WORKING GROUP REPORTS Saturday, May 29th, 1999

Marine Harvester Ecological Knowledge GROUP A Topic: Focus on issues of engaging research: What might be useful research questions? Following from this, what might be appropriate research methodologies/questions? Potential Question: Commercial harvesters are more responsible (relative to govt. agents) in terms of achieving sustainability. Refinement of question: How to define 'small-boat' fishers, are they necessarily independent? Is there a size criteria, or a family structure? (There is useful literature that looks at crews/skippers, co-ops success/failures see Davis, Jentoft, Menzies among others). By reference to map of NS, Davis asks how could a local management plan be put in place in the context of mobile stocks? Some groups have the fish hit first in their area. How to manage it? Is there someway that local ecoknow can assist in this process? Davis offered a description of ecological knowledge as a 'biological' issue. Through discussions of 'fish' we learn about ecological understandings (in an earlier meeting a similar process was described), in terms of local first at gear, hence related point. Important point, often fishers are not interested in the same thing as the researcher. We believe that the two separate interests can be accommodated and brought together.   RELATED ISSUES: Sustainability: A generation ago we didn't need to look at sustainability -- but now we do. In the context of resource decline, it is more important than ever to have a 'good' understanding of the ecosystem. Issue of CPUE, as declines tend to increase efforts.   POSSIBLE QUESTIONS: Has there been a decline of ecological knowledge in the context of regulating fisheries? How does this change, or what are the implications of being hooked into a wider market? Orientation on boats, increasing technology on boats, safer boat, fewer deaths at sea. Relation between an activity, knowledge, and contexts within which fishing occurs. Lost knowledge, broken chains of knowledge. Two types of knowledge: Harvesting knowledge versus marketing/aider issue knowledge.   KEY QUESTIONS: We are assuming that there is a body of knowledge out there: This leads to questions: What is this knowledge? What are its parameters? How does it relate to more effective fish management? Also, we assume that ecological knowledge is essential for achieving local, community-based knowledge. Problems, related to overlapping local claims. How does one establish local management in this context? Are there important 'secrets'? The belief that there are 'secrets' out there is an impediment to ecological research. This sort of work could lead to a 'legitimizing' claim: we know what we are doing and it is important to recognize this. Useful in process toward establishing community-based management.   POSSIBLE RESEARCH AIMS: Documenting historical rootedness of community, length of fishing involvement, types of gear use, basis of rights claim. Does territory lead to legitimacy of claims? Ecological knowledge is an important claim legitimizing involvement in local man. Utility in documenting ecoknow if it is to be used to develop a management plan. Process would require an inter-disciplinary team.   BASIS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM: Ecoknow is crucial in the legitimization process in establishing a claim by local fishers to be involved in community-based research. Utility in documenting ecoknow for management purposes.   IMPORTANT QUESTION: How do we operationalize these points?   COMMENTARY: If the information gathered is to be taken seriously, it needs to be structured so that those on the receiving end take it seriously. This implies a certain form in terms of the presentation of the evidence. (Question: How does this relate to questions of accommodation/collaboration/ cooperation? ... ). This is a design/methodology issue. How do you organize a research program that meets the requirements of validation, etc.? This work is keyed around a specific group of people who have a material interest. The question is: How do you gather this information so that those with whom they must negotiate will take it seriously? Also the group itself needs to be able to feel comfortable with the results/methods. (OTHER QUESTION RAISED Is there an overwhelming desire on the part of harvesters for local management? ) So, what can we do, how might we operationalize these questions? Social historical context needs to be documented (descriptions of family history, length of time in a region, the nature of being in place). The relationship between an institution and a community is important. It is a critical responsible feature of conducting research and in combating dis-empowerment of community groups. Serious attention must be paid to local/socio-historical contexts because the context of the lives of people is important in situating ecological knowledge.   METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS: *) Important to do background research, exhaust documentary sources prior to entering the field, then ask community members, etc. *)working with local historians, etc. *)work with organizations in community Determining the shape of a complex social field of players is important, but takes a lot of time. Issues of identifying this structure include organizational fragmentation, political differences, and varying levels of organization. GIS, methodological application? With respect to fishing info, potentially, yet it was suggested that the more precise the data, the more likely it is to be able to de-localize the data (locality looses power over the data). Also, this process reduces complexity. Given that the information may end up with the regulatory agency, what might local fishers risk from this process? What might they loose 'Can we rely upon the goodwill' of the regulator? The evidence seems to suggest that the regulator is not, in fact, good willed...   GROUP B Revisit the issue of knowledge extraction and advocacy. Cannot separate knowledge and power. Should look at management systems not knowledge systems. To realize ecological knowledge has political implications. If First Nations and fishers sat on management councils there would not be as much concern on how knowledge is used. Cannot wait for transformation of management but must find ways that ecological knowledge makes a difference. (research question)What are appropriate management structures that can use ecological knowledge? (research design) How do we have policies which at the same time includes all stakeholders in the research team? Carry on in a way that has participants realizing they are to play an important role in the research process. TEK has been changed by the management structure, in the same way that modern society has changed First Nation communities The question arose regarding whether aboriginal people are resource managers? The point was made that it was a reductionist transposition of a modern perspective. Questions once again regarding intellectual work as extractive. What use would there be in the spiritual aspects of ecological knowledge for management? Are we intellectual harvesters extracting knowledge from a world we control? Is the research project replicating the management problems in the fishery? There is a tension between the social science goals of the project and the views of the participants who have been invited. The harvesters have been challenged with the "nols" of its goals coming from participants who sense the politics of it. Science has only treated part of the problem in fisheries. It is a collective cultural issue, not a source of scientific facts. The project seems to be to add aspects to management which overcomes the deficiencies of the past. Questions have to do with adding things, but in reducing things we can get going on research. But are we extracting or participating? I don't understand that I see myself as a knowledge producer. (Ray Rogers) But the best researchers are those who participate in what they study. The information for research is better if it is directed towards a management issue, rather than a general question. The idea of extraction and the attention it is getting in this project is important. How can we link our points of view and begin to develop a research question that is not extractive? The many points of view expressed have to do with globalization and there is entrenchment. This makes it very hard for social science to be reductive. Science has not had this problem because it ignores issues. There is a sense that science will solve our problems and therefore you do not question it. What is useful in one paradigm is useless in another. The overall goal of this project is to link social science and natural science in the management of fisheries. Local ecological knowledge has been identified as providing a basis which might improve equity and conservation in fisheries management. This research initiative will examine if this is useful by asking: To whom ecological knowledge is useful within institutional scientific structures and local communities and why? Can TEK bridge the gap between scientist managers and local communities? Research Design: Identify core study area that has DFO component and a community component so that people could study up or study down, as well as have an international component so there can be comparison. Over the three years there would be: background research interviews and questionnaires with studying up and down produce documents which can form the basis of dialogue engage in processes that can bridge the gap between DFO and local communities.   GROUP C The discussion covered many aspects of the conference. The topics covered people involved in the process plus, people outside that have interest and could become involved. We spoke about all sectors groups that should be involved in the process. There are many approaches to take. Everyone has information to help the process. We decided we need to have a research statement, this would help everyone understand what we are trying to do. One approach is as follows A specific question: i.e., spawning grounds Who is involved? :DFO Scientists :user groups (community based mgmt groups) :social scientists and others What is the process ? :Nature of collaboration :Development of research tools :OBJECTIVES What are the outcomes? :Types of local knowledge :How is this knowledge used in mgmt   We would have a formal agreement: Creating the question i.e. Focus groups Scope: time, geography (where will the funding come from) Research process and methodology (action process) Surveys Quantitative and Qualitative information GIS Scale-linking communities Management implementation (social science research) Community Based Management Co-management Experiments in management Bio-science results (apply for more funding) Outcomes :Present mgmt plan (outline) Manual on community mgmt (outline) Scale Representation of TEK Rules Functions/developments Themes of research within process   After this process we would meet again to present papers on our findings. We could then compile a book to be used in the ISAR program at St. FXU. We could use three test sites: -working groups to deal with sites, looking at research areas and comparing information. 1 2 3 Site conflict/resolution Local knowledge Stakeholders Functions/development All of this information would be compared and worked with.     GROUP D A clear 'big picture' must be explicated early on. This is necessary in order that the goals and concepts of sustainability can be made accessible to the local communities. This big picture then can be integrated into the detailed questions being asked by science and management (e.g.: community level economic and resource use, over time, can be informed by over arching sustainability philosophies). Community level ecological knowledge can be given, but also it can be built, and gain from other sources (e.g.: what does and how can DFO offer and help, in this capacity building process?). Harvester knowledge must come from all sectors (e.g.: off shore, inshore, individual), and will necessarily include and account for overlapping management systems. The development of an organizational framework of knowledge, before collection, is desirable as this systems will help to organize a community knowledge system to organize the present knowledge to help themselves. Off shore knowledge was introduced to the discussion as its knowledge base was somewhat, at least initially, ambiguous. In this sector there may be: a privatization of knowledge; no obligation to share knowledge or data; different knowledge objectives: no concept or capacity for small community sustainability; a problematic relationship between knowledge and management. This type of knowledge may be of use and benefit to DFO, but how can it be of use to the community? Research Design: With the understanding that there exists a knowledge flow (from and between: science, economic/management, and fishers), and that within each faculty there exists a smaller knowledge flow system, we can begin to focus on more process-oriented objectives instead of what was called a de-skilling of small communities. In a sense, within communities, science is helping inform economics and the management process, etc. The design could include a perpetually developing component. By this we mean the community selects persons to begin interviewing within the community so that in the following years, the community develops the capacity to do their own interviewing processes. This allows the community to ask questions it requires answers for. It then may being to ask these questions outside the community. It may come to the point where they would approach university researchers to collaborate in designing community research questions. Design model I (methodology): - bring together a research team/reference group which includes interdisciplinary persons (community members, science, etc.) in order to design the first sets of questions (more questions will arise, and your questions will become refined and redefined). Move to free-range interviews in the communities (conversation style) which ask questions around the knowledge and experience of fisherman over time in each community (e.g.: about a particular species, particular location, and with a particular technology). This would be followed up with the specific (redefined, refined, multi-person developed) question to answer research questions. Design model (methodology)2: - bring together a research team/reference group which includes interdisciplinary persons (community members, science, etc.) in order to design the first sets of questions (more questions will arise, and your questions will become refined and redefined). This group would be used to help identify the initial respondents. It would also identify people from the community who could participate as part of the research team. - Develop broad survey questionnaire to sample the breadth of ecological knowledge of fishers. Some subset of the community would be sampled by the survey questionnaire. On the basis of the survey results, a smaller subset of respondents would be interviewed in a semi-structured manner to flush out the extent of their knowledge on the questions in the survey and other eco-knowledge held by the fishers. Once the results are pulled together, they would be disseminated back to the community. Research Step One: - Research design to document variations/qualities of harvester knowledge research Step Two: Dependent on community response to initial survey - capacity building, process-oriented - community itself is beginning to ask questions re: how to go about doing 'this' sort of research? What sort of help/partnership do we need to build? Integrate community needs into big picture. How do we accomplish these goals, while you achieve your research objectives?