WORKING GROUP REPORTS Tuesday, May 25th, 1999

What is Ecological Knowledge? GROUP A 1. The first general theme in the discussion was the question "What is TEK?" The question of defining different knowledges was debated. Are all human knowledges the same or are their differences? We tentatively agreed that there are different knowledges. These different knowledges have different effects and outcomes. This theme was discussed in the context of First Nations examples. First Nations TEK is different from the dominant knowledge. It has/uses a different set of values. It is embedded in/anchored in culture and community. It values the community over the individual. Using examples of non-First Nation TEK we pointed to the possible reciprocity of all knowledge systems. The line between TEK and other knowledge systems is sometimes not so clear. However, the dominant knowledge is legitimized and formalized through systems of science in ways TEK is not. Documenting, recording, archiving TEK may be important to cultural survival or a value in its own right. But it is important to see other reasons for its collection, presentation, etc. The "What is it for?" question kept surfacing. 2. The second theme discussed was the "What for?" This was the clear acknowledgment of the politics of science and the possible political agendas of scientist or communities. We (or communities) may have various political agendas such as development of sustainable communities, prioritizing self-determination or improving the human condition. These agendas are diverse but all point to the need for TEK to be taken seriously. The issue of representation (in ways that make legitimate and rhetorically powerful TEK) is very important and linked to what methodologies, etc., are developed. The complexity of differentiating any type of ECO-KNOW, given technological change, societal change, ecological change, political, etc.: It is very difficult to say anything about NEC in general The distinct research process within native communities, (US researchers are obliged to go to the elders to apply for assent to any type of research). Perhaps this would be a mode for how non-native fishing communities (researchers negotiating with representatives of community for research design, use of results). The US reservation model: there is a danger for intellectual property rights etc., when results owned by the reservation. Two extreme models/situations: On the one hand the 'open-access' model whereby any researcher can go into a community and 'appropriate' the knowledge without even reporting back to the community. On the other hand the US 'reservation model', whereby the tribal council has to approve research design and dissemination and has some rights over it. The presumed dichotomy between holistic native knowledge and reductionist scientific knowledge. Our discussion about scientific knowledge becoming reduced in a management context. The holistic nature of NEC: Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.   GROUP B Common objective among participants: Healthy Ecosystem, continuation of the opportunity to fish. Answers to questions 1. Differing perceptions The groups mentioned (commercial market harvesters, fisheries science and social scientists) are not conclusive. Several groups have EK but are not represented (e.g., consumers, processors, etc.). There is significant variation within each category (e.g., diversity of harvesters) 2. Major differences among ecological knowledge systems Major difference is power. There is a present hierarchy with scientific knowledge at the top as the privileged knowledge. Other knowledge (TEK) is suppressed. It is the management regime that determines what EK is relevant. We are moving towards a paradigm shift in which EK is the basis for management and that EK includes both social and natural science. The impetus for this change is past collapse. The act of collecting TEK gives it power and can be a catalyst of change. 3. Shoals to Avoid Don't rely on one system of knowledge only. Must verify knowledge. Don't place blame but do recognize causes of failures.   GROUP C 1. What is Ecological Knowledge? Fisher Ecological/Biological Study of system changes system (e.g., sharing good fishing spots) The fisher is the biggest predator of an ecosystem Continuum: fisher --> resource <---> environment TEK has many forms TEK varies through time: historical ¹ contemporary TEK has been used for exploitation, to increase catch Reluctance to share TEK   2. Objectives TEK could be focussed on non-harvesting uses TEK needs to be defined in terms of conservation Examine successful fisheries: complete disclosure resource users define targets TEK increases legitimacy or buy in of decisions Make biology accessible to community   3. Awareness/Issues TEK has many purposes Publicizing TEK can have negative results Double bind of nature - TEK can be used to exclude others TEK needs to be evaluated. There are conflicting viewpoints Trust is key for integrated management Issue of TEK and uncertainty Community is not isolated from world What is conservation Sociological Biological Reluctance to bring conservation without economic return Bias that --custom is good; law is bad --TEK is good; DFO is bad   GROUP D We began our discussion with a review of the three positions Svein raised in the morning discussion, "What for?" While this discussion did not at first appear to address the questions as presented for our discussion, by the end of our meeting we had indeed touched on what the group sees as crucial in terms of defining the concept of ecological thought, and related to this, the role of different types of social science methodologies in moving toward effective fisheries management plans (granted, this phrase, in itself, contains many embedded contradictions and arguments). Points emerging from discussion: Social science can drive biological/fisheries research. One of the most important ways in which this was felt to operate was that detailed ethnographic research can identify important local understandings about fish and fish behaviour that can then be 'tested' by fisheries biologists. Emerging out of point 1, it was suggested that social science research can approach different levels of knowledge. That is, more ethnographic research elicits in depth, detailed knowledge that is highly site (or locale) specific. In terms of fisheries, this would be centered upon a fisher's understanding of the ocean as seen through their gear. At the other, more positive pole, social survey/scientific methodologies can generate wider systems level knowledge that could be integrated with ethnographic research. Melanie's work was seen to sit in between, an approach she refers to as 'social-ecological.' Definitions. Though we started out by, in a sense, avoiding the issue of definition, in actual fact we work with implied definitions of ecological knowledge. At the end, we found that we did have, at the very least, working definitions: Eco-know is an understanding of ecosystems. Different knowledge systems exist: ranging from science to First Nations, to fishers. Issue of labeling. We discussed the difficulties of putting a label on 'non-science' ecological knowledge.