Local Knowledge Mat ters:
Knowledge. Technology ,and Powe r in Newfoun d land CodFarming
by
SCottC4Calder
Athesis submitted.to the School ofGr a du a t e Studies in partial fulfilment of the requireme n t s for thedegree of
Masterof Arts
Department of Sociology School of Gradua teSt udies Memo r i a l Unive rs ityof Newfoundland
August 1997
St.John's Newfoundland
Ab.~rac~
Aquacultural development is beingpursuedgloballyat a rapi d rate in re s po nse to the deple t ion of the....oz-Ld' s fis h stoc ks through over-fishing. In Newfoundland, drastic declines in co d landing s dur i n g the 1970s and 19 8 0s thr o ug h off s hor e harvesting and processing technologyprompted interes tin the in shore fi s her y. This re s o u r c e crisis als o sp u r r ed ini t i ati v e s to develop cod farming during the mid to la te 198 05. Ear l y codfarmin g met hods rel i e d on the previ ously marginal isedlocalknowledge traditionsand technologies of insho r e fishe ry workers . Howe v e r, with the advent of the moratoria on fishingcod along the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador in 19 92 and 19 93 , the tr aject o ry of co d farming development in this province sh i f t ed . This sh i f t co u l d exacerba t e preex isting ine qui ties in Newf o u ndland fishing communities an d further degrade marine res ources. Thi s th esis situates the Ne wfoundl and de vel opme n t of cod farming in the gl obal contex t of aquacultural development and an al yses how the kn o wle d g e tr a di t io ns and te ch nol o gi e s devel oped by Newfoundland cul t u r al groups have sh a p e d cod fa rmin g ini t iatives inthe pr ov i nce.
i i
Tabl e of Cont.ents
~ Abstract •• ••• •••.• . .• . . . .• •.•.• ••••. ..•.•. .••••••• •••. • . ••ii Acknowledgements .•••••• ..•.• • .•••.•.•• • .•.• ••••••• .••.•. . vi Chapter 1 - Introduction••••. •.. . •. •.• . • •••• ••• •• • • ... ..1 1.1The NewfoundlandCase •....•.•.•. ....•.•• .••• . •.••. ••..2 1.2Organisat ionof Chapters••••• • •••• • •• •• . . .... .• .•• •• •• 4 1. 3Choice ofResearch Topic ••.••• • ••••••••••..•••.. ... . 6 1.4Descriptionand Explanation of Method ••••••• •• •• • •• ••. 8 1.5Limitations /Chal lengesin the Stud y .•••• •.••••••. . .. . 12 Chapter 2 - TheoreticalPerspectivesfor Studying
Knowledge , Techn o l ogy, and PowerinNewfo u ndland Cod Production •.... ...•.... .•• .•.•.•.••.. ...•.. .•••.•15 2. 1Int r oduc t i o n •••••• •••.••.•.•••.•• • ••••• •••••.••••.•.. is 2.2Knowledge and Technology••••.••• .•..• ••••• •••••••••• • 16 2.3Concept of Por.orer••••• •••.••••.•.•• • • •... .. ..• .•• ••. 17 2•4Power and Commodity Sys tem••••••• • • ••• ••••••• ••• •• •••18 2.5coounodi t y Systems,Knowledge, and POorer•..•••.•.•• ••..20 2.6Local Knowledge •••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••••• • ••• • 20 2. 7Scient if i c Knowledge ...••••.•.•.••.... .. .• .. . . .•.•.22 2.8CODDJ1odity Systems, Technology, and Power•••••••• ••• • •25 2.9consequencesof Co mplia n c e and Resi s tance.•• ••. ••. •• .28 2.10Conc l u s i o n ••••••••••••••.. ..•.•.•. .•.•. .•. .• ••••• • ••32 Ch a p t e r 3 - Global Trendsin Aquac ultur alProduc tion:
Holistic, Intermediate, and PrescriptivePractices••• 35 3.1Introduction.•... ..•. . ...• •• •.•.. ••• ••. • .. .• • • . •.•. .. 35 3.2GlobalAquacul tural Product ion •.•• ••• •••• •••••• ••• ••36 3.3Extens iveAquacultureandEiolis tic Practi ces ••...•.•• 36 3.4IntensiveAqua cu l t u r e andPrescripti.ve Practices ••••• •39 3.5 semi-intensiveAquac u ltureandInte rm edi a t e
Practices. ••••• ••••••• • •••• •• •••••• •• • • • •••••••• •••••41 3. 6Intens iveAquaculture: Env ironmental and Social
Concerns over prescriptive Technologies •.• . . .•..•.. •43 3.7AquacultureinAtl ant ic Canada ••• •• •••• •••••• •••••• •50 3.8Introducing Aquacultural Production in t o Local
Cultures : Implications fo r Newfoundland.•.• .•.•.• •. . 55 ii i
3. 9 Co nclusio n ••.• •••• ••..••• ••••••• ••.•• • • .•• ••.•••.• •• 59 Chapter 4 - KnOW'ledge~Technology~and Power in
NewfoundlandCodProduct ion ••••.•• •..• • •.••. .• .• • • •• •62 4. 1 In troduction •••••••••••••• • ••• • •.•••.•• •• ••••• ••..• •62 4.2 Salt fis hProduct ion •• .••• •. •••••. •• •. •• • • •.•• • •. ••. 63 4.3FrozenFish Production •••• • ••• ••• ••• • • • •••. •••••••••70 4.4 Restructuri n g the Fr o z enFis hInd us try:
The Consequencesof Pr e s cripti veTechnologies ••.••••76 4.5 Co nc l u sion .• . •• • ••• •.•••••.•••••••••...•••• ..• • • •.••80 Cha p ter 5 - NewfoundlandCod Farmin g and
the Inshor eFishe ry •• •. •••.••.•. • • . .••••.•••.•.• •• •• 82 5.1 Introductio n ••••• ••••. • •• • •• ••• • •• •••••••••• ••••••••• 82 5.2Cod Aquac ul t ura l Produ c tion .••••••.• .. •• .• • ••••.••••82 5.3 Fishers ' Local KnowledgeandHolistic Prac tices •••••• 84 5.4Using the Local Knowledge an dHolis t i c Technolog ies of
Ins ho r e Fi sher s in theDevel o pmentof
Newfou nd l andCod Farming •• .••• ••••••.••••••• •••...• . 92 5.5Conclusio n •• •• ••••••..••. •• •• ••.•••••••• •• •••• •• •• • 98 Chapter 6 - Newf oundland Fishe ry Wo r k ersandCod
Aquacul tural Training Cou rses : Aspira t ions rooted in LocalKnOW'led ge ..• ••... .•• •. . ..•.• • •••••••.•• ••• 99 6.1Introducti on •••••.•.••.• • ••••••••••••• • ••• • •••.•••••• 99 6.2 Impl i c a t i o ns of theCod Mo r a t oriumforCod Farmi ng .• 100 6.3Trai ningPrograms forCodAquaculture •.•..• •••••••• 10 1 6.4Cod Training Pr ograms ontheBonavistaPeninsula .••• 102 6.5Asp i r ationsofNewAquacul t ure Recrui ts•• • • •••• •••• •• 10 6 6.6Con clusion. . ... .... .. ... ... . ... ... .. . ... 124 Chapter 7- Conclus ion .• ••••••••••••••••• ••• •• •....••.• 127 7.1Global Aquacul t ure ...•••.•••• •••••.. • •••• •. •• • • ••.. 129 7.2 Newfoundl and : From CodFi shi n g to Cod Farmi ng ••.•. ••130 7.3Socialand Environmental Ass ets of Hol istic
AquaculturalPrac t ices ••• ••• • •••••.• ••.••.•• ••• •. .. 13 2 7.4 TheCodMoratori umandEfforts to DevelopPrescri ptive
Cod Farming Te c hnologies inNewfoundland••• ••••.. •• 135 7.5Rethinkingthe Role ofFamil ies in
Local Fis h Produ c t ion •••.•• ••• ••• • .• •••• ••• ••••• • •• 139 7.6Lending Stren gth to FisheryWork ers
andLoca l Know l edge •.• • • • ••• • •••.• ••••••• •• •••. .••• 14 2
iv
Bibliography•• •. •• • •.• •.• •••••• •. • •.•••• •••••• • • •.•.• •. • 145 Appendix I ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••• •• ••• • • •• •••• _ ••••••• 152 Appendix II ••• • •• ••• ••••• ••• •••• • •• •••••..••••••••.• ..••16 1 Appendix III ••••••••• •.. . •• ••••••••••••• •••••••••• •••• • •170
Ackn ow ledqeaents
Financial support for thi s study was given from the Eco- Res e arch Prog ram, Memo r i a l Unive r si t y of Newfou nd l a nd.
would als o like to acknowledge my thesis supervisors, Dr.
Barbara Neis and Dr. Peter Sinclair, fo r their gu i d a nce, thei rreassurance, and their criticism. I wouldalso like to th a n k mycolle a gu eson the Ec o-Re s e a r c h Program, Paul Ri.pl ey, Hiram Wright, Brent Smith, and Ian Johnston for helping me pu t thi ngs in perspective. Li kew ise , I would l iketo thank JUdy smi t h, Annette Ca rte r, Janet Oliver. Cathy Ki n g , and Diane Ennis fo r keeping me on tr a c k, it wa s great ly appre c iated . In addition, the admiration I hold for my parents, Roy and Eyd ie, andmybro ther Ross, is probabl y only surpassed by the love andsup port they have given me. I also owe grati t u d e to my roommates Linton San o ir, Co r e y Freake, David Sparks, and Dana sparks - thanks for being there . As wel l , I am gr a t e f ul to Nico l e Power and Michael Tremblett whose compan ionshipduringmy fieldwork providedme with fo nd memories of my summer "a r ou nd the bay." Fi n a l ly, I am indebted to the women and men in the Bonavista Peninsula regio n forth eir generosi ty oftim e , sp i r i t, and know l edg e, wi t hout them this study would notha v e been possible.
vi
Chapter 1
Int.rod qct ion
Ttlis thesis critically anal ysesknow l edge and technology fran the per s pective of power. It studies how the knowl edge t ra di t ion s an d tec tln olo gies de v elo ped by cultural gro u p s shape powe r dynamics within fish production. Specific emp h as is is give n to il lus t ra t i ng how the knowledge tradit io ns and techno l ogies empl o yed by cul turalgroups in Newfoundlandare influencingthe development of cod fa rmi ng inthis pr ov i nce .
Inmany reg i ons of thewor ld, aquac ultu r a l developm e n t has been undertake n in order to arre s t declining level s of fish pr oduction due to the de ple t io n of wi l d fis h stocks through over -fi s h ing . This re s ourc e crisis has been linked to the dest ruct ive fish ha r v e s t in g and process in g tech nologies associated wi t h intensiv e fish production (Hutc h i n g s and Myers, 1995 ; Ne i s, 1991). Like the wi ld fish e r y , aquac u l t u r e cou ld devel op along var i o us trajectories. A fo rm of aquacu l t u r e based on scientific knowledge and pres cripti vetechnoloq i esis sp r e a d i ng rapidly ata global le vel (Frankli n, 19 90; Wilks, 19 9 5 ). Intensive aquacultural models are marginalising local fi Sher ies, knowledgetradi t ions, and technolgie s (Bailey ee a L, 1996;
Wi l k s , 1995). The se models also risk furt her degradi n g ma r i ne env i ronment s. thu s undermin ing the wild fis h e r y
2 (Nelson, 1996; wi l k s , 19 9 5)_ This trendis canpounding pre- existing social and environmental inequities. especially those inherited from past intensive wild fish production models. The development of alternative aquacultural models whichmay prove more equitable for local fishing culturesand less destructive to nature is being restricted as a consequence. In this thesis. tr e n ds in global aquacultural developmentand fisheries management will illustrated. through a case study of cod farming development in Newfoundland.
l.1 Th e Jlewfoundland Case
In Newfoundland. local fishing cultures have been involved in fish production for centuries. Through successive generationsof fish productionthese cultures developedloc a l knowledge traditions and technologies for the inshore harvesting and processing of cod. From the 19th to mid-20th century , families within these fishingcultures managed the household production of cod using these local knowledge traditions and technologies. Ho....ever, wi t h the advent of frozen fish production in the 19505, governments and fish companies introducednew scientific knowledge traditions, as ....ell as ne... harvesting and processing technologies for offshore and nearshore fisheries. These i n i tiatives ra d i c a l l y reorganised production practices in the Newfoundlandfishery. This reorganisation of fish production marginalised butdidnot eliminate the knowledge traditions
3 end technologies re s ident in Newfoundland~s local fishing cultur e s, and reduced. the contr ol by fi s hing families ove r fish ha r v est ing and proce s s inq. Furt hermore. th e technologies ass ociatedwit h frozen fish produ ct i o n depleted theresource at a rate un p receden ted in Newfoundland hi s tory.
During the 1970$ and 19805, the cod fis hery was in crisi s. In re sponse to de ple t ed cod. stocks. attempts were madeto restructure th e frozen fish in d u stry. but the fishery exp e rienced an over-a l l col l aps e in the 19 905 . In 1992 an d 1993, morat o r ia on cod fishing in Atlantic Can a da were declared, an d the harvesting of wild cod on the northe a st coas t of Newfoundl a ndceased forthefi rs t tim e incentur ies.
In the 1980 5 , on th e cusp of the co l l a p s e of wild fis h stocks , a re newed intere st in the loca l knowl e dge and techno l ogies of inshore fishery workers was ign i t ed.. A new typeof cod prcxtuc t ion(cod farming) wa s associated with this in t er e st . Newfoundland's early cod farming operations incorpora t ed the local knowledgeand technologies used by fishe r s wh o had maintai ned a re l iance upon the in s ho re fishe ries. Since the declar at io n of the codmoratori a.cod aquacultu r al develo pment has ac c elerat edand the interplay betwe e n the lo cal knowl e dge of fi s h ery wo r kers and the scie n t i fi c knowl e d ge traditions of fish companie s ha s shi f t e d . The emerg ing domi na n t mode l favours intensive production model s with high level s of scientific and corpor ate controL These model s employ te c h n o logie s that ma rg i n a l is e lo ca l fisheries and restruc ture na t u r e . The
4 outcome of these iniativ es in aquaculture wil l structure power re l at io ns with in fish production (both wild fisheries and aquaculture)in Ne-;.rfoundlandfor generations.
1. 2 Orqani s at.ion of Ch a p t e r s
Chapter 2 outlines a theoretica l framework for critically analysing knowledge and technology fr om the perspective of power. Itdiscussestwo main knowledgetraditions. the local and the scient ific . It li n k s these knowledge traditions to particular cultural groups. I then explore how cul tural groups, by util is i n g local and scienti f ic knowledge traditions, employ very different types of technologies (ho l i s t ic and prescriptive). This theoreticalframework will in f o rm disc uss ions in subsequent chapters on ho w lo c a l and sc ient ific knowledgetr a d ition s andtechn olog i e s shape poo.orer relations wi t h i n fi s h production in both the wild fisheries and aquaculture.
Chapter 3 examines global tr e n d s in aquacultural developmentusing the theoretical framework introduced in Chapter 2. Thi s chapter discusses how loc al and scientific knowle d ge traditions, embedded in holistic and prescriptive technologies, can be associated with very different aquacultural production models. It argues how these knowledge traditions and te c hn ol o g i e s shape power dynamics in fish pro d u c t i o n (both aqu a c u l t u r e and fisheries) glob ally. It also providesa backdrop for analysing the history of thecod
fishery. and the developme n t of cod aquaculture in Newfoundl an d.
Ch a p ter 4 documents the bis t o ry of Newf o u n d l and cod.
pr oducti o n fr om the 19 th cen tu ryto the mora torium whi chwa s declaredon fishin g no r therncod of f th e North-ea s t coast of Newfou n land and coas t of Labr a dor in 19 9 2. This ch apt e r i ll ust r a tes how cultur al gr oup s throug h local andsc i e nt ific kn o W'l e d g e t rad i t i o ns (and associa t e d holis t i c and prescrip tive technolo g ies) sbaped social and na t ura l envi r o nme nts vi tal for cod pro d uction . espec i ally those eve n t s wh ic h, I argue. led to the pr ese n t cod morator i um and earl ydeve l opments incodfarming.
Chapte r 5 ex amines the int e rpl ay be twee n local and scie nti fi cknowledg e and subsequ e nt technologies emp loyed in early cod. farmingoperations in th e mid-late 1980s. Chapter 6 dis c u s s e s the cod aquacultur al training programs which in tr odu c ed Newfoundland fishery wor ke r s to cod fa.t1D.in g inthe early 19905. It examines how fishery workers discerne d in format io n about cod aqua cul ture. and assessedcod farmi ng methods in re l a tio n to lo cal soc ial and en v i r o nme n tal inequ itie s. I thendi scu ssthe perceptions. as p i rations. and conce rns these fishery workers /a quac ultural recruits have wit h regard to th e devel o pme n t of cod aquac ul ture in Newfoundland in the future (especi a lly issues su r r o unding knowledge, technology. and pow-er).
In the co ncluding chapter. I co n trast the aspirat i o ns and conce rns of th ese fishe ry workers with a numbe r of cod.
aquacultural in i t i a t ive s rec e nt ly pursue d by per sonnel in gov ernment . scie ntificorganisations, and fishccepenfe e in Newfoundlanddu ring the m.i.d-1990s. I also discus s thesocia l and envi ro n me nt a l issue s associated wi t h di f f e r e nt cod farmi n g produ c t ion models, as we l l as issues tha t have bee n ra i sed bymyownresearch andwhi chwar r ant further st udy.
1.3 Choice of Research ro p ic
I chosemy re sear c h top i c for two ma in re a s on s. Firstly, fis h e r y wo r ke rs, like the fish they rely upon for their liv e l i h o ods, hav e been a resou r cewithout which commerci al fis h production(and ce rta i n l y the profi t of fish companies ) woul d cease to exist . ac wever , th e loc al knowledge of fish e ry workers, th eir warnin g s abou t res ourc e degradation and their concerns about fis h produc tion models have been marginali sed (Ne i s, 1992 : Nei s and Felt . 1995: ffutch ingset ai. 19 95 ). Secondly , my intere s t in relati ng the local
"'kn owi n g s and way s· of fishery workers to aquacultural develop ment arose when (as an adole scent) at my ho me on campobello Is l and, New Brunsw i ck (a sma ll island in the Bay of Fu n d y ) I wit n e s sed the developme nt of in te nsi ve salmon equac uLeu .r e in a numbe r of loca l ha rbou r s and cove s during the mid-198Ds. At a tim e when hard econ omi c timeshad fal len upon the t rad i t i ona l herring fish e r y, in t ensive sal mo n aqua c u l tu r a l development was greeted by many local fishery ....orke r s as a mixed ble s s i ng. The const ruction of salmon
7 fa rms inprime herr in g spawni n g groundsconflict ed with the tradi t ional use r-r i g h t s of local insho r e he r ring fis hers ts eepnenec n , 19 9 0 , Phyne, 1996 ). However the commercia l feedoperations in the regi o n provided thesefishe rswi than incre a sed ma rke t for her r ing (Phyne, 19 96 ) . The industry 'S salm o npr oces sin g sector pxcv dded much ne ededemp l o yment to displacedherringplant workers.
In recentye ars, the mixed blessingof inten siv e salmon aquacul ture has pr ovento be a curse on a number of social and environmental fronts. The amount of detritu s due to faecal and feed ....aste from in t e n s i ve salmon fa rmi n g is smothering the benthic sea floor inthe se mari neenvironments (S t r o ng and Buzeta , 1992 ) . This is negatively affe c t i n g local fis he r s wh o harvest clam s , lobste rs, and sc allops (Wilbur and Harvey. 1992). Salmontarm ers havebeen plagu e d byawater quality problem that fuelleda sea lice epidemi c. The epidemic has been combattedbysa lmo n farmers wit h strong bio-chem icals that are further comprising wa t e r quality . Fur the rmo r e. this fin a n c i a l expense (coupledwith exorbitant fe edco s t s) has driven a numbe r of sal\ll.on fa rm e r s to near bankruptcy and some into co n t r a c t u a l agreements with larger fishcompanies (Wilbur , 1995).
lIpon moving to Ne wfo u ndland for graduate studies at Memori a l in the summer of 1994. r heard about the de v elopment of Newfoun d l a n d cod farmi ng . My cu r iosity was peak ed . Wo u l dth i s developme nt take into account the nega t i v e and positive experiences of other local fi s hing cultures (like
8 thos e inNewBrun swic k and inmany otherparts of the worl d ) ."i thaquac u l tural development?
1.4 Description and Explanation of Method
Mywo r k is part of a largerin t e r-d i s c i p l i nary project. the Ec o-Re s e a r ch Project on sustainabil i t y in cold water environments at Me mo r i a l University of Newfou ndland.
Researchers affiliated with the program have focused their efforts on establishing indications for sound resource management on the Bonavista Peninsula and the Isthmus of Avalon in Newfound land. The program; s goal is to study the social and environmental events which have occ urredin the area from the pre-conquestper-Led to the present in order to identify the prerequisites for sound resource management. My research falls under a sub-section of this larger project wh i c h has undertaken the collection and study of fishery workers' local ecological knowledge.
I carried out 3 background interviews wi t h individuals (1 manager and 2 fishers) who were involved with Seaforest Plantation Co. Lt d . · s early experiments wi t h cod farming in Newfoundland during the 19805. However, the majority of my interviews we r e wi th 19 fishery worker s (1 3 fishers and 6 plant ....orkers) who lived on the Bonavista Peninsula (see Figure 1, Appendix III) and who had completed cod. aquacu lture training courses organised in the region by the Karine Institute an d Seaforest Plantat ionCo. Lt d ., wh i c h pioneered
cod. farming in Newfoundland. Most of m.y respondents me n . Nevertheless , I didintervie w3womenwho inte r e s tingly en ough were in s ho r e fishers. The aquac ul ture un i t at the Mari ne Insti tu t e prov ided me with the names of course in struc tors who live inthe stu d yregi o n . Duringin t e rviews with 2of these ins t ruc t o rs, I gathere d a listof trainees . I asked instructors to identify the recruits as fishers or pl a nt workers, as well as to high l ight tho s e who mi ght be en t hus ias t i c about my researc h and being in te rv iewed . the ntelepho nedthe serecruitsand setup inte rviews.
I began in t e rv i e wi n g peop le in the area duri n g the summerof 199 5. I ar r i ved inmid-June and staye d un t i l mid- August, living with a team of pro ject researchers in El l i ston, a smal l community nearthe town of Bonavis ta . In gatheringmy data, I usedquali tativesemi-structu r ed, audio- ta pedint erview s of roug hl y 90 minutes in dur ation. I fel t tha t this methodof interviewingwo uld encourage a rapport wi t h myrespondentsdur ingwhi c h arelat ive l ysmoo th exchange of ideas and in fo rmat i o n co u ld take place, and would ur qe respon d ent s to lea d the interview and do mos t of tal king. Furthermore ,this method of inquiryalsore l ie d uponpeopl e's own words, sen t i ments , and recol l ect i ons, as we l l as th eir acti veinv olvementin thetr an s mi ssionof knowledge. I use exce rpts fr o m myint e rvie wtransc ri pts in Cha pt e r s 5and 6.
They have been edited for st y l e in that I have omitted paus e s , re petition , sighs, lau gh s , and groans whi charefound in conversa t ional sp e ech. Names and descr i p t io n s were
10 removed from th e transcript excerpts because I did notwa n t to compromise anonymity.
Incons t ruc ting an interviewschedule, I consideredthe ty p e s of information most appropriate to my re s e a r c h in t e r e s t. I wa s compelled to colle c t in f o rm a t i o n on how these respondents understood. social and environmental aspects of cod production both within aquaculture and the wild fishery. I prompted respondents to discuss social and envi ronmental issues they fel t ha d gre a t l y affec ted their livelihoods,commu n i t i e s , and marine resources. I also asked these fisheryworkers to reflect upo n how vario u s know-ledge traditions and technologies had affected social and envi ronmental aspects of fis h production within th e wild fishery andaqua c u l t ure industry.
Int e rv i ews werestruc t u r edto generate discussionsabout respondents' aquacult ure training. I was interested in understandi ng howthe i r knowledgeand experiences inth e wild fishery me s h e d with the aquacultural knowledge and skill acquir e d in thecod farming co u rses. Also, I asked quest ions that requiredrespondents to reflect on their aspirati onsfor th e ind u str y. For example, I asked respondents to discus s how governments. sc i e n t i s t s . and fish companies shape fi s heri es and aquaculture developmen t, especially th r o u g h knOW'ledgeand technology.
Si ncethis was a firs t at tempt at gat he r inginformat ion that links the lo c a l knowledge of fishery workers with aquacultura l developme n t in Newfoundland, the in t e rvi e w
11 proce s s vas ad aptiveand somewhat fluid . Thecon v e r satio n al me thod allowed me to make al tera t i o ns to my inte rview schedu l e , espec i a l l y to obta in in f o rmation my responden t s fel t was important, but that I had fai led in cl u de in the schedule. Th i s schedul e al s o changed somewha t as I lea rned more about the fis hery. One such ex ample. was the addi t ion of quest ion s ask ing the responde n t s to describe how the return of thewi ld cod fi s herywo uld affect de v elo pme nts in codfarmin g.
In addition. since I was dea l i ng wi th two diff eren t groups of fishery workers (fishers and plant workers) - two differ e ntsets of inte rv i ewquestions were cons t ruc ted (see Appendices I and II). This was done inor d e r to ca p t u rethe differ ent dyn am.i c s "'hichexistin the fishing and processing secto r sof fish produ cti on . Fi s he r interview s were geared to pr ov id ing in formatio n on res po nde n t s ' knowledge of fish habitat , patterns of cha n g e over time in the ocea n en vironme n t . dis t r ibu tion of fish assemblages, abundan ce, migr ation an d spawning , sp ecies and gear COmbinations, know le dg e and te c h n oloqies , as we ll as fishing strategies.
Interv i ew sch e dules wi th pla n t workers were des i g n e d differentl y. In th e s e interviews . I coll ected loc al knowledgeby askin g them to dis cu s s the processinghistoryas they knewit , in c l ud ing the tasks th ey ha d performed, types of fish proces s ed, as we l l as changes ov e r t ime in the quantity of fis h processed, fis h quali t y . prod uc t i on techn i ques(likeshifts frOtll fr o ze n fishtofresh produc t s).
12 managerial initiatives (li k e incentivesystems ) . and markets. In effect, I hoped to genera tediscussion on how processing dynamics had changed in the plants over time pri or to the clos ure of thewil d fis he ry_ As with fishers, I prompted them to discuss how suc h changes affected the fishery resourceand their l iv e s .
I attempted toexplore the cogni tiveshifts thatfi s h e r s and plant workersfel t are required for mo v ing from.thewild fis hery into aqu a c ultu r e. This was done to form an un de r s t a n d i n g of the possiblewa y s their localknowledge of fi sh ing and processingwou ldmesh withvarious aquacultu ral models. I was also interested in ..,h a t kind of fish producti o n models they contend best address lo c a l socia l justiceandenvironmentalissues. All interviewswere geared to ~rom~trespondents to discuss how thecod moratorium had af f ect e d their Ltves , especially ins o f a r as it led to their pu rsute of cod aquacu l tu ral trai n i ng . I als o asked respondents to couununicate theirvi ew s about the social and environmental iss u e s relatedto the stateof thewil d fi s he ry and the aquaCUlture industry. Specific emphasis was placed on prompting their views on wh a t constitutes sound resource management, as well as their views on how aquaculture will fit wi thmanagement of the traditionalwildfishery.
1.5 Li .it.at.ious /CballeDCjes in the St.udy
This was a complex, exploratory research. study. It focused
13 on only one type of aquaculturalproduction in Newfoundland and soughta relativelysmal lsample of respondents . who were not yet active in cod farming but hoped to make the transition. I was initially apprehensiveabout bri nging a tape recorder intothe homes of my respondents. I fearedi t (IImight betoo intrusive. and in some cases the use of the tape recorder may have been ju s t that. Howeve r, any resistance to being taped (e v e n on my part) was usually quelledbyreassurances that, at any time, either myself or th e respondent could turnthe recorderoff. In fa c t, many of the more interes ting discussions (some related to fish produ ctio n and some no t) took place when I tu r ne d the tape recorderoff. The tape recorderwa s infinit ely preferable to note-taking on my part. In my first int e rv i ews . I not iced that respondents found my note-taking moredistracting than th e ta p e-r eco r d e r. and that this interrupted the flow of information. Note -taking may have made me appear disinte restedand even evasive . Therefore , I stoppedtaki ng notes during my inte rview s afte r my second interview and re c o r ded any additional impressions la t e r . after had I left their homes.
In some in s t a n c e sf I found mysel f s trugg l ing to interpret theloc a l dialects of the Bonavista Peninsula. My ears eventually adapted. howe v e r . especially wi t h tim e in social settings (like loc al bars. ki tchenparties. and dance halls) and th r o u g h my efforts to transcribe the interview tapes.
14 Challenges were presented on another front as well. Al t h o u g h I amfr oma small fishingcommunitymyself. many of the harvesting and processing technologies and strategies were somewhat foreign tome. Likewise, loc a l i s e d terms for fish species. wi n d. currents, and gearwe r e unfamiliar. In addition, since most of my interviewstoo k place around the kitchen tables in the homes of my respondents. therewa s an unavoidable invitation to young children, teenagers, and pets to participate. Two of my of respondents were busy with household chores. I recall one wo ma n busily baked bread during the interview. Nevertheless, all ofmy respondents gavefr e e l y of their time, graciouslyofferedfoodand drink, and offered large amounts of hospitality during a busy summer season ofwo r k and householdtasks.
15 Chapter 2
Theoret.ical per.pect:.h,e. for St.udying bowledCJe, rech.a.oloqy,. and Power in .ewfou.n41uad Cod Product-ioa.
2.1 rat-roduct. ioD
This chapter outlines theoretical approaches for critically anal ys ing knowledge and technol o gy from.the pers pecti v e of powe r. I discuss why the study of commo dity pr oduc t i o n syst ems globally , inclu d ing New f oundl and ' s cod prccucedcn , requires the application of a number of theoretical approaches that critical l y an a lys e how cultura l groups us e knOlo/'ledge and tech n o l o gy to shape power relations wi t h i n commodity production. I t is my position that .c r i tic a l l y analysing knowledge and technoloqy from the perspective of power challenges the orthodoxy upon vh i e h contemporary production systems are based. and thus creates a space fo r proposing alternat ives.
I begin thi s chapter by defining knowledge and technology. I then discuss why the study of power is central to un derstanding the roles of knowledge and technology in sha p i n g commoditysys tems. I unde r s c o r e that the issueof powe r is an impo r tant eleme nt in studying cOllUll.o dity producti o n. FrOll1the pers pect ive of power, I wil l illustrate why somekinds of developmentmodels for commodity production
16 are acc epted more re adi ly than othe r s by go v e r nme n t s . corporations. and societies as a ....hole. I ex amin e ho w cuItural group s us e knowledge and tec hnol ogy to develop pr o d u c t i o n models that colonise social and na t u r al environments, and consolidatepower. I also examinehow other cultural groups use knowledge and technology to establish symbioticrelat ionships in social and natural environments.
andtore sis t colonisation by decentralising power.
2.2 Knowledge an d 'l'ecbnology
Knowlerf qe can be defined as a practica l. or theoretical understanding about the world. All knowledge exists in a social context. varying traditions of knowledge are as s o c i a t e d with the beliefs of different cul tu ra l groups.
Because th e y relate differently to social and nat ura l environments . kn ow l e d g e tradit ionscan alsobedifferential ly associated wi t h power . The knowledge tr a d i tio ns of some cultural groups are constructed in ways that attempt to colon ise other social and na t ural wo r l d s , creat i n g orthodoxies and consolidatingpower. Other cultural groups use knowledge to seek a more symbiot ic relationship with social and natural environments embracing diversity whi le decentralising power. TeChnology is the kn ow l e d g e of a cultura l group embedded in practice. Defining technologyas prac t i c e und e r s c o r e s its deep cultural links and its relationship to power (Franklin. 1990). However, before
17 either knowledge or technoloqy canbe understood in relation to power, power has to beplaced in perspectiveas well.
2.3 Concept; of Power
Power is the capacity for action or the ability to initiate will. In its widest sense, the power' of people or cultural groups rests in their ability to produce intended effects upon the wo r l d around them (Beetham, 1991). Power is unequally distributed in society: some peopleor cultural groups have greater power than others. Throughout history, on e of the ways humans have achieved and maintained power is through influencingorco n t r ol li n g the actions of themselves and others. This is ecccepf Lsbed throughthe acquisition of resources such as strength, knowledge, materialgoods, or a combination of these. With these resources, humans have influenced each other through physical coercion.
manipu lat ion , thre a t e ne d deprivation. and persuasion through reciprocity (Beetham. 1991).
Power is socially organised into systematicrelations of dominance. subordination, symbiosis and resistance. The possession of power can be equated with the possession of resources that allow some cultural groups to have greater discretion over or insulation from the practices and competencies of others in a society (Barnes, 198 8 ) . PO'.oIer dynamics involve disparate exclusion from and access to control over necessary material resources. As ....ell, these
18 dynamics are shaped by the control of those routine activit iesthat permit the possession of knowledge, skills, and positions of command within production. Thus, power lies in the resources used to strengthen one cultural group's capacity for discretion. The 'powerful' are not simply those who can enlist or dominate others and nature into ral lying behind their cause (Murdochand Clark, 1994). but also those who can accommodate others and nature for their The resources of the powerful are many. including knowledge and tectlnology.
2.4 Power and.Co _ o dit y Sya t e••
There are general frameworks for studying power relations withinfoodproduction systems and how these relations affect social and natural environments . Such frameworks focus on the distinct production characteristics of commodities in modern food industries. These characteristics include the labour process, technological factors, and environmental issues (Heffernan and Co n s t a n c e , 19 9 4 ) . Friedland (1984) outlines five foci for stUdying power in commodity systems: production practices; grower organisation; labour as a factor of production; marketing and distribution systems; and knowledge production and technology. Such studies help the researcher understand the dynamics of modern food production by raising questions of power, delineating the social organisation of food production, critically analysing
19 knowledge production. and investigating the ro l e cultural groups have in development. These studies have also emphasised the importance of aggregating social, economic, poli t ical. cu l t u r a l , and environmental aspects of production.
Much political economic research on commodityproduction has examined the wa yscultural groupsattemptto reduce risk and uncertainty and concentrate power within production.
Othe r research has studied howcu l tur a l groupsseek symbiotic relations or insu lati on from.domin a t io n. Li kewis e, research on commodity production has focused attention on the means used by organisa tions (lik e food co rpo r a t ions ) to ens u r e theirown survival, their co nt r o l over external ev e n t s , and the power of their personnel (Beffernan . 1989).
Several cultural gr o u p s in powerful public (government) andpr ivateorganisations (food corporations and banks)ha ve a st ake in the developme ntof knowledgeand techn o logy th a t in cre a s e s thei r contro l ov er" othe r cul tura l grou p s and natural entities wi t hin producti on. Through knowledge and te c h n o l o g y, the y see k to contro l factors in socia l and naturalenvironments that could dramatically further their in t e r e s t s. Othercu l t ura l groupsseek toin sul a t e thems elv es from these dominating forces, aiming to maintain discretion over their own pract i ces and not the practices of other groups. Fromthi s , knowledgeand technology become not only agen ts in the product ionof foodcommo d i t ie s but also tool s of power. Therefore, studyingcommodity productionentails
20 crit ica lly analy si ng the developme nt of knowl edg e and technology . It is on the se aspects of commodity syS t emstha t myresearchwi l l focus.
2. 5 Co.-odi~J S,.tea., bovledge, aD.d Power
This section di s ti ngu ishesbetween twoknowledge tra ditions:
the local an d the scientific. r will i l lu str ate how the s e twoknowledgetra di t i o n s canbeassociated.wi ththe int e r est s and bQl ie f s of pa r t i cularcu l t u r a l groups. Fin a l l y, I wi ll il lus t rate how these cu l t u r a l groups us e their knowledg e tr adi t i ons as themea nstove ry di f f ere nt end s wi t hi n soci al an d natural worl d s. I t should be notedthat al l know ledge tr a diti o ns, regardle ss of their epist e mol ogical unde rpinnings, canbe usedtoestab lish dominant , re sistant . and symbiotic relations. I un derscorethis pointbecause th e followingdiscussionfocus eson the tendencies which arise in social and natu r al wo r l d s when cu l t ures employ loc al and scientificknowledgetraditions . My aim is not to constrast the se twoknowledgesystems as st r ic t dua l i s ms , but ratherto co n tr a st the starkpower differentials associated wi th these knowledge traditionswi t h in modern foodproductionmodels.
2.6 Loca.l ltDowle4ge
Manylocal culturesoften cons t ruc t their knowledgeaccordi ng to the i r ne eds and belief s, as well as the physic al
21 environment in which they live and produce. Therefore, production is guided in part by not only a regard for the particularities of local environments. but also for issues regarding social equity within that locale. This creates local understandings for social and natural dimensions of production and the way these in turn affect how people in local cultures relate to each other and nature.
Local knowledge is .. local .... in the s ens e that i t is derived from the direct experience, beliefs, and needs of those who labour loc a l l y. Furthermore, i t is shaped and delimitedby the distinctive physical characteristics of a particular place (Kloppenberg, 19911. Therefore, local knowledge is intricately bound to place. It makes no claims of universality, and thus is applicable only to the locale where i t germinates. It rarely enables those cultures who construct it to claim knowledge of and control over social and natural entities outside of the locale. However, local knowledge can beused to control power between social groups within local cultures.
Like all knowledge traditions, local knowledge is grounded in beliefs and world views (Berkes, 1993) that dictate production practices as well as relations between genders, and between different ethnic groups within local cultures (Franklin, 19 9 0 ). However, the practices of local cultures give greater indications for symbiotic relations between social and natural actors in local areas than do traditions of knowledge that are constructed solely for the
22 interests and beli.efs of QXternal cultures. Even when local cultur es hav e exhausted reso urc es. thesc ale of dest ruction is smaller and local response is less precluded than when pr oductio n practices are directed fo r the benefit of external cultures.
Cultu ral gro ups insedentary fis h i ng an d ag ricultu r al socie t i e s th a t dependonloca l resources are l ik ely toha v e accumulatedknowledge importan t for sound re sourc e practic es becaus e of th ei r needto susta i n and maximise the resource . Sel f-r egu l a t ory systems evolve in su ch societ i e s. Whe n people depend on a limited resource area to provide a divers i ty of re s o u rces . theirprac t i c esoften re fl ect activ e roles in enhan c i n g. conserving. and re storingbio-divers i ty (Gadgil at a L; , 1993 ). Th i s is notto say that al l local cultur eshav e the same aware ness about the s e relat i o ns . In fa ct, some lo cal. cultu r e s have exha us t ed resources through over-zealo u s practi c e s . Fur the rm o r e , other local curtures ov e r t ime may even have such understandings er o d e d by ex t e r n a l cul t u r e s who penetra te loca l cu l t u r e s maski n g th e co n se que n c e s of social and environ me n tal rel a t ions of production.
2.7 Sc i e n ~ i f i c I[no wle4qe
Unlike local knowledge, scienti f ic knowledgehas been us edto derive explanations for parti culars i tua t ions from universal la y s . se parating knowledge fromexpe r ience. This orthodoxy
23 anddi sre g a r d for context ha s enabled cultural groups using scientific knowledge to exercise control from a distance (MUr d o c h and Clark , 1994) _ Questions su r r o u n d i n g the associatedreductionism and loss of context have given rise to critical analyses of scientific knowledge as a power variable.
The conventional view of science holds th at it accurately represents the natural world and is independent of social impingements that might create bias. which are an acknowledged part of local knowledge. However, various academics and activ ists ar e challeng ing the noti on th a t science is insulated from power, control,.and bias. Klo p p e nbe r g (199 1) holds that the scientific met hod and scientific disciplinesga ine d a hegemonic position in our li v e s , partly because they co n vi nc i n g l y claimed to be the sole source of objective and universal truths about the wor-Ld , Sci@nt ific knowledge has been employed by powerful cuj, tural groups to further thei r control over social and natural ent i ties wi thin production. Powe r f ul inst i t utio ns use the he g e mo nic premise of th e scienti f ic method to increasetheir co nt r o l andle g i t imis e their vision of nature and society.
Throughscient i ficknowledge, many powerful in s t i t ut ions de-legitimise other forms of knowledgethatcould challenge their agendas. Scientific know ledge can be us e d as a powerful tool for co l o n i s ing an d exercising control over social andna t ura l environments (Mu r d oc h and Clark, 199 41.
24 In fact, science. includingmodern agricultural and fishery sc ience , has been organisedand intr od uc ed int o many cultures of th e wo r l d as a means of colon ial domi na t io n (Oeo and Swanson , 19 91 ). An important elemen t in th e spread of scientif icknowledge is the tendencytodepict local cultures as possess ing in f e r i o r knowledgeand practices, and thus in nee d of rescu e fr om themsel ves. In s t e ad of addressing local cul t ure s as poss es sors of comparable knowledge and advantageous product ion pra c tice s, they are depicted as backward, and con t ras ted to the "p r og r e s sive '"' mind set of thoseexternal culturespractis i ng scientif i cknowledge.
With re g a r d to power, through scient i f ic knowledge externalcultural groups seem able to ins e rt themselves quite readily in t o various local envi ronments and make thei r pr o d uct ion practices indispensable to local cultures . acwevee , foreign cultures can only successfully colonise if social an d natural entities are forcedinto accommodation, allowing scientific knowledge to 'ne s t' in the new loc ale (MUrdoch and Clark, 19 9 4 ). Th is accommo dat ion usual ly en tai ls reor g a nising natur e. It alsoen t ai ls marginal i sin g tradi t ional methodsof knowledge tran s mi ssio n within local cult ures by establi sh ing new ins t i tut i on s staffed by scientific experts and by introducing new production practices. Through thesemeasu r e s , localcultureS often find the ms e l v e s de s k i l l e d, tied into scientific networks , and intricate lysubordinatedto external cultural groups forwhom science is a mainstay. These structures extend far beyond
25 th e loca l en vi ronments and beyond the effect i v e co n t r oland experienceofloca l culture s (Mu rdoch and Clark, 199 4 ).
Unlike local knowled g e , the scient i fic k.nowledg e uti l ised by domina n t cultural grou p s often purs ues indices that advancethe colonisationof socia l andna t u r al ent i t i e s for th e be n e fit of cu l t ural gro u p s from outsid e ot' th e locale. These different knowledge systems are ass ociated withth e developnentofverydifferent technologies.
Technology, as a social constructionand atool ofpower , be use d to co n t r o l how cultural groups interactwit h each other andna t u r e. Tecnnology is an importantmechanismth a t facilitates the ne s t ing of scientifically const r ucted produ c t i o n mode l s of external cultural grou ps within local culturesandenvf rcneerres ,
Ju s t as one can distingu ish between two types of knowledge, i t is also possible to distinguish betwe en two types of technology - hol i stic and prescript ive (Frankl i n.
1990)• The categories of hol istic and prescriptive technologies invo l ve distinctlydifferent specialisationsand divisionsof labou r. Con sequentl y, they are means toVQr y
di f f ere ntendsinsoci aland na tura l environme nts.
Holisti c technologie s are norm al l y ass oc i a ted wi th the notion of cr a ft. Theyare artisanal andgive tho sewho use them controlover the know ledgeand pr acti cesof pr oducti on
26 and therefore do no t require standa r di s ation. Holis t ic technolog ies relyupon a respect for th e socia l and natur al parti culari t i e s oflocal environme nts. Holis t ic technologies draw upon knowledge based on the exper i enc e s of local cultures. The r e f o r e. holis tictechnologies canbe seen as loca l knowledg e embedd e d in the practices of pa r t i c u l ar cul tural groups.
Unlikehol istictechnolog i es . pre s cript i ve technol og i e s are des i g n s torcomp l i a n c e. Pre s cr i p t ive te c hnolog i es are used to co n tro l the soc i al activities of othe r cultu r a l groups, as wel l as to ha rne s s nat u r e for the commerc i al inte r e s ts of dominant cul tural groups. These techno l og i e s are the tool s usedby cul tural gr o ups employingsci en t if i c knowledge to dominateover other cultures . Whenprescript i v e techno logies are int r oduc ed. in t o local cultu r e s the stage for the dominat ion of on e cultural group's in te rest s over anothe r's is set. Mode rn ind ustrial produc t ion isdomina t ed by prescriptivetechnologies (Frankl in, 199Q). prescriptive technologiesare impleme n tationsof cultures us ingscientif i c knowledge to co l on ise and standardise. They require th e re struct u r i n g of socia l and na t u r a l aspects of produc t i on wi thin various local env i ro nme nt s . Furthe rm ore, the y help ex t e rna l cu l tu r es redefinethe ri gh ts , responsibi l i t i es. and cont r o l of local cult u r e s. Pr e s cript ive techno l ogy muddles or even destroys th e traditi onal social compas s which histor ical ly ha s been rooted in addres sing the co n cer ns of members ofloca l cultur e s .
27 Globally, holistic technoloqies have been increasingly supplanted by prescriptive technologies. Similarly, tine knowledge of local cultures has been supplanted by the scientific knowledge of foreiqn cultural groups. Today, the orthodoxy associated with scientific knowledge has heightened the temptation to design production systems in prescriptive ways. prescriptive technologies are applied to even those tasks, like cesource management. whichshouldbeconducted in a holistic way (Franklin, 1990).
The relationship between these two technologies or production practices and nature is quite different. Under the direction of local knowledge and holistic technology, a tendency of human intervention in the natural world is the discovery of the best conditions for long term resource use in any local environment. Prescriptive technologies (or the practices of cultures who use scientific knowledge for domination) are employed for quite different reasons. Their principle aim is not only to dominate other cultures, but also to harness nature. If such control is not complete, the implicit assumption is that more prescriptive improvements shouldbeachieved, so that all parameters or spheres can be controlled. The application of prescriptive technology demands standardisation of previously diverse social and natural environments in order that the technological process canbeduplicated in a number of locales (MUrdoch and Clark, 1994). Production models employing prescriptive technologies are constructed without regard for their impact on local
28 envirorunents. Infa c t. because the knowledgeand techn oloqy u t i l i se d in thes e product i on ecdete ar e genera ted ind e pendentlyfrom localexpe r i e nce theyarequit e inflexible for addressing: local conc erns.
Loca l kn ow ledge is so i rrevocab l y ro o ted in the experiencesof thosewho labourthatit isposses sedby local cu l t ure s re gardl e ss of the pr oduc t ion sy ste m employe d. Ther e f o r e. al thoughthe knowledgeof loc al cul tures hasbeen form a l l y excluded fcOlD. managementpra c tic e s, it exis ts even inthe most scientific and prescr ipti veof systems. At the same time. the scale and scope of loc al knowledgediffers be tween prOd uct i on syst ems. The scale and sc o pe this knowledge enta i l s is pa r t l y depend e nt upo n th e skil l s and pra c t i c es as sociated with th e pccduc e Ion system. As product i on sy s te ms. through scien tific know led ge and pres c ri p tivetechnology, become fragme ntedand standardised, so toodoes the knowledge of local cultur e s. However, these fr a gme n t s canbestu diedina systematic fa shio n. Eveninthe most prescr i p t i v e production systems . the ycan in dicatehow ch ang e s inknowledge and tectlnology, andth us powe r. impact on socia l andnatu ralenv iro nments .
Z.9 Consequences of C~pli.ncean d Resistance
Cul t ura l groups who embed scientif i c knowl e d g e in prescriptive techn ologiescan exercisecontrol at a di sta nce.
and this ha s placed th em in a powerful po s i t ion. These
29 cultural groups are as s o c i a t e d with institutions like governments and food corporations . Furthermore, there is growing recognition that these cultural groups, through introducing prescriptive production practices. have caused grave disruptions in the power dynamics of social and natural environments (Murdoch and Clark. 1994). Their colonisation of the holistic practices of other cul tures and the reorganisation of local environments have resulted in the irrevocable loss of precious social and natural resources (Norgaard, 1992).
Due to resistancefrom social and natural entities, the orthodoxical influence of prescriptive technologies has been In many societies around thewo r l d , the holistic practices of local cultures have persistedon the periphery of prescriptive productionsystems. Likewise, loca l knowledge and holistic technologies have been tapped, especially in times of resource decline, in a se a r c h for alternat ive commodities and types of production. In some cases, production using pceec r Lpeave technologies has plateaued.
Th i s has resulted in the development of intermediate technologies. Intermediate technologies represent mid-range practicesbetweenho l i s t i c and prescriptive technologies. In these cases, many social and natural aspects of produceIo n are controlled by scientific knowledge and pr e s c r i p t i v e technologies for the commercial interests of powerful cultural groups. However, local cultures s t i l l rely upon their knowledge for survival and to discern scientific
30 information.
Although considerable variationcanbefoundwithinand between commodity systems wi th respect to knowledge~
technology, and pa..rer. there have been a number of distur bing social and environmental trends as a resul tof cultural groups utilising scientific knowledge for prescriptive techn o l ogi e s in order to dominant scx:ial and naturalwor l d s. The applicat ion of prescrip t ive production models demands st a n d a r di s a t i o n of previously diverse social and natural environments so th a t the principles of produc t ion can be duplicatedin a number of locales (MurdochandClark , 1994).
This, in effect, concentrates power into the hands of governments and food corporations. because scientific knowledge and prescriptive technologies are controlled by them and have been us@ful tools of compliance. This also poses athreatto biodiversityand resource resilence .
Arepercussion of the spread of scientific knowledge and prescripti.vetechnology has been the reconstruction of the world's many loc a l cultures. This. in turn. has altered the way inwhich people in these cultures labour and pccduce, The scientificagendas of corporations and governtDents have pursued research th at disregards or de-emphasi ses loc a l alternatives to prescriptiveproduction. Thro u g h scientific knowledge. commercial interests have detached local cultures and individual species from the res t of nature. The y have also disregardedmUlti-purposeus e s inherent in ecee local environments while capitalising on mono-cultures and single
31 resource industries. Local cult u r e s ofte n emp l o y labour- prescriptive practices of cultivation, and bi olog i cal me an s of disease and pest control , as wel l as practices wh i c h enhance bio-diversity. The dominant method of commodity productiongl ob a l l y is prescri ptive. It is stratifiedand dictato rial. As wel l, i t is subservient to bureaucrats, state governments and corporate interests. In short, i t fails to address both appropriate environmental iss u es and social justice issues for the majority of the world 's cultures (Kloppenberg, 1991) .
Local knowledgeand holistic technologiesare supplanted.
as scientific kn owl e d g e and prescriptive technologies are imported. However, the resilience local cultures maintain through thei r knowledge tradi tions and technologies, now offers viable alternatives to ou r present destruct i ve production mode ls .
Interes t in the s e resistant or alternative production models has arisen with the belief that the outcome of human int e rvention into the natu ral wo r l d is a mixture of the expected an d unexpected (Murdoch and Clark. 1994)_ Thr o u g h o u t histo ry, in t e rve n t io nby local cultures in nature has tended to lessen the burden of and enhance sustenancefor kin and fam i l y thr o u g h holistic practices. Prescriptive methods, on the other hand. have not ai me d to help loc a l cultures further co-rel a t ionships wi t h na t u r e. Under pr e s c rip t i ve production. nature, li ke local CUltures. is severed from theproduction andmanagement of resources and
32 labou rs for the commer cial interes t s of gove rnmen t s and co rpor a t i ons. Howeve r, nature andloca l cultures ha v e proven formidable adversaries because they continue to act in unexpected wa y s whic h attempt to counteract such impositions and construct alternative re lati o n s within production.
2.10 CODclu 8 !oD
I havear gu e d that variou s knowledgetradition s . or waysof kn owing and rel a t i n g to the world, exist. A knowled ge tradition ca n be seen as a soc i a l construct for defining reality in the wo r l d . As a social cons truct i trepre sents the way a part i c u l a r cultural group relates to the wo rld aroundi t. I de fi nedtechno logyas embedding th e knowledge of a cultura l group in pr a ct ic e . I al s o i l lu s t r a ted th at cultu r a l groups. throughdifferentknowledge tradi t ions and te ch nologie s , re late to soc ial and nat u ral enviro nments differently , and thereforecons truc t very different power relations .
Knowledge tr a d i tio n s can be used to domi na te other cultur e s and nature. Howe ve r, they can als o be used to re s i st col oni sation , and used fo r establis hing symbiotic relations among social and natura l entities. I arg u e d that sc ien ti fi c know ledg e is a tool of domi natio n when i t isus ed toaid thedevelopm ent of pre s criptiv e produ c tion pr a cti c e s th a t separ ate kn owledge from experience , thus marginalising
33 loca l knowledge an d con t rol. HoweverI I also su ggest ed th a t the user s of local knowledgeand holist i c technologies are not passive. I ha v e als o emp h a s i s e d the importa n ce of challenging a major assumpti o n of th ose cultures whichemploy prescr iptive technology - that nature is a passive obj ect which ca n be con trolled. Instea d , r have conc e pt u a l i s e d nature and local cultures as capable of activ elymaintaining res i s t an t and symbiotic power rel ations. Theargume nt that they can actively enga ge ext ernal forc e s is one that has ope n ed sp ace for givi ng attention to other forms of knowledge,technol ogy . andproducti on.
Cri t ic ally assessing knowledge an d techn ology from th e perspect ive of power reveals social ju sti ce andenv ironme ntal iss u e s th a t are ofte n maskedby the orthodoxy which equates thesc i e n t i fi c knowledge of part icularcultural groups wi th truthand progress .
Final l y , I arg u e d th a t globa l trends in commodit y produ c t i onsugg e st tha t the dominan t technologies suppo rted by governme nts, sc ie nt i sts , and co rporations ha ve been pre scriptive. Th e s e te c h n o l og ies have significant impacts tha t are social ly and envir o nmen tal ly ne ga t ive. Th e dom inance of pres c r ipti v e te chn o logie s is tendi ng to concentrate powerwi th incommodityproduction sy s tems inth e hands of governments, scientis ts, and corporations. Thes e technologies are cau singenvironmenta l di s t urbances in many locales al l o v e r the world. However, the appl icat ion ot pr escr i ptiv e technol og i es has been une v e n. Th is ha s res u lted
34 in intermediate technologies",h i eh in t e g r a t e holistic and pr e scriptive tec h nolog ies. Furthermore, the knowledge and technologi es of local cultures otten remai ns resili ent and resis tant. and continue s to hold indica ti ons for eor-e equitable and le ss destruc t ive pr oduction. as wel l as the regeneration of degra dedres ource s.
Baving examined how sit u a t i o n s of compl ia n c e, res is tance, andsymbiosis arisefr om the local and scient ific know l edge tradi t i ons of differen t cul tural groups, I wil l now analyse how these tr ad it i o n s of knowl e dge have shaped aquaculture pract ices globally, and in turn refash i oned social and en vironme ntal as pe c ts of fi s h produ cti o n around the world.
35 Cbapter 3
Global rrend. in Aquacult.ural Product.ion: lIoli . tic , IIlt.eraediat.e, and preeeript. i",e Pract.ice s
3.1 Int.roduct.ion
Th i s chap t e r ex a mine s t rend s in gl o b al aquac u l t u ral de v e lopme n t . I discuss th r e e general aquacultural mod els using the theor eti c a l perspectives onknowled ge, te c hn olog y and power I pre sented.Ln chapter 2. I also address the socia l and environmental issuesassoc iatedwiththesemodels. I illustrate how external cult ura l grou p s use sci e n tifi c knowledge to devel op pres c riptive techn o log ies that disp lac e the holistic fi shproductionpra c t i c e s of local cul t ures, and re s t ru c t u r e nature . As well, I emphasis that natu re and local cultures do notrespondpas sivelyto these impos i t ions. Local cu ltu res deve l op intermediate tec hn o loqies that co- exi st witb prescriptive pra cti ce s. and somet imes offer alternat ive produc t ion models that are le s s dest ru c tiv e. Thi s cha pter provide s a ba c kdr o p for understanding how kn owledge an d technol o gy have shaped Newf ou n dl an d cod pr oducti onhi stor i c ally, especi a llyNewfoundlandcod farming in th e 19 80 5 and 19 9 05.
36 3.2 Glo b al Aqua cu li:;qr a l Product:.ioD.
Generally. aquaculture researchers have distinguished between three kinds of production: extensive, intensive. and sem.i- in t e n siv e (Mululc and Bailey, 1996; Phyne. 1994). These categories have been used to address differences among aquacultural production models according to patterns of technological advancement, capitalinvestment.and social and environmental relations of product ion (Muluk and Bailey.
1996) . Inchapter 2. I presented a theoretical frame'fK>rk for studying know l e d g e tradi t ions and tech n o log i e s fr o m the perspectiveof power. This framework can beused to address dif f erencesamong these models from the perspective of power- as ....ell. Extensive production models can beassociated with local knowledgeand hol i sti c techn olo g i e s that are symbiotic with social and natural enti t i es. Intensive production models are ch a r acte r i s ed by the use of scie n t i f i ckn o wl e d g e for the development of highlyprescriptivetechnologieswhich consol idate pewee and restructure nat u re. Semi -inte n sive produ ctionmodels are loos e l y located between extens ive and in tensiv e models. Therefore. th e s e mid-range hyb rids consisting of combinat ions of local an d scient ificknowledge tr a di t i o nsut i l i s e in t e rm edia t e techno logies.
3.3 B:ll:tens i ve Aquaculture aDd Ho l i s t i c Pracf: i ces
Extensive aquacuLture modelsdepend on fish raised.from seed
37 or young fish collected in the wild which are kept in ponds, la g oon s . or in s ho r e areas. Al.most all of theirnutritional requirements are derived from natural sources, primarily th r o u g h tidal act ion. Other practices usin g slight ly modified versions of these traditional practices(Muluk and Bailey, 1996) involve theuse of a series of ponds or ins h o r e areas fo r different stages of the fish culturedevelopment where theca ptur e of young fis h, int e n t i o n al fe rt i l isa t i o n , protection from pr e d a t o r s and competitors. and the use of supplemental feed expeditegrowth.
Researchers have argued that extensive aquaCUlture models becauseth e yinc o rpora t e bia-diversify ingmethods. are not only more envirorunentally sound in that they re d u c e excess waste and contagions, butalsolimit vulnerabi lityto market forcesby relying on a number of key species (Bailey and Skladan y, 1991)_ Li k e wise , Gadgi l et al. (19 9 3 ) have argued that the traditional fish rearing systems like those pr a c t i s ed by peoples on the Paci f ic Rim. are based on holist ic practices for enhancing, conserving, and restoring bi o - divers i ty . These researc hers have ar gued that su c h practices us e a variety of local species, util is i n g the bio l ogical and economicchara c t e ri s t i c s of eachbydrawingon local knO'W'ledge and practi ces. Extensiveaquaculture models recycle waste for food, and thus enhance the natura l potential for ec o l o g i c a l stabil i ty in local areas. This eliminates the need for chemicalsapplied to kil lparasi tes and to prevent disease. It also facilitates micro-level
38 ecological monitoring.
Extensive production models vhieh rely on local knowledge essentially shift nature'S and labour's productivity to satisfy the needs of local cultural and natural environments. These needs include increasing rural in c o me , sustenance foods. and efforts to plan diversified household production based on the natural capabilities and attributes of different locales. Thus, such models complement local biological events and strengthen the position of local cultures. From these characteristics.
extensive aquacultural models can be seen as employing holistictechnologies.
It canbe argued that holistic aquaculture production practices canbeusedby fishers as a strategy for econOULic diversification, and income supplementation. by taking advantage of fuller resources. Foss and Aarset (1996) argue that diversification is a strategy practised.in Norway. where cod farming has been adoptedby fishers as a way to protect th e ms e l ve s from fluctuations that occur in wild cod stocks and market prices. The role local knowledge traditions maintainfor bio-diversity and the inter-related flexibility which insulates practioners from market forces have also been studied (Eythorsson. 19 9 3 ) . However, other production practices have been developed by cultural groups who are concerned about developing aquaculture models for less intrusive reasons.
39 3.4 Int.e n s i v e Aquacult.ure and Preeeript.ive Pract.ices
In many fishing nations. aquaculture's image is one of high entrepreneurship in a boom industry. I t is often conceptualised as a source of regional employment. enhancer of local resources. and a utiliser of local knowledge and skill. However, some social and natural science researchers argue that with the encroachmentof prescriptive production these positive role s for aquaculture wi l l be superceded by corporate interests (Bailey at al. 1996.Wilks, 1995). This is partly due to government policies and corporate ini tiatives which pursue technological packages that drastically reduce manual labour and employ, in s t e a d , a ho s t of costly mechanical and biotechnical inputs. Although commerciallyviable and suitedto corporate profit margins, such development is not viable in the long term. for rural communit ies or societies as a whole. These production methods often aggravate socioeconomi.c dispar i ties. jeopardise the healthof the public, and degrade the coastal ecosystems in whichthey are practised. similar to industrialisation within agricul tu re . this loss of control represents not only a decline in economicpower, but also a loss of controlov e r vital aspects of production. The leverage local cultures have to gauge the effects of production on their ecosystems and on the wel l-beingof their families decreases. Local knowledge and holistic skills required for more sensitive production methods spiral into perdition .
40 Emerging patterns in aquaculture production parallel a number of prescriptive technological te n d e nc i e s in modern livestockproduction (Skladany , 1996). Theseincludemono- cropping fo r global luxury markets, biogenetic engineering, hormone enhanced growth, and the use of vaccinations and antibioti c s tofigh t disease resulti ng fr om the caging of a great number of thesame speciestogether.
Int e nsive aquaculturemodelswhi charehig h l y scienti fic ar e revo lut ionising the aquacult ural production process around the world . Such models ha v e di s pl aced the holistic fish reari ngmethods practisedbylocal peoples for hundreds of years inmany Pa ci fic rim cou ntries (Bailey andSk l a d any, 199 11. Intensiveaquaculture models depend on hatcheries whichsuppl y larg e amounts of genetically altered fi s h fry and stock large densities of fish together. Also. theycan achi e ve sup e rio r growth rates th r o u g h re g ula r use of commercial feed and the systematic mo n i tor i n g of disease.
prescriptivemethod s ha v e been refined through scient i f ic researchresulting in the introduc tionof growth enhancers like ster oidsand ho rmo n e s, anddise a s e fig hting agents like antibiotics.
Governments and fis h co mpani es have in i t i at e d aquacultural re s e a rc hwi t h the goal of intensivedevelopment.
Heavy inf r a s truc t u r e expendi tu re in suc h areas as bio - genetics, dis ease control, and ve ter i n ary services has been pursued. Great attent io n has been given to the st and ardi s a t i o n of production and to market promotion (Coull,
41 1993) . Whi leprodu c t ivityfrom intensiveaqua culture 1DOde1s is high. the purchased inputs are ve ry costly compared to less intrusive fish rear ing practices which rel y on local ca p t u re fi she r ie s for starting stock and feed. Thus , th e se aquaculture modelsofte n rely on high valu e luxury spec ies tha t satisfy production costs (Coul l , 199 3. Bai ley and Skladany ,1991).
Inv estors inintensiv e operationsare ofte n members of local elites wi t h bus i ness in t e r e s t s in corpor a te organ i s ations whic h ma y be ve r tic al ly in t eg rated through owne r shipof hatcheries, feedmills. as well as proces sing facil i t ies (Mulu k and Ba i ley , 199 6). Corpor a t e owners are rarely if ever presen t forthe dayto dayon -cageoperat ion of these farms, instea d th ey hi re ma n a g ers and eecnmca j, statf. Employees hired by thecorporatefarmoper ationstend to be rec rui ted frOUl distan t communi ties rather fr om local areas (Baileyet af, 199 6). Labour ishighlyspecialised and hie r archical wi t h inboth aquacul tura l farmin g andprocessing sector s . Forexample. ce rtainlabourersare re s ponsible fo r feeding,othe rs work fef!dst ore hou s e s, in processingpl ants as fi l l e t e r s and packers. or as clerks and supervisors (Mulukand Bailey , 199 6).
J.5 Seai- int.en . b,e Aquacult.ure and Int.eraediat.e Pract.ice.
Semi-intensive aquacultu r e mo de ls maintain a mi d- r ang e
