Proving Fishers Right. Effects of the Integration of Experience-Based Knowledge in Ecosystem-Based Management

Abstract

This article discusses effects of and drivers behind the current integration of experience-based knowledge in management. The case in point is production and integration of fishers' ecological knowledge (FEK) in coastal zone management in Norway. The article discusses how the principles of social justice and protection of biodiversity drive FEK integration, through analysing a case of conflict between small-scale fishers and cod farming in Storfjord, northern Norway. The case became known for the appearance of deformed “monster cod” which supported the fishers' claims that fish farming was harmful to the environment and thus also to the indigenous Sami culture. Assessing how FEK was judged in terms of its credibility, legitimacy and saliency, the article argues that the criteria by which FEK is judged are different from how other types of policy-relevant knowledge is judged. In addition to being scientifically credible, its quality as age-old knowledge derived from interaction with the environment increases its influence on management decisions in biodiversity conservation controversies where fishers' and managers' interests coincide. The article concludes that integration of FEK in management both fulfils goals of protection of biodiversity and social justice, which makes it harder to ignore in socially and environmentally controversial contexts in the future.

Keywords:

• Fishers' Ecological Knowledge (FEK)
• Integration with Management
• Cod Farming
• Environmental Conservation Controversies

View correction statement:

Erratum

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Svein Jentoft, Einar Eythórsson and two anonymous reviewers for comments, discussions and contributions to this article. The project “Traditional indigenous knowledge in the 21st century” at the terrestrial flagship at the Fram Centre, Tromsø, made the finalization of the article possible. All translations from Norwegian to English are by the author.

Notes

Note: This paper has been amended since originally published online on 23 February 2013. For details of the change please see Erratum http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2013.786947

1. In practice, this means safeguarding the natural resources and commerce on these resources within the geographical area defined as Sami settlement areas (Statistical Census Bureau of Norway).

2. A multiyear Sami fisheries research program led by the Centre for Sami Studies at the University of Tromsø.

3. The science boundary is the boundary between what is considered science and what is considered non-science. Guston (2001) states that “what demarcates science from nonscience is not some set of essential or transcendental characteristics or methods but rather an array of contingent circumstances and strategic behaviour known as ‘boundary work’” (Guston 2001: 399). Boundary work is the activities conducted to keep science intact from politics and maintain the science boundary. Cash & Clark (2002) argue that scientific boundaries are maintained through the work of trading off knowledge attributes against each other. The cod farmers, for instance, can here be interpreted as doing boundary work when doubting the credibility of fishers' knowledge, while the Fisheries Directorate are trying to collapse the boundary between fishers' knowledge and science when giving it increased legitimacy.