Fisheries Management

Capacity building in community-based management

This four year research project was carried out in the Scotia-Fundy Region of Atlantic Canada (the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf) between 1999 and 2003. The participating partners included several First Nations and a number of non-native fishing organisations, non-profit organisations and four universities. The purpose was to bring researchers and fishers together to adapt social science approaches to serve the needs of community-based fisher organisations. In particular, the project sought to overcome some of the practical and methodological barriers in relation to participatory research protocols in a way that improved benefits without demanding excessive transaction or information costs. The fisher groups were encouraged to pose and address social science questions and develop small-scale research projects that served to meet their needs and the needs of the wider community.

This research recognised a world-wide phenomenon whereby small boat, inshore fishers are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their presence in the industry relative to sectors with higher capitalisation, longer territorial reach and greater influence on government policy decisions. The long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability of this devolution trend, if allowed to continue, is considered questionable. The research was specifically attempting to increase the capacity of Canadian Maritime inshore (coastal) fisherman in regard to social research competencies and management responsibilities, as well as endeavouring to improve the approach to participatory research initiatives in fisheries more generally. The overall goal was to help fisherman gain greater efficacy in dealing with the practicalities of community-based resource management or co-management in a way that would support the model as an ongoing progressive framework. Among these practicalities are the considerable investments in time and energy required by fishermen’s organisations, particularly where clear benefits are questionable.

This case study is quite unique in that the participatory protocols actually devolved a significant level of decision-making to community partners in terms of their choice of research projects. In this regard, the project began by first asking the fisher organisations what they needed to better understand to improve their ability to manage the fisheries. In the past this question was primarily answered for them by government authorities. In this way, the information agenda was firmly set by the partners. (Principle 1: Inclusiveness; Principle 8: Empowerment).
Partners were identified through First Nations groups and fishing organisations. However, the partners also identified additional organisations they felt relevant to the research who subsequently were invited to participate (Principle 1: Inclusiveness). For example, to help facilitate the research work, a number of partners elected to bring in non-profit organisations. These groups proved to have capabilities that allowed them to act as boundary or bridging organisations, being able to “translate” between fishers and scientists (Principle 4: Communication).
The partners were also asked how social science research had failed to meet their expectations in the past. This led to an exploration of alternative research methods, development of appropriate research tools and facilitated training of research personnel (Principle 3: Participation). Early in the project, agreements and arrangements were made to share ownership of the resulting data, store data according to the partners’ wishes, and to analyse and disseminate the results (Principle 3: Participation; Principle 5: Joint Ownership). To intentionally empower the partners, the majority of the research budget was divided and allocated directly to the partners to conduct the research (Principle 5: Joint Ownership; Principle 8: Empowerment).

To establish partners for this research, the academics simply called a meeting with those individuals and communities with whom they had previous experience. This included earlier projects which had previously provided broad opportunities for community involvement. However, in a resource-scarce and politically charged environment, the perceived advantage of one group over another can mean that the very act of selecting participants may be seen as unfair and highly political in itself. This was the experience of the academics in this project, who were contacted on several occasions to explain why particular communities had not been selected to participate (Principle 1: Inclusiveness). Nonetheless, it was the previous experience of working together that contributed to capacity building and to building trust through new opportunities to meet in a safe environment (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust).
Partners had strong ties to geographical areas and associated resource stocks. However, partners quickly realised the need to establish or enhance horizontal links and networks to facilitate collaborative efforts that crossed ‘community’ boundaries. This was sometimes effective in integrating approaches across regions and was sometimes restricted by local politics and institutional barriers. The effect of pulling in more partners, in itself, was also challenging given the impact on limited resources of time and funding. It is important to recognise that, for various reasons, some stakeholders may choose not to participate initially, but will tend to wait and ‘watch-the-space.’ This also brings up resource issues. (Principle 1: Inclusiveness).
Academics restricting themselves to a purely consultative role when called upon, was quickly recognised as a burden rather than an opportunity for many fisher groups. It required significant time, effort and level of competency that most fishers felt they didn’t possess, nor did they feel they had the time or the inclination to become social scientists (Principle 5: Joint ownership).
Partners and academics were committed to learning as the project progressed. This was highly significant given that neither the community partners nor the academic partners had a clear view on the ‘best way’ to proceed, other than a shared interest in improving the way social science was conducted in a way that enhanced community-based management of the resource. This clearly relied on an iterative process, where specific details were informed as the project was rolled out. For example, the original intention for the project was for small-scale exploratory pilot projects, however, the partners were drawn to topics that were timely and important to their needs which increased the scale of the research (Principle 6: Flexibility).
University institutional frameworks allowed innovative approaches to identify community research needs and interests, building collaborative links between science and community, and devolving research power. However, there was generally a lack of recognition and support of participatory research and community outreach, along with limited funding, and various constraints on the funding that did exist. Accountability rules attached to funding, such as the need to publish in order to receive further funding, often interfered with the ideal of empowering communities in the participatory research. Partners had little interest in purely academic publications, while data control agreements and collaborative authorship slowed down the publication process. It was felt that innovation and creativity could be better recognised through alternative deliverables related to the improved ability for communities to understand and organise themselves, influence existing power structures and create collaborative learning opportunities.
These bureaucratic and academic frameworks were significant barriers to the ability of the research partners to self-organise. While consensus on values was able to be achieved among the partners (despite tensions), these same values also made it difficult to communicate with the wider community (such as developers, business people and urban residents), or with bureaucrats who operated within very different management paradigms.
Capacity building is often an important objective within participatory research. However, capacity building must occur at both the individual level and at the level of the institution, given that individual capacity building may not necessarily translate to institutional capacity due to limited abilities to influence, and individual movements (retired workers etc.). Recognition of this requires the consideration of creative approaches to facilitate this change such as transformational learning, video productions and media communications. Deep levels of frustration and burnout are common with partners and academics alike, as they seek to come to terms with institutional frameworks in which they find themselves embedded. Expectations need to be carefully managed in these situations. For example, partners may develop an unrealistic belief about the influence of social scientists, viewing them as advocates for the sector rather than advocates for wiser management more generally.
Bridging organisations such as non-profit organisations proved to be important in terms of their role in facilitating the research and alleviating demands on fisherman. A common issue with these civil society organisations and other actor groups (such as women from fishing households) is lack of funding and limited organisational resources. A detailed understanding of the wider societal and economic context is critical. More open discussion of the institutional and political contexts and the barriers communities face in dealing with them is fundamental to building a viable approach to participatory research.
Social capital, rather than being a fixed ‘fund’ of good will, trust and cross connections, needs to be viewed as a process that requires nurturing in contextually specific ways to develop trust and network relationships through co-learning.