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

1. 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

2. 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

3. Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK) • 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

4. Structureof Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK) ILEK is a blend of diverse types of knowledge utilized by stakeholders for adaptive governance Knowledge from local government and other entities Knowledge in livelihood, Indigenous knowledge, Ethnic technology, etc Professional scientists Specific knowledge Knowledge productionin the primary industry (Farmers, Fishers) Participatory researchby stakeholders

5. Working Hypothesis…World Views ILEKis formed through collaborations and interactions between diverse knowledge producers and users in the process of stakeholder-driven activities to solve local environmental problems. 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. 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.

6. 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” Fishers accepted expansion of marine area SC chair and members got angry because Governm’tignoured 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” Hokkaido Newspaper

9. “MPAs” to protect Walleye pollock Fishing-ban area（2005～) Mitsutaku Makino’s idea 177 boats fished walleye pollock in 1995 Decreased to 86 boats in 2004 (49% reduction) Compensation to retired fishers by Fisheries Organization Fishing ban during Mar 20-end since 1995 Fishers expanded Fishing ban area in 2005 Spawning ground Fishing-ban area（1995～) Bottom trawling is totally prohibited in the coastal area 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. 2008/2/21 10:38 2008/2/21 10:45 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 Committeeand 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/

12. http://www.iasc-commons.org/impact-stories Shiretoko’s episode during World Heritage is one of the 6 impact stories Founder=E. Ostrom

13. 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

14. World Heritage site (1993) Wilderness area Special Protected area 1st rank Special area 2nd rank Special area 3rd rank Special area Yakushima National Parkby Ministry of Environment (1964/2012)World Natural Heritage (1993, 10747ha) Jomon Cedar Ca. 7200 yr. old Photo: Min. of Env. Contour = estimated deer density (/km2) 14

15. Field trip by SC Forest Ecosystem Reserveby Forestry Agency (1992) ■Core area of FER 9601ha ■Buffer zone of FER 5585ha ■National Forest 15

16. Overall goals for the experience:Why do we need deer management? • Sika deer Cervus nipponyakushimae(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 16

17. Agricultural damage by wildlifein Yakushima Island Monkey Deer Damage (thousand yen) }Birds 17 • YakushimaTown Municipality

18. By Fujimaki Catch in number of deer Massive culling C2010=1900 World Heritage Scientific Council Established Biosphere Reserve N=12000~16000 (Kagoshima Env. Tech. Assoc. 2010) Population size N=2300~3000 (Otsuka 1981) No catch 18

19. Do we really need Madrid Action Planor BR in Yakushima World Heritage? • My answer is … Draft management plan by Kagoshima Pref. Yes! North • We need sustainable use and adequate human activities in Yakushima. • One of the biggest problems is overabundant deer, especially in WH/BR core area. Northeast West Central Southeast South • The Scientific Council for Shiretoko WH agreed to consider submission to BR! 19

20. By Fujimaki Simulation if C=C2010 Population size (mean) • Catch in number (mean) Northeast Southeast 2008 2011 2017 2008 2011 2017 Population decreases in northeast and west Population increase in central area 20

21. By Fujimaki We need much more catch! • Population size (mean) • Catch in number (mean) Northeast Southeast ×40C ×3C ×2C 2008 2011 2017 2008 2011 2017

22. UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere ProgrammeBiosphere Reserves – Key Features Scientific Inistitutions Local Com- munities Legislation Zoning – means to meet the challenges of biodiversity management in multi-use areas with the objective of sustainable development. Management Authorities Conservation 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. Research & Monitoring Local Deve-lopment C C B B T T Engagement of all the relevant stakeholders. By Proｆ. Choi

23. Flow diagram for ecological risk management(Rossberg et al 2005 Landscape Ecology and Engineering) Consensus building Scientific procedure Concerns, issues public scientists Screening Organize local council and scientific committee Risk assessment for no-action case Check necessity and purpose of management Reset goalswhen infeasible Reset goals when not agreed Set numerical goals Decide measures & goals Check feasibility of goals Initiate management and monitoring Revision required Review numerical goals Finish program

24. 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