A Review of Perspectives from 'Issues Position Papers' BACK TO REVIEW OF PERSPECTIVES' TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fishery Science Ecological Knowledge John Phyne RDI co-investigator Associate Proffessor Department of Sociology and Anthropology St. Francis Xavier University This discussion of fisheries science ecological knowledge is divided into three parts: First, we have the perspectives of fisheries scientists. Next, we focus upon social scientists and their perceptions of fisheries science ecological knowledge. Finally, our attention will shift to the position of representatives of user groups. This also includes their experiences with fisheries science. Although the summary focusses upon fisheries science ecological knowledge, it also incorporates discussions of local ecological knowledge (LEK). This is unavoidable since most papers deal, in some way, with both forms of knowledge   The View From Fisheries Science Although there were some differences in the issues raised, fisheries scientists tended to converge on areas surrounding how fisheries science has been conducted, as well as the need for better science in understanding the ecosystem. At times, this also included an endorsement of LEK as a basis for testing hypotheses through the scientific method. Fisheries Science and Stock Assessments: The fisheries scientists agreed that research has largely focussed upon single stock assessments. Some argue that what is needed is a multi-species stock assessment model which can better incorporate the permutations within an ecosystem. One fisheries scientist indicates that "...ecosystems comprise a complex web of interactions..." and that the removal of one element such as cod will affect the rest of the ecosystem but not much is known about this. The scientist adds that while multispecies modelling is necessary not much effort has gone into this direction. Another scientist concurs that much Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) efforts have been around single specieis assessments, but that efforts at developing ecosystem models are based upon directing that information at the species level. A compromise is suggested whereby a hybrid model based upon single-species population can be used to include species interactions. Another scientist notes how the non-selective nature of the otter trawl has been used to collect data instrumental to the determination of a "...number of species and size classes at once." Still another scientist states that ecological knowledge has, to this point, dealt with areas such as population dynamics, growth, reproduction and mortality. In summary, while most fisheries scientist point to the importance of the ecosystem, they concur that, to date, most research deals with the counting of fish. Science and LEK: The importance of science as a method is raised in most of the papers submitted by fisheries scientists. This is usually contrasted with LEK. While sympathetic to the qualitative nature of LEK, one writer argues that it needs to be subject to testable hypotheses and this takes place within the realm of science. The author points to issues such as how fishers' knowledge of the spatial areas within fishing grounds can improve upon scientists stratify the ocean in order to study fish populations. Another adds that information from mathematical models are internationally accepted, and that science is for the public good. The scientist stresses that LEK is often used to support more narrowly based resource exploitation. In a statement that concurs with this position, another scientist points out that LEK is only useful at the level of the individual organism, it is not useful for ecosystem models which can only be delivered by scientists. Another scientist, while being aware of the extent to which institutional factors can compromise science argues that the scientific method is a "...simple, transparent and robust method of acquiring and demonstrating knowledge..." This is more important for public policy because LEK is 'localised' and not as influential. Still, this scientist appreciates the need for incorporating LEK into scientifically testable research hypotheses.   The View From Social Science Although fisheries scientists are quite aware of the context that they have to operate in, one succinctly states that they do not have live with the consequences of their research. This point is also made by one of the social scientists. For the most part, comments pertaining to the contextual nature of fisheries science ecological knowledge are made by the social scientists. Although some refer to the same issues as do the fisheries scientists (e.g. stock assessments), the social scientists are often quite strident in adressing the values and material interests behind fisheries science. A second issue that runs through some of the papers is the hierarchical relation between fisheries science and LEK, and the dangers of subordinating the latter to the former. Finally, others problematise the very issue of LEK in the same way as they probably would fisheries science ecological knowledge. Fisheries Science, Values and Material Interests: Most of the social scientists argue that fisheries science, and science in general, has to be related to its context. One researcher argues that DFO fishery science, especially since the introduction of the 200-mile limit, has been connected to a developmental logic which encourages overfishing. Another adds that science is built upon a value system. Even the most 'objective data' are based upon human perceptions which are selective. The 'impartiality' of fisheries science is questioned by another observer who indicates that values are implied in the categories that are constructed by humans. This writer adds that by dealing with categories as if they are 'real', science cannot deal with the things which are meaningful for human existence. Fisheries Science, Social Science and LEK: A dominant theme here is that all knowledge reflects social power. One social scientist states that all forms of knowledge, including fisheries science management models, are forms of folk knowledge connected to '...field of social power." Another writer argues that fisheries biologists and economists are better (or perhaps more successful) social theorists than sociologists in that their assumptions of society are more readily incorporated into fisheries policies. This is despite the weaknesses in the predictions offered by bioeconomic models based upon the 'tragedy of the commons'. The bioeconomic model is based upon assumptions of human nature which are more readily incorporated into public policy than the messier and more uncertain dimensions of co-managment models favoured by sociologists and anthropologists. While reflecting upon field research, another social scientist notes the power of biology in that social research on LEK has to be translated into a language which will be acceptable to biologists. In dealing with areas as diverse as the use of First Nations LEK in Environmental Impact Assessments and the divergence among fish harvesters' perceptions of LEK, other writers noted both the problems of having LEK incorporated into scientific research plans and the dismissal of LEK that is variegated. One researcher notes that while LEK is endorsed by DFO only minimal funding is earmarked for this type of research. Problematising All Knowledge: One writer adds that social science, since it deals with meanings integral to the human experience, it is often perceived as subjective and invalid by the more detached framework of natural science. Natural science is often validated because of its connection to a method of inquiry. Despite this claim, this writer and others are wary of the extent to which critiques of 'official science' have led to an uncritical endorsement of LEK. One researcher is acutely aware of this for Native fisheries. Industrialisation has had far reaching consequences for the Native communities in British Columbia. Due to this, any reference to LEK must be treated with caution.While this writer does not reflect directly upon science, this research may be an example of how the intertwining of science and industrialisation impacts upon LEK. Another social scientist argues that much writing on the fisheries links LEK to sustainability, however, this is rarely demonstrated. This raises the issue of the need to connect all knowledge claims to critical scrutiny. The researcher adds that the cultural context can serve to constrain the operation of science. An example is the failure to investigate the impact of the ostensibly benign cod trap upon stock depletion. Here, the problem may be the lack of science.   The View From Harvesters' Representatives Harvesters' representatives also reflect upon the issue of fisheries science ecological knowledge. This is based upon actual experience with the power of such knowledge and the problem of not being taken seriously in management plans. The Power of Fisheries Science: One representative notes that fisheries management needs to be more sensitive to ecological concerns, and that this can be best achieved through community-based management. However, when fish harvesters point to problems they are only used as data gathering devices by DFO scientists. This representative argues that they need to be systematically incorporated into conducting research. This problem is also noted by another harvesters' group representative. This individual adds that DFO research is too tightly connected with quantitative stock assessments, and that fishers' knowledge is more compatible with more broadly based biological and ecological information. Furthermore, "...respected and experienced fishers need the same level of credibility as established scientists." LEK and Management Plans: One of the more optimistic representatives of a harvesters' organisation referred to the development of a fisheries database through the collaborative efforts of DFO scientists and LEK. This overcame the problems of trust that existed prior to the development of the database. Attention was given to the need to use good communication in fostering trust. This dovetailed with the concern of one social scientist for the need for communication and alternative forms of dispute resolution in creating conditions where fisheries science and LEK can meet. Finally, one representative noted that local lobster fishers have to work in partnership with fishery scientists if the fishery is to become sustainable. This can be accomplished through conservation and enhancment measures which are locally-based.   Conclusions The objective today is to discuss fisheries science ecological knowledge. Despite my original intention to deal with that issue alone in this summary of the papers, this proved to be virtually impossible. Most submissions dealt with fisheries science and its relation to LEK. In general, three main issues stand out. While acutely aware of the limitations of stock assessment science, fisheries scientists are more concerned with the method of doing science. Social scientists are more likely to discuss fishery science within its wider context.Hence, whose interests does science serve? What values are at work? What is the relations between science and LEK? Finally, the representatives of harvesters' groups are more likely to view science as a signficant form of power in their day-to-day lives. They raise the issues of trust and of not having their knowledge claims taken seriously.