Politicising fish research for river defence: insights from the Netherlands and Colombia

Rivers all over the world are deteriorating in a fast rate. As a response, movements in the defence of rivers emerge and aim to restore and protect rivers. One of these defence strategies is to politicise fish to generate arguments for the protection of rivers, drawing from a fish-friendly river imaginary. The concept of river imaginaries describes that power is exercised through and by knowledge generated in truth regimes. In this poster presentation, we elaborate on two cases in which fishing people and their allies use a variety of truth strategies, resonating with specific fish-friendly river imaginaries. Both case studies are influenced by harmful mining and industry practices that pollute the river and wetland.
The Dutch case study of the Border Meuse river reveals that the main argument to politicise fish is that infrastructural interventions and hydropower is killing and damaging fish. Through knowledge generating on the amount of fish-death and the aquatic state, a knowledge agenda is set and power is exercised to stop harmful river activities. The Colombian case of the Zapatosa wetlands reveals that the main argument to politicise fish is that fish is the main source of food. Through knowledge generating that focusses on re-learning from past artisanal fishing strategies and biocultural adaptation, a knowledge agenda is set and power is exercised to stop harmful mining practices. Although these river movements are using truth regimes to defend rivers, counter facts, counter norms, and counter agendas in the defence of harmful practices remain to exist.