Post on 28-Dec-2015
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
• 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
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
• 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
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