|
- Kevin St.
Martin
- Graduate
School of Geography
- Clark
University
- Worcester, MA
01610
- kstmartin@clarku.edu
Issues Position Paper
For the Working Seminar and Research Development Initiative
(RDI)
The currently dominant approach to
both fisheries assessment and management emphasizes a
numerical allocation of fish stock with little regard for
spatial issues such as the spatial constraints of fishers,
the territoriality of fishing communities, the diversity of
the environment, or the local variation in fish habits and
habitat. Sensitivity to such spatial processes is vital for
both alternative ecosystem approaches to fisheries
assessment and alternative community-based approaches to
fisheries management. My work as an economic geographer
focuses on the implications of a largely a-spatial numerical
approach for the economic future of fisheries and fishing
communities. My concern is to uncover the, otherwise
invisible, diversity of natural and social "landscapes" in
an effort to reveal the foundations for ecosystem and
community-based management approaches.
When looking at the spaces
constructed and utilized by both fisheries
science/management and fishers themselves, it becomes clear
that fishers and scientists have different spatial languages
that are related to their different understandings of fish
populations, an issue that has made management difficult and
adversarial. Fishers operate using detailed maps of fishing
locations that have relative levels of fish abundance and
other characteristics important to fishing. They do not
operate by overall measures of individual species for the
entire management area. Fishers move through, talk about,
and map these spaces in both a literal (they make maps) and
conceptual (mental maps) sense. The information mapped by
fishers may offer valuable insight into a variety of
processes important to the future of fisheries. It includes
information about the environmental landscape (e.g. bottom
types, particular flora, depth, and water conditions), about
the cultural and social landscapes of fishing domains and
traditions, and about landscapes of successful pathways and
places where fish are most likely to be found.
The diversity of the landscape,
important to both alternative ecosystem and community-based
management schemes is mapped and maintained by fishers
themselves. Their knowledge about the geography of fishing,
ignored by the dominant numerical approach, may prove
essential for the sustainable future of the industry. Below
are comments on the spatial nature of fishers knowledge and
some thoughts on methodology for collecting this
information.
Fishers environmental knowledge
is spatial knowledge
Standard models used in fisheries
assessment and management present problems to the
incorporation of various environmental factors into the
calculation of fish populations and fisheries management.
This reductionism of principally numerical models is
reflected in the undifferentiated space that they produce
and maintain. Environmental processes such as pollution,
multi-species interactions, bottom environments, and fish
habitats are inherently spatial and often local in nature;
as such, they cannot be incorporated meaningfully into the
dominant models. However, fishers rely upon the
environmental variability of the ocean; they actively
categorize and map this variability for their own uses. The
complex space that they produce and maintain is exactly the
space of environmental processes thought to be important to
sustainable fisheries management.
In my research, interviews with
fishers revealed very few examples of general environmental
knowledge that was not at the same time
spatial.1
For example, fishers were asked about changes in water
temperature, an issue of general environmental interest.
While fishers could not provide evidence for warmer water by
measurement, many supplied spatial information that
indicated recent change. In particular, several fishers
mentioned the abundance of bluefish in areas further north
than is usual. This indicates to them a warmer than normal
water temperature as well as a change in the relative
abundance of fish species. Even this environmental issue was
understood and expressed in terms of space and location
&endash; where bluefish were found and where were they
preying on other species. Other general environmental
questions received very little response. Fishers were asked
if they noticed changes in water salinity; few could say
they noticed any difference. Likewise, when asked about
spawning, few fishers answered in terms of the biology of
spawning but they knew when and where to find spawning fish
of different individual species. As is clear from these
examples, fishers local environmental/ecological knowledge
is more cartographic than biological.
In the critiques of standard
fisheries models (e.g. Durrenburger 1997) there is a quiet
assumption that fisher's environmental knowledge is not
utilized and is de-legitimated. There is the assumption that
fishers could offer their knowledge to "fill in the blanks"
(Wilson and Kleban, 1992) of a comprehensive, multi-species,
socio-economic research and community or co-management
agenda. In addition, in the US, there are initiatives within
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designed to
obtain fishers' knowledge directly. The institutionalization
of detailed logbooks of fishing catches and locations are
kept by fishers and turned in to NMFS on a regular basis.
However, there is considerable doubt as to both the accuracy
of the reporting and the use of the data within NMFS (per.
comm. NMFS employees). This initiative is designed to make
more accurate the dominant population models, it is not
intended as a mechanism to acquire fishers environmental
knowledge per se. In either case, there is little
recognition that fishers' knowledge of the environment
cannot be disassociated from their knowledge of locations
relative to fishing. Their ability to contribute information
valuable to numerical modeling is doubtful; detailed
information about a specific location provides little
additional data for these models. Fishers' spatial cum
environmental knowledge remains anecdotal under these
circumstances.
Calls to incorporate the local
environmental knowledge of fishers must first address the
particular geography (or, more accurately, non-geography) of
numerical models and its dissimilarity compared to the
environmental spaces of fishing. The spatial mismatch may
prove a significant barrier to communication between fishers
and scientists if it is not acknowledged or expected. On the
other hand, as scientists move toward ecosystems-based
approaches to fisheries assessment, the spatial scale is
shifted and more closely resembles that which is relevant to
fishers and fishing communities. For example, local
environmental processes (e.g. spawning grounds) and their
delineation become increasingly important to scientists and,
eventually, management. The use of mapping technologies such
as GIS are, curiously, growing in popularity with both
fisheries scientists interested in ecosystem-based
approaches and fishers interested to map the details of
their domains of fishing. Perhaps a convergence of
environmental knowledge between scientists and fishers is
occurring through the medium of the digital map.
Social spaces of
production
The environmental/spatial knowledge
of fishers mentioned above is potentially important to
fisheries science. It is information increasingly important
to ecosystem-based approaches. However, the rich
environmental geography described by fishers is also at the
same time a cultural and social geography of industrial
utilization. Differentiation within the ocean according to
environmental attributes, such as bottom type, also defines
the domains and territories of different fishers, groups of
fishers, fishers of different gear types, fishers from
different home ports, those on different size boats, etc.
This social aspect of the "landscape" of fishing also has
implications for future management schemes. In particular,
it is the necessary foundation of any community-based
approaches to management. The social spaces of fishing are
as important to any management alternative as the
environmental spaces of fishing.
This social space of fishing is
largely unrecognized and is overwritten by the dominant
notions of common property and the space of fisheries
produced by scientific discourse. The assumed open and equal
access of fisheries is belied by the social spaces of
fishing that are produced by environmental conditions,
community domains, fishers' territoriality, and fishers'
knowledge of the environment. That is, access to specific
fishing areas is restricted to certain groups of fishers
through a variety of social and cultural mechanisms. An
examination of the social spaces of fishing and how they are
constructed makes it clear that fisheries are rarely open
access in other than a narrow legal sense.
The social spaces of fishing have
direct implications for the viability of community-based
management of fisheries. In Pinkerton's (1989) list of the
conditions necessary or preferred for community management,
there are several processes that are clearly spatial. She
lists, among other things, the following as important to the
establishment and maintenance of community managed
fisheries: a local area, relatively few fishers for
effective communication, small government bureaucracies that
are locally supported, cohesive groups of fishers, and
communities whose membership is clear. These social and
cultural attributes all have a spatial dimension; they imply
the existence of socially constructed spaces that correspond
to areas of management and community as well as fisheries
resources. These spaces, like their environmental
counterparts, must also be documented and mapped at local
scales.
Methodology and
mapping
In terms of the development of a
methodology for assessing the environmental and
social/spatial knowledge of fishers, mapping is essential.
In my research, interviews with fishers included a mapping
exercise or "map-biography" section. Interviews focusing on
map biographies are tools increasingly used by geographers
and other social scientists interested in resource use, its
change over time, and environmental histories according to
resource users themselves.2 This field of
research also uses new technologies such as GIS and Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) to reveal local geographic and
environmental knowledge and to challenge centralized
resource management methodologies. Fishers use charts
everyday and their familiarity is both a benefit and a
difficulty when interviewing; they are enthusiastic about
using charts but their rapid and constant use of spatial
references made accurate recording difficult for the
interviewer.
In my research, fishers were
allowed to directly annotate a photocopy of the NOAA
1:500,000 nautical chart for the Gulf of Maine and George's
Bank. Using different colored markers for each species of
fish discussed, fishers were asked to indicate areas (as
specific as possible) where they fished for each species.
Different areas for each species were given unique
identifiers and a series of questions were asked for each
unique area. Fishers were asked to describe the bottom type
and vegetation, a typical catch, environmental issues, and
the community that frequented each unique area. These
attributes for each area were written into tables during the
interview.
Most of the maps produced by
fishers had fishing areas clearly outlined and potentially
available for digitizing; however, keying this information
to attributes discussed in the transcribed text of the
interview is extremely difficult. It is a problem to match
the recorded conversation to the areas drawn if the
interviewer does not repeatedly mention (for the tape
recording) the identifier label. Matching becomes
increasingly difficult as the time between the interview and
digitizing the map increases. For maps that were
successfully digitized and linked to the text, basic
querying by attribute and by feature digitized is possible
as is more advanced spatial analysis.
From my research, it is clear that
a more exact and timely method needs to be developed to
bring closer the interview process and the digitizing of
spatial data. For example, an interview procedure where
fishers directly inscribe information digitally (through a
digitizing tablet or on-screen digitizing) might be
possible. Another approach might incorporate fishing
programs such as P-Sea, programs that are already familiar
to many fishers. In any case, digitizing or some annotation
of maps in preparation for digitizing should happen during
or immediately after an interview.
While there are problems to be
worked out, it should be noted that mapping during
interviews becomes the medium for much of the interview
itself. During interviews, the chart is referred to and used
to discuss issues in virtually all parts of a longer
interview. Its use during interviews highlights the spatial
nature of fishers' lives, work, understandings of the
environment, boundaries of communities, and desires for
management. In the case of fishers, and perhaps resource
users in general, mapping should be a fundamental part of
the interview methodology and more work needs to be done to
smooth the integration of traditional interview techniques
and digital mapping. The recording of spatial information,
both environmental and social, is an essential contribution
to social science research investigating the potential for
both ecosystem and/or community-based management
approaches.
NOTES
1. My dissertation research
was closely linked with a project initiated by the
Gloucester Fishermens Wives Association and Drs. Madeleine
Hall-Arber (MIT) and Christopher Dyer (URI). The main
objectives of this research project were to obtain fishers
oral histories in both oral and map-biography formats that
would detail their fishing practices and locations over the
length of their careers. Another primary objective was to
assess and obtain fishers' traditional environmental
knowledge. 24 fishers were interviewed during 20 separate
interviews between May and December
1997.
2. See the special issue of
Cultural Survival Quarterly, Winter, 1995 on the use
of geomatics by researchers and indigenous resource users
for resource inventory, use histories, and environmental
histories.
|