An important part of the annual meetings is to present the data produced by the RF: the number of logbooks, the number of otoliths collected and different ways that the RF data is used or could be used. The number of otoliths collected by the RF fishers is always given emphasis, and the scientists always address the growing number of otoliths that succeeds in becoming a circulating reference. As stated by Nedreaas:
The annual meeting is an important collective arena where the IMR invests a lot of time, effort and money in order to produce and maintain a system for the RF knowledge flows into the IMR.
Below, I present how the annual meetings are used as an arena for scientists to school fishers in science, and fishers to address challenges and issues that arise from their
perspective.
Learning Science: How to Make References Circulate
Much of the time at the annual meetings is organized around the coordination and
standardization of data, and making sure that the quality of the data is as good as possible.
The annual meeting is also an opportunity for scientists to train fishers and to motivate them We want more otoliths because that is what really goes into our models.
for data production, where the software program Reg-Fisk and its correspondent manual have been key issues. As described in chapter 5, there is a lot of information that never enters the flow of data, and some of the data enters but is never used. The annual meetings are an arena where fishers can learn about what constitutes science and why some data is included while other data is excluded.
There are always discussions related to challenges with the RF data: the problems fishers have out at sea, as well as the problems scientists have at the IMR. For instance, at the 2007 Coastal RF annual meeting, Huse went through all the problems that the scientists at the IMR encounter with the translating the data handed in by the fishers into Reg-Fisk
spreadsheets:
The CPUE data is an example of data from the RF that scientists hesitate to put to work. Huse explained the problem of using CPUE41 data collected by the RF to the fishers at the 2009 annual meeting:
With the standardized data from scientific surveys, this is different. The IMR scientist Nedreaas explained:
41 The problem of bias in the CPUE data was key in the the Canadian North Sea cod collapse in the 1990s: the overestimation of the spawning stock biomass and underestimation of fish mortality was partly caused by biased commercial CPUE data ((Holm and Nielsen 2004) See also(ACFM 2001)
Sometimes it takes some real detective work! Please write down the month in letters, not the number of the month, since the format is strange (…) if you want to write several sentences, just use the space necessary.
Huse: Why are scientists so sceptical towards using CPUE data [from the RF]? We all remember the Canadian case (…). One big catch can give systematic error – bias – in our data.
The annual meetings are also used as an opportunity to train the fishers on Reg-Fisk. As described in chapter 5, there are some issues with translating the gear fishers’ use into Reg-Fisk codes. While the Offshore RF vessels are supported by electronic devices that transfer the data directly to a spreadsheet, the Coastal RF has to write the data manually on paper forms. Accordingly, there are some additional concerns with the Coastal RF data. The FDG’s long term goal is to teach all the fishers how to use Reg-Fisk and plot the data themselves since this would take a lot of workload off the FDG scientists. Huse explained to the Coastal RF fishers that the data needs to be standardized for Reg-Fisk, and that it even if what gear they use is logical to them, it is not for the scientists sitting in their offices punching the data.
Nedreaas elaborated on this:
Regardless of how the data comes to the IMR, as spreadsheets or hand-written forms, the RF fishers must learn the relationship between Reg-Fisk and the way they collect data. Several of the fishers also complain that it is difficult to fill in the schedules, especially when the weather is bad. Some of the fishers are having a hard time with Reg-Fisk, like one of the Coastal RF fishers who expresses his frustration with the work and all the procedures as follows
The surveys are a CPUE series, but you know, the effort is constant from year to year.
Since the effort is constant, the variations we see can be understood as variations in the stocks [and not efficiency or effort].
First of all I must say that it is inspiring that you [the IMR] are interested in what we are doing. But [fishers laugh]… I have tried to do the punching myself, and I found it really hard to begin with. Also, when it comes to weighing the samples that we measure, I tried to do it, but it is too elaborate when you are alone. (Coastal RF annual meeting, 2009).
Take a look in the manual that you have all been given, which is filled with codes. That's our bible. [Lot of laughs from the fishers] (2007 Coastal RF annual meeting)
The FDG scientists find the Reg-Fisk system logical and meaningful, since it is related to their practices. However, it is challenging to translate fishers’ reality into codes. Fishers, on the other hand, have a hard time understanding the logic behind Reg-Fisk42 and ‘the bible’.
The standardized and systematic approach to fisheries, which they know as the wild and uncontrollable reality out there at sea, is unfamiliar to them. To the fishers, this Reg-Fisk universe filled with codes and standardized gear lacks meaning. One of the Coastal RF fishers’ commented:
All the tools and devices that are necessary in order to do the data collection for the RF is another topic that is repeated at the annual meetings. The Offshore RF vessels and a few of the Coastal RF have the electronic measuring board ‘FishMeter’ and an electronic weight installed. The fishers have had some problems using these devices which are developed for scientific use, i.e., condensation. There are also some comments about how the cooperation between fishers and scientists could be improved. For instance, one Coastal RF fisher stated that
The FDG scientists agree in general that there should be more time for visiting the fishers and going out fishing. The FDG scientists really enjoy these visits, which can be related to how Norwegian fisheries science was practiced from its establishment around 1800 (Schwach
42 According to Nedreaas, a new registration software is under development which amongst other things will be more self-explained with more data storage opportunities and less codes.
You should condense this bible as you call it, down to what is necessary for the given boat.
Then it will be less complicated and less scary than that huge thing. (Coastal RF annual meeting 2007)
In my opinion, we get too few visits. And, if you are coming, do take a look at the weather report [all fishers laugh]. The last time, the person came and we couldn't go out because of bad weather and what’s the point of us ogling at each other on land? (Coastal RF annual meeting 2007)
2000). At times, professors spent more time in the field than in the laboratory. Schwach (2000) describes how those working with marine science in Norway have always been
‘practical men’, and that surveys are an important part of the IMR scientists’ culture, maybe more than in other nations.
Today, scientists may not spend as much time at sea as fishers, but their identity is rooted in the image of a scientist in the field, knowledgeable about the practical challenges and real fish as well as the model fish. The scientists I met at the IMR fit the image of the modern fishery scientists who spends a lot of time in his office or laboratory working with numbers rather than fish. But, the same scientists also have other practices where they go out to sea and work with real fish, which fits the image of the scientist as the explorer who leaves the laboratory to discover the world. While the scientists would like to go to sea more, their daily practices take place in their offices at the IMR. As Borge said at the 2009 Offshore RF annual meeting:
Over the years, from when I first attended the annual meeting in 2005 to the last time I participated in 2009, less and less time is spent on system maintenance as fishers are getting more experienced with both the equipment and doing the sampling. As the fishers are getting more experienced, there are fewer problems with the use of the equipment. In 2009 the FDG noted contentedly that fishers’ use of this equipment was working immaculately. With time, the fishers are getting more skilled at doing the sampling and the scientists are looking for ways to include more data from the RF vessels.
The RF as a Rudimentary Expert Body
In the following, I will take a more analytical role in order to understand the RF in light of my research questions. How fishers are included in the knowledge production remains a key issue, as in chapters 4 and 5, but now the scope is broader and includes other issues than the NEA cod assessments. Fisheries management is made up of numerous tasks outside the TAC advice on key species like the NEA cod. Quota regulations are central tools to regulate fisheries, but there are also other regulation measures parallel to these, like minimum landing size, minimum mesh size, gear restrictions, discard regulations, closed areas and closed
We just have to admit the fact: the administrative aspects with the RF are unfortunately taking too much time.
seasons (Hauge 2008). The ICES and the IMR provide advice for some of these management instruments, but not necessarily on an annual basis (Hauge 2008). As we shall see below, there is a variety of examples of how fishers’ knowledge is put to work within the RF framework when we look to areas that are not defined as strictly by the ICES annual circle depicted by the Regulatory Chain. I will now address how the RF can be understood as an important change in the IMR’s priorities and practices compared with the Regulatory Chain organization and how room is made for fishers’ experience based knowledge. It is time to investigate all the other messy interactions and interchanges of knowledge that occur within the RF.
I cannot think of a better way to set the stage for how the RF opens up more knowledge functions than the PowerPoint slide below 43 (Figure 24). It was presented by Borge at the 2007 Coastal RF annual meeting, and is what can be called a summary of how the RF affects fisheries management:
Figure 24: Powerpoint slide from the CRF 2007 annual meeting.
While two bullet points, ‘better data from commercial catches’ and ‘easy access to special samples’, are typical of scientists’ practices, the other issues are closely related to fishers’
practices and position for making observations and sampling. At the annual meeting setting, the RF fishers are invited to ‘the table’, much like in peer reviews. They participate in the discussion of how data is collected, what data is collected, what type of data is missing and the reliability of the data and advice given and so on. Hence, other knowledge functions may be available for the RF fishers than is allowed for so far.
Hybrid Delegates: Being at the Right Time and Place
According to Latour (1987), the scientific process depends on effective and reliable delegates
43 These issues are also underlined by the IMR in publications and information pamphlets (see, for instance, IMR 2007).
that can collect reliable data which can return to the centre of calculation. Holm (2003)
addresses the difference in how ‘orthodox’ scientists and FEK researchers use delegates, since the key strategy of the latter is to rely on fishers as naturally occurring observers as their delegates:
Instead of constructing and equipping new delegates (…), FEK
researchers want to use as delegates people who have already been out there and made such observations in pursuit of non-scientific projects (Holm 2003: 15).
As we shall see below, the IMR uses a mix of these two strategies, as they use naturally occurring observers which, with scientific training and follow ups, makes the RF fishers capable delegates for the IMR.
The importance of the RF as IMR ‘delegates’ (Latour 1987) out in the field is a central issue when fishers and scientists meet. Science always wants more and better data, and giving good advice about fisheries management is also related to access to data; being in a position to take samples or make observations at the right time and place. Of course, this is central to the rationale behind the establishment of the RF. With the RF, the IMR has a direct ‘channel’
to the fishers, and in the IMR’s own words,
[T]he IMR has access to data from the vessel monitoring system (satellite tracking) operated by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. The
Reference Fleet may also be requested to make specific observations and collect urgently needed data. The Reference Fleet makes it possible for the IMR to be in the right place at the right time. (IMR 2007a: 8).
With the RF, the IMR has established a framework that makes it possible for scientists to know where the RF fishers are fishing. The offshore RF vessels are tracked by satellite, hence the IMR knows which vessel is in the position to take the necessary samples. Only a few of the Coastal RF is tracked by satellite, but the IMR can easily contact them with e-mails or by phone; they do not venture as far away as the Offshore RF so it is easier to know their
whereabouts. With the RF, fishers are recognized as observers. They are out there at sea in a favourable situation in order to make observations.
During my fieldwork, different authorities and advisory bodies contacted the IMR in
order to get such urgent data to give advice on issues as diverse as the level of poison in fish44 and the by-catch of sea birds45. But being at the right time and place seems to be particularly important with regard to the coastal cod which is mixed in with the NEA cod, since the former is considered endangered while the latter is a main target species. While the coastal areas are often inaccessible for the larger vessels typically used during surveys, this is where the Coastal RF vessels navigate on a daily basis. As Figure 25 below demonstrates, the IMR considers such contributions from the RF very valuable. In addition, the fishers’ organizations often complain that the IMR is not present at the right time and place. Hence, the IMR’s access to such data addresses an important issue that is hampering fishers’ trust in the IMR’s advice.
44 See, for instance this link in the reference list (FHF 2009)
45 See, for instance, the NINA project: (NINA 2009)
Figure 25: To be at the right place at the right time: The RF makes it possible (IMR 2007a)
I will now provide an example of how fishers, as naturally occurring observers, are useful and hybrid delegates that can report back to the IMR in ways that make their
knowledge data. Importantly, this demonstrates how the RF provides a framework that makes knowledge flows between fishers and scientists possible. The IMR is interested in how
species, introduced or otherwise, spread in time and space. Often, fishers do not communicate such findings to the IMR, and even if they do their observations may not be done in a manner that allows the IMR to register their observations. Since fishers do not take care of the
specimens and they do not take pictures, it is difficult to do the taxonomy with certainty. With the RF, fishers’ observations about new species in the area where they fish, which is essential to the IMR, can be authorized as more than anecdotes. The RF vessels have been given a digital camera for such incidents, the RF fishers are trained in registering such observations according to the IMR’s protocol, and they know where to send such information. In addition, the FDG scientists visit the RF vessels regularly, and during these trips, the fishers and scientists discuss what they see. Also, fishers get feedback from the scientists with regard to what they have found and if it was the first time it has been registered in the area. Below, I will present two examples from fieldwork where fishers’ knowledge was allowed to flow into the IMR and become a part of different knowledge functions for the management process.
These exemplify what Holm (2003) labels ‘translation chain 2, FEK as data’, where fishers are considered capable observers.
During fieldwork, fishers reported several times to the IMR about unusual species and other observations, and once this happened when the FDG scientist Huse was visiting a Coastal RF vessel located close to Tromsø. Even though I did not travel with Huse to visit the RF fisher, I could follow their findings closely from the IMR, since I could follow the e-mail communication between two FDG scientists about their observations. Huse sent Bjelland an e-mail from the Coastal RF boat with a photograph of a fish that is a stranger in these northern waters, asking him what species they had caught. Taxonomy is one of the main working areas for Bjelland, and he is convinced that the fish on the picture is a John Dory (Zeus faber).
According to Bjelland, fishers in the north have claimed to have seen these fish now and again; however, it has never been registered before in any scientific database. Since Huse was out there with the fishers, she could show the fishers exactly how the IMR wants the fishers to collect data about new species. This finding of John Dory is the northernmost registration of this species, and since it was registered according to scientific procedures, Bjelland could add it to any database like the ‘Fishbase’ or biodiversity database in Norway, where it can become a red dot on a map.
Figure 26: A John Dory and the Fishbase.org map of its distribution (Fishbase 2008b).
Another example of how the fishers contribute important information about species distribution is the registration of shark in the north. Bjelland is responsible for one of the the Coastal RF vessels located close to Bodø in the north of Norway. After one of his visits to the vessel, he came back with lots of pictures of a shark they had caught. He explained that they
Another example of how the fishers contribute important information about species distribution is the registration of shark in the north. Bjelland is responsible for one of the the Coastal RF vessels located close to Bodø in the north of Norway. After one of his visits to the vessel, he came back with lots of pictures of a shark they had caught. He explained that they