Knowledge co-production around the cormorant-fishing conflict using a joint fact-finding approach

The great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) has been a persistent source of human-wildlife conflicts in the Baltic Sea area. Fishers have perceived cormorants as competitors for fish resources, while conservationists have resisted mass hunting of the birds. In this paper, we analyse the cormorant conflict in Finland, with a special focus on its factual dimensions and the previous attempts to address the conflict at the national and regional levels. We also present the results from a knowledge co-production process, structured as a joint fact-finding process to address the contested knowledge claims concerning cormorant-fishing interactions. The results suggest that the factual controversy about the cormorant effect on fishing livelihood is essentially a frame conflict resulting from different scales of analysis. Our findings support the assumption that knowledge co-production processes have the potential to address science-intensive environmental conflicts and create practically useful and contextually appropriate knowledge, which integrate scientific knowledge with place- and practice-based knowledge. The process developed a shared understanding of the fishers' practical wildlife-induced problems and several other questions, including cormorant impacts on migratory fish in Finland. A key to generating shared information was that the participants had control over information used in the process. Furthermore, third-party facilitation was important to ensure effective dialogue. While interpersonal conflicts have not been the original source of the impasse, they have become an important part of it and prevented efforts to constructively address the conflict.

Automated summary

This paper examines the cormorant conflict in Finland, highlighting the frame conflict resulting from different scales of analysis. The study finds that knowledge co-production processes have the potential to address environmental conflicts and generate practical and contextually appropriate knowledge. Key factors include participants' control over information and third-party facilitation of dialogue.