This section will discuss some of the underlying discursive aspects of Mi'kmaq resource rights, knowledge, ethics and cross-cultural differences, which both the LMP and MMP need to negotiate. In reference to Escobar (2006), I will argue that these cross-cultural confrontations and misconceptions are essentially due to different cultural constructions of resource use; however, different views on colonization and co-existence in regards to Mi'kmaq rights will also be highlighted. This discussion will draw on Escobar’s poststructuralist framework and his concept of “cultural distribution conflicts” (Escobar, 2006).
Several scholars have pointed out that the resources to construct and legitimize different ideas of resource use are unevenly distributed among actors (Belsky, 2002; Escobar, 2006; Paulson et al., 2003). Consequently, decision making power in the management of aboriginal resources can be executed by privileging Western constructions of nature and marginalizing aboriginal ontologies (Howitt & Suchet-Pearson, 2006; Suchet, 2002; Willems-Braun, 1997)
a) Cross-Cultural Understanding of Ethics, Knowledge and Rights The literature reviewed in Chapter 4 agrees that co-management is challenged by fundamentally incommensurable ontologies of natural resources and human resource use (Escobar, 2006; Suchet, 2002). The ontological difference between Mi'kmaq and non-native ways of resource use are illustrated in the case studies in regards to Mi'kmaq knowledge, Netukulimk and resource rights. Since conventional frameworks of resource management do not accommodate the Mi'kmaq ontology, Mi'kmaq claims to knowledge, ethics and rights are misconceived.
Mi'kmaq concepts of MEK and Netukulimk are grounded in a holistic worldview, where humans maintain intricate and reciprocal relations to their environment. Since non-native ontologies allow for human domination of their environment, they do not accommodate Mi'kmaq concepts, which may contribute to non-native distrust of Mi'kmaq resource management capacity based on MEK and Netukulimk.
In turn, some Mi'kmaq I spoke to objected to the nature of non-native commercial and recreational resource harvest and doubted that non-natives have respectful and ethical ways of resource management. This is reflected by Clifford Paul’s statement that “if a non-native person had our rights, they’d … have nothing but blood on [their] hands” (Paul, 2007). Likewise, some Mi'kmaq do not trust that universal science can sufficiently manage ecological systems and resource harvest. Tom Johnson refers to these notions when he asks: “Why should we rely on science … when it has not done any good in the past 100 years?” (Johnson, 2007). Indeed, the demise of the Atlantic ground fishery in the 1990s is the most prominent local case for scientific mis-management. The fact that warning signs of changing spawning patterns in the Bras d’Or Lakes were observed by MEK, but disregarded by DFO (Hipwell, 2001), may have contributed to Mi'kmaq scepticism towards universal science in resource management.
While misconceptions and distrust of MEK and Netukulimk are due to ontological difference or nature and harvest, Mi'kmaq and non-native conceptions of Mi'kmaq resource rights are due to different views on colonization and co-existence. Although my research did not address this explicitly, different understandings and premises of resource rights often became evident in the shortcomings of cross- cultural communication, which contributes to the controversy and confrontation around the Mi'kmaq FSC harvest. Not considering the legacy of colonization, non- native discourses may portray Mi'kmaq rights to priority access as unfair and rather call for equal resource access. In reference to aboriginal claims, I often heard non- native claims of customary resource use over successive generations, even if this has relied on colonial marginalization of Mi'kmaq access. In turn, Mi'kmaq hold that their recently affirmed rights are but remnants reclaimed from colonial dispossession.
b) Negotiating Ontological Difference
Both LMP and MMP need to negotiate non-native misconceptions of Mi'kmaq knowledge, ethics and rights, which shows that ontological difference and cross-cultural representations shape resource management decisions. These discursive aspects are thus integral to the political ecology of aboriginal resource access.
In Escobar’s terms, Mi'kmaq do not hold the “resources to construct” and justify ontological and cultural dimensions of their FSC harvest. The “cultural distribution conflict” in Nova Scotia means that Mi'kmaq ways are “denied” in the face of mainstream non-native values and frameworks (Escobar, 2006:10).
Limited cross-cultural communication and understanding of ontological difference are partly responsible for non-native discourses that dismiss Mi'kmaq concepts of MEK, Netukulimk or resource rights. The objective of the LMP to enhance cross-cultural communication of Mi'kmaq resource management is therefore a very proactive attempt to reconcile these ‘cultural distribution conflicts’. In turn, Tom Johnson (EFWC) questions the need for reconciliation:
“Have non-native accusations in regards to First Nation resource management and rights to resources affected our ability to operate?” (Johnson, 2007)
In any case, the case studies show that ontological differences are at the heart of cross-cultural debates concerning Mi'kmaq FSC harvest. While Mi'kmaq are trying to bridge this lack of understanding, non-native discourses and representations do not acknowledge the distinct cultural context of Mi'kmaq harvest, ethics and rights. In this context, the case studies of self-governed, culturally appropriate resource management need to be considered as substantial steps decolonizing cross- cultural misconceptions.