integrated local environmental knowledge and involvement of local stakeholders in shiretoko and...

Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge and Involvement of Local Stakeholders in Shiretoko

and Yakushima World Heritages

Hiroyuki Matsuda (Yokohama Nat’l Univ)Makino M, Yumoto T, Sato T

Thanks to: S-K. Hong, T. Okano, K. Tetsuka

Overview

• What is Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge?

• Why “Fisheries co-management in Shiretoko World Heritage site” became an Impact Story of Internat’l Assoc Study of Commons 2010?

• Deer management plan in Yakushima Island

transdisciplinary and solution-oriented blends of scientific and local knowledge produced in collaborative actions to manage local ecosystem services

dynamically produced and transformed by interaction and interpenetration of knowledge systems between scientists and stakeholders

diverse producers of ILEK including skilled workers of primary industries (farmers and fishers), local companies, NGOs and local government officials・・・ most of them are knowledge users at the same time

3

Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK)

4

ILEK is a blend of diverse types of knowledge utilized by stakeholders for adaptive governance

Knowledge in livelihood, Indigenous knowledge, Ethnic technology, etc

Knowledge production in the primary industry (Farmers, Fishers)

Knowledge from local government and other entities

Professional scientistsSpecific knowledge

Participatory research　 by stakeholders

Structure of Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK)

1. ILEK is formed through collaborations and interactions between diverse knowledge producers and users in the process of stakeholder-driven activities to solve local environmental problems.

2. Residential researchers and translators emerge in local communities and dynamically change their positions and functions as an actor in local networks, by producing and circulating ILEK. Their catalytic roles support adaptive governance of local ecosystems.

3. Bidirectional translators mediate knowledge flow across multiple scales from global to local. This facilitates coordinated bottom-up and multi-scale solutions of global environmental problems such as degradation of ecosystem services.

5

Working Hypothesis…World Views

Overview




7

Problems in SC & Marine WG

• Government promised to Fishers Associations not to make further regulation for World Heritage

• IUCN requested further conservation efforts.

• SC’s solution:– Increasing effort for

conservation by fishers– Describe management plan

as fishers are doing.– Expand area including shelf

読売新聞

8

An SC member said to fishers, “it is impossible to add no more regulation forever”

SC chair and members got angry because Governm’t ignoured our advise for IUCN’s 1st comments. Gov-ernment asked SC’s advise for IUCN’s 2nd comments and resulted in “expand marine area without regulation by law”

Fishers accepted expansion of m

arine area

Hokkaido N

ewspaper

9

Spawning groundFishing-ban area（ 1995～ )Fishing-ban area（ 2005～ )

Mitsutaku Makino’s idea“MPAs” to protect Walleye pollock

Bottom trawling is totally prohibited in the coastal area

177 boats fished walleye pollock in 1995Decreased to 86 boats in 2004 (49% reduction)Compensation to retired fishers by Fisheries Organization

Fishing ban during Mar 20-end since 1995Fishers expanded Fishing ban area in 2005

Rausu Fishers

10

Missions of the SC

• Describe and evaluate voluntary management of coastal fisheries as they do

• Okhotsk stock assessment of walleye pollock and make a stock recovery plan – By spawners, catch and CPUE including Russian

data.

• Build relationship with Russian scientists and …

• Examine effects of sapling of salmonids on wild population and fisheries

• PVA of sea lions based on responsible data

11

IUCN "Report of the reactive moni-toring mission 18-22 February 2008

•The mission team also applauds the bottom up approach to management through the involvement of local communities and local stake-holders, and also the way in which scientific knowledge has been effectively applied to the management of the property through the overall Scientific Committee and the specific Working Groups that have been set up. These provide an excellent model for the management of natural World Heritage sites elsewhere.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1193/documents/

2008/2/21 10:382008/2/21 10:45

12

Shiretoko’s episode during World Heritage is one of the 6 impact stories

http://www.iasc-commons.org/impact-storiesFounder=E. Ostrom

Overview




Contour = estimated deer density (/km2)

World Heritage site (1993)Wilderness areaSpecial Protected area1st rank Special area2nd rank Special area3rd rank Special area

14

Yakushima National Parkby Ministry of Environment (1964/2012)World Natural Heritage (1993, 10747ha)

Jomon CedarCa. 7200 yr. oldPhoto: Min. of Env.

15

■Core area of FER 9601ha■Buffer zone of FER 5585ha■National Forest

Forest Ecosystem Reserveby Forestry Agency (1992)

Field trip by SC

Overall goals for the experience:Why do we need deer management?

Sika deer Cervus nippon yakushimae (endemic subspecies) has once been threatened by over-exploitation, and well conserved since 1980s.

Recently deer population recovered and they damages on natural vegetation and endemic plants

1616

17

Agricultural damage by wildlifein Yakushima Island.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

サル

シカ

ヒヨドリ

カラス

1987

1992

2002

1997

（千円）

Yakushima Town Municipality

Monkey

Deer

}Birds

Dam

age (thousand yen)

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Catch in number of deer

18

Population size N=2300~3000(Otsuka 1981)

N=12000~16000(Kagoshima Env. Tech. Assoc. 2010)

No catch

Scientific Council Established

Biosphere Reserve

World Heritage

Massive cullingC2010=1900

By Fujimaki

Do we really need Madrid Action Planor BR in Yakushima World Heritage?

• My answer is …

19

Yes!• We need sustainable use

and adequate human activities in Yakushima.

• One of the biggest problems is overabundant deer, especially in WH/BR core area.

• The Scientific Council for Shiretoko WH agreed to consider submission to BR!

North

Northeast

Southeast

South

CentralWest

Draft management plan by Kagoshima Pref.

Simulation if C=C2010

20

Population size (mean) Catch in number (mean)

By Fujimaki

Northeast

Southeast

2008 2011 20172008 2011 2017

Population decreasesin northeast and westPopulation increase in central area

By Fujimaki

×2C

×3C

×40C

Northeast

Southeast

2008 2011 2017 2008 2011 2017

Population size (mean) Catch in number (mean)

We need much more catch!

Zoning – means to meet the challenges of biodiversity management in multi-use areas with the objective of sustainable development.

Organizational/governance arrangements – enabling involvement of all actors in management and decision-making processes.

New forms of institutional cooperation and links between different levels of economic and political decision making.

C B TC B T

Local Com-munitiesLegislationScientific

Inistitutions

ManagementAuthorities

Conservation

Research &Monitoring

Local Deve-lopment

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere ProgrammeBiosphere Reserves – Key Features

By Pro ｆ . Choi

Engagement of all the relevant stakeholders.

Set numerical goals

Flow diagram for ecological risk management(Rossberg et al 2005 Landscape Ecology and Engineering)

Concerns, issues

Organize local council and scientific committee

Initiate management and monitoring

Scientific procedure

Consensus building

Risk assessment for no-action case

Revision required

Reset goalswhen not agreed

Reset goalswhen infeasible

Check necessity and purpose of management

Decide measures & goals

Check feasibility of goals

Review numerical goals

Screening

Finish program

scientistspublic

Conclusion: the role of scientists..

• … propose solutions that – are feasible– actually solve environmental problems– are agreeable among stakeholders.

• … do not play as stakeholders.• … find universal/scientific values of local bio-

cultural knowledge and capitals.• … build trust among local stakeholders