what makes social-ecological systems robust? - a case study of natural resources management in the...
DESCRIPTION
A presentation at International Symposium on Environmental Sociology in East Asia 2013, Hohai University, Nanjing, ChinaTRANSCRIPT
International Symposium on Environmental Sociology in East Asia 2013, Hohai University, Nanjing, China
What makes social-ecological systems robust? - A case study of natural resources management in the Kitakami area of northern Japan
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D.Environmental SociologyHokkaido [email protected]
Social-ecological system
• A social-ecological system is a complex integration of nature and society, where the two interact in complicated ways.
• Studies on social-ecological systems have developed during the last decade. (Berkes et al. eds., 2003; Walke et al., 2004; Anderies et al., 2004; Folke et al.,
2005; Miyauchi ed., 2009)
• Although a social-ecological system is far more complicated as a whole, it can be analyzed by focusing on local systems. One can choose a sustainable area and analyze sustainability mechanism.
• One focal point of social-ecological systems is its robustness: What makes social-ecological systems robust?
Purpose
• Investigate what makes social-ecological systems robust, through a case study of natural resources management in the Kitakami area of northern Japan.
Kitakami
大室南部神楽保存会』 FB ページより
Why the Kitakami area?
• The area has a variety of natural resources that local people have sustainably utilized.• Marine, forest, and river resources• Communities’ collective involvement
in resource management
Kitakami
大室南部神楽保存会』 FB ページより
Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan
• 20 communities (villages)• Population: 3,718 (2010
census)• Population over 65 yrs: 30%• Main industries: fishing (142
engaged), agriculture (86), construction (305), and manufacturing (337)
Kitakami
1 km
Kitakami
Research method
Since 2004 • Qualitative research
• Conducted semi-structured interviews of 100+ people with a variety of occupations, ages, and sexes
• Collected historical and statistical material
Natural resources in Kitakami
Marine resources
fish (salmon), abalone, sea urchin, wakame (Undaria pinnatifida), kelp, seashore seaweeds, and aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallops)
Forest resources
wood for charcoal, firewood, pampas grass, and chestnuts
River resources
basket clams and reeds
Marine resources in Kitakami
Marine resources
fish (salmon), abalone, sea urchin, wakame (Undaria pinnatifida), kelp, seashore seaweeds, aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop), etc.
Forest resources
wood for charcoal, firewood, pampas grass, chestnuts, etc.
River resources
basket clams, reeds
Marine resources and management bodies
Resource Management body Beneficiary
Abalone fishermen’s cooperative households
Fish (salmon) fishermen’s cooperative households
Sea urchinscommunity organization (Keiyakuko) households
Wakame and kelp collecting community organization (Keiyakuko)
community organizations and households
Aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallops) fishermen’s cooperative households
Seashoreseaweeds
community organization (Keiyakuko)
community organizations and households
(Source) field data
1 km
KitakamiFisherm
en’s cooperativ
e
Keiyakuko
KeiyakukoKeiyakuko
Keiyakuko
Keiyakuko
What is Keiyakuko （契約講） ?
• Traditional community organization in certain areas of northern Japan(Each community has a Keiyakuko.)• Autonomous governing system• Mutual aid system• Conducts traditional rituals• Owns communal property (e.g., forest land)• Owns resource usufruct rights• Handles resource management systems
Keiyakuko and resource management
• Keiyakuko is not only a resource management organization but also an integrated body.
• Management system works!• People think they should obey rules set by the
Keiyakuko, which covers various aspects of their livelihood.
Seashore seaweeds case
Five species of seashore seaweeds:Nori (Porphyra sp.), Funori (Gloiopeltis spp.), Hijiki (Sargassum fusiforme), Matsumo (Ceratophyllum demersum), and Tsunomata (Chondrus ocellatus)
Community rules on seashore seaweed
Community Rules on seashore seaweeds
KomuroKeiyakuko’s rules. All types are harvested by each household. Revenue goes to each household
OhmuroKeiyakuko’s rules with strict punishment. Collective harvesting on the first day of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the second day. The collective harvest revenue goes to the Keiyakuko.
Kodomari
Keiyakuko’s rules. One type of seaweed is collectively harvested, and its revenue goes to the Keiyakuko. The other types are collectively harvested on the first day of open season and individually harvested beginning from the second day.
Aikawa
Keiyakuko’s rules. Formerly, collective harvesting on the first and second days of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the third day. The collective harvest revenue went to the Keiyakuko. Currently, all individual harvesting.
KozashiKeiyakuko’s rules. Collective harvesting on the first day of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the second day. The collective harvest revenue goes to the Keiyakuko.
KotakiKeiyakuko’s rules. Each household harvests seaweed. Seaweed of one offshore rock island has open access.
Community rules on seashore seaweed
Community Rules on seashore seaweeds
KomuroKeiyakuko’s rules. All types are harvested by each household. Revenue goes to each household
OhmuroKeiyakuko’s rules with strict punishment. Collective harvesting on the first day of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the second day. The collective harvest revenue goes to the Keiyakuko.
Kodomari
Keiyakuko’s rules. One type of seaweed is collectively harvested, and its revenue goes to the Keiyakuko. The other types are collectively harvested on the first day of open season and individually harvested beginning from the second day.
Aikawa
Keiyakuko’s rules. Formerly, collective harvesting on the first and second days of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the third day. The collective harvest revenue went to the Keiyakuko. Currently, all individual harvesting.
KozashiKeiyakuko’s rules. Collective harvesting on the first day of open season and individual harvesting beginning from the second day. The collective harvest revenue goes to the Keiyakuko.
KotakiKeiyakuko’s rules. Each household harvests seaweed. Seaweed of one offshore rock island has open access.
• Diversity in how each community manages resources and how each species is managed
• Flexibility in each community’s situation• Flexibility in each year’s situation
Human-nature interaction in seashore seaweed collection
Human activities on seashore seaweed are observed to ensure sustainable production:
1. Locals extend rocks and install new rocks. “New rocks are productive for seaweed” （ S.T., 2010.3.21 ） “Installing new rocks are for more seaweed production. Seashore
seaweed used to be something like ‘rice’ for us locals.” （ E.E., 2009.8.5 ）
2. Locals sometimes sow seaweed seed by pouring water with seed.
3. Harvesting seaweed enables production for the next year.
“If you do not harvest it, other plants may grow and prevent seaweed growing.” （ E.E., 2009.8.5 ）
4. Locals leave the bottom part of seaweed to enable regrowth.
Human-nature interaction in seashore seaweed collection
Human activities on seashore seaweed are observed to ensure sustainable production:
1. Locals extend rocks and install new rocks. “New rocks are productive for seaweed” （ S.T., 2010.3.21 ） “Installing new rocks are for more seaweed production. Seashore
seaweed used to be something like ‘rice’ for us locals.” （ E.E., 2009.8.5 ）
2. Locals sometimes sow seaweed seed by pouring water with seed.
3. Harvesting seaweed enables production for the next year.
“If you do not harvest it, other plants may grow and prevent seaweed growing.” （ E.E., 2009.8.5 ）
4. Locals leave the bottom part of seaweed to enable regrowth.
Interaction between humans and nature is crucial to sustainability.
Findings from marine resources management
• What is crucial to local resource management?
1. Interaction between humans and nature
2. Existence of local management
3. Integrity of local management body
4. Multi-layered system
5. Diversity depending on resources and communities
6. Flexibility in management
Forest resources in Kitakami
Marine resources
fish (salmon etc.), abalone, sea urchin, wakame (Undaria pinnatifida), kelp, seashore seaweeds, aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallops), etc.
Forest resources
wood for charcoal, firewood, pampas grass, chestnuts, etc.
River resources
basket clams, reeds
Forest area:
charcoal-making, p
ampas grass, and chestnut
Reed bed
Charcoal-making
Charcoal-making until the1960s• One of the main income sources• Broadleaf trees are cut from the
following forests: State forests Private forests Community forests: Keiyakuko-owned
Rules in charcoal-making from state and community forests
• Government permits Keiyakuko to cut trees in the state forest. Permission is granted as per customary rights.
• Keiyakuko controls the rules for state community forests. Keiyakuko divides the area into each
household under the rules. Only Keiyakuko members can join. Keiyakuko decides where each member
can cut trees in the permitted forest.
Pampas grass (Miscanthus sinensis)
Pampas grass (Miscanthus sinensis)
• Pampas grass grew widely in forests until a large cedar forestation in the 1960s.
• People are free to use pampas grass even from the state forest.
Chestnut (Castanea crenata)
• Until the 1950s, chestnutswere gathered as food.
• The locals were free to gather chestnuts.
• However, there was a loose rule or norm as to the day on which to begin the harvest.
Forest production and management rules
Charcoal-making
Keiyakuko controlled with strict rules
Pampas grass (Miscanthus sinensis)
Free to collect
Chestnut (Castanea crenata)
Loose rule as to the day on which to begin the harvest
Findings from forest resource management
1. Despite ownership, community rights exist.
2. Collective rights and rules are crucial.
3. Rules are flexible depending on species.
River resources in Kitakami
Marine resources
Fish (salmon etc.), abalone, sea urchin, wakame (Undaria pinnatifida), kelp, Seashore seaweeds, aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop), etc.
Forest resources
wood for charcoal, firewood, Pampas grass, chestnuts, etc.
River resources
Reeds, basket clams (Corbicula japonica)
Seashore ：
Seaweed harvesting, fishing,
and aquaculture
River:
Reed harvesting
Forest:
Wood, pampas
grass, and chestnut
Natural resources in Kitakami
１ km
reed bed
Reed bed (10 km and 150 ha) (Phragmites australis)
Reed bed (Phragmites australis)
• Highly acclaimed landscape• “Rare and valuable”• Symbol of local nature
Reed bed as symbolic landscape of the area
Reeds’ value for biodiversity
• Many ecological studies have evaluated reeds.
(van der Putten, 1997; Suzuki et al., 1993; Fujii, 2001)
It purifies water. It provides a habitat for fish and
maintains biodiversity.
Reed harvesting
Contribution of human activities to biodiversity
• Many ecological studies have revealed that human involvement is crucial to the sustainability of the reed ecosystem. It prevents other species’ invasion. It promotes new bud growth. It preserves nutrition.
“River improvement project” andthe birth of the reed bed in Kitakami
Before the implementation of the river improvement project
Source: Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport
Research Area
Old Kiatami River
Kiatam
i River
“River improvement project” andthe birth of the reed bed in Kitakami
River improvement project: 1911–1931↓The reed bed appeared.
Source: Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport
Built a channel
widened the river
Research Area
New Kiatami River
Kiatam
i River
Before the implementation of the river improvement project (1915)
１ km
After the completion of the river improvement project (1936)
１ km
The reed bed appeared
reed bed
Source: Kitakami Choshi (The History of Kitakami-cho), 2005
Before the implementation of the river improvement project=> After the project
The reed bed at present
Reed bed
Reed bed
Reed bed with harvesting
Reed bed without harvesting
Human–nature interactionHuman activities have maintained the reed bed landscape.
After the completion of the river improvement project (1936)
１ ｋｍ
Conflicts over the right to harvest reeds in the 1930s
After the completion of the river improvement project (1936)
１ ｋｍ
Conflicts over the right to harvest reeds in the 1930s
A consensus was achieved, wherein each community had the right to harvest the reeds bordering its area.
Reed use and communities’ rights
• History of usage Initially, people from each community
harvested and sold the reeds.
Later, local entrepreneurs started harvesting and selling the reeds, and they paid a commission to the community (Keiyakuko).
Usage of reeds over the years
Usage of reeds over the years
Community members themselves
harvest and sell the reeds.
Local entrepreneurs harvest
and sell the reeds with
the community’s
permission.
Reed use and communities’ rights
• History of usage Initially, people from each community
harvested and sold the reeds.
Later, local entrepreneurs started harvesting and selling the reeds, and they paid a commission to the community (Keiyakuko).
• Rules The reeds are to be harvested during a
particular season. Income from the commission goes to the
Keiyakuko.
• The communities still hold the right to harvest the reeds.
Findings from reed management
• What is crucial for sustainable use of reeds?
1. Interaction between humans and nature
2. Consensus and setting up collective rules
3. Continuation of collective rights despite the change of usage
Conclusion:
What makes social-ecological systems robust and resilient?1. Interaction between humans and
nature
2. Collective rights and rules
3. Integrated community organizations
4. A multi-layered management system
5. Flexibility in management
BibliographyAnderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. “A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological
systems from an institutional perspective”. Ecology and Society 9(1): 18. URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18
Berkes , Fikret, Johan Colding and Carl Folke eds., 2003, Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge University Press
Folke, Carl,Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg, 2005, “Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 30: 441-473
Fujii, Shigeho, 2001, “Biwakogan ni okeru Yoshi Gunraku no Kino to Genjo” (The Function and the situation of Reed Plantations on Lake Biwa), Kankyo Gijutu (Environmental Conservation Engineering), 30(2): 16-106. (in Japanese)
Miyauchi, Taisuke ed., 2009, Hansaibai no Kankyo Shakaigaku (Environmental Sociology on Semi-domestication), Kyoto: Showado (in Japanese)
Miyauchi, Taisuke ed., 2013, Naze Kankyo Hozen wa Umaku Ikanainoka?: Genbakarano Junnoteki Gabanansu no Kanousei (Why conservation fails?: The Possibility of Local Adaptive Governance), Tokyo: Shinsensha (in Japanese)
Suzuki, Norio et al., 1993, “Biwako ni okeru Yoshi Gunraku ni Kansuru Kenkyu: Yoshi Gunrakunai no Butsuri, Kagaku, Seitaiteki Seijo” (Study on the Reed Community at Lake Biwa; Physical, Chemical and Ecological Characteristics in the Reed Community), Shiga Daigaku Kyoiku Gakubu Kiyo, Shizen Kagaku, Kyoiku Kagaku (Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Shiga University. Natural Science), 43:19-41. (in Japanese)
van der Putten, Wim H., 1997, "Die-back of Phragmitesaustralis in European wetlands: an overview of the European Research Programme on Reed Die-back and Progression (1993-1994)", Aquatic Botany, 59 (1997) 263-275
Walker , Brian, C. S. Holling, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Ann Kinzig, 2004, “Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-ecological Systems”, Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake
A tsunami-stricken area
Casualties in Kitakami
Population before tsunami 3,718
Casualties (dead and missing) 265
Households before tsunami 1151
Houses destroyed 1096
Rebuilding process: e.g., workshop on relocation projectCollective natural
resource management system
Collective and successful rebuilding process
Community cohesion
