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. 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 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. 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 scientists Specific knowledge Participatory research by stakeholders Structure of Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK)

5. 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. 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

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. 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. 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 1 st comments. Gov- ernment asked SC’s advise for IUCN’s 2 nd comments and resulted in “expand marine area without regulation by law” Fishers accepted expansion ofmarine area Hokkaido Newspaper

9. Spawning ground Fishing-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 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 9 Rausu Fishers

10. 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. 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 10:38 2008/2/21 10:45

12. 12 Shiretoko’s episode during World Heritage is one of the 6 impact stories http:// www.iasc-commons.org/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. Contour = estimated deer density (/km 2 ) World Heritage site (1993) Wilderness area Special Protected area 1st rank Special area 2nd rank Special area 3rd rank Special area 14 Yakushima National Park by Ministry of Environment (1964/2012) World Natural Heritage (1993, 10747ha) Jomon Cedar Ca. 7200 yr. old Photo: Min. of Env.

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

16. 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 16

17. 17 Agricultural damage by wildlife in Yakushima Island Yakushima Town Municipality Monkey Deer } Birds Damage (thousand yen)

18. 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 culling C 2010 =1900 By Fujimaki

19. Do we really need Madrid Action Plan or 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 Central West Draft management plan by Kagoshima Pref.

20. Simulation if C=C 2010 20 Population size (mean) Catch in number (mean) By Fujimaki Northeast Southeast 200820112017 200820112017 Population decreases in northeast and west Population increase in central area

21. By Fujimaki ×2C ×3C ×40C Northeast Southeast 200820112017200820112017 Population size (mean) Catch in number (mean) We need much more catch!

22. 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. CBT CBT Local Com- munities Legislation Scientific Inistitutions Management Authorities Conservation Research & Monitoring Local Deve- lopment UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme Biosphere Reserves – Key Features By Pro ｆ. Choi Engagement of all the relevant stakeholders.

23. 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 goals when not agreed Reset goals when infeasible Check necessity and purpose of management Decide measures & goals Check feasibility of goals Review numerical goals Screening Finish program scientistspublic

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