To what extent does the social and traditional knowledge of fishermen contribute to fisheries science and management of resources in developing countries?
The context here is fisheries resources in poor developing countries where research cost is prohibitive and scientific interest is absent. The social and traditional knowledge here extends from fishermen livelihood, knowledge of resources, fish behavior and ecology.
Many wonderful responses. Let me share my own research experience in India's west coast, involving traditional fisherfolk communities. In 1988-89, there was a Red Tide phenomenon in a stretch of west coast - an important periodic event which marine scientists have been struggling over a century to decipher the periodicity in order to predict. Till date there is no means of prediction qua "scientific fishery knowledge". I came across two old fishermen in Karnataka who had predicted - fairly accurately - the onset of Red Tide. The error was a week or so. When I inquired, the old men failed to give any scientific clue. All they said seemed to border on clairvoyance. On closer scrutiny, I discerned that they had noticed a combination of subtle changes in the sea currents, wind direction, and a few signs of fish and jellyfish abundances. It is so complex that one can only grasp the whole system in an intuitive way. Of course it's possible to model the entire system, but no one bothered to ask these questions to the old fishers!
But my story is a little more than the above. That explains why science politicians always direct research funding to Big Science and Big Technology, supported by Big Industry. Along the coast of Karnataka, there are more than 20 fishing castes, each using a distinctive set of fishing crafts and gears. Some of them may use the same gear, but in a distinctive way, and these distinctions serve as "caste markers" (see my paper in Human Ecology ). The traditional knowledge of these fishers not only consisted in understanding the environmental cues to predict or prepare for Red Tides, storms and shifts in ocean currents, but also to maintain the resource stock for posterity through several cultural restraints on over-extraction. These restraints are so designed as to divide the entier fishing niche space among these fishing castes and ensure long term availability of the fish stock, despite centuries of fishing. Then in the 1980s, the government introduced trawlers, nylon gill-nets, and the Danish purse seine technology. With modernization of technology, many non-fishing castes entered the profession for quick profit, and soon the traditional fishing restrictions (such as closed seasons, limits on catch size) disappeared. In just 10 years, the entire west coast witnessed a decline of a few fish species. Prof. Madhav Gadgil (of IISc, Bangalore), Prof. B M Reddy (of ISI, Kolkata) and I explored all recorded history, only to find that there was no incidence of population crash of any fish species in at least 200 years, until after the advent of modern "scientific fishery" in coastal and estuarine waters.
My study etched out - for me - the value of traditional fisher's wisdom in the local fishing economy, fish population, the overall environmental sustainability and food security. This recognition finds corroboration in a larger study published in NATURE in 2003 [R. A. Myers & B. Worm “Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish” Nature 423: 280-3], which reported "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles.” Contrast this with the past five thousand years of fishing by indigenous fishers on all waters, and no fish stock reduction yet recorded.... QED.
[Given this understanding, I beg to differ from John Strohl's belief that there exists "a well and thoroughly developed sense of fisheries science already beyond those specific environments." This betrays a techno-centric hubris and "institutional science" prejudice that prevents or forecloses any scientific investigation into folk science and relegates most folk wisdom in the domain of non-science and nonsense.]
first, the traditional baseline of knowledge needs to be established first. Reason being, younger fishermen's knowledge only spans a few years and what they would call their traditional knowledge maybe different from what an older fishermen who has much more knowledge of fish behavior and the reef. Fishermen can contribute to the science of fisheries by their participation on data less stock assessment techniques, where this techniques tries to estimate the spawning potential of a given fishery population by simply establishing the size at maturity for a given species. this is assess through fishermen measuring their catch and assessing the status of the gonads for whether it is a a male or femal and it it is mature or immature. A fairly simple technique that can utilize fishermen traditinal knowledge fish.
Fishermen ecological knowledge is indisputably valuable and need to be considered, but in my opinion it should be embedded in a scientific context. As highlighted in literature and previously stated by Steven Victor fishermen perception can be biased by a number of factors (e.g. age, education level etc.) and from this perspective should not be intended as a rigorous output. Notwithstanding fishermen daily experience what is going on in the sea and can provide elements and ideas that could promote or complement a scientific investigation.
According to me, the value of social and traditional knowledge of the farmers especially in the rural areas of developing countries is immense. However, most of the fisheries based on traditional knowledge are sustenance fisheries, so it is very very important for nutritional security of resource-poor fishers.
The knowledge fishermen have is tremendous, if not exactly empirical. I agree with Steven though--if you want to get a good idea of trends, don't go to us youngsters. In my own research, I make a habit of talking extensively with people approx. 15 years older than I am and up (around 40 years old and up). As researchers, we don't necessarily have the luxury of spending as much time out on the water as the general public does, nonetheless as much time as commercial fisherfolk do.
The key when using TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) is sifting through opinions and remembering that the people you're talking with may not have the viewpoint you do in managing the resource in question. Don't try to force your viewpoints on them, regardless of how tempting it is--show respect for their traditions, but expect skepticism.
the traditional ecological knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg - the whole lifeworld of the fisher is an expression of the knowledge that they use and how they embody it. The level of contextualization is not easily accessible through parsimony and less still through translations into English when the language itself reframes the knowledge base.
In that we have a well and thoroughly developed sense of fisheries science already beyond those specific environments, then, as noted above, the captured knowledge of those older AND younger fishermen becomes the unscientific, but probably substantial, body of knowledge about the specifics, both over time and recent, of the fish stocks and their habits in that area. More importantly perhaps, the social and traditional knowledge of the fishermen allows you to look at their place in the broader ecology of that environment, just as you would look at any land based predation of an aquatic resource in a full ecological sense. The fishermen will have knowledge of the their OWN habits and practices and they will have knowledge of any other forms of predation that effect that fish stock, so that a much more comprehensive picture of that aquatic ecosystem can be developed, as well as the larger ecosystem, and what the relative fishing pressures of that situation are likely to be. Even lacking scientific interest this allows us to develop a picture of that ecology good enough to be integrated into the larger picture of a regional biome with good effect. Most importantly it gives us the means to discuss and motivate possible conservation and management processes through the cultural and practical lens of the fishermen's perspective, motivating the fishermen themselves to be the change vector.
I disagree about fishermen having knowledge of their own habits. I would probably have a hard time agreeing with the fisheries science part since I am a product of fisheries collapse on the west coast of Canada where the salmon fishery has been mismanaged over decades. there is a level of arrogance around fisheries science. We have fishers sitting on welfare all over Canada (East West Lake Winnipeg, Great Lakes) because the fisheries were mismanaged and the non-fishers prevailed as predators in the regional biome...I would like to recaste the non-fishers as the predators to motivate through the cultural and practical lens of the fishermen's perspective....motivating them to be change vectors!
Actually traditional knowledge is an important asset of biodiversity itself as it has been understood and considered within CBD. Further to the comment and answer of Strohl and my experiences social aspects and traditional knowledge of local fisherman gives real bases for an ecological approach. Above all the strive towards a sustainable fishery has its grounds on traditional way of harvesting. So, the fish stock itself and interrelationships on that context even in absence of scientific interest will help in developing proper actions in terms of proper resources management an dconservation…
I've been trying to encourage fisheries scientists in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta (California) to use information generated by fishing guides. They keep diaries of their catches that can help with trends as well as presence/absence information. It's their job to put clients where the fish are... or they won't stay in business long... They aren't stuck with staying in the same established monitoring sites, because of the long period of data at that site, so their population/abundance estimates may actually better reflect fishery behavior and adaptations to human impacts.
If properly interpreted/analysed/transformed into consistent and sound observations on the status of stocks, species and environmental conditions over a significant period and in the absence of any serious scientific research then it would certainly be valuable but would still need verification if intended for management interventions. It may be a starting point but given the complexity of the situation in developing countries where for example artisanal fisheries are very different from commercial fisheries, the very definition of traditional knowledge would need to be established.
Understanding and using the traditional knowledge of fishermen towards fisheries management is one step ahead compared to what has been done so far in fisheries. The information is extremely valuable to gauge research efforts and gain trust and collaboration from fishermen. Whenever their knowledge is incorporated into management decisions, success in the implementation of conservation and management of resources is greater than top down "science/politic"based measures often imposed by government agencies. Our experience in Brazil working with fishermen from several areas in the state of RIo de Janeiro has been great, and helped us to promote applied science towards conservation of resources and fishermen livelihoods.
I agree with many of you there. In the absence or presence of data/info, the knowledge of fisherman is tremendous and often very useful. Working in management of exploited resources without having the fisherman involved seems to be a non-sense to me. The exchange between the resources collectors and the scientists is crucial for sustainable management, also to explain them why they have to respect the TAC and the exploitation rates...
Thank you all for contributing to this discussion in which most of the contributed scientists agreed upon the importance and value of fishermen's traditional and ecological knowledge (TEK). I am still wondering about the way to convert the TEK into indicators of resource status or how to incorporate TEK into the scientific context to get the most benefit of it. Also if you could show examples of different kinds of knowledge which can result in a valuable input into the knowledge base of the resources. For example how easy, accurate and valuable the following kinds of fishermen knowledge: discards and by-catch, IUU, habitat types, fish-habitat relations, changes in fish distribution, fishing behavior, and fishermen behavior.
Are there any examples of traditional fishery acting consciously ecological or has it been always its inefficiency which helped to conserve the fish stocks?
From my point of view think there are two categories of fishermen:
1. fishermen who fish to live and
2. fishermen who live to fish.
The first could be interested in natural resources because represent there surviving source. They are interested to keep all the species in the ecosystem, to protect the fingerlings and the the brood stock and to fish not more they need for them and their families but their numbers is decreasing year by year because they are not protected by the authorities and slow but certain are moving to the second category.
The second one's live to fish and to make AS MUCH MONEY THEY CAN. THEY HAVE NO RESTRICTION, NO REGULATION TO BE RESPECTED, NO LIMIT and what they do not realize, very soon NO FUTURE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
Who and how is possible to be involved, as a researcher, in saving our en-dangerous species and to offer to our children the chance to taste at least, this great food: wild FISH!
The traditional knowledge that allowed them to think about the fish environment and stocks with reverence and value has been debased by science and now science should come to the rescue??
Dr. Marlene, the context in this question is poor developing countries where almost no scientific research conducted and research cost is prohibitive. Don't you think that fishermen knowledge is much better than to keep idle, at least to draw some indicators on stock status, and trends. Knowledge of fish behavior for example can be used to set management measures (esp. marine protected areas) and knowledge of spawning grounds and timing can be used to set spatial and temporal bans on fishing.
Natheer of course I agree that there needs to be a scientific assessment of the stock...I hail from British Columbia Canada where this is an ongoing fiasco between government and non-governmental scientist and indigenous fishers. I can think of the differences between relatives who use both scientific and indigenous knowledge in their fishing and then others who are like Carmen suggests fish to live or live to fish...but its not that simple as the economics change its more likely fishers will sell the fish for cash even if it produces more value if it were used as food for their initially growing families. Because both better food production or more cash is usually associated with more children even if traditional knowledge around fisheries included knolwedge that limited family size through ritual activity where as scientific logic historically suggested it was "old wives" tales or superstition that was involved. These are living systems and usually there is little about how the whole family and often whole village is involved in the system of knowledge that supports a fishery. This fall I am going home to revive some of that knowledge through a small grant I just received from the Institute of Coastal Research at Vancouver Island University to bring grandmothers and granddaughters together around Oncorhynchus keta or Hin-quaas (Nuuchahnulth) to reactivate indigenous knowledge tropes in which women participated in the fishery. Keta or Chum or Dog salmon was the staple and as it is not a value commercial fish it has also been devalued in the indigenous community because its not "worth money". However its name literally means "gift to the People", its cultural value needs to be revitalized and revived to assure that communities remember the values in their ecosystem that have assured their survivance for millenia rather than take on values from a global system that is unsustainable. the metaphor lives within tropes...just as fish live in specific ecosystems...
http://academia.edu/539755/Nuu-chah-nulth_Strategy_of_Hahuulthi_Indigenous_Cultural_Survivance
This is a very interest question and the various comments are crucial. Lack of funds creates the absence of scientific interest in any developing country. Otherwise in order to diversify livelihoods and incomes for these poor people, all resources are important. And there is need to inform the policy makers. With the current aquatic resources degradation, social and traditional knowledge of the fisher forks is very important for any management and conservation approach. Policy makers easily understand social and economic impact of any resource. Compare socio and economic impact of those resources to the fishers’ livelihoods. This brings forward the direct importance of the fishery at local and regional scale. The fisher forks knowledge forms a basis for any approach designed, how have they preserved or degraded the fishery? Can they take up modern ways of management?
Or can modern ways of managment deal with the indigenous fisher rights in the context of nation state interests....http://www.hashilthsa.com/news/2013-07-02/nuu-chah-nulth-nations-applaud-bc-appeal-court-decision
"What is the value of fishermen's social and traditional knowledge in the absence of scientific interest in the resources of developing countries? "
in Japan or elsewhere?
Dr Torok
I am staying in Japan but my current research focus in Yemen on the the Red Sea Coast.
Good for you, but even in this case is not really clear what do You mean by "absence of scientific interest in the resources"...
The lack of fund for research in developing countries has left scientists of these countries jobless. When scientists do some research they spend from their own salaries and this does not give insensitives for doing research.
I hear you Natheer...there is only money for the BIG questions rather than the niche questions...I do a lot of work "off the side of my desk" to fund what my husband would call the micro questions...its the macro questions that get funded...but its the micro patterns that create the macro issues....macro answers need to be de-aggregated to make sense locally...someone has to do that work...
Couldnt we say that nearly all environmental problems of this planet are caused by the combination of traditional social knowledge and modern technology?
Its the unconscious schmoosh that the stuff results in when we are unconsciously milling around in it...we need to understand both the traditional social knowledge and the extensions that we are tangled up with through modern technology....which are in many ways merely extensions of the traditional social knowledge...how did abductors/muscles become technologized into atom bombs....sounds crazy...its not really...its a logical progress.....
Absence or insufficient funding is a commopn problem in developing and "partly-developed" countries. Sounds sad. Only selectexd topics, mainly modern ones, are getting funds. Nevertheless, indigenous knowledge should be taken into account, investigated and maintained. Not only in fisheries.
My own experience: Fishermen use their knowledge to catch fish, the value of this knowledge is maintaining their families. It’s naïve and romantic to say that “the traditional fisherman” takes care of fish populations (stocks). Many stocks are certainly not threatened by traditionally fishing gear and hence management is not needed. Voted for your questions, Kai.
In view of increasing demand and better technical possibilities in a developing country however, traditional and as well available scientific knowledge is acknowledged when useful to increase capture rates. Suggestions for fisheries management however are ignored in many if not most fisheries nations, just have a look at the studies reporting declining stocks in developing and developed countries. Fishing down the food web...
I think traditional fisheries and the “development” of a country are two ambivalent things. It’s like the replacement of the hunter/gatherer societies by agriculture and of the latter by industrial agriculture. The shift to agriculture, wrote author Jared Diamond, is a “catastrophe from which we have never recovered.” I think it’s the same in fisheries. In some European countries the “development” has led to the replacement of traditional fisher villages by fishing industry that uses much better equipment, leading to higher fish mortality and depletion of whole stocks.
I have observed a relatively smooth transition from traditional to “semi-industrial” fishermen. From 2010 to 2012 I worked along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Costa Rican and was regularly in touch with traditional fishermen. They complained about fisheries companies and colleagues that had better boats, higher catch rates and likely more responsibility for decreasing stocks. However, as soon as these fishermen got some money they bought a better engine or boat, or some were hired by larger vessels from fisheries companies. They wanted a better house, TV, better medical care and education for their kids. I have seen the same phenomenon in Bolivian farmers that changed from diverse crops to Coca.
Fisheries science I have experienced so far in two European countries and Costa Rica was disillusioning. Data required for stock management was almost exclusively gathered by the same fisheries that deplete respective stocks - fisheries science is promoted by problems caused by fisheries. In Costa Rica two deep sea shrimp populations are nearly depleted and their deep sea habitat destroyed by a PPP project between a Costa Rican university and a European fishery company, which is welcomed by the Costa Rican government. Somebody has to pay and gather the data for research – with no further implications than increasing the academic records of involved researchers, increased ecological impact and economical situation of the company. The most ironic thing is that the shrimp is sold in Europe with several certificates for sustainable fisheries – it’s a scandal. In case you are interested in more information on Costa Rican fisheries, get in touch with Randall Arauz from Pretoma
http://www.pretoma.org/es/author/rarauz/.
I was very enthusiastic when I started a career as fisheries biologist and spent much energy to develop a new method to determine in situ growth rates in shrimp, which is crucial for fisheries management. Now I work in conservation of terrestrial habitats in Bolivia.... Nevertheless I am happy to see that some of you had better experiences, although available data for many fish stocks indicate opposite trends.
Ssanyu, in developing countries we can’t expect much help from politicians; those are the people that just initiated the “development” in such countries. In Costa Rica, politicians own fishery companies and owner of fishery companies have politicians in their pockets. This is certainly not different in many parts of Africa. I remember well the documentary “Darwins nightmare”.
Clear message, the traditional way to fish is the best, it’s not the knowledge, it’s the fisher himself, however, who am I to claim this in front of a traditional fisherman that needs money to get his kids well prepared for competition in a developing country?
Natheer, I like your initial question very much, however, I would additionally ask “what can we learn from traditional societies in generally”? Or “To what extent does the image of the traditional fishermen contribute to development in developing countries?”
Don’t develop like developed countries did.
Traditional knowledge in absence of scientific and government interest is discussed in the article entitled: Common pool resources dilemmas in tropical inland small-scale fisheries. available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569113001580
Many wonderful responses. Let me share my own research experience in India's west coast, involving traditional fisherfolk communities. In 1988-89, there was a Red Tide phenomenon in a stretch of west coast - an important periodic event which marine scientists have been struggling over a century to decipher the periodicity in order to predict. Till date there is no means of prediction qua "scientific fishery knowledge". I came across two old fishermen in Karnataka who had predicted - fairly accurately - the onset of Red Tide. The error was a week or so. When I inquired, the old men failed to give any scientific clue. All they said seemed to border on clairvoyance. On closer scrutiny, I discerned that they had noticed a combination of subtle changes in the sea currents, wind direction, and a few signs of fish and jellyfish abundances. It is so complex that one can only grasp the whole system in an intuitive way. Of course it's possible to model the entire system, but no one bothered to ask these questions to the old fishers!
But my story is a little more than the above. That explains why science politicians always direct research funding to Big Science and Big Technology, supported by Big Industry. Along the coast of Karnataka, there are more than 20 fishing castes, each using a distinctive set of fishing crafts and gears. Some of them may use the same gear, but in a distinctive way, and these distinctions serve as "caste markers" (see my paper in Human Ecology ). The traditional knowledge of these fishers not only consisted in understanding the environmental cues to predict or prepare for Red Tides, storms and shifts in ocean currents, but also to maintain the resource stock for posterity through several cultural restraints on over-extraction. These restraints are so designed as to divide the entier fishing niche space among these fishing castes and ensure long term availability of the fish stock, despite centuries of fishing. Then in the 1980s, the government introduced trawlers, nylon gill-nets, and the Danish purse seine technology. With modernization of technology, many non-fishing castes entered the profession for quick profit, and soon the traditional fishing restrictions (such as closed seasons, limits on catch size) disappeared. In just 10 years, the entire west coast witnessed a decline of a few fish species. Prof. Madhav Gadgil (of IISc, Bangalore), Prof. B M Reddy (of ISI, Kolkata) and I explored all recorded history, only to find that there was no incidence of population crash of any fish species in at least 200 years, until after the advent of modern "scientific fishery" in coastal and estuarine waters.
My study etched out - for me - the value of traditional fisher's wisdom in the local fishing economy, fish population, the overall environmental sustainability and food security. This recognition finds corroboration in a larger study published in NATURE in 2003 [R. A. Myers & B. Worm “Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish” Nature 423: 280-3], which reported "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles.” Contrast this with the past five thousand years of fishing by indigenous fishers on all waters, and no fish stock reduction yet recorded.... QED.
[Given this understanding, I beg to differ from John Strohl's belief that there exists "a well and thoroughly developed sense of fisheries science already beyond those specific environments." This betrays a techno-centric hubris and "institutional science" prejudice that prevents or forecloses any scientific investigation into folk science and relegates most folk wisdom in the domain of non-science and nonsense.]
Yes, Debal....it is as you say...in BC the companies leased their boats to the Indigenous fishermen to take advantage of their knowhow. They even invited the "highliners" to become members of their secret fraternal orders. When the salmon stocks collapsed the Indigenous fishers lost out but the globalized industry just went elsewhere. The local knowledge was not lost but the fish stocks had changed and currently the trend its to revitalize stocks and habitat. This is in the post development cycle that is now a mix of fish farms and salmon enhancement projects. The float in the village is empty of seiner and trollers. The food fishing for the community is organized through the fisheries department that works closely with the government regulators. We just won in court to allow us to fish...before the commercial take...its a small victory for local fishers...who have been adapting to the salmon for a couple of millenia at least. Interestingly there is little support for the Indigenous people that have called the salmon in the streams there "relative" for that time....only support for the commercial potential of the salmon stocks.
Thanks Marlene, for your sharing your experience. This is the general pattern of undermining local knowledge systems, introducing what I call "developmentality" (http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781844077120/), and destroying the resource base of the indigenous people. It's not only with fishery, but with agriculture, forestry and the communitarian ethos of the indigenous people as well... on all continents where Europeans have colonized, usurped the colony's resources, and spread their development agenda in the name of progress and civilization.
Seems to me that the bottom line is how sustainable the traditional fishing methods are. They must know if fish stocks are rising or falling, plus a great deal of other local knowledge.
My personal research experience in the tropical India suggests that the knowledge of the local fishermen should be put to good use. Their knowledge comes handy during planning large scale fisheries projects which have cascading effects on the fragile marine ecosystems. This is a very important issue in this transitional phase of globalisation where in the traditional artisanal fishery are being replaced by large scale industrial fishing.
Traditional knowledge is indeed something to be utilized and appreciated but we need to avoid "romanticizing" indigenous and traditional extractive practices. In my experience in the Indo-Pacific and East coast of Africa there can be significant over-exploitation of resources even using "traditional" exploitative methods if the pressure is high enough. This could be from increasing internal population or from the stimulus of external demand. Good examples of this are the beche de la mere collapse in many south Pacific island nations, the critically endangered coconut crabs, the current decline in Mantas and whale sharks across the indo-pacific. The list goes on. Many of these are exploited using primarily traditional techniques but are over-exploited all the same.
Many good initiatives are in place but even can be misused if proper enforcement is not put in place. In the Cook Islands (eg Aitutaki) for eg they have a system of tapu sites (no take zones) for over-exploited species such as giant clams, but these are quickly raided by the traditional leaders (who are supposed to be the guardian of the sites) when a big wedding or feast is on the cards...
Another potential problem is regarding the "shifting baselines" paradigm. We simply can't say that indigenous or traditional extractive methods have no or minimal impact because we usually have only anecdotal evidence for previous ecological states and if ecosystems shift due to human impact then the communities will adapt to the changed circumstances and there is not necessarily any record of this. A good example of this would be the study that used the shark tooth swords of the Kiribati islands to record the local extinction of particular shark species in historical times, potentially due to local human activity (http://www.nature.com/news/shark-tooth-weapons-reveal-lost-biodiversity-1.11160). This loss is not recorded in local knowledge but only in artifacts.
Dear Alabsi
Indigenous fishers have developed & maintained some local ecological knowledge and practices for generations that can have significant implications in present day scientific studies and on the management of local resources. Although these knowledge systems were not very scientific or as such never meant to conserve fish resources, it would be useful if we integrate relevant existing traditional knowledge systems that promote conservation of natural resources in an area.
Best
Dola
Hi again, Alabasi
In most (developing)-countries, governments are interested in earning huge foreign returns (at the cost of its environment & resources). And in the process to harvest maximum yield, modern techniques are getting their way into the system, pushing aside the existing traditional practices over an area. Today the traditional fishes, in some nations are taking up some other livelihood options. Thus their knowledge system is eroding and not being utilized by the authorities in managing fish resources in developing counties.
Such information can be very helpful, particularly in designing marine protected areas, one of the most effective management tools in developing coastal states. The views of fishermen are somewhat less useful for stock assessment purposes, since the perspectives are often shorter term (comparing catch rates this year to last). However, they are often instructive to provide researchers with insight into factors they have not considered in analyses of CPUE, such as changes in market or management measures.
Hola,
Here is a publication that you might be interested in:
García-Quijano, C. (2007) Fishers’ Knowledge of Marine Species Assemblages: Bridging between Scientific and Local Ecological Knowledge in Southeastern Puerto Rico. American Anthropologist 109(3) 529-536.
Cheers,
Benjamin
Hi all
My experience in Mauritius shows that we can use the experience of the older fishermen to remind the younger ones and sometimes the NGOs of what the baseline is. I recently conducted a mediation between a NGO and the president of the local fishermens' union. The fisherman had 50 years experience and his recollections of fishing the area 50 years ago had a powerful impact on anyone listening and served as a reminder to all of us what the baseline originally was. He also was able to give very useful information on how an Acropora species of coral had in fact become an invasive and was overtaking the indigenous plate corals. This presented the NGO with a dilemma, do we conserve by destoying the invasive? We would on land without hesitation.
So whilst anecdotal evidence has limited scientific value its political and PR benefits can be huge.
All of these contributions are so important because baselines cannot be imported from elsewhere...we tend to do this in much of the research we use every day..for example medication tested on white middle class young males which is the prescribed to other populations...local knowledge is invaluable in this new eyes wider open paradigm which we must move in to for the sake of our collective futures...the anecdotal evidence I started with were stories told to me about child rearing for socialization into local resource cultures...which I applied in my child rearing to find that aspects of it comes from an archeologically verifiable baseline of about 4500 years...generalizability must be understood with all the limitations that come with it for the destruction of the local....we are in a new paradigm operating with new assumptions or which we need new methods and research designs...and none of it is free of the political or PR since the squeaky valued wheel is th only one that gets greased
In the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in California, we've found that fisherman's knowledge also helps to identify "where they went" when the established fish monitoring networks maintained by state and federal agencies no longer find fish where they "used to be"... Monitoring network sites need to be retained to identify changes, but fishermen have to track fish as they move if they are to continue to be successful bringing clients to fish and stay in business... I think those of us in public agency jobs need to keep in mind when we're estimating populations that we may not be adequately accounting for fish habitat changes, and their resultant location shifts, when we're trying to quantify how many are still around.
This could be another interesting perspective: "Seafood menus reflect long-term ocean changes" (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/13.WB.015)
Interesting field-research. I also use to as to old farmers if there were Arvicola sapidus (southern water vole) an endemic species that is disappearing in most of the Iberian Peninsula due to destructive agricultural practices, with large machinery, and desiccation of wetlands biotopes which are peculiar to this species (and other Iberian endemics as Iberomys).
A great Spanish writer Miguel Delibes, also wrote about the cuisine from water voles (Arvicola sapidus) so we know that at one time it was abundant throughout the Iberian Peninsula.
For the loss of biodiversity in the Iberian Peninsula in wet-lands see also the recent question of Pedro Beja: How well is Natura 2000 protecting European biodiversity?
There're old fishermen, who remember well changes and fluctuations in their fisheries and who have, intuitively or not, correlated this dynamics with changes and fluctuations with weather, floods, etc. One can only appreciate, how their memories, sometimes recorded in private "log-books", extend for 50 and 60 years. This, in contrary to much of the contemporary "scientific", even peer-reviewed stuff, where the quoted references are hardly 10 or so years old. The older stuff, however important and informative is considered "outdated", "irrelevant", "unreliable", etc. A pity.
I have to agree, "biodiversity for economic development" is a very myopic way of looking at sustainability. What we need to avoid, however, is a knee jerk assumption that "traditional" methods and knowledge are automatically superior to any alternative approaches. Local people are just as prone to overexploitation of resources as "multi-national conglomerates", in many cases it is just the means that are missing but once those means are acquired then... It is parochial to assume that people wherever and whomever they are will not try to maximise their return and provide as well as they can for their families right now, even if it does compromise long-term sustainability. What needs to be done is to take into account local knowledge but subject it to the same sort of rigorous assessment that we would data from any other source (scientific sampling, commercial catch records, citizen science, etc). All data is potentially useful but must be assessed on its merits, not elevated to some other level simple because of where it is from. We don't accept that in clinical trials so why should we anywhere else?
As long as its "biodiversity for economic development" we have a problem.....its no longer about development but sustainability of species....the human species....we need some reorientation!
Belgium:
http://www.belspo.be/belspo/northsea/program/LECOFISH_en.pdf
we can't ignore the traditional knowledge of fishing community. Till now, the fisheries scientist are gathering information from the fishing community for conducting their research on the fisheries management and conservation issues
Traditional and social knowledge is very valuable given that much of this knowledge represent long-term observations and experience passed down through several generations. They often answer questions such as when, where, how often ,etc. but sometimes cannot answer the "why" and this is where science can assist. In the Pacific Islands many cultures have traditional ecologists whose responsibility is the determine when and where species can be caught, how much. Through the chiefs, they have the power to sanction or close fisheries and/or areas. During much of the colonial era these practises were reduced and now,due to tenure revival, have become important again. Much of the success of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is largely due to the nexus of traditional knowledge, rights and cultures and modern science. Neither on its own may be able to answer all the resource management questions but togther they form a powerful tool.
Traditional fishing practices have in fact sustained fish & allied marine reources,untill mechanisation was brought into the picture.Mechanisation of traditional marine vessels can still sustain the resources,but with the advent of over powered wooden/ferro cement/& steel trawlers,the scenario has altogether changed for the worse. I have come across a number of fishermen who have used traditional methods in their own way,especially making use of local materials,which almost doesn't cost anything & have survived through difficult times.Modernisation in the capture sector has still not penetrated in many remote fishing villages & there the fishermen are happy about their catches.Even in the traditional sector there is a lot of scope to improve upon their traditional techniques with minor changes,even while sustaining the resources. From my experience what I feel is that the last point can go a long way in enhancing their values.
The gist of this interesting discussion is, IMO, the context. The question was: "What is the value of fishermen's social and traditional knowledge" etc. ... when ..."The context here is fisheries resources in poor developing countries where research cost is prohibitive and scientific interest is absent".etc...
I think that the value of traditional knowledge and the share of its contribution to resource sustainability vary with the dynamics of the "context." Even in "poor developing countries" things are changing all the time. The emphasis here is not only on the word "developing", but also on the social, economical, and ecological conditions of a fishery. Old as I am, I still remember how the early outboard motors (in this case Swedish 2 hp Penta engines) were introduced in African artisanal fisheries, sometime during the 1950s-1960s. Those engines have reduced mainly the muscle and sail power needed to get the fishermen in their canoes to their fishing grounds. They've saved sweat and improved safety, but at first had little effect on the fishing itself, and in particular on the traditional way of running the fisheries.
The value and weight of the traditional knowledge and customary management started being affected by changes in (1) demand, often from urban populations, and the consequent improvement in fish prices and fish-to-market transport arrangements;
(2) increasing availability of, however exploitative, local/traditional credit for both - technological improvement (introduction of synthetic netting and stronger engines), and operational costs (fuel, food-on-board). This process had created (3) a new socio-economic system of ever-indebted fishermen and their creditors, who in most cases were taking control over their debtors' catches directly upon landing.
Without getting into all the economic, cultural, and social vectors, I'd tell that the consequence of all these pressures has been in most places gradual deterioration of traditional management customs and the related hierarchy. Economics and politics were taking over, creating bigwigs-owners and share fishermen. Without organised transfer of old knowledge to new generations, the former has dissolved in the ocean's waters. I remember big-canoe fishermen, operating outboard engines of tens of hp; not only that they were not taking a mast-and-sail to sea, but had never learned how to use them. The same goes for their knowledge of the bio-ecology of their fishes, knowledge essential for sustainable fishing. Sorry for over expanding. MB-Y
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology