Date:February 16, 2009 (Tue.) 16：30～18：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall
Presentation:
Akimichi Tomoya(The Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN))
Exploring the Plausibility of the Eco-commons: Continuity andDisruption of the Human Ecosystem
At this meeting, Professor Tomoya Akimichi gave a presentation on diverse topics revolving around the concept of “eco-commons”. The idea of “eco-commons” is a broadening of the perspective of “commons”, which is commonly used, to look at both institutional issues related to use and management in human society and the ecological system on an equal footing. This perspective makes it possible to grasp the networks of very complex relations and flows which revolve around things as well as fauna and flora existing in a space or a locality, and their historical changes.
One of the cases brought up by the presenter was floods in southern Laos. Doing a case study requires a proper scope and resolution adapted to the particular issue, and in discussing the floods in the southern Laos, the presenter discussed the complex cause-and-effect relationship between changes in local and global policy measures and the ecology of fauna and flora in the water system over a time period of approximately two decades. The analysis included water discharged by dams and its effect on vegetable farming on river banks, Mekong giant catfish and waterweeds, and water dosage of the related river systems, as well as local folk knowledge related to them (for example, “when the water level drops, ants eat fish, and when the water level rises, fish eat ants.”)
The presenter then discussed fishery management in the context of the commons. There, Professor Akimichi classified access rights into three categories: open access, limited access and sanctuary, and discussed changes over the two decades in the fish conservation zones of the Mekong river system (the failure of fishery management through top-down conservation efforts led to the temporary liberalization of the conservation zones to village public enterprises and to efforts to relieve the weak).
The presentation was enhanced by Professor Akimichi’s deep understanding of the local situation acquired through his years of research activities, and it was not so easy to grasp the entire picture that provided the background for individual cases. However, in his presentation he maintained his consistent stance to think issues through the specific practices of local people who lived between the sustainability and depletion of resources use, and between the global trend and local way of life.
In response to the presentation, Professor Kazunobu Ikeya, one of the two commentators, tried to point out the significance of Professor Akimichi’s study, under the title of “Can we go beyond “Akimichi’ology?” as follows: presentation of a framework that compares different localities in terms of individual folk histories; presentation of common points to be shared by related disciplines going beyond anthropology; linkages with international discussions and debates; and reciprocating efforts to link local studies with studies in Japan. Then, Professor Ikeya asked what is to be added to the theory of the commons to cope with the situation of the 21st century. More specifically, he insisted the importance to gain a grasp of changes in the framework surrounding natural reserves (sanctuaries), which have shifted from the natural ecology to political arguments, and to incorporate urban problems (in particular urban waste) and migrants’ commons into eco-commons.
Professor Yasuyuki Kono, another commentator, discussed the proximity between the global symbiosis paradigm aimed for by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies and the eco-commons theory conceived by Professor Akimichi, and then raised two questions: what kind of structure can support the eco-commons (local or global, or neither of the two) and can the concept of eco-commons be further expanded by paying attention to issues such as infectious diseases propagated by migrant birds, going beyond the “locality” in the conventional sense.
From the floor, in addition to questions regarding Professor Kaoru Sugihara asked about how the presenter defined the terms like “ownership” and “trade” and about the difference between Geosphere and Biosphere from the framework of eco-commons. Professor Shigeru Araki raised two questions: first, does Professor Akimichi’s eco-commons concern the global or local scale, or it should be understood in some other way; and second, was the change between the three models for fishery resource management spatial or temporal. Professor Hiromu Shimizu delivered remarks on possible perspectives that could be seen by looking at the eco-commons as a humanosphere.
There was only limited time for the Q&A session, but the workshop clearly indicated a desirable direction for area studies, bringing into view both the local and global and both society and ecology. Professor Akimichi’s study showed one possible path in this direction. If we think through how these discussions can be utilized for the accumulated studies of individual researchers, a new paradigm for G-COE will begin to take concrete shape.
(Shuhei Kimura)