Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Abstract

Abstract. In this paper I investigate the interaction of knowledge and institutions in the context of First Nations in the Pacific Northwest of Canada who have evolved management systems for fish and forest resources over hundreds of years. These management systems are viewed as institutions that are based on and apply knowledge systems over time. In the Nisga'a and Haida nations, knowledge systems guide management regimes that govern access, rights and responsibilities, harvesting, allocation of benefits and costs, technology, education and training. For the past hundred years these institutions and knowledge systems have come into conflict with knowledge and management systems imposed first by missionaries, settlers and colonizers and later from Provincial and National governments and corporations holding tenure rights assigned by those governments. National and international regimes such as the Law of the Seas and the Exclusive Economic Zones conflict with traditional institutions and knowledge systems by privileging one level of governance and consequently one form of knowledge and devaluing others. The paper is based on research conducted in the Pacific Northwest over the past eight years, primarily through interviews with elders, decisionmakers, and resource users, as well as observation of cultural and resource practices. The research investigated the impacts of conflicting knowledge systems and the attempts to resolve those conflicts. The paper raises questions about knowledge systems and institutions, about institutional interplay, and the impact of international institutions on local institutions as they come into contact and conflict.

Towards an Improved Understanding of Knowledge Dynamics in Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Knowledge Systems Framework

“…There is value in exploring how the concept of knowledge systems may contribute to understanding knowledge relations in ICZM, given the emerging interest it has attracted in a number of areas including: agricultural extension (Roling 1985(Roling , 1992; natural resource management (Campbell 2006;Ojha et al 2008); sustainable development (Cash et al 2003); biodiversity management (Kelsey 2003); public health (Van Kerkoff and Szlezak 2006); indigenous knowledge (Verran 1998;Mauro and Hardison 2000;King 2004;Houde 2007); business (Tsoukas and Mylonopolous 2004); innovation (Howells and Roberts 2000); knowledge management in firms (Lee and Van den Steen 2010); and information technology (Stefik 1995). In broad terms, our argument is that the concept of knowledge systems provides a means for re-conceptualising coastal knowledge relations as dynamic and interactive, which improves how ICZM may be understood, by highlighting the ways in which different forms of knowledge inform it.…”

Creating sustainable economic development within two B.C. First Nations communities: A rights-based approach.

“…Prior to European contact, Aboriginal peoples in Canada had their own forms of government, social organization, and economies (Furaiss 1993b;Isaac 2004;King 2004;Sherry and Myers, 2002). Case laws confirmed the existence of Aboriginal rights and title because prior to Europeans arriving in Canada, Aboriginal people were already living in communities on the land and participating in distinctive cultures as they had done for -15-centuries (Isaac 2004, 2).…”

“…-32-First Nations people have conservation ethics which were founded on millennia of producing food, shelter, medicine, and clothing from forest ecosystems while sustaining the resources from which these materials are derived (BCFNFC 2006;Karjala et al 2003;King 2004). This conservation ethic is in direct contrast to the economic world view which guides modern resource management systems (Berkes 1999).…”

“…The pre-colonial First Nations people had social, economic, and political activities which were governed by their spiritual beliefs (Isaac 2004;King 2004;Sherry and Myers, 2002). They had knowledge systems which guided their management regimes and governed access rights and responsibilities, harvesting, allocation of benefits and costs, technology, education and training (King 2004;Sherry and Myers, 2002).…”

“…They had knowledge systems which guided their management regimes and governed access rights and responsibilities, harvesting, allocation of benefits and costs, technology, education and training (King 2004;Sherry and Myers, 2002). This knowledge system was intricately linked to the governance, spirituality, and social relationships of the nation (King 2004, 162).…”