http://cod.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~matsuda/2003/030328.ppt 1 risk management in red list criteria of...

http://cod.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~matsuda/2003/030328.ppt1

Risk Management in Red List Criteria of Threatened Species

and Wildlife Management.

• Hiroyuki MATSUDA (Ocean Res. Inst., Univ. of Tokyo)

• Special thanks to the Organizing Committee and any foreign participants despite of war on Iraq.

This Powerpoint file is uploaded onhttp://cod.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~matsuda/2003/030328.ppt

Risk Management in Red List Criteria of Threatened Species

and Wildlife Management.


Questions

• Does modern human carry higher mortality risk in nature?

• Is seeking zero human risk compatible with nature conservation.

• Does risk management need precautionary principle?

• How to coexist human and wildlife?

No

No

Yes

Promote adaptive risk management!


I usually eat fish, not too much for lunch.

650 yen (US$6) with coffee650 yen (US$6) with coffee


Don’t eat meat too much, for longevity & ecology

Mean Longevity (yrs) male female

Daily Caloric Intake (kcal/day/person)

% intake from grain

USA 72.0 78.9 3732 21.7% Sweden 75.3 80.8 2972 21.1% Japan 76.6 83.0 China 69.1 72.4 2727

(Source: Britannica International 1997)

2903 39.7%69.7%


Risk/benefit of eating fish

• Benefit = Fish is healthy, rich unsaturated fatty acid reduces mortality by heart disease

• Mean longevity of 35g daily intake group is significantly larger than that of no-fish eaters, mortality by heart disease of 40 yrs old men reduced by 38%.

• This effect is larger than the human health risk of dioxin.

http://www.riskworld.com/Abstract/1999/SRAam99/ab9ab073.htm


Should dams be removed?BioScience 52(8) Special feature, 2002.

• Dams decrease risks of flood, water shortage, and consequently human death: (flood control & water use The China’s imperial way in Sui 隋 Dynasty).

• Dams also increase ecological risks, lose fertile soil (Herodotos: Egypt is a "gift of the Nile").

• Ecologists prefer nature conservation to infrequent disaster prevention (risk control).


Gap between Ecological- and Human Health Risks

Ecological Risk• >> prehistorical age;• interim goal, e.g. 5% sp

ecies extinct in 100 yrs• Threshold is different a

mong regions;• Estimated risk is subject

to be changed by future monitoring

• Learning by doing

Human Health Risk• << premodern age;• Longevity increases wit

h modernization• 10-6 death/yr• level is universal• is monitored whether it i

s really kept or not.


Adaptive Management

• changes action by recent monitored data (feedback control);

• revises the model and theory (learning by doing).

• recognizes management as an experiment.

• is now recommended for ecosystem management in USA, Canada & Japan.

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/


Rio Declaration 1992, Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 15Principle 15

• “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78


Convention on Biological Convention on Biological Diversity Diversity ((JUNE 1992)JUNE 1992)

• “Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat,

http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0


UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

“Where there are threats of serious or ir-reversi

ble damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.

http://unfccc.int/


Risk is usually evaluated under pessimistic ssumptions

• IUCN/SSC (p.25) “Assessors should resist an evidentiary attitude and adopt a precautionary but realistic attitude to uncertainty when applying the criteria, for example, by using plausible lower bounds, rather than best estimates, in determining population size...” Therefore, extinction risk based on pessimistic estimates is biased (-fit to avoid type II errors)

http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlists/RLcats2001booklet.html


PP in case of uncertainty

• RECOGNIZING the importance of the application of the precautionary principle in cases of uncertainty; (CITES Criteria of Appendixes I and II, Resolution Conf. 9.24)

Comment:

Return to Rio Declaration!

http://www.cites.org/eng/cttee/standing/46/46-14A4.pdf


Hakodate City

Sapporo City

Brown Bear Management in Japan(Mano, Matsuda et al. unpubl.)

• Brown bears are Brown bears are endangered in south Asia endangered in south Asia and export is prohibited by and export is prohibited by CITES.CITES.

• Bears are still abundant and Bears are still abundant and widely distribute in widely distribute in Hokkaido.Hokkaido.

• The population does not The population does not significantly increase, but significantly increase, but increasing increasing bear attackbear attack to to human.human.

http://www.hokkaido-ies.go.jp/HIESintro/Natural/ShizenHP2/Wildlife/mano.htm


A Controversy in Japan House of Representatives

• Muneo Suzuki (Arrested for money scandal) “You are stupid. There must more cars than bears in highway.”

• Nobuteru Ishihara (Minister) “Highway construction is just a public work. There are fewer cars than bears on highway in Hokkaido.”

“Cars (Kuruma) attack human more frequently than bear (Kuma).”

A bear mammalogist’s comment


Key concepts of bear management

• Good bears avoid human to encounter, even though their home range includes roads and residential area.

• Good bears become bad if they learn to eat garbage—”A fed bear is a dead bear” (Yellowstone’s slogan).

http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/B_housesafe.html


How to manage bears…

• There are two types of bears:

• Good bears & bad bears

• Kimunkamuy & Wenkamuy in Ainu.

• Conserve good bears, cull bad bears,

• and do not let good bears become bad.

• Keep garbage inside!

• Accept a small risk of bear attacks.


dS/dt = (r–c ) SdI/dt = c S –mI

Analogy to an epidemiology model

• Bear is not vertically or horizontally “infected” by bad bears.

• c: “Infection” rate depends on human etiquette.

II

II


Phase I of Bear Management

• Type I error: A bad bear is not culled .

• Type II error: A good bear is culled.• We avoid type I error first; and

make its diagnosis (assessment). • Monitor S, I and c .• We will make a recipe to avoid type

II errors within a several years.


Comments

• Human and any living things carry high mortality risk in nature, rather than domestic cage.

• Seeking zero risk makes contradiction between human health risk and nature conservation.

• Risk management based on precautionary principle helps coexistence of human and wildlife.


Risk mis-communication

• The number of bears was estimated ca. 500 in Oshima Peninsula.

• Conservation Biology often recom-mends keeping population >500.

• Residents accept bear conservation.

• This is underestimation, maybe ca.800.

• Why be 300 bears not culled?

http://cod.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~matsuda/2003/030328.ppt 1 risk management in red list criteria of...

Documents

wildlife management

human risk compatible

regionsestimated risk

human health risk of

pptrisk management

ecosystem management

human death

nature conservation