Local knowledge

Well-functioning communities contain untapped human and capital re- sources that should be put to use (Jentoft et al. 1998). Traditional knowledge, generations-old adaptations, and self-regulating principles have helped vari- ous groups to survive in the long-term and have the potential to improve sus- tainability on both the social and the environmental level (Johannes 1989).

8 For a wider definition of participation, including the dimensions and types of participation, I would like to refer to Uphoff 1984; Drijver 1991; Pretty 1994; and Harkes 1995.

These cultural and social qualities of human societies are assets or ‘social capital’(Jentoft et al. 1998). Incorporation of this social capital into fisheries management is thought important in reversing negative social and environ- mental impacts and in building more socially and environmentally stable systems that are efficient and legitimate (McCay and Jentoft 1996; Milton 1996; Pomeroy and Berkes 1997; Ribot 2002; Raakjær Nielsen et al. 2004). The use of local environmental knowledge however has to be dealt with criti- cally and limitations need to be acknowledged. Some knowledge, for exam- ple, is secret and therefore inaccessible to outsiders or certain groups in the community. Also the fact that people’s view is based on a limited geographi- cal locality can cause blind spots or worse. ‘Local ignorance’ can form a seri- ous obstruction in negotiations or the establishment of a fisheries manage- ment scheme.9 _{In many places people are simply in denial of environmental}

problems and blame it on God or other externalities. This is also my personal experience: ‘C’est a Dieu’ is repeatedly heard in north Cameroon when peo- ple are asked why their fish catches are in decline (Harkes 1994).

Scepticism in the use of local knowledge in environmental management is also expressed by Ellen and Harris (2000) who state: ‘The claims for the environmental wisdom of local people have sometimes been misjudged and naïve.’ The establishment of a property rights regime may be difficult in a culture where people believe that nature is not a commodity to be bought, sold or preserved (Posey 1999). In principle, these understandings of the world are as valid as any other expression of local knowledge, were it not that particular ideas or perceptions in fact refrain people from environmentally sustainable behaviour. The way various groups tackle environmental prob- lems thus is a reflection of diversity, both culturally as well as in terms of biodiversity (Slikkerveer 1999). The use of local knowledge in environmental management is thus context specific and requires careful consideration. One of the main current challenges expressed in the search for solutions to environmental problems, is to combine or integrate local knowledge and so- called ‘global knowledge’. Despite increasing willingness on the part of fish- eries managers to make use of local knowledge found in the communities, the integration of local ecological knowledge and research-based scientific knowledge into a common basis for management decisions remains a diffi- cult task (Hobart 1993; Raakjær Nielsen et al. 2004). In fisheries, there seems to be a fundamental gap in the perception of the condition of the stocks be-

9 It also refers to ‘ignorance’ in relation to scientific knowledge for social and economic develop- ment. Ignorance is not a simple antithesis of knowledge, writes Hobart (1993). It is a state which people attribute to others and is laden with moral judgement. The relationship of developers and those to-be-developed is constituted by the developers’ knowledge and categories. Knowledge of people being developed is ignored or treated as a mere obstacle to development.

tween fishing communities, scientists, and fisheries agents. The data gener- ated through conventional scientific methods are often quite distinct from the knowledge local people bring in, and which is by default context specific and qualitative in nature. To make use of this knowledge, it is often redefined and extracted from its context (Agrawal 1995 and Warren et al. 1995 in Ellen and Harris 2000). Ellen and Harris (2000) warn for this so-called ‘decontex- tualisation’ of knowledge.10

To prevent decontextualisation, it may prove useful to identify the different purposes for which knowledge is used and extracted and make the process explicit as Seixas and Berkes (2004) do in their description of the Ibiraquera lagoon fishery in Brazil. They present mechanisms to deal with different types of knowledge in the interactions among management institutions across political scales and administrative sectors. For this, they distinguish three purposes for a common knowledge base: (1) to provide information for decision-making, (2) to minimise differences in stakeholders’ understand- ing of problems, and (3) to provide input to management coordination at a larger scale. In the search for fisheries management plans that allow both traditional and scientific knowledge to feed in, the above categorisation may be useful as it helps to define what type of knowledge is used for what pur- pose. It is also important to look at how local perspectives are included in the decision-making process. By making the process of explicit and placing it the context, local knowledge, even though only partially used and extracted, is acknowledged, credited and – in its limited form – useful in combination with scientific knowledge in management.