example, the shift from
coastal to mid-shore fishing in the post-WW11 period has
altered the parameters of both knowledge claims about the
marine environment and the marine environment
itself.
Knowledge claims are divided
between official scientific and LEK accounts of the marine
environment. While there are overlaps between both accounts
(as will be argued below), official scientific accounts of
the marine environment are influenced by an institutional
context, which has favoured the sampling of species and the
forecasting of mortality rates for such species over time.
As such, agreement is sought through replication of sampling
results in other studies. Issues such as water temperature
and interspecies interactions may be factored into such
models. While what constitutes LEK is arguably increasingly
influenced by official science, LEK may be defined as being
influenced by the contextual features associated with the
"local". Here, experiences shaped by "customary" fishing
practices that are, in turn, shaped by social and cultural
factors inform what constitutes LEK. Here, an informed
knowledge of what goes on in the marine environment is
shaped by a concern for survival and not for "replication"
in other settings. Having said this, LEK from different
locales may be shared within a regional context
In summary, both knowledge and what
constitutes the ecology of the marine environment must be
treated as dynamic factors, which are influenced by changes
in social organisation and the marine environment. The key
in investigating LEK is to explore how the interface between
changes in social organisation (including the place of
official science in this framework) and the marine
environment (as experienced by resource users) influences
what constitutes LEK. Given the growing interface between
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
scientists and fish harvesters, any methodology for
investigating LEK must be cognizant of the impact of this
interface.
Exploring the Context of
Ecological Knowledge: 1945-1999
The time frame between 1945-1999 is
chosen because it captures the impact of institutional
changes in the fishery. It is likely that the later one has
entered the fishery during this period, the more likely it
is that institutional changes such as industrialisation,
developments in fishery science and public policy will
influence what constitutes claims concerning LEK. Once
institutional changes are discussed, attention will shift to
the role of social, cultural and biographical
factors.
Institutional
Changes
Between 1945 to the present
enormous changes have taken place in global fisheries. In an
Eastern Canadian (and wider North Atlantic context), some of
these changes have been documented in recent fisheries
social science. Any research on the impacts of institutional
changes upon what constitutes LEK should consider several
issues. These include: the expansion of offshore fishing,
the 200 mile limit, the role of unemployment insurance, the
development of a midshore fleet (35' to 65'), limited entry
licensing (LEL), individual transferable quotas (ITQs),
industrial aquaculture and DFO science.
I remember from interviews
conducted in Newfoundland in the early 1990s that fish
harvesters often remarked how offshore fishing negatively
impinged upon fish stocks. One Grates Cove, Newfoundland
fish harvester commented that with offshore trawlers _...it
is lit up like a city at nights_. And, this was after the
introduction of the 200 mile limit in 1977. A study of LEK,
depending upon the context, should investigate how LEK of
fish stocks has been structured by the expansion of offshore
fishing. This can be best ascertained by considering those
who have fishing experience prior to the expansion of the
offshore fishing that was critical to the industrialisation
of the fishery. In addition, LEK claims can be divided into
the perceptions of those who fished before the introduction
of the 200 mile limit, and those that entered the fishery
after 1977.
Second, the introduction of
unemployment insurance in 1957 added another dimension to
fishing practices. It became critical for those fishing to
qualify for their "stamps". This was especially important to
those along the northeastern coast of Newfoundland, which
has the shortest fishing season in Eastern Canada. Given
this, did the introduction unemployment insurance structure
strategies for "finding fish"? Did this result in the
development of new knowledge claims which did not exist
before 1957? Once again, it is important to interview those
who have experienced this transition.
Third, the rise of the midshore
longliner and inshore dragger fleets increased the
harvesting capacity of coastal fishing populations. This,
combined with fish finding technologies, changed ecosystem
parameters. Here, we need to consider how midshore
technologies have changed perceptions of available fish
stocks and the strategies for finding such stocks. The
midshore fleet have been promoted as capital accumulation
enterprises within the context of the DFO"s endorsement of
the "tragedy of the commons". Hence, it is necessary to
interview the LEK claims of fish harvesters who: 1) have
made the transition from small boats to midshore vessels; 2)
have experienced the transition but have remained in small
boats; 3) have entered the small boat fishery after the
introduction of midshore vessels, and 4) have entered the
midshore fleet after the introduction of such vessels. This
enables use to account for the intersection between
institutional and biographical changes.
Fourth, LEL also needs to be
considered. This dovetails with the development of the
midshore fleet. What has the impact of LEL measures been
upon LEK? Here, we need to account for measures such as
bonadfide and non-bonafide fish harvesters, areas fished,
species fished, gear types and quotas. For example, in
recent years, fish harvesters have challenged DFO quotas for
various species. Given this, has the introduction of "quota"
changed the LEK perceptions of coastal fish harvesters? Has
the introduction of ITQs influenced LEK claims? This is
critical since ITQs are based upon an endorsement of the
"tragedy of the commons" argument, combined with the
reception of DFO scientific assessments of fish stocks as a
basis for determining the total allowable catch (TAC) for
ITQ fisheries.
Fifth, there is an emerging debate
over the impact of industrial aquaculture upon the marine
ecosystem. In some cases, coastal fishing populations have
endorsed aquaculture and, in other cases, these populations
have opposed aquaculture. One finds these variations in
several jurisdictions in the North Atlantic. These
variations are especially pertinent to Nova Scotia. In
contrast to the developments discussed above, the impact of
industrial aquaculture upon the articulation of various LEK
claims cannot be divorced from the role played by coastal
residents divorced from the fishery. That is, have such
residents influenced what constitutes LEK in areas where
there are disputes over aquaculture? Are LEK claims
pertaining to the impact of aquaculture different in cases
where fish harvesters pose little or no opposition to
aquaculture? Does it matter if we are dealing with a
primarily small boat, fixed gear and multiple species
fishery or with a midshore mobile gear and single species
fishery?
The final institutional
development, which requires consideration, is the role of
DFO science. Once again, the best strategy is to trace the
intersection between institutional and biographical factors.
Since the post-war period, DFO scientists have been directly
involved with coastal fishing populations in order to
conduct surveys of fish stocks. It is perhaps difficult
today to find an active fish harvester who has not been
influenced in some way by DFO science. Given this, what is
the impact of DFO science upon LEK? Are there cases of LEK
claims which have been given to DFO scientists for further
assessment (especially since before 1992)? Here, it will be
critical to interview those who were fishing prior to the
expansion of DFO scientific activity, and compare their
views with those who have entered the fishery in recent
years.
Social, Cultural and
Biographical Changes
In discussing social, cultural and
biographical changes, we will consider several factors.
These include: the role of kinship and family lineage, crew
structure, interaction on the fishing grounds, participation
in customary access rights such as lobster berth draws,
species fished, the use of fixed and/or mobile gear,
reference to accumulation or livelihood strategies as the
orientation towards fishing and organisational
affiliation.
It is well known that kinship
factors play a vital role in recruitment to small boat
fishing. Moreover, male-kin are prioritized in such
recruitment. Research by Palmer and Sinclair in Northwest
Newfoundland has shown that while kinship is vital to small
boat fishers engaged in domestic commodity production, it
declined as a recruitment mechanism for the inshore dragger
fleet. Any consideration of LEK must account for the role of
kinship. How are LEK claims passed down from one generation
to the next? Are these claims subject to modification or
rejection depending upon participation in small boat and/or
midshore fisheries? These issues can only be addressed if
the research design includes kin relations that have fished
together. Ideally, a deliberate sampling of kin relations
over three generations would be useful. This will enable
researchers to account for the impact of institutional
changes upon kin-based LEK claims.
While there are cases of female
fish harvesters, not much is known about their entry into
the fishery. Despite this, it would be useful to consider
the LEK claims of both male and female fish harvesters in
each of the research sites. In addition, in examining
intergenerational kin-based LEK, the spouses of deceased
"prominent" fish harvesters could prove to be
important.
Family lineage, while based upon
kinship, should be used as separate variable. The research
should aim to identify prominent families that are involved
in the development of LEK claims. As is the case for the
issue raised above, an intergenerational data set would be
useful for exploring the impact of institutional changes
upon familial claims to LEK.
Crew size and structure might also
prove significant. That is, Simmel's claim that numbers are
significant for social life might prove pertinent in the
determination of LEK. In that regard, are there differences
in the knowledge claims of fish harvesters that fish alone
(or have spent most of their fishing life as solitary fish
harvesters) versus those that fish in pairs or in larger
crews? Moreover, are larger crews (3 or more) characterised
by exclusive kin relations different than those where
non-kin are recruited? Does this differ in terms of vessel
size?
What about social interaction on
the fishing ground? Does the density of social interaction
on the fishing ground impact upon knowledge claims? Here, it
would be useful to identify historically derived fishing
grounds and map the relation of such grounds to social
interaction variables. Fishing next to a particular crew, or
set of crews, may give rise to spatially defined claims
about the ecosystem. Moreover, the existence of various
"fishing grounds" for a specific community may give rise to
similar and/or different LEK claims. And, such claims may be
altered depending upon the impact of institutional changes
on fishing practices.
Social interaction patterns on the
"fishing grounds" cannot be seen as mere random events that
become stabilised over time. "Customary" access rights
ranging from kin-based rights to specific fishing areas
(e.g. lobster berths) to lottery draws for access often
determine interaction patterns on the fishing grounds. Here,
it would be useful to discern whether communities, and or
fisheries, which have relatively fixed kin-based access
rights have different LEK claims than communities and/or
fisheries which us a lottery draw system. These, in turn,
can be compared to cases where "open access" conditions
characterise the fishery.
Knowledge of species within locally
referenced ecosystems also needs investigation. This can be
discerned by considering the participation of fish
harvesters in a single species fishery versus those that
participate in multispecies fisheries. Once again, the
impact of institutional upon biographical features requires
examination. Here, participation in single and multiple
species fisheries cannot be considered mutually exclusive
strategies. In addition, one should account for at least
four different fisheries. These include those in the small
boat single species fishery and small boat multiple species
fisheries, and their counterparts in the midshore fleet.
Other issues include the timing and overlapping of fisheries
and the length of the fishing season for a species within
the area in question.
The use of gear types can also
influence LEK. This, of course, cannot be divorced from fish
finding strategies. The use of various types of fixed
(traps, gillnets, etc.) and mobile gear (purse seines, otter
trawls, etc.) may be influential in determining not only
what constitutes LEK, but also changes in LEK over time.
This needs to be considered alongside the emergence of the
midshore fleet and any shift by harvesters from small boat
to midshore fisheries.
Another issue to be considered is
the impact of one's 'world-view' upon LEK claims. Following
Davis, we may differentiate between livelihood and
accumulation strategies. Livelihood strategies may be
defined as those associated with 'making a living'. Here,
profit making is not a central consideration. Accumulation
strategies are based upon profit making due to investments
in vessels and fishing technology. The question is the
extent to which one's 'world-view' not only shapes LEK, but
also the degree to which this influences how LEK is to be
used. Here, splits over conservation versus increasing one's
catch levels may be discerned. Moreover, the current context
of the fisheries may result in the use of LEK for increasing
catch levels by a majority of participants in the fishery.
That is, 'making a living' may become congruent with profit
making. Of course, livelihood and accumulation strategies
need to be assessed within the context of the wider
institutional, social and cultural transitions in the
fishery.
Finally, organisational affiliation
needs to be discussed. There is a multiplicity of
organisations in the fishery ranging from unions to
associations to the more recent Coastal Communities Network.
To what extent does organisational affiliation impact upon
LEK claims? In addition, does an individual's location
within an organisational hierarchy influence their impact
upon the organisation's claims to LEK? Are there differences
in the LEK claims of those who participate in organisational
activities versus those who don't participate in such
activities? In any event, does organisational affiliation
foster LEK claims which differ from those that don't
participate in formal organisations.
Methodology
In order to capture the
institutional, social, cultural and biographical issues
discussed above, a multi-stage research design should be
employed. The design should include a social survey of
licensed fish harvesters, those who have left the fishery
and those who have retired from the fishery for each of the
research sites in question. The survey should make use of a
semi-structured interview schedule that locates the impact
of institutional, social and cultural factors upon
individual biographies. In the survey, respondents will also
be asked to pinpoint individuals that they consider
especially knowledgeable about the fishery.
The second stage of the research
will be based upon extensive in depth interviews with the
individuals who are identified as being knowledgeable about
the fishery. Since it is likely that these individuals have
experienced extensive involvement in the fishery, they
should be well positioned not only to discuss LEK, but also
to comment upon any conflicting and/or changing LEK claims
identified in the social survey. In this stage of the
research process, coastal maps can be used as a basis for
asking these individuals questions about how LEK relates to
the marine ecosystem. These individuals will also be asked
to identify those whom they consider to be knowledgeable
about the fishery.
The third stage of the research
will be a series of 'focus groups' for each area. These
groups will include fish harvesters who are named in the
first two stages of the research. These individuals will be
asked to comment upon the nature of LEK, and the extent to
which this has changed over time. Moreover, (and this is a
contentious area that will require some finessing) fish
harvesters will be asked to comment upon differences that
may exist over LEK claims. Despite the difficulty of
engaging in this aspect of the research, it may prove to be
vital in determining the nature of LEK for each of the
research sites.
In sum, this multi-stage process
should facilitate data that enables researchers to establish
the relations among institutional, social, cultural and
biographical variables and LEK claims. Moreover, the second
and third phases of the research will involve the collection
of qualitative data, which focuses upon the interpretative
criteria used in the articulation of LEK.
Conclusions
This paper has addressed the
conceptual, empirical and methodological factors necessary
for discussing LEK claims. It is argued that LEK cannot be
divorced from the wider institutional, social, cultural and
biographical context. This is related to empirical issues
pertinent to the Eastern Canadian fishery since 1945. In
order to investigate the impact of these issues, a
multi-stage research methodology is suggested.
Endnotex
1. As most readers are aware, these
are several approaches to the analysis of common property
resources.
|