|
- Alan
Sinclair
- Department of
Fisheries and Oceans
- Pacific
Biological Station
- 3190 Hammond
Bay Road
- Nanaimo, BC,
Canada
- V9R
5K6
- Sinclairal@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Social Research and
Ecological Knowledge Systems: Exploring Research Designs and
Methodological Approaches that Define and Reconcile
Contending Perspectives
Issues Position
Paper
I have been involved in groundfish
stock assessment and management for over 15 years as a
fisheries biologist with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, working on stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and
Scotian Shelf and participating in countless Canadian, USA
and European stock assessment meetings. I was chairman of
the CAFSAC Groundfish Subcommittee when the moratoria were
declared on eastern Canadian cod stocks in 1992 and 1993.
There is little doubt that the cod crisis was the result of
a general failure of the Canadian groundfish management
system and in the subsequent years there has been
considerable research on what can be done to avoid doing the
same thing again. My current feeling is that there is no
technological solution to this fisheries management problem,
meaning that applying new methods to old data just isn't
going to do it. Rather, I feel we need to explore new
information sources and to develop a new way of thinking. I
hope this seminar will provide insights on how this might be
done.
I've attempted to address, in the
following paragraphs, the issues outlined in the seminar
description. These are fairly candid opinions prepared with
relatively little forethought. I am looking forward to
meeting other seminar participants and reading your
perspectives on this important topic.
Seminar
Objectives
This seminar is designed to bridge
the gap between so-called traditional and fisheries science
perspectives on ecological knowledge. The following three
quotes from the seminar description have helped me
understand differences in these knowledge
systems.
"Traditional … knowledge about
the marine ecosystem [is] accumulated through years,
often generations, of actual 'on-the-water' observations and
experiences. In this view, [traditional knowledge]
is a form of ecological knowledge most intimate in and
sensitive to the relation of marine resource harvesting to
the livelihood practices, needs and demands of coastal zone,
community-based, native and commercial marine resource
harvesters."
"Fisheries science… strives to
add to our knowledge of marine life forms and ecosystems
through employment of the logical and rational practices
ordinarily associated with inquiry, the practices of
information gathering through carefully designed studies
employing methodologies that allow for testing of results,
understandings, and the like."
"To the extent that ecological
knowledge is embodied within much of contemporary fisheries
management, this knowledge is essentially a reflection of
and rooted within fisheries science's knowledge system or
systems."
This last point has been a common
criticism of contemporary fisheries management, probably
with good reason. Thus, from my narrow perspective as a
fisheries scientist, I see the seminar an exploration of how
to better incorporate tradition knowledge into the
management process.
What is Ecological
Knowledge?
We participants have been asked to
define 'ecological knowledge' in a larger context than the
component knowledge systems. Simply put, it is knowledge
about the relationships between organisms and their
environments. Humans are important organisms and they need
to be considered as part of the ecosystem rather than the
ultimate beneficiary of it.
Ecological knowledge is applied in
two complementary areas in fisheries management. One deals
with resource assessment. This includes the study of
population dynamics, growth, reproduction, mortality, and
biological interactions; stock status, where are the
populations now relative to where they have been in the
past, are they productive or depressed; resource forecasts,
how much production is available for harvest in future
years; and what are a useful set of management targets that
may be used to guide management decisions. The second area
deals with management. The issues include determining ways
and means of implementing appropriate management measures
and monitoring their effects. To the extent that user groups
exploit the populations at different stages of their life
histories, ecological knowledge is relevant to examining
alternative resource allocation schemes. An important but
much overlooked aspect of management is the likelihood that
specific management measures will have the intended effect.
How do Fisheries Science and
Traditional Knowledge Systems Compare?
Fisheries science tends to focus at
the population level in terms of spatial and temporal
pattern. This is a relatively broad scale covering large
areas, e.g. the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Change is
monitored annually over long time periods spanning several
decades. Traditional knowledge is more localized, in the
area known best by the individual, e.g. the fishing grounds.
The temporal scale of observation is very small, certainly
seasonally but more likely trip by trip. Annual variations
are remembered imprecisely and this memory spans the career
of the individual.
Fisheries science has been
structured around a single species model. Stock histories
have been reconstructed assuming no interactions with other
species or abiotic elements such as temperature, salinity,
etc. Indeed, the administrative structure of research teams
is normally structured around individual species or species
groups. Crises spawn interest in improving scientific
knowledge of environmental interactions but progress has
been slow and resources have been limited (not that the two
are related). Traditional knowledge has developed at a
multispecies level. Fishers see biological interactions on a
daily basis when they examine the gut contents of their
catches, see other predators around and in the fishing gear,
and witness the species composition of their catches
changing.
Fisheries science is largely in
support of fisheries management and intends to be
conservative in terms of exploitation. The knowledge
stemming from fisheries science is public and serves a
public good. Traditional knowledge supports the activities
of individuals whose main focus is resource exploitation. It
is protected and proprietary.
Research
Considerations
Documenting ecological knowledge in
support of fisheries management has been largely a
fisheries-science undertaking. Biological sampling programs
have been in existence for many decades to collect
information on aspects of fish population dynamics. These
include sampling landings in port, observing fishing
operations and sampling catches at sea, conducting synoptic
surveys of population abundance. Fishing logbooks have been
collected from most of the commercial fisheries as a method
of tracking fishing success and variations in stock size.
Further analyses are carried out in the labs to determine
the age composition of the catches and the populations, to
investigate variations in year-class size, mortality rates,
growth rates and maturation rates. Feeding and fecundity
studies have been conducted but at a relatively low
frequency. The information is compiled in regular stock
assessments where internationally accepted mathematical
models are used to produce estimates of stock status and
catch forecasts. Emphasis is placed on long time series of
consistent observations spanning several generations of the
respective species. Information on age composition is needed
to monitor variations in year-class abundance and mortality
rates.
While the volume of information and
the quality of the analysts are impressive, it seems that
important components are missing. Stock assessments are
constantly criticized by the fishing industry. No doubt
there is room for more and better biological data and we
need to find ways of supporting the incremental costs of its
collection. Improvements are needed in the quality of
commercial catch and effort information, which form the
backbone of most stock assessments. There is ample evidence
that these data have serious flaws due to catch misreporting
and discarding. Closer attention needs to be paid to
environmental interactions. A necessary first step is to
formulate practical hypotheses about the form of these
interactions and how to track them. The assessment process
would undoubtedly benefit from increased participation by
knowledgeable and respected members of the fishing industry.
This is being addressed by increased consultation, opening
assessment meetings to the industry, and the implementation
of sentinel and index fishery programs. However, there is an
element of self interest on the part of the fishing industry
who see it to their advantage to discredit the fisheries
science whenever possible.
Some of these issues might change
if we find effective ways of incorporating traditional
knowledge in the management process. It should begin by
developing an effective working relationship. This would
require a similar vocabulary, an understanding and respect
of goals and motivations, and a heavy dose of tolerance. The
process should begin with small meetings of interested
individuals. Initial focus should be on what is known and
agreed upon. Areas of disagreement should be highlighted and
ways to reconcile opinions should be sought. Where
information is lacking, plausible alternatives should be
described and ways to sort them out determined.
Fisheries biologists are poorly
trained in soliciting and describing traditional knowledge.
There is a need for individuals properly trained in
collecting survey data from humans. Emphasis could be placed
on two fronts, description of the natural environment and
the development of effective hypotheses for further
scientific work. Whatever the question, the data need to be
collected in standardized and defensible ways, edited and
archived for future research. The spatial and temporal
scales need to match the issue at hand. If the question is
about stock status, the data need to cover the area of the
resource and not focus only on local pockets. Care needs to
be taken to capture both the good and bad news. A common
feature of public fisheries consultation meetings is that
those who feel there are more fish around than the
assessment indicates tend to dominate the discussion while
those who feel fish are scarce tend to be quiet or stay at
home. Feedback to participants is needed, but care must be
taken not to jeopardize future data collections. If fishers
perceive that their willingness to share information has
threatened their ability to fish, this will probably lessen
their interest in participating in future
projects.
|