Date:July 13, 2009 (Mon.) 15：00～17：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall
Presentation:
Hiroyuki Matsuda (Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences Yokohama National University)
Commentator:
Masahiro Yamao (Graduate School of Biosphere and Science, Hitoshima University)
At the 20th G-COE Seminar of the Paradigm Formulation, the presenter Professor Hiroyuki Matsuda outlined his views on the question of how ecosystems, using a diverse set of data, should be conserved and made use of. Professor Matsuda’s presentation of the topic offered an easy-to-understand introduction to preservation of ecosystems, which is an important theme directly connected to sustainable development of the humanosphere. Among other issues touched upon, he discussed the question of how to judge the certainty of information when consensus-building in society on the basis of scientific data is demanded.
Unlike the majority of fisheries scientists, who insisted the need to limit the fish catches drastically based on data collected from a limited ocean area, Professor Matsuda maintained that the possibility of continuity of fishing industry, if only they consider the age composition of fishes, providing data from Southeast Asia that shows catches to be actually increasing. And citing the experience of the Shiretoko World Heritage site, he pointed out that voluntary restraints by local fishermen are very effective, in particular in maintaining the sustainability of fishing industries in coastal regions.
Next, he moved to the topic of biodiversity., He explained that the difficulty of creating clear incentives for biodiversity is the one of the reasons why COP10received so little attention. Then he introduced new efforts to finance activities to conserve ecosystem byusing Ecological Footprint as an indicator, and those to conduct transactions in biodiversity itself.
Concerning Japanese forests, which are relatively rich in biodiversity, he emphasized that the increase of productivity can cause the decrease of ecosystem services and that the relationship between biodiversity and other benefits is not always linear correlation. Important was creating incentives to sustain ecosystem services on a global scale, considering insufficiency and uncertainty of scientific knowledge on biosphere.
Professor Masahiro Yamao responded to the presentation, from the viewpoint of a specialist in the economics of Southeast Asian fishery villages, on three points: the importance of field observation, the gap between national institutions and regional life strategies, and the danger of “underuse” in Japanese forests. Firstly, he reported on the conditions in Southeast Asia, where the policy gap between central and local governments has grown, and rapid decentralization process makes local governments confused and he proposed the importance of the existence of the agencies that intermediate them. Next, he indicated the possibility that biodiversity could give rise to poverty, stating the need for a diversified strategy encompassing not only the regional view on resource use, but also one at the level of family finances. Finally, noting that biodiversity in rural-mountain areas in Japan may decline as a result of underuse, he indicated that there is a need to make clear the goal(s) of the national policy on these areas.
Following these presentations there was a lively exchange of ideas involving roughly a dozen members of the audience. One attendee commented that there is a difference in the treatment of endangered species between tropical zones and temperate zones; in temperate zones, the habitat for living creatures is secondary nature, whereas in tropical zones, there still remains what is essentially primary nature. There was also the comment that it is difficult to explain, in terms of ecosystem services, why there is a need to preserve diversity in tropical zones, which have a much higher density of species per area. Professor Matsuda responded to this comment by pointing out that the co-existence of many species, even in secondary nature, can act as an index for sustainable management.
Responding to the observation that there are differences between south and north in the way diversity is tackled, Professor Matsuda insisted that preserving Japan’s forest ecosystems demanded a consideration not of Southeast Asia, but rather of Japan’s own forests and forestry industry. Moreover, it was also pointed out that the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) has designated most tropical forests as HCVF (High Conservation Value Forests), posing a disadvantage for inhabitants who depend on the forests. In addition, doubts were raised regarding the need for quantitative indicators of biodiversity, and while Professor Matsuda conceded the potential role such indicators could play as stimulus, he also highlighted the need for case-by-case response rather than a global standard. He voiced particular concern about biodiversity credit transactions, expressing his view that these transactions also conceal north-south problems. Lastly, he argued that questions about excessive fishing caused by the difficulty of measuring fluctuations in marine resources, which arise in the context of Japan’s costal fishing industry, can be explained in terms of differences between costal and offshore fishing.
(Motoko Fujita)