Summary
Investigation and illumination of the underlying value conflicts within a community of fishers and fisheries scientists provided the context for this case study. The Orkney archipelago relies heavily on its marine environment in an economical, social and cultural sense. Still one of its major industries, fishing and fisheries management is a notoriously contentious issue in Orkney. In particular, development of some form of participatory framework comprising scientists, policy makers and the fishing community is a key topic on the Orkney marine conservation agenda.
Although there are several existing examples of fisheries scientists working with fishers on research projects, these often amount to little more than the engagement of fishers in sampling. Committed to investigate alternative programmes of scientific enquiry that emerge from a participatory approach, International Centre for Island Technology (ICIT), chose to investigate the re-negotiation of scientific enquiry and evaluation of core solutions for the creel fishery, based on discourse rather than imposed solutions.
The project aims were to: develop a participatory forum with structural representation from stakeholders; explore value expressions, or research priorities (applied as criteria for an alternative programme of research; use the AGORA approach to explore core solutions and solidarity/trade-offs between stakeholder groups with regard to research priorities and to communicate the results of the investigation to fishers in an accessible way.
Elaboration of a project methodology commenced at ICIT in September 2002. Appropriate stakeholders, from both the Orkney creel fishing sector and other stakeholder groups of the Orkney marine environment (i.e. those with an interest to a programme of scientific enquiry into the fishery) were identified. A fully inclusive forum was proposed to set the agenda and provide the principal focus for value discourse. The focus of discourse would be personal perceptions of the fishery, a shared understanding of obstacles and types of information valued by fishers. The goal was defined as development of alternatives, resulting in a ‘shopping list’ of potential research priorities.
AGORA (Assessment of Group Option with Reasonable Accord) would be used as a means of analysis of priorities. Agreement on preferences for a series of future projects would comprise further scientific investigation into the fishery, requiring the pursuit of further funding for such a participatory programme. Finally, an accessible means of communication of the data set would be sought, amongst other fisheries science methods and analyses.
In the hope that a broad interest would be forthcoming from the various fishermen’s groups already existing in each major fishing area in Orkney and from merchants who have represented fishing interests, the project was promoted through local media, Radio Orkney and The Orcadian, in November 2002. The inaugural meeting with fishers was held at ICIT on 23rd January 2003. This first stage of the project established: a forum of fishers willing to participate in discussions; a shared understanding of what questions/problems/issues could usefully be further researched and a “shopping list” of priorities for future research. Further meetings were held with fishers to further develop this list and obtain contributions from fishers on the outer Orkney Islands.
The second stage of the project saw development of a simple questionnaire designed to capture priorities from each respondent, able to reach a much wider group of fishers than those able or willing to attend meetings (every fishermen getting the chance to assign priorities to the shopping list). A similar questionnaire was developed for other stakeholders (non-fishermen) that may have had an interest in fisheries research topics (e.g. fisheries scientists, bodies that fund fisheries research etc.) and may seek to influence such research
The fisher questionnaire was divided into 3 parts. Part A sought general background information. Part B sought fishers’ prioritisation of 4 research areas (Lobster and Related Research, Crabs and Other Shellfish, Economic Development and Profitably and Environmental Factors). Part C sought fishers’ views on the conduct of any research that might be undertaken in the future. The stakeholder questionnaire was designed, also in 3 parts to form a useful comparison with the views assimilated by the fisher questionnaire.
A high number of responses were received from over 50% of Orkney creel fishers and the results of a total of 50 useable (compliant) responses could then be correlated. 12 compliant were received in total from other stakeholders. It must be noted that this number of responses, form both the fisher and stakeholder questionnaire, could not have been received without extensive telephone canvassing and personal contact with respondents.
The answers that fishers gave in identifying their priorities to the general research areas and specific research topics were analysed to cluster voting patterns into four main groups. Group A was comprised of 20 fishers, Group B of 21 fishers, Group C of 5 fishers and Group D of 4 fishers, respectively. Each group consisted of those fishers scoring their priorities for future research in a similar way. Overall, there was more priority for ‘Lobsters and Related Research’. The most preferred topic in that category was V-notching and compensation schemes. Of 52 fisher questionnaires returning questionnaires, 47 agreed they wanted future research to go ahead and of these, 41 were willing to participate.
Fishers’ views on both science in general and fisheries science were concentrated around a more neutral perspective. However, there were more negatively skewed views relating to fisheries science compared with science in general. Moreover, fishers displayed a more negative regard for scientific models and predictions, as a pose to facts and data and the motivation of scientists.
Analysis of the level of agreement/disagreement stakeholder organisations exhibited with regard to the research priorities of was troublesome owing to the small sample and lack of understanding of the related questions. Stakeholders’ views on both science in general and fisheries science were both heavily skewed to a more positive perspective, with very little negative views displayed.
In terms of communicating results to fishers, the first stage involved a series of graphical representations. A lack of consensibility of the results of the fisher questionnaire, presented in the stakeholder questionnaire called for more accessible/transparent means of communication to be developed. A ‘colour chart’ was designed to more effectively show agreement/disagreement between clusters. Both fishers and stakeholders agreed this method improved the consensiblity of the information. In addition, a poster was designed and presented to fishers at a final meeting in Kirkwall, on 25th November 2003. The poster was also sent to all major fishing centres in Orkney and representatives from fishermen’s associations.
Further experiments with the way in which the data could be presented were carried out and included: using icons to represent research priorities, constructing Venn diagrams and developing a 3-dimensional installation. The more visual the narrative, the more accessible it became, in the opinion of fishers and other stakeholders.
Despite invitations being sent to all registered creel fishing vessels in Orkney and particular consideration given to the time and location of the meeting, there was limited attendance of only 3 fishers at the final meeting. Although support for a future research programme and a willingness to participate was evident among the fishing community, a lack of representation and organisational structure, to enable a united voice, limited free time to attend meetings and a deep-seated scepticism of the scientific community, restricts fishers’ taking the leadership role in the future.
We observe that the co-operative agreement reached during this study on research priorities stands in stark contrast to the recent history of conflicts among fishers during attempts to impose changes in the management regime for the fishery. This study has shown that despite fragmentation of the fishing community and its lack of capacity, it is nonetheless possible to achieve a widespread participation in response to a proposal.