|
Ecological
Knowledge Claims and the Lobster Fishery:
A Research Design
John
Phyne
Department
of Sociology and Anthropology
St. Francis Xavier University
Antigonish, Nova Scotia
Introduction
We may define ecological
knowledge as a set of claims concerning the relationship among humans,
other organisms and the physical environment within a collectively defined
spatial confine. This collective definition is contingent upon the sustained
interaction that social actors have with each other over a specific time
period and within a 'community' that they consider themselves to be an
integral part. Hence, ecological knowledge claims are contingent upon
an epistemological frame of reference that is considered to be legitimate
to the actors involved. Given this, the claims of scientists, non-Native
fish harvesters and Native fish harvesters will not necessarily coincide
at all points.
Below, we will set
out a research design for investigating the ecological knowledge claims
of scientists, non-Native fish harvesters and Native fish harvesters with
respect to lobster fishing in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The methodology
in question will involve a systematic overview of the impact of biography,
history and social structure upon the knowledge claims of the various
actors involved. A key objective is to tap into the social networks that
actors enter into and leave within the context of their personal experiences
in the lobster fishery. Due to this, it is anticipated that ecological
knowledge will be an evolving rather than static set of claims. Moreover,
despite the anticipated discovery of epistemological differences among
the various actors involved in the study, it is expected that at certain
points over the course of the past 40 to 50 years that the knowledge claims
of each set of actors (scientists, non-Native fish harvesters and Native
fish harvesters) will be informed by their relationship with each other.
Research
Design
The research will
be based upon a structured set of questions that will be asked to respondents
in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence lobster fishery. The interview schedule
will vary depending upon the group in question. However, each set of questions
will be framed by the following issues: explanations for the sudden increase
in lobster harvests in the early 1980s after several decades of low catches,
the dispute over minimum carapace size and its impact upon the lobster
fishery and the nature of predator-prey relations especially in light
of the groundfish moratorium. In each case, the biography of the respondent
will be traced in order to pinpoint the relative impact of changes in
social networks, public policy and personal experiences upon ecological
knowledge claims.
Fisheries
Scientists
Despite the claims
of 'objectivity' in the natural sciences, social scientists claim that
the questions posed by natural scientists and the interpretations they
provide for their data are conditioned by the social organizational settings
within which they operate. In order to capture the ecological knowledge
claims of fishery scientists pertaining to the lobster fishery, we will
track all scientists who have conducted research on the lobster fishery
in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence over the past 30 years. This time
frame is chosen because it coincides with the period leading up to the
recent expansion in lobster catches. The interview schedule will be based
upon the following:
1) Career Path
2) Scientific Methodology
3) Scientific and
Management Experience
4) Interactions
With the Fishing Community
In terms of career
path, we are interested in the experiences that fishery scientists have
had with research on the lobster fishery beginning with their university
research, scientific research with DFO and research on species other than
lobster, but within the same ecological system as lobster. We will trace
the scientific networks that fisheries scientists have entered and left
over the course of the past 30 years. We are especially interested in
the impact of research programs of early (1970s) fishery scientists upon
the questions and programs of subsequent fishery scientists. Moreover,
the use of the career path will facilitate in a Kuhnian sense an understanding
of the potential conflicts and splits between 'older' and 'younger' fishery
scientists upon the definition of appropriate research questions and the
confirmation and/or rejections of early research findings.
It is anticipated
that there have been changes in scientific methodology concerning lobster
research over the past 30 years and this will be reflected in the career
paths and conflicts experienced by fishery scientists. Such methodological
changes are fostered by difficulties posed by early research findings,
and the social networks that scientists have entered and/or left over
the past 30 years. Moreover, research methodology will also be influenced
by participation in research that is based in university or DFO-related
settings. This is due to the fact that the questions posed and the directions
chosen are influenced by the organizational settings where scientists
are located. Of course, university-based research may be heavily influenced
by the DFO.
Career paths and
methodological choices can also be investigated by researching the impact
of the DFO hierarchy and the position of scientists in that hierarchy.
Here, we can investigate the impact of fishery scientists upon research
while they are (or were) located at the DFO, and the contributions of
such scientists to management plans. This will provide a basis for demonstrating
any conflicts between science and management and the extent to which career
paths are shaped by one's position in such conflicts.
Finally, a set of
questions will be drawn up pertaining to the interaction that scientists
have with the fishing community. This interaction will be assessed in
terms of participation in sea-sampling research, Lobster Advisory Committees
(LAC) and the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS). In terms of sea sampling
research, we will explore the impact of direct participation in such research
indirect experience by using such research for scientific reports and
representations to management. LAC are useful because here fishery scientists
may be challenged by fish harvesters with regards to their claims on lobster
stocks and the relation of such stocks to predatory-prey relations and
climatic changes. An interesting dimension here is the claims by some
fish harvesters that the gradual decline in lobster harvests since the
early 1990s are due to the groundfish moratorium and the increased predation
of hake upon lobster larvae. Since 1990, the DFO has also participated
in the design and implementation of the AFS. Since this is based upon
conservation concerns, it will be interesting to discover the extent to
which fishery scientists define such conservation concerns, and how this
coincides with managerial strategies and the interests of the Native fish
harvesters. The views of scientists who have had extensive interaction
with fish harvesters can be usefully compared to those who have had little
or no contact.
Non-Native
Fish Harvesters
The population in
question includes those 'most named' in the first stage of the Georges
Bay Ecosystem Project (GBEP) as being knowledgeable about the fishery
in their area. Since this population is slightly older than the GBEP sample
of respondents as a whole they are useful for research on the nature of
knowledge pertaining to lobster over the past 30 years. Here, the following
dimensions will be explored.
1) Life history in
the fishery
2) Crew Participation
3) Knowledge Claims
and Sources
4) Interactions With
DFO science
Since we are assuming
that ecological knowledge has a dynamic quality, it is useful to explore
the life history of those involved in the fishery. Each of the respondents
will be asked to declare the year they entered the lobster fishery and
how their knowledge claims pertaining to lobster were influenced by their
personal experiences, social networks (familial and crew) and changes
in public policy. The 'older' (in terms of experience) harvesters in this
group should be able to discuss the issues of conflicts over changes to
minimum carapace size and the impact of technological and effort changes
upon increased lobster landings. Moreover, they may be able to track the
impact of climatic variables such as ice conditions in the spring and
temperature upon their lobster harvests since their entry into the fishery.
A dimension of social
networks that may be useful to investigate in more detail is crew participation.
Here, we can explore the impact of the number of lobster crews that the
respondent has fished with upon their ecological knowledge claims. Since
changes in lobster crews may coincide with changes in fishing grounds,
this provides the basis for exploring any changes in knowledge claims
and the rationale behind any conflicting knowledge claims. Of particular
note will be changes in crew participation that correspond to kin-related
and non-kin crew members. This should enable researchers to tease out
ecological knowledge claims that are kinship-based from those that pertain
to other factors. The GBEP study found that those 'most named' tended
to fish from larger vessels and had more licences than the average fish
harvester in the study. Thus, we should be able to explore the extent
to which shifts from smaller to larger vessels are related to changes
in crew composition, and the degree to which the number and types of species
harvested impacts upon knowledge claims. This may be useful for investigating
the claims of those who attribute the recent decline in lobster landings
to hake predation upon lobster larvae.
Life history and
crew participation are useful variables for investigating knowledge claims,
but since we can attribute such claims to a wide variety of sources, it
may be useful to distinguish between informal and formal factors that
shape ecological knowledge claims. Informal factors include life history,
crew participation, kinship, community membership and residence and 'neighbours'
on the fishing grounds. The first three are discussed above, so we will
deal with the latter two here. Community membership and residence are
important dimensions to investigate. Community membership may be defined
as residence in a community that involves affiliation with others in terms
of kinship and/or being a part of the fishing community. Community residence
may be defined as living in the community, but not as being part of the
'web of affiliations' connected to the community. One may assume that
there are 'secrets' which individuals and/or crews will not share with
others, but the extent to which knowledge is shared is contingent upon
ones relative degree of membership in the fishing community. Another dimension
is 'neighbours' on the fishing ground. The GBEP study found that some
of the 'most named' knowledgeable fish harvesters are those who fished
beside the respondent in question. This importance of this attribute may
be explored by questioning the degree to which the 'most named' generate
and/or share knowledge claims with those that they fish beside and see
to what extent that this coincides with community membership versus mere
community residence.
The formal basis
of knowledge claims are based upon participation in the sea-sampling program,
index fishery and LAC. This measures the degree to which fish harvesters
interact with DFO science. Here, three issues can be explored. First,
we can track the ecological knowledge claims of the 'most named' knowledgeable
fish harvesters who have had extensive formal participation with the DFO
with those with little or no participation. Does such participation influence
ecological knowledge claims? Second, we can trace the ecological knowledge
claims that fish harvesters had prior to interaction with the DFO and
see to what extent that experience in formal DFO networks reinforced and/or
changed such claims. Finally, we can directly assess the conflicts that
may exist between knowledgeable fish harvesters and the DFO over specific
aspects pertaining to the lobster fishery. Of note here is the conflict
over minimum carapace size and how this is reflected in the claims of
scientist, knowledgeable fish harvesters and DFO management.
Native
Fish Harvesters
Native fish harvesters
represent the last group to be investigated. Due to cultural differences
between Natives and those of European descent, the methodological techniques
used to investigate Native knowledge claims cannot be a direct replica
of the techniques discussed above, but this does not preclude systematic
investigation.
Since the Chief and
elders are important figures in the First Nation community, it is necessary
to contact these individuals first prior to conducting research on Native
knowledge claims pertaining to the lobster fishery. Moreover, the issues
pertaining to confidentiality can be raised at this stage as a part of
the negotiation for access to respondents. The Chief and elders for the
respective Native bands will be useful for identifying those who have
had significant participation in the lobster fishery. Given the fact that
the Native lobster fishery has been defined according to the AFS introduced
in the wake of the Sparrow decision, and will be subject to different
criteria in wake of the Marshall decision, these factors must be included
in any examination of Native ecological knowledge. The following dimensions
will be explored:
1) Life history in
the lobster fishery
2) Participation
in the fishery prior to the AFS
3) Participation
in the fishery after the introduction of the AFS
4) Interaction With
Non-Native fish harvesters and DFO scientists
First, we will trace
through a semi-structured the life history of those involved in the lobster
fishery. This will involve questions concerning the importance of lobster
to the livelihood strategies of Natives and how this has evolved over
the life course of the individual in question. Respondents will also be
asked to discuss their participation on other fish harvesting activities
and how this impinges upon their knowledge claims pertaining to lobster.
Once again, as is the case for non-Native fish harvesters, it will be
useful to link the claims of specific Natives with the social networks
that they are/have been involved in. In particular, it would be interesting
to see to what extent the knowledge claims of Native who fished lobster
prior to the increased landings of the early 1980s coincides or differs
from those of non-Natives.
Information from
those who participated in the lobster fishery prior to and after the introduction
of the AFS will be useful for ascertaining any conflicts between DFO-based
claims over conservation for a 'food fishery' with the views of Natives
pertaining to the scientific basis of such claims. Here, we can tease
out the differences between the world-views of scientists and Natives.
This can be further developed through information on the formal relations
between the DFO and Natives.
By exploring the
development of the AFS, we can trace the impact (if any) of Native knowledge
claims upon this strategy. However, the LAC is an arena, which is fruitful
for investigating the interaction of the knowledge claims of the three
groups identified for this project. Here, interview data from Native lobster
harvesters who have participated in a LAC can be compared with their non-Native
and scientific counterparts. Moreover, we can compare these data with
those of Natives who have not participated in a LAC. Does participation
in a LAC influence the ecological world-view of a Native? If yes, to what
extent is this world-view transferred to Natives who have not participated
in a LAC? Given the potential centrality of LACs, it may be useful to
collect any minutes or published material from such meetings as a basis
for generating material useful for the design of questions. This can also
aid in pinpointing individuals from each of the groups in question who
have participated in a LAC for a given season(s).
|