|
|
Draft Research Design and Methodology for FEK Project on LobsterBarbara Neis, Department
of Sociology I am familiar with two research projects that have drawn on fishers' ecological knowledge related to lobster as a basis for developing science and for improving management (Gendron et al., forthcoming; Rowe and Feltham, forthcoming). In both cases, these appear to have been very successful projects. Lobster fisheries can, I think, benefit enormously from the collection of fishers' knowledge, combining that knowledge with science, and using this as well as knowledge about existing local management to design effective systems of community-based management. The features of the fishery that lead me to this conclusion include the fact that access is quite tightly limited and there probably exists, in every community, fishers with long-standing attachment to fishing in particular areas. In addition, lobster is high value, stocks are largely local and the likelihood of community-based management structures actually working to benefit lobsters and fishers is great. Existing interdisciplinary studies have, I think, demonstrated this (Gendron et al., forthcoming; Rowe and Feltham, forthcoming). My definition of FEK, discussion of research design, methodological issues, etc. draws on insights from these two studies as well as the lessons I have learned from our the FEK study we conducted as part of Memorial University's Eco-Research project Sustainability in a Cold Ocean Environment, and from literature reviews that I have carried out in association with this project and a follow up project/workshop on Bringing Fishers' Knowledge into Science and Management that I co-organized with Larry Felt. Definition of FEK: I prefer a term like fishery workers' social-ecological or social-environmental knowledge to the term FEK. I prefer fishery workers' to fishers because it reminds us that processing workers and processors might have knowledge that is relevant to fisheries science and managers. Secondly, it reminds us that the crew structure on some vessels can be quite complex and in these cases, knowledge may be somewhat collective while also distributed unevenly among crew members (Palsson, forthcoming). In other words, it reminds us that resource users' knowledge like scientific and management knowledge is partly shaped by divisions of labour and social relations, in addition to training, etc. (Power, forthcoming). I think we need to add "social" to the label and to the definition because like scientific knowledge this type of knowledge has both social and environmental components. In the case of marine fisheries, it is knowledge acquired primarily through observations at the point where human institutions, agency and technologies (the fishery) meet marine environments. As a result, research designs for projects to collect such knowledge and to integrate resource users and their knowledge into science and management need to access information on the human institutional (i.e. local management strategies, territorial structure), technological and agency elements as well as information on local ecology in order to know who to talk to and how to interpret the information that is collected. In our research, we have found it useful to treat both scientific and resource users' knowledge as social-ecological products, to analyse both types of knowledge and to focus some of our attention on points of disagreement as well as agreement between resource users, between scientists, and between resource users and scientists. There are several different kinds of studies that could be conducted within the Gulf lobster fisheries that would involve some combination of fishery workers and scientists, as well as their different knowledge traditions. I'm going to suggest a multilevel and multiphase study that combines projects to collect data for stock assessment with subprojects designed to add scientific knowledge to fish harvesters' knowledge in order to provide the basis for a different approach to management. Phase 1:Trends in
commercial catch rates and changes in efficiency: In the case of the Gulf lobster fishery, catch rates are generally assessed based on logbook programs and are measured in terms of catch/haul. Commercial catch rates are integral to much stock assessment science (Neis et al., 1999). The FRCC Report we received in the mailout indicates the belief on the part of the FRCC and many scientists that relatively high catch rates in the Gulf lobster fishery in the 1990s are at least partly a reflection of increased effort or efficiency rather than a simple reflection of trends in abundance. However, abundance may also have increased due to changes in predator-prey ratios, changes in water temperatures, etc. The Report describes a number of changes in the lobster fishery that may have acted to initially increase and sustain catches in a context of resource stability or decline (see also Gendron et al., forthcoming). The very high percentage of lobsters harvested that are not yet mature contributes to the perception that the fishery is at risk despite high catch rates. The FRCC notes that they have not been able to quantify the changes in efficiency that they describe, and that catch rates vary between the different LFA's. The study also raises the possibility that lobster catch rates may have been sustained in recent years by encroachment on refuge areas that have helped sustained the stocks in the past. Catch rates and catch rate trends within seasons can also be affected by changes in competition on particular grounds as well as by changes in the proportion and composition of catches that are actually landed as opposed to pulled out of the water. In short, commercial catch rates can be affected by a whole range of ecological as well as social factors and these factors need to be taken into account when interpreting such catch rates. One approach a catch rate study might take would be to try to quantify the changes in efficiency, competition and relationship between catches and actual landings that have occurred in the lobster fishery throughout a relatively large region over several years. Such a study could be used to reinterpret existing logbook data and as a basis for suggesting changes in logbook programs in the future so that they better reflect such changes. Changes in efficiency might derive from changes in vessel design and engines, changes in fishing gear, hauling gear, fish and gear locating gear. They can also result from spatial and temporal shifts in fishing and from changes in fishing strategies (i.e. fishing pots in a different way). Trends in the number of traps and design of those traps, size, etc. actually fished over time are important. Hauling gear might encourage different fishing strategies and could increase the number of hauls, etc. Fish harvesters could be asked: could you estimate the impact X change in vessel, gear, etc. or the combined effect X,Y,Z changes might have had on your catch/haul? Would it have improved your catches by 10%, 20%? Since changes over time in the size, size/sex composition, maturity indicators of their landings-can be an indication that landings reflect harvesting different groups of lobsters than previously (another way to sustain catch rates) these need to be asked about. If such changes emerge, it would be useful to know why, according to fish harvesters, these have occurred. Are they keeping lobsters they used to return because of market changes, shortages of lobsters? Are they returning lobsters they used to keep? Have gear changes and fishing strategies changed the lobsters they are harvesting. Are lobsters more abundant/less abundant on particular grounds? In order to get a sense of if and how the actual grounds fished have changed over time and the relationship between catches and spatial shifts, the interviews should map the fishing grounds of the harvesters, asking them to describe the depth and bottom habitat as well as catch rates and competition on the different parts of their grounds. They should be asked to identify new grounds they have begun fishing on as well as any grounds they may have abandoned. It would help to get their sense of the influence these new grounds had on their catch rates, why they moved around, how new technologies influenced their fishing strategies and grounds they fish, etc. But also how other factors might have influenced these. I know of no study that has tried to use FEK to assess the impact of competition on catch rates. An examination of logbook data would indicate whether or not, in a particular area, catches are being landed in a shorter or longer period than in the past, or whether they are clustered more at the beginning of the season than in the past. This could reflect reduced overall abundance or increased efficiency but wouldn't clearly indicate the effects of competition. Some way would need to be found to assess trends in competition. Perhaps the best strategy would be to ask fisher havesters to talk about it and see how they assess it and what impacts they think it is having, if any, on their catch rates. When fish harvesters talk about grounds, we need to be clear whether they are talking about their own grounds or those in the general area. I.e. is this knowledge due to personal experience or is it part of the "collective" knowledge of local fishers that they know because they participate in discussions, see and monitor things, etc. but haven't actually observed themselves. Both kinds of knowledge should be collected. While fish harvesters will probably have the better knowledge about their gear and its efficiency than about local water temperature, currents, predator prey relations, etc. they should also be asked to talk about the latter as well. If logbook data are available, such a study might want to select fishers who have been involved in logbook programs for several years and interview them. We generally suggest career history type interviews that start at the beginning of their careers, ask them to identify points of significant change and then ask them to talk about the contemporary situation. Efficiency and other information would be collected for each of these periods (roughly 4 or 5 per interview). The interviews would focus on the timing and nature of the changes and also perhaps try to get them to assess, quantitatively, the impact each improvement might have had on their catch/haul. One strategy would be to encourage the fishers to have their logbooks with them during the interview as well as any receipts they might have or other records related to when they acquired new gear, changed their grounds, etc. so they can consult with these as they discuss changes in efficiency. The down side of using the logbooks to guide the data and basing the study on logbook fishers comes from the possibility that the logbooks don't actually reflect real landings for some reason-i.e. the data are made up, they are inflated because of fears about what DFO might do if landings appear to be going down, some landings are not included because they are consumed, or sold under the table to avoid paying taxes, etc. It also removes the possibility of using logbooks to do some kind of reliability check on the oral, memory-based data. One solution to this might be to run a separate, small study in which logbook fishers are contacted and asked to discuss logbook data, including their assessments of how dependable it is, why, their knowledge of how it is used, any fears they might have about this, etc. Sometimes wives keep the accounts (and may also fish with their husbands) and for this and other reasons, it could well be useful to involve them in the interview. Ideally, the results of this strategy would be used to query existing programs for collecting catch rates and look for ways to improve such programs so that catch rates can be monitored more effectively on a routine basis in the future. Phase 2: Laying the
basis for Community-based management Ideally, catch rates should be developed for individual stocks and official management regimes and areas should match, as well as possible, stock structure as well as local management regimes and areas. When this happens, a good fit between scientific knowledge and fishery worker knowledge is likely to develop over time, those in the management unit are most likely to benefit from the new regime and compliance with new management initiatives is likely to be greater if those giving up short-term gain for longer term gain are fairly certain it will be they and not others who benefit from the results. At present, the spatial distribution of stocks appears to be unknown and, as with other fisheries, LFA boundaries do not coincide with stock structure. There was no information on local management in the information that we received on the Gulf lobster fisheries. Given that lobster are considered to be relatively sedentary, the stock structure of American lobster is probably quite complex. It should not be assumed that all stocks are fished with equal intensity or that they experience the same growth rates, natural mortalities, etc. Logbook data appear to exist in a form that would allow for finer-tuned analysis of catch rates at more micro scales but without better knowledge of stock structure, it is not clear what scales would be appropriate. There is probably tagging data available that might be useful in arriving at preliminary pictures of stock structure but I have no information on these data. They may be too sparse or out of date (reflective of stocks that no longer exist or are badly over fished, etc.) to actually capture stock structure at a level that reflects reality and fits with the local organization of lobster fisheries. One way to approach the stock structure problem and to link it directly to scientific initiatives and to management would be to follow the lead of the fish harvesters group in Eastport (Rowe and Feltham, forthcoming). They established the Eastport Peninsula Lobster Protection Committee which was supposed to conserve and enhance the lobster industry, provide vital information and statistics needed to manage their local fishery demonstrate the capacity of harvesters to harvest and manage their fishery to its full potential. In addition to v-notching egg-bearing females, the group applied to DFO to limit access to their grounds to local fishers. They then identified, based on their knowledge, two areas of prime lobster habitat with an appropriate pattern of water circulation, i.e. for retaining planktonic lobster larvae within the management area, and closed them. Since that time, they have used tagging studies in which harvesters are actively involved to monitor the movement of lobsters from these areas into surrounding waters. They use logbooks to monitor catch rates and they collect data to compare lobster density and reproductive state in the reserves and outside. The result appears to have been a highly successful local management strategy with conservation and harvesting benefits appearing fairly quickly. The use of university students to conduct the research and high school students to plot the data from the research have added to the broader benefits of this project and to local awareness of an commitment to its success. Using areas of prime lobster habitat with an appropriate pattern of water circulation, i.e. for retaining planktonic lobster larvae within the management area, as a proxy for stock structure, scientifically evaluating these and closing some of them might resolve the conservation problems created by poor knowledge about stock structure-such habitats might protect many stocks. It is possible, however, that some stocks do not have prime habitat areas (they are marginal) or that their prime habitat areas have been destroyed by pollution, etc. It is also possible that some formerly abundant stocks have been overfished. Thus, detailed discussions with local harvesters, including older, retired harvesters that identify all prime habitat areas, including those where lobster are extinct or no longer very plentiful would be very useful. Closing and rehabilitating these might have little effect on the current lobster fishery thus minimizing opposition, but permit rapid recovery. Recovery might, however, require some kind of transplanting of lobsters as has been hypothesized for extinct spawning populations of cod and haddock in Maine. If harvesters describe spatial shifts in relative abundance between areas, we need to know whether they attribute these to lobster moving (perhaps in search of prey or better habitat), to the effects of fishing in particular areas, to both factors, or perhaps to some combination of factors such as fishing and habitat degradation. Local management and closed areas open up issues of enforcement. The FRCC Report mentions the problem of increased poaching on lobster and increased sale of illegal lobsters (egg-bearing and under-sized). Consideration should be given to the active involvement of enforcement personnel in projects of this kind. The Eastport Area has a two-tiered system for enforcement that starts with reports to a local committee which then refers some to DFO. DFO responds to concerns by increasing surveillance and enforcement in the identified areas. The long term goals of FEK projects should be, as has been done in Eastport Bonavista Bay, to integrate scientific methodology into the local ecological knowledge base. The best types of projects involve social scientists and natural scientists as well as fishery workers and encourages the exchange of knowledge between the groups and joint participation in monitoring, research, management and enforcement.
|