WORKING GROUP REPORTS Thursday, May 27th, 1999

Native Ecological Knowledge GROUP A The group considered that the lack of aboriginal participation in a discussion of NEK (Native Ecological Knowledge) was detrimental to the process. Considered that examination and discussion of NEK from a non-aboriginal perspective could present problems of interpretation. There exists a literature regarding NEK from both Canada and various other parts of the world which should be referenced on the ECOKNOW website and used as a resource for the development of NEK projects. This led to a general recommendation that participants should be encouraged to list relevant/key publications on the website. Discussed the issue regarding the requirement by non-native knowledge systems for NEK to be validated within these non-native knowledge systems. The idea here seemed to be that there is both an implicit and explicit requirement for NEK to be validated in the modern Canadian non-native knowledge system. Also pointed out that science is or can be used to "legitimize" NEK. Need to be explicit about whether we are trying to reconcile two contending perspectives (i.e. NEK and non-NEK) or attempting to incorporate one into the other. Are we trying to reconcile NEK with modern Canadian non-native EK or are we trying to incorporate the former within the latter (or vice versa)? This also brought up the issue of potential incompatibilities between these systems. It could be that by their nature there exists an inherent inability to combine the two systems. What happens if this is the case? Which system will ultimately be used and how will that be determined? What happens to the other system? We discussed the possible utility of developing a means of translating knowledge between NEK systems and non-NEK systems such as the modern Canadian system. Translation here being used in its broadest sense to foster mutual understanding. Must be aware of potential pitfalls in such a process (misinterpretation). Discussed the necessity of using proper protocols within aboriginal nations to begin the process of identifying NEK. Aboriginal nations may have protocols for who holds and "transmits" NEK or to whom and when this information may be transmitted. These protocols must be honored. Also discussed the potential pitfalls with this, in that, working only with the identified knowledge holders of the community may exclude marginalized individuals who hold NEK. Given the highly politicized nature of relationships between native and non-native systems, especially with regards to issues such as land claims, the concept of "official ethnographies" was discussed. Such constructs often transmit only that knowledge consistent with present political objectives and silences the dissenting or diverse voices. Straw-man testable hypothesis: "Aboriginal harvesters will use a resource more responsibly and sustainably than a non-native harvester." The group considered that this is a widely held "belief" and therefore worthy of evaluation. Small boat/independent/inshore could be substituted for aboriginal and large vessel/multinational/offshore could be substituted for non-native. With this or with any other system the concept of the influence of externalities must be taken into account. Examining/studying/testing any aboriginal or non-aboriginal system with regard to the above hypothesis must also identify the relevant external factors which impinge on the systems. Also need to explore the communities' or individual's relationship to place. Is this a community of place or a community of process? Consider that the boundaries of place are fluid. Also proposed "traditional use " studies. Such studies could consist of the following: Identification of historical knowledge (proper protocols) Identification of archival records (these are records maintained about but not necessarily by aboriginal communities. Identify contemporary knowledge From those who are considered elders (historical context) From those who are 'younger' current users Over-arching issue---- How to best determine the veracity of the information collected in any study of NEK? or of TEK or LK in general?   GROUP B Our discussion focused on restrictions on the transferability of knowledge. Causes are many and imply research questions and domains as indicated below. Knowledge change, through time (not all we knew 50 years ago is transmitted to the present). Implies a question of lost knowledge. Do we need to carry it all with us? A reluctance to reveal knowledge for political reasons. Implies questions as science's rights in the context of treaty rights, aboriginal rights, as well as lost chains of transferability: being excluded from certain types of resource use for a long period of time means that former channels for transferring knowledge are broken. Knowledge's transferability restricted for cultural and spiritual reasons: some stories can only be told in certain places: Elders vs. Gloryseekers - implies questions concerning facts and fiction, as well as unforeseen, not accepted use of scientific results. The above dimensions indicate multi-fold study areas dealing with the present use of knowledge, and particularity science's interests vs. other objectives. Another question at our table was: Do perceptions of conservation differ in knowledge systems? A focus of study could be conservation orientation, ethics, opportunities, etc., in various systems - science, indigenous, fishers.... Eels and elvers was discussed as a case where science and indigenous knowledge have different opinions on spawning places. Seems to be a question that can be investigated, verified by science. Little is known and possible positive effects of a cooperative framework.   GROUP C "NEK" is often conceptualized as a static "treasury" of information. We must explore the interface between "NEK" and other knowledge systems. Research question: Is "'NEK" dynamic? 1 . If it is changing - what is the nature of this change? Loss Gain Change Adaptation   2. What are the forces of change? 3.What kind of change? Hypotheses to be investigated: is "NEK' becoming less holistic? is "NEK" being secularized? is "NEK' becoming influenced/informed by science? is "NEK' becoming politicized?   4. How to study change? 3 levels Individual we can expect change to occur through learning/enskillment (example: use of GPS.) Community biographical and genealogical experience individual and group experience over time Structural change can be imposed: influence of government policy, science, dominant Institutions.   GROUP D The complexity of differentiating any type of ECO-KNOW,(given technological change, changes within society, ecological change, political change, etc.), makes it very difficult to say anything about NEK. The distinct research process within native communities (US researchers are obliged to go to the elders to apply for any type of research). Perhaps this would be a model which non-native fishing communities could use (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 NEK: Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.