OUIK’s efforts towardSatoyama and Satoumi Assessment

in Noto

February 10th, 2014

Wataru SuzukiSatoyama Initiative Coordinator

United Nations University 

Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU‐IAS)

1

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground

Assessment in Action Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MA (2001～2005) Sub-Global Assessment Network, SGA Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services, IPBES (April, 2012 ～) Inclusive Wealth Index, IWI (June, 2012～)

SEPLS d l t i J d b d SEPLS development in Japan and beyond The Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment, JSSA

(2007～2010) Satoyama Initiative （Oct, 2010. COP10)

- International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative, IPSI Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, GIAHS

- Noto’s Satoyama and Satoumi (June, 2011)- International Meeting (May, 2013)

3

JSSAJSSAJSSAJSSA

MA’s Sub-Global Assessment

MA’s 34 sites of the sub-global assessment

5

Scope of Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment(JSSA)

TIMEFRAME

Changes that have occurred in satoyama and satoumi in the past 50 years since the end of World War II.

GEGRAPHIC SCOP

Include 5 major clusters throughout Japan to encompass different geographical, climate, p g g p , ,ecological, social, economic, and political characteristics:

1. Hokkaido Cluster

2. Tohoku Cluster

3. Hokushinetsu Cluster

4. Kanto‐chubu cluster

5. Western Japan Cluster

6

Methodology and Key Concepts Adopting the MA conceptual framework – Ecosystem Services 

直接的要因 間接的要因

供給サービス

調整サービス

文化的サービス

安全

基本的物資

健康

社会的関係

選択と行動の自由

基盤サービス

里山・里海

Ecosystem Services 生態系サービス Human Well‐being 人間の福利(JSSA, 2010)7

Products  Provided a valuable scientific data base

Provided a valuable epistemic community of scholars and practitioners 

Policy Brief, 2010 (English)

8

Cluster Reports‐ 6 Regions, 2010(Japanese)

Summary for Decision Makers, 2010 (English & Japanese)

Technical Reports– Books, 2012English – UNU PressJapanese–Asakura Publishing

What are satoyama and satoumi?

JSSA defines satoyama and satoumi landscapes as dynamic mosaics of managed socio‐ecological systems producing a bundle of ecosystem services for human well‐being, or “Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs)”.

Satoyama Satoumi

9(JSSA, 2010)Satoyama Initiative adopted the outcome of JSSA (JSSA, 2010) 10

Key Findings from JSSA

• Mosaic composition of different ecosystem types that are managed by humans to produce a bundle of ecosystem services for human well‐being

• Significant changes over the last 50 years which have caused a drop in resiliency of the coupled socio‐ecological production systems

• Continued loss of satoyama and satoumi landscapes has potentially negative consequences for human well‐being and biodiversity

• Integrated approaches including citizen participation have been used increasingly over the past ten years

• Critical to the success of a more integrated approach to ecosystem management is creation of a new “commons”

11

Key Recommendations from JSSA

• A Satoyama‐satoumi approach recognizes the mosaic composition of ecosystem types and their inherent interlinkages

• Need to govern the new “commons” allowing decentralized decision‐making on the use of land and water bodies

• New “commons” ensure the equitable access and use of• New  commons ensure the equitable access and use of ecosystem services provided by satoyama and satoumi

• A ten‐year research programme be established to gain better understanding of the dynamics of satoyama and satoumi

• Comprehensive, integrated assessment of socio‐ecological production landscapes in developing and developed countries

12

Future Satoyama and Satoumi Future Satoyama and Satoumi Assessment Assessment in Notoin Noto

【Key Challenges of the Community】

1) Making “agriculture” profitable, in combination with social benefits

• Use the socio‐economic framework• Identify and reflect on consumers’ needs• Measure and identify the value of a rural society

in itself (lifestyle, culture, identity, etc.)

2) Moving from a voluntary basis to “sustainability”

Design Workshop （ March & July, 2013)Design Workshop （ March & July, 2013)

2) Moving from a voluntary basis to  sustainability• Upscale the point system of satoyama‐satoumi conservation• Explore a viable form of employment producing income and quality of life

3) Increasing a sense of pride and identity attached to satoyama‐satoumi landscapes• Assess how people cognize and value the landscapes –including counter‐views• Set up an experimental lab or survey

4) Making the local initiative relevant to the global community –not only for knowledge generation but also for policy processes

• Provide implications for the agricultural‐based society around the world • Provide suggestions for increasing the wealth by investing in the natural and human capital • feed into the Inclusive Wealth Reports (IWRs) – how to measure capital at the local scale

Possible New Assessment in Noto and HokurikuPossible New Assessment in Noto and Hokuriku

Goal  To provide policy‐related information, which are scientifically credentialsin relation to the significance of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the contributions of economics and human development from Ishikawa’s Satoyama and Satoumi, to policy‐makers and relevant stakeholders.

Objectives To provide scientific bases to meet regional challengesScientific bases for sustainable use and management of Satoyama and Satoumi include scientific information, data access enhancement, awareness‐raising, capacity building, contributions of enhancement of designing, strategy and policy. etc.)

International contributions of regionTo input regional‐based information into the international policy processes and actions such 

as IPBES, CBD, GIAHS, and SI.

Scope & Scale• Social Scales 

– Household– Community – Municipal– Regional (Noto, Kaga, Hokuriku)– Prefectural (Ishikawa)

• Ecological Scalesg– Ecosystems (forest, agricultural, coastal, wetland, etc.)– Catchments– River basins, coastal areas?

• Time frame: – 25 years (quantitative analysis) – inclusive wealth estimation– 50 years (after 1960 – qualitative/narrative) depending on the data availability?

OUIK RESEARCH PROJECT

Spatial data collection and perspectives on the multi‐scale assessment of NotoPeninsula’s Ecosystem Services

Regional Environmental Planning Inc.Chen Siew FongTadashi MasuzawaHajime Ise

TokyoKanazawa

Niigata prefecture

Location of Study Area

Noto Peninsula

Suzu City

Nanao City

Hakui City

Sado Island

INTRODUCTION TO TARGET STUDY AREA

Toyama prefecture

Ishikawa prefecture

Fukui prefecture

Kanazawa City

Hakui City

Komatsu City

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Saitama  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Ecosystem Services ES Indicators and criteria for Hoku‐shinetsu cluster

Provisioning services Food Rice  Rice consumption,  production areaSeafood Fishery yield

Living Wood / Timber Production volume, timber volumeEnergy Coal (trees) Production volume

Electric power Supply

Regulating services Atmosphere Climate Average temperature, rainfallAtmospheric component CO2 emissionsTransboundary contaminants Levels of particulates (i.e. Yellow Sand), 

acid rain,  endocrine disrupters.

Water Water management (agricultural sector)

Maintenance rates of ponds, waterways

Existing ES Indicators for Hoku‐Shinetsu Cluster

(agricultural sector)Flood protection Dams (effective storage, flood control 

capacity)Watersheds (monetary value)

Soil Forest soil Soil runoffBeach (sand) Sediment supply

Cultural services Artistic value Traditional crafts Production volume, number of artisansSpiritual value Shrine forests (sacred forest) Number of shrine forests, awareness level 

of local residentsRecreation Traditional festivals Number of traditional festivals

Environmental education ParticipantsGreen Tourism Number of users and facilities

Biodiversity Native species Rare species Population / distribution Common species Population / distribution 

Migratory species Migratory species (migratory birds etc)

Population / distribution 

Alien species Hazardous alien species Population / distribution 

United Nations University (2010). Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment: Experiences and Lessons from Clusters (Hoku‐Shinetsu cluster)

Ecosystem Services ES Indicators and criteria for Hoku‐shinetsu cluster

Provisioning services Food Rice  Rice consumption,  production areaSeafood Fishery yield

Living Wood / Timber Production volume, timber volumeEnergy Coal (trees) Production volume

Electric power Supply

Regulating services Atmosphere Climate Average temperature, rainfallAtmospheric component CO2 emissionsTransboundarycontaminants

Levels of particulates (i.e. Yellow Sand), acid rain,  endocrine disrupters.

Water Water management (agricultural sector)

Maintenance rates of ponds, waterways

Fl d t ti D ( ff ti t fl d t l

+ Renewable energy+ Other food productions

+ Disaster hazards(heavy snow, landslides…)

Hoku‐shinetsu ES Indicators Additionalindicators

Satoyama Satoumi assessment @ Multiple spatial scale

Regional scale

Large Watershed

Hoku‐shinetsu region (extent of  the area facing Japan Sea from Echizen to Sado Island)

I hik P f tFlood protection Dams (effective storage, flood control capacity)Watersheds (monetary value)

Soil Forest soil Soil runoffBeach (sand) Sediment supply

Cultural services Artistic value Traditional crafts Production volume, number of artisans

Spiritual value Shrine forests (sacred forest)

Number of shrine forests, awareness level of local residents

Recreation Traditional festivals Number of traditional festivalsEnvironmental education ParticipantsGreen Tourism Number of users and facilities

Biodiversity Native species Rare species Population / distribution Common species Population / distribution 

Migratory species Migratory species (migratory birds etc)

Population / distribution 

Alien species Hazardous alien species Population / distribution 

+ Tourism resources+ Types of sceneries

+ Wildlife damage

gscale

Small toMedium

WS

Ishikawa Prefecture

Noto Peninsula:・ Suzu, Nanao, Hakui City

Komatsu City (for comparison)

Distribution of watersheds and multiple scale assessmentstudy area

Suzu City

Nanao City

Hakui City

INTRODUCTION TO TARGET STUDY AREA

Komatsu City

Watershed divide

Watershed divide

Mt. Fuji

Kanazawa City

Nanao Bay

Watershed divide

Nanao Bay

Senmaida rice fields

Kanazawa City

TerrainClassification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

BASIC DATA – Terrain

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Surface Geology Classification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

BASIC DATA – Surface Geology 

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Terrain Classification Map(National Land Numerical Information)

Surface Geology Classification Map(National Land Numerical Information)

BASIC DATA – Large Watershed scale

Soil Classification Map(National Land Numerical Information)

Vegetation Map(Japan Integrated Biodiversity Information System)

BASIC DATA – Large Watershed scale

Annual Average Temperature  (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Climate 

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Saitama  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Annual Average Precipitation  (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Climate 

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Saitama  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Soil Classification Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Soil 

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Yamanashi  prefecture

Flood Hazard Map (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Flood Control 

Heavy Snowfall Area Map as of 2007 (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Snow hazard control 

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Saitama  prefecture

Yamanashi  prefecture

Tokyo pref.

Sediment Disaster and Snowslide Areas (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale, 5km mesh)(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control 

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Nagano prefecture

Landslide Data(National Research Institute for Earth Science

and Disaster Prevention)

Landslide Hazard Map(National Land Numerical Information)

REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control  REGULATING SERVICES – Hazard control 

Flood Hazard Map(National Land Numerical Information)

Natural Parks (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Forest Area

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Natural Parks Categories (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected Areas

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Saitama  prefecture

Wildlife Preserve Categories (Hoku‐Shinetsu scale)(National Land Numerical Information)

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected Areas

Nagano prefecture

Gifu prefecture

Shiga pref.

Gunma  prefecture

Protected Areas Map(National Land Numerical Information)

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – Protected AreasForest Area Classification Map(National Land Numerical Information)

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – RDB species hotspots

‐Red Data Book of Ishikawa Prefecture (2009)‐Threatened Threatened I (CR+EN) known habitats, breeding grounds 

Mammals (n=4) Amphibians (n=2) Freshwater fish (n=2)

http://www.pref.ishikawa.lg.jp/sizen/reddata/rdb_2009/index.html

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES – RDB species hotspots

‐Red Data Book of Ishikawa Prefecture (2009)‐Threatened Threatened I (CR+EN) known habitats, breeding grounds 

Birds (n=16)

Habitat Breeding Wintering 

Badger （アナグマ）Meles meles

Japanese serow （カモシカ）Capricornis crispus

Fox（キツネ）Vulpes vulpes

Asiatic Black Bear（ツキノワグマ）

Selenarctos thibetanus

BIODIVERSITY SERVICES –Distribution of Mammals

Wildlife damage

Transcends 

Japanese Sika Deer（ニホンジカ）Cervus nippon

Japanese macaque（ニホンザル）Macaca fuscata

Japanese raccoon（タヌキ）Nyctereutes procyonoides

prefecturalboundaries!

Special Agricultural Areas (as of 2007)(National Land Numerical Information)

PROVISIONING SERVICES – Agricultural Areas

Agricultural Census Data– All farmers’ population, 1985(National Land Numerical Information)

Agricultural Census Data– Rice farmer’s population, 1985(National Land Numerical Information)

PROVISIONING SERVICES – Farmers’ population

Tourism Resource Map(National Land Numerical Information)

Landscape Features Map (National Land Numerical Information)

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

National Cultural Treasure Map(National Land Numerical Information)

City Parks Map (National Land Numerical Information)

Accommodation Facilities Count(National Land Numerical Information)

Accommodation Capacity Count(National Land Numerical Information)

CULTURAL SERVICES – Recreation

Other data sets……Accumulated data:‐Provisioning, regulating,cultural, biodiversity, basic data, drivers.

‐ Various ESRI format data‐ Prefectural annual reports‐ Local government annualreports

‐Not all are in GIS format, and some are not up to date

‐Best to update GIS data on change indicators asap (yield, population change etc)

‐For more information, speak to UNU‐IAS and OUIKpersonnel

Thank you for your attention

Trade-offs and Local Synergies in Satoyama Ecosystem Services

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto

10 Feb. 2014

Osamu Saito, Chiho Kamiyama, Shizuka Hashimoto, and Ryo Kohsaka

1

Outline of this presentation:

i. Update IPBES activities and discussions;

ii. Review the state of knowledge in BES* assessments for the Asia‐Pacific region to identify gaps and needs for future assessments contributing to IPBES key functions; and

iii. Provide overview of  a new research project on satoyama BES tradeoffs analysis and localsatoyama BES tradeoffs analysis and local governance model in Noto, Japan.

2

Location of BES assessments reviewed inAsia-Pacific Regions

* BES: Biodiversity and ecosystem services

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

Scientific Background:• Many ecosystem services related

assessments• But only one focused solely on ecosystem

services and human well-being• Fragmented, multiple frameworks and

methodologies• Scientific credibility varies

Four key functions of IPBES:1. Knowledge generation2. Regular and timely assessments3. Support policy formulation and

implementation4. Capacity building

(Source) A.K. Duraiappah (2009) Ecosystem Services: The Global Assessment Landscape

IPBES‐2 (Antalya,  9‐15 Dec. 2013)

y

3

IPBES‐2 (11 Dec. 2013)

Policy makers, stakeholders

Policy support

Requests for information to the 

Plenary3

IPBES and Scientific communities

Capacity building

4

Assessments

Scientific communities

gaps1

Catalysing knowledge generation

2

4

IPBES’s Analytical conceptual framework

5

Objective 1: Strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement key functions of the Platform: (a) Priority capacity-building needs to implement the Platform’s work programme matched with resources through catalysing financial and in-kind support(b)Capacities needed to implement the Platform work programme developed(c) Procedures, approaches for participatory processes for working with indigenous and local knowledge systems developed(d)Priority knowledge and data needs for policymaking addressed through catalyzing efforts to generate new knowledge and networking

Platform goalStrengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services

for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable developmentPlatform functions, operational principles and procedures

Platform work programme 2014–2018: Objectives and associated deliverablesDecision-making body Responsible for the overall work programme, working through subsidiary bodies, supported by the secretariat

IPBES Work Programme 2014‐2018

6

Objective 2: Strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services at and across subregional, regional and global levels: (a) Guide on production and integration of

assessments from and across all scales(b)Regional/subregional assessments on biodiversity,

ecosystem services (c) Global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem

services

Objective 3: Strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services with regard to thematic and methodological issues: (a) One fast track thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food production(b) Three thematic assessments: land degradation and restoration; invasive alien species; and

sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and strengthening capacities/tools(c) Policy support tools and methodologies for scenario analysis and modelling of biodiversity

and ecosystem services based on a fast track assessment and a guide (d) Policy support tools and methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of values

of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services based on an assessment and a guide

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate Platform activities, deliverables and findings: (a) Catalogue of relevant assessments(b) Development of an information and data management plan(c) Catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies(d) Set of communication, outreach and engagement strategies, products and processes(e) Reviews of the effectiveness of guidance, procedures, methods and approaches to inform future development of the Platform

The state of knowledge in BES assessments for the Asia‐Pacific region:Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions

[Method and Materials]

IPBES Catalogue of Assessments on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES, 2012) 

58 global to sub‐national scale Asia‐Pacific region studies 

The IPBES Catalogue was used to judge the following:

a. Availability of knowledge on different information groups;

7

y g g p ;

b. Gaps in geographical range and integration;

c. Level of temporal consideration and scenario use;

d. Gaps in ecosystem types and services assessed;

e. Level of cross‐scale stakeholder engagement and consideration of trade‐offs;

f. Level of integration of different types of knowledge; and

g. Level of policy impact and capacity building.

Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions 

[Results‐1] Urban, dryland ecosystems and cultural ecosystem services least assessed; non‐tradable services under‐represented

Information Group FrequencyMost common ecosystems assessed (>40%)

1.Forest and woodland (51.7%)2. Coastal (43.1%)3. Cultivated/ agricultural land (41.4%)

Least commonly assessed ecosystems (<20%)

10. Island (12.1%)9. Urban (13.8%)8. Dryland (15.5%)provisioning services 79.3%

Table 3. Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (N=58) Forest and marine (including coastal, 

island, and reef assessments) ecosystems were the most commonly assessed (Table 3).

Urban and dryland ecosystems were specifically addressed in less than 20% of assessments These are important

8

Assessments includingregulating services 65.5%supporting services 72.4%cultural services 51.7%

Most common services assessed (>40%)

1. Food (63.8%)2. Water (55.2%)3. Recreation and tourism (46.6%)4. Climate regulation (41.4%)5. Regulation of water flows (41.4%)

Least common services assessed (>5%)

32. Education; Genetic resourcespreservation; Human health; Non‐timberforestry products; Productivity of marinefish stocks (1.7%)

31. Commercial and recreational fisheries;Fisheries biodiversity (3.4%)

of assessments. These are important areas of attention for the region as 40% of Asia’s land area is classified as drylands and much of the region is undergoing rapid urban expansion.

Cultural services were least addressed in only 52% of assessments, although ‘recreation and tourism’ was relatively over‐represented in 47%. 

Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions 

[Results‐2] Low direct engagement of cross‐scale public, private, and civil society stakeholders in trade‐off resolution

Information Group Frequency NStakeholder engagement process identified

34.5% 58*

Most common engagement process

Resource user/stakeholder 

workshops, meetings, 

interviews (15.5%)

58*

Assessments engaging trade‐off and conflict resolution processes

6.9% 58*

Average number of stakeholder groups engaged

3.2 Stakeholder groups

12**

Cross‐scale linkages could be identified through stakeholder engagement at multiple levels. 

Over one third (35%) of assessments indicated explicit stakeholder engagement, primarily through workshops, meetings, and interviews. 

9

g g g pNational/provincial ministries and departments

22.4% 58*

Research organizations and experts 17.2% 58*Local government 12.1% 58*National/international NGOs 10.3% 58*Community‐based NGOs and groups 8.6% 58*Private sector and industry 8.6% 58*Local residents and householders 8.6% 58*Indigenous groups 6.9% 58*Resource and conservation managers 5.2% 58*Farmers 3.4% 58*Women 3.4% 58*Trade unions 1.7% 58*

*Unit: assessments, ** unit: Stakeholder groups

Assessments specifically seeking trade union, women, or farmer stakeholder engagement were the least common.

Almost a quarter (22%) of assessments actively included trade‐off analysis as a tool for assessment, but only 7% directly engaged stakeholders in understanding different resource uses and addressing trade‐off and conflict resolutions. 

Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions 

[Results‐3] Average assessment incorporates at least two different types of knowledge; citizen science and local and indigenous knowledge under‐represented

Information Group Frequency

Scientific information only 8.6%

Scientific and traditional knowledge 17.2%

Scientific and resource expert knowledge 24 1%

Table 5. Types of knowledge (N=58) Less than half (45%) of assessments indicated 

the types of knowledge used. 

The most common combination was scientific and resource expert knowledge (24% of assessments), with citizen science featuring least commonly in 10% of assessments (Table

10

Scientific and resource expert knowledge 24.1%

Scientific and citizen information 8.6%

Most common knowledge typeScientific 

information (36.2%)

Resource experts 31.0%

Traditional or local knowledge 20.7%

Least common knowledge typeCitizen science (10.3%)

least commonly in 10% of assessments (Table 5). 

21% of assessments included traditional or local knowledge; and 17% combined it with scientific knowledge as well. 

Private sector and non‐government organization knowledge could also be considered discrete knowledge sources but are not specifically considered in the IPBES Catalogue. 

Key findings:

1. Urban, dryland ecosystems and cultural ecosystem services least assessed; non‐tradable services under‐represented. 

2. Low direct engagement of cross‐scale public, private, and civil society stakeholders in trade‐off resolution

3 Citizen science and local and indigenous knowledge under

Gaps and Needs in BES Assessment in Asia‐Pacific region

Research on Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model of Satoyama Ecosystem Services in Noto Peninsula

Research on Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model of Satoyama Ecosystem Services in Noto Peninsula

3. Citizen science and local and indigenous knowledge under‐represented.

11

Sato‐yama

Supporting Nutrient cycle

Soil formation

Primary production・・・

Provisioning Food

Drinking water

Wood and fiber

Fuel

・・・

Ecosystem Services

Japan Japan SatoyamaSatoyama and and SatoumiSatoumi AsessmentAsessment(JSSA, 2012)

NotoNoto PeninsulaPeninsula

Regulating

Research on Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model of Satoyama Ecosystem Services in Noto Peninsula

Inter-linkage between different ecosystem

Cross-scale inter-linkages

y

Sato‐umi

Climate control

Flood control

Water purification

Disease control

Aestetic

Spiritual

Education

Recreation

・・・

Urban areas

12

Regulating

Cultural

Provisioning services(Agricultural production)

Regulating services(Climate and water

regulation)

Cultural services(Scenery, knowledge, value)

farmland Forest

Traditional Use(e.g. use of various minor forest products)

Modern Use(e.g. forest certification system and tourism)

【Subtheme 1】

Other assets and services

(e.g. substitution by resources import and

infrastructure)

【Subtheme 3】

Satoyama landscape

Objective: Propose a new local governance model towards

conservation and sustainable use of BES

Target: Noto Peninsula

Development of an integrated ES* inventory

Investigate challenges and opportunities for local

governance and knowledge generation

ES* synergies (co-benefits) and trade-off analysis

Interlinkage between ESInterlinkage across spatial scales

ES cost -benefit sharing and knowledge gap(Spatial scales/ Institution/ Awareness/ Tradition, Culture)

e.g. Upstream and downstream

Mosaic structure of landscape

Cost-benefit and knowledge gap, changes in local and

traditional knowledge

Allocation through

legislation

Allocation through market

Customary allocation

within communities

generation

【Su

bthe

me

2】

e.g. Provisioning servicesand regulating services

*ES: Ecosystem services 13

Overview of Noto, Ishikawa Location

– Northern part of Ishikawa pref.

– 200,000 population (17% of the prefectural population)

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)

– Agricultural systems are intricately linked to forest as well as fishery systems

輪島市 能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

羽咋市

中能登町

Sea of Japan

Noto region• 9 municipalities• 200 thousand pop.• Aging rate 30%

Notojima

forest  as well as fishery systems

– Produce bundles of ecosystem services

– Model of sustainable use and management of natural resources

Challenges– Faced with depopulation and aging: about 30 % 

of people is over 65 years

– Sustainability of Noto is in question白山市

金沢市

小松市

加賀市

津幡町

能美市

宝達志水町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

ToyamaToyama

GifuGifu

FukuiFukui

Kanazawa

Kaga region• 10 municipalities• 960 thousand pop.• Aging rate 22%

Prepared by Shizuka Hashimoto 14

Daily Food Supply Sources in Notojima, Nanao, Noto

66.5

34.4

29.4

33.8

36.7

15.3

23.1

30.6

11.3

22.5

18.2

42.5

99.4

40.0

55.0

100.0

40.8

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100 

Rice

Vegetable & potato

Meat

Seafood

Pickle

Eggs & dairy products

Fruits

Percentage (%)

15

In‐house production(Self‐production)

Provided from neighbors and relatives 

Purchased from shops and markets

Average (%) SD Average (%) SD Average (%) SDRice 66.5 44.9 15.3 29.2 18.2 30.3Vegetable & potato 34.4 36.3 23.1 26.3 42.5 27.9Meat 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.4 99.4 2.4Seafood 29.4 37.5 30.6 31.3 40.0 36.7Pickles 33.8 39.6 11.3 19.3 55.0 36.5Egg & dairy  products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0Fruits 36.7 43.6 22.5 34.4 58.2 50.3

In‐house production Provided from neighbors and relatives

Purchased from shops and markets

Sharing of provisioning services without market transaction

People share diverse agricultural products grown in their own farmlands by bartering and sharing within and beyond their communities. Such communal sharing networks were found to play a central role for maintaining traditional culture in depopulating local communities, such as local festivals. 

Local and traditional knowledge on how to preserve foods, such as pickles, is also important to keep food stocks throughout the year in spite of seasonal fluctuations without increasing dependence on external markets.

In Notojima, we found that the more a household shares with neighbors, the more variable food species a household tends to appreciate at home.

16

Number of sharing partners

Number of food species grown or gain

Survey period: 9‐16 December 2013

Total samples: 1,036 (Male: 521 (50.3%), Female: 515 (49.7%))

Spatial attributes of samples: Noto area: 93 (9.0%), Kagaarea: 425 (41.0%), Others：518 (50.0%)

Regions:H kk id 40 (3 9%) T h k 55 (5 3%) K t 105 (10 1%) Ch b

Noto areaKaga area

The 2013 Web Survey on ES supply and consumption

Hokkaido: 40 (3.9%), Tohoku: 55 (5.3%), Kanto: 105 (10.1%), Chubu: 641 (61.9%), Kinki: 107 (10.3%), Chugoku: 27 (2.6%), Shikoku region: 16 (1.5%), Kyushu region: 45 (4.3%)

Types of areas:• Urban area: 189 (18.2%), • Plain rural area: 246 (23.7%),• Semi‐mountainous rural area:  497 (48.0%), • Mountainous rural area: 104 (10.0%)

17

Comparison of Daily Food Supply Source ‐between Noto area, Kaga area and Others‐

In‐house productionProvided from neighbors etc.Purchased from markets etc.

Percentage (%)0 20 40 60 80 100

NotoKaga

Others

NotoKaga

Others

NotoKaga

OthersOthers

NotoKaga

Others

NotoKaga

Others

NotoKaga

Others

NotoKaga

Others 18

Breakdown of food species numberconsumed in a house without market 

transaction   

Proportion of food species related to out of a house(sharing and/or selling)

Flow of food species across different scales‐ in‐house, intra‐community and inter‐community ‐

43%

P ti f f d i

Total number of food species identified by the survey: 298 species

Proportion of food species grown and consumed

in a house(not related to out of a house)  

(sharing and/or selling)

57%

Proportion of food speciesshared within community (intra‐

community) 

78.5 %

32.6 %

Proportion of food speciesshared beyond community

(inter‐community) 

4.1 %

Proportion of food species sold to more wide scales

19

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Change of the self consumption and sharing system:Past and present

Total

20’s

30’s

40’s

Total

20’s

30’s

40’s

Food Diversity Frequency of sharing

Decreased, No change, Increased

Q: How do you feel about the current situation compared with the past?   

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

50’s

Over 60’s

Total

20’s

30’s

40’s

50’s

Over 60’s

50’s

Over 60’s

Total

20’s

30’s

40’s

50’s

Over 60’s

Food Amount Number of sharing partners

20

Conclusion

Common gaps and needs includes low integration of local, indigenous, and citizen science knowledge; under‐representation of cultural services and non‐tradable regulating services; and low consideration of cross‐stakeholder priorities in trade‐off analyses.

2. Gaps and Needs for Assessment Contributing to IPBES Functions

3. Trade‐off Analysis and Local Governance Model of SatoyamaEcosystem Services

1. IPBES Conceptual Framework and Work Programme 2014‐2018 

21

Ecosystem Services

The Noto research addresses these gaps, proposing a new framework integrating local stakeholder and scientific knowledge generation for understandings of the synergetic relationships between under‐represented ecosystem services, such as co‐beneficial cultural and provisioning services. 

This study also helps identify how social drivers of land management change can have unexpected feedbacks to BES, which in turn eventually undermines the positive impact that sharing of various provisioning services has in maintaining knowledge and cohesion in aging communities. 

Thank you

AcknowledgementsThis research was performed as part of the research projects entitled the “Tradeoff Analysis and Local Governance Model of Satoyama Ecosystem Services” (ES-Tradeoff, FY2013-FY2015, 1-1303) and the “Workshop to scope activities associated with assessing impacts on biodiversity & ecosystem services”. The former project has been supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and the latter by the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN). The Asia-Pacific workshop on regional interpretation of the IPBES Conceptual framework and knowledge sharing (2–4 September, 2013, Seoul, Republic of Korea) was co-organized by United Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP) and the Korea Environment Institute (KEI). It was undertaken with the support of the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea and the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) and in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, Japan and IPBES.

22

Identifying the characteristics of Noto, Ishikawa from its land use and ecosystem services

Shizuka HASHIMOTO (GSGES, Kyoto Univ.)

Shogo NAKAMURA (GSGES, Kyoto Univ.)

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto

Outline of the presentation1. Conditions of ecosystem services

– Develop ecosystem services inventory

– Result of data collection and evaluation of ecosystem services

2. How landscape mosaic of Noto changed over time in the past three decades?– What is the main drivers that cause increase/decrease of mosaic?

Overview of Noto, Ishikawa• Location

– Northern part of Ishikawa pref.

– 200 thousand population (17% of the

prefectural population)

• Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)

– Agricultural systems are intricately linked

to forest as well as fishery systems

– Produce bundles of ecosystem services

– Model of sustainable use of natural

resources of “Satoyama” and “Satoumi”

• Challenges– Faced with depopulation and aging

• about 30 % of people is over 65 years

– Sustainability of Noto is in question

白山市

金沢市

輪島市

小松市

加賀市

能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

津幡町

能美市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

中能登町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

Sea of Japan

Toyama

Gifu

Fukui

Kanazawa

Noto region• 9 municipalities

• 200 thousand pop.

• Aging rate 30%

Kaga region• 10 municipalities

• 960 thousand pop.

• Aging rate 22%

Provisioning services (1): agricultural produce (cont.)Category Item

Rice Rice（うるち米）(10)，Gutinous rice（もち米）(7)，Rice for brew（醸造用米）(3)，Antiquity（古代米）(2)

Winter cereals Barley（大麦）(4)

Cereal cropsCorn（トウモロコシ）(9)，Buckwheat（そば）(2)，Foxtail millet（あわ），Millet（きび）(4)，Job‘s Tears（ハトムギ），Oats（えんばく）

Beans Soybean（大豆）(3)，Azuki bean（小豆）(4)，Other beans（その他豆類）(9)，Peanut（落花生）

Leaf and stem

vegetables

Cabbage（キャベツ）(15)，Lettuce（レタス）(12)，Chinese cabbage（白菜）(12)，Komatsuna（小松菜）(5)，Crown daisy（春菊）(5)，Spinach（ほうれん草）(18)，Qing geng cai（青梗菜）(3)，Greens for pickling（ツケナ），Onion（たまねぎ）(20)，Welsh onion（ねぎ）(11)，Potherb Mustard（ミズナ）(9)，Asparagus（アスパラガス）(3)，Cauliflower（カリフラワー）(3)，Broccoli（ブロッコリー）(9)，Indian spinach（ツルムラサキ），Asitaba（アシタバ），Red shiso（シソ）(5)，Rakkyo（らっきょう），ベンリ菜，Garlic（ニンニク）(2)，Garlic chives（ニラ）(2)，Victory

onion（ギョウジャニンニク），Japanese parsley（せり），celery（セロリ），oudo（ウド），Chard（フダンソウ），Hiroshimana（広島菜），Pak choi（シャクシ菜），Mustard greens（からし菜），Petit vert（プチベール），Brussels sprouts（メキャベツ）(2)，Kale（ケール），Kohlrabi（コールラビ），Turnip（かぶら菜），Rapeseed（なばな），しろ菜，白菜菜，みぶな，Nalta jute（モロヘイヤ），Japanese honeywort（みつば），人参菜（Carrot），コシアブラ，ゲンノショウコ，カンゾウ，Okinawan spinach（金時草），Water morning glory（エン菜），Water

morning glory（空心菜），Lettuce（サラダ菜），Lettuce（ちしゃな），Lettuce（サニーレタス），Ostrich fern（コゴミ），Watercress（クレソン），Giant butterbur（ふき），parsley（パセリ），Radish（葉大根），Saltwort（オカヒジキ），Myoga（みょうが）

Fruits and

vegetables

Strawberry（イチゴ）(8)，Fig tree（イチジク）(5)，Squash（うり）(3)，Okra（オクラ）(2)，Pumpkin（カボチャ）(33)，Zucchini（ズッキーニ）(2)，Spaghetti squash（金糸瓜（そうめんかぼちゃ）），小菊かぼちゃ，Cucumber（きゅうり）(14)，melon cucumber（カタウリ），melon cucumber（シロウリ），Watermelon（すいか）(17)，Noto

Watermelon能登すいか(5)，Chile pepper（トウガラシ）(4)，Bell Pepper（ししとう）(2)，（トマト）(19)，Noto mini

tomato（能登ミニトマト），Vegetable pear（ハヤトウリ），Eggplant（ナス）(8)，Muskmelon（メロン）(9)，Pea（エンドウ）(12)，Snowpea pea（さやえんどう）(5)，Pea（スナックエンドウ）(3)，Greenbean（サヤインゲン）(11)，Paprika（パプリカ）(2)，Bell pepper（ピーマン）(3)，Bitter melon（ゴーヤ），Winter melon（冬瓜）(2)，Bottle

gourd（ユウガオ）

Source: made based on the GIAHS application document by Noto Regional GIAHS Executive Committee. Number in brackets shows number

of plant species (total 705 species).

Provisioning services (2): agricultural produce

Category（13） Item（177）

Root crops

Edible Burdock（ごぼう）(4)，Taro（さといも）(7)，Japanese yam（山芋）(2)，Carrot（にんじん）(15)，Japanese

radish（だいこん）(23)，Radish（はつかだいこん）(4)，Turnip（かぶ（かぶら））(14)，Arrowhead（くわい）(2)，Jerusalem artichoke（きくいも），八ヶいも，Yakon（ヤーコン）(2)，Lotus（れんこん）

Tubers and

roots

Potato（ばれいしょ）(23)，Sweet potato（かんしょ）(17)

Fruits

Ume（うめ）(5)，Persimmon（かき）(8)，Kiwifruit（キウイフルーツ）(3)，Japanese chestnut（くり）(12)，Nashi

Pear（ナシ）(6)，Grape（ぶどう）(18)，Apple（りんご）(16)，Peach（もも）(4)，Blueberry（ブルーベリー）(2)，Apricot（杏），Ginkgo（銀杏）(3)，Goumi（グミ），Cherry（さくらんぼ），Pomegranate（ザクロ），Japanese plum

（スモモ）(2)，Loquat（ビワ），Chinese Quince（カリン）

Citrus Unshiu tangerine（みかん），Kabosu citrus（カボス），Citrus sudachi（スダチ），Citron（ユズ）

Mushrooms

Shitake（しいたけ）(14)，Butterscotch mushroom（なめこ）(3)，Hen of the woods（マイタケ），Trioholoma

matsutake（松茸），ホウキタケ，アカモミタケ，Jersey cow mushroom（アミタケ），enoki mushroom（えのきたけ），Jew‘s Ear Fungus（きくらげ），クリタケ，oyster mushroom（平茸），Wood blewit（ムラサキシメジ），ヤブシメジ，雑ゴケ(10)

Wild vegetables Wild vegetables（山菜類）(20)

Others

Sesame（ごま），fish mint（ドクダミ），Herb（ハーブ）(3)，Manchurian Wild Rice（マコモ），chocolate vine（アケビ），サルナシ，silvervine（マタタビ），ツクバネ，Hornbeam（シデの葉），Silverberry（グミ），杜仲葉，こまゆみ，花いかだ，Walnut（胡桃），Chinese desert-thorn（クコの実），Mulberry（桑の実），しその実，marshpepper

knotweed（紅蓼），Japanese Timber Bamboo（マダケ），Henon bamboo（ハチク），カヤノミ，Cranberry（クランベリー），crimson glory vine（山葡萄），Japanese pepper（山椒の実），Chinese date（なつめ）

Source: made based on the GIAHS application document by Noto Regional GIAHS Executive Committee. Number in brackets shows number

of plant species (total 705 species).

Regulating & Cultural services by Hokushinetsu cluster

Service Indicator

Reg

ula

tin

gS

ervi

ces

Air

Climate regulation Average Temperature，Average Temperature

Climate change Carbon dioxide Emission

Trans-boundary air pollution Quantity of asian dust，Acid rain，Endocrine disruptor

Water

Management of agricultural

water

Area of Paddy field，Number of Farm ponds，Maintenance

rate of Agricultural waterway

Flood mitigationDam（Effective storage capacity，Flood control capacity），Water Conservation

Soil

Forest Soil Erosion

Coast Sediment supply

Cu

ltu

ral

Ser

vice

s

Artistic Traditional craft Production，No. of workers

Spiritual Shrine/temple forests Number of Shrine/temple Forests

Recreational

Traditional festivalsNumber of Traditional Festivals（e.g. Kiriko festivals，Aenokoto，etc）

Environmental education Number of participants

Eco-tourism Number of faculties，Number of users

Other

Traditional knowledgeNumber of Knowledge about Traditional Technique（eg. Salt

production，Charcoal production）

Culture of fermentationNumber of Knowledge about Fermentation，Products

（e.g. Nukaduke，Ishiri，Sake）

Source: made based on JSSA Hokushinetsu cluster report (2012)

Data of selected agricultural products (1)

118,100 

81,684 

82,300 

57,170 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Paddy Rice（t）KagaNoto

285 

67 

175 

37 

0

100

200

300

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Peach（t）KagaNoto

20,500 

10,909 

10,600 

6,171 0

10,000

20,000

30,000 Water Melon（t）Kaga

Noto585

190110

0

200

400

600

800

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Strawberry（t）

Kaga

Noto

1,860 

301 282 

163 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Spinach（t）

KagaNoto

2,430 996 

509 294 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000 Grape（t）K…N…

Data of selected agricultural products (2)

3,780 

1,780 

4,390 

2,970 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Potato（t）KagaNoto

802  585 

1,540 1,944 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Pumpkin（t）KagaNoto

4,990 4,248 

1,291 885 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000 Tomato（t） KagaNoto

2,880 

3,826 

49 42

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Asian Pear（t）

KagaNoto

1,280 

565 418 

0

500

1,000

1,500 Apple（t）KagaNoto

16 7

662 

138 

0

200

400

600

800

197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

Chestnut（t）KagaNoto

Cultural servicesQuestionnaire surveys were conducted in October 2013, to evaluate people’s perception about

seven landscape values (asked to identify top four places for each values)

1. Aestheticvalued for the scenery—mountains, forests, farmland,

beaches, tidelands, bays and islands

2. Recreationvalued because they provide places for outdoor, recreation

activities and experiences

3. Learningvalued because we can learn about the environment

4. Spiritualvalued because they are sacred, religious, spiritually important

5. Historicvalued because they are places and things of natural and

human history

6. Therapeuticvalued because they make people feel better, physically

and/or mentally

7. Culturalvalued because people can continue to pass down wisdom,

traditions, and a way of life

Sample questionnaire for aesthetic value

Modified from Alessa et al. (2012)

Delivered to: 8,000 people living in Noto

Respondents: 1,662 (21%)

Perceived landscape values (cultural services)1. Aesthetic 2. Recreational 3. Learning 4. Spiritual

5. Historic 6. Therapeutic 7. Cultural

0 - 0.1918

0.1918 - 0.6139

0.6139 - 1.1510

1.1510 - 1.8416

1.8416 - 2.7240

2.7240 - 3.7983

3.7983 - 5.1411

5.1411 - 6.5607

6.5607 - 8.0570

8.0570 - 9.7452

Point density

(point/km2)

Regulating services (e.g. flood mitigation by farmland)

輪島市 能登町

七尾市志賀町

珠洲市

⽳⽔町

⽻咋市

宝達志⽔町

中能登町

かほく市津幡町

七尾市

内灘町

富山県

0 5 10 15 20 252.5km

Flood mitigation高 : 0.23 m3/m2

低 : 0

Spatial distribution of flood mitigation by

farmland was analyzed using land use

map of Noto with GIS

Volume of flood mitigation services

• Closely related to the amount of paddy

field

• Flood mitigation by dry field is small

12

Relationships between the levels of ecosystem services provision and biodiversity and land use intensity

de Groot et al. (2010)

high lowbiodiversity

ESL

�(ESL)

R(sum)

P (max)

Cr (recreation)

Ci (education, knowledge,

spirituality)

natural light use extensive intensive urban

Satoyama Index (SI) is used as a proxy indicator

13

Calculation procedure of Satoyama Index (SI)

Characteristics of SI

• SI value varies from 0 (homogenous) to 1 (highly heterogeneous)

Procedure

1. Classify individual spatial units (500 meters mesh) containing at least one cell

2. Calculate landscape heterogeneity among the 25 grid cells

– Agricultural landscape heterogeneity index (ALHI) is calculated using

Simpson’s diversity index

S: number of different land use items in a given spatial unit

Piproportion of item I to the 35 elementary grids

*land use cells classified as ‘urban’ were excluded from the calculations

3. SI is calculated by multiplying the ALHI with the proportion of grid cells classified

as ‘nonagricultural land except “urban”’ within the given spatial unit

*the proportion of the nonagricultural land grid cells was multiplied by 25/24 for

standardizing the range of SI values between 0 and 1

Kadoya and Washitani (2011)

ALHI 1 p

14

白山市

金沢市

輪島市

小松市

加賀市

能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

津幡町

能美市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

中能登町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

凡例

SI（2006）

0.003200 - 0.045714

0.045715 - 0.085033

0.085034 - 0.108487

0.108488 - 0.131689

0.131690 - 0.166709

0.166710 - 0.210765

0.210766 - 0.241876

0.241877 - 0.264464

0.264465 - 0.290428

0.290429 - 0.500003

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 〜0.1 〜0.2 〜0.3 〜0.4 〜0.5 〜0.6

加賀能登

No. of mesh

SI

2006

SI for the year 2006

Higher

Lower

SI

Higher

(Heterogeneous)

Lower

(Homogenous)

SI

KagaNoto

Legend

白山市

金沢市

輪島市

小松市

加賀市

能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

津幡町

能美市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

中能登町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

凡例

SI(2006)

0.003052 - 0.044802

0.044803 - 0.088889

0.088890 - 0.122012

0.122013 - 0.152540

0.152541 - 0.180307

0.180308 - 0.211211

0.211212 - 0.246715

0.246716 - 0.274934

0.274935 - 0.298115

0.298116 - 0.544336

白山市

金沢市

輪島市

小松市

加賀市

能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

津幡町

能美市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

中能登町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

凡例

SI(1976)

0.003052 - 0.044802

0.044803 - 0.088889

0.088890 - 0.122012

0.122013 - 0.152540

0.152541 - 0.180307

0.180308 - 0.211211

0.211212 - 0.246715

0.246716 - 0.274934

0.274935 - 0.298115

0.298116 - 0.544336

1976 2006

Changes of SI value between 1976 and 2006

Legend Legend

白山市

金沢市

輪島市

小松市

加賀市

能登町

七尾市

珠洲市

志賀町

穴水町

津幡町

能美市

羽咋市

宝達志水町

中能登町

かほく市

内灘町

川北町

野々市市

0 10 20 30 40 505km

凡例

SI（2006-1976）

-0.302244 - -0.106135

-0.106134 - -0.032883

-0.032882 - -0.000164

-0.000163 - 0.101026

0.101027 - 0.294082

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500加賀能登

SI2006-SI1976

Change in

SI value

IncreaseDecrease

*Mesh with no change were excluded

Increase and decrease of SI value between 1976 and 2006

No. of mesh

Legend

KagaNoto

40 % of Noto has faced with the

loss of landscape mosaic

(20% in Kaga)

Decrease

658 362

3,105

1,528

1,640

640

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

能登地域 加賀地域

D

C

B

A

メッシュ類型

Underuse (farmland abandonment)

Development (farmland to

built-up) and underuse(abandonment)

Development(forest to farmland and

built-up)

What are the causes of changes?

Causes of loss of landscape mosaic• Mixture of Development and Underuse

are the most significant driver of

change (57%)

• Followed by Underuse of farmland

(28%) and Development of farmland to

built-up areas

No. of mesh

Legend

Change in SI (1976-2006)

Increase

Development (farmland to

built-up)

KagaNoto

Conclusion1. Ecosystem services of Noto

– Provisioning• Diverse of plant species but less data available for evaluation

• Agricultural production in Noto is smaller than that of Kaga

– Regulating• Just started evaluation based on land use data

– Cultural• Evaluated perceived value of seven cultural services

2. How landscape mosaic of Noto changed over time in the past 30 years?– Landscape mosaic has been decreasing in entire Ishikawa

• Prominent in Noto (40% of Noto faced with the loss)

– “Development” and “Underuse” are the main drivers causing the loss of

mosaic

Assessing the trail degradation for Nakahechi Route,Kumano Pilgrimage RoutesKumano Pilgrimage Routes 

TokyoOsaka

Kii Peninsula

Introduction• Kumano Pilgrimage Route

• “Kumano Kodo” “Kumano Sankeimichi”

– Honshu Island, Kii Peninsula, Mie, Nara and Wakayama Prefectures

Latitude:     33°50' 13'' N

Longitude:  135°46' 35'' E  (Kumano Hongū Shrine)

– "Kii Mountain Range“Forested area, mountain (NW‐SE): altitudes of 1,000‐2,000 m,Forested area, mountain (NW SE): altitudes of 1,000 2,000 m, 

rugged landscape, shimanto belt, relative shallow soil, warm and moist climate with an annual precipitation of 3000~4000mm

– Three sacred locations"Kumano Sanzan" "Yoshino & Omine" and "Koyasan”

– Pilgrimage routes linking the sites"Kumano Sankeimichi", "Omine Okugake‐michi" and 

"Koyasan Choishi‐michi”

Introduction

– Registered UNESCO World Heritage Site as ‘Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range’ on July 7th 2004.

– First site in Japan registered as a ‘cultural landscape’

– One of the only two pilgrimage roads to be registered as a World Heritage 

• As World Heritage SiteSymbol of the beloved feature of Yatagarasu(“eight‐span crow”), the three‐legged raven 

y p g g g gSite, the other one ‘Way of St. James', Spain

– Brief description from UNESCO Website The sites ‘reflect(ing) the fusion of Shinto, rooted in the ancient tradition of nature worship in 

Japan, and Buddhism, which was introduced from China and the Korean Peninsula…and their surrounding forest landscape reflect a persistent and extraordinarily well‐documented tradition of sacred mountains over 1,200 years. The area, with its abundance of streams, rivers and waterfalls, is still part of the living culture of Japan…’

• History of Nakahechi Route

– Diversity of usage in history–As pilgrimage route

–Started in the 10th century

–Ari no Kumano‐mode “Procession of ants”in the 15th century

–Lost popularity during Meiji period, national policy of separating Buddhism and Shintoism

Landscape planning of Wakayama Prefecture (2009)

–Leisure and recreational purposes 

–Saigokujunrei “ Pilgrimage to the west”  in the 17th century embark on recreational meaning, guidebook, road signs

–After World War II, revitalizing of the economy brought back visitors

–UNESCO inscription

• History of Nakahechi Route

– Diversity of usage in history

– In people’s daily life

– Intermittent local roads

– Construction of new roads and pervasion of car (1950s)

– Relocation of remote and depopulated villages (1970s) 

– In forestry

– Forestry dates back to ancient times

– Great afforestation period and restoration after WWII 

– Changing economic situation from domestic to imported woods

• Degradation of the Nakahechi Route

– Natural process• Heavy rainfall

• Soil condition

– Cultural aspect• Change of maintenance entity

Landslide site along the Nakahechi Route 

at Michi‐no‐kawa (photo in 2013)

Wakayama Prefecture Museum

• Usage behavior

• Ill‐managed plantation forest

Densely planted Japanese cedar trees in a valley  along Nakahechi route 

Abandoned household along the trail

• Necessity to protect the trail from further degradation

• Important operational component of cultural landscape

• Tangible and intangible values

• Disaster recovery 

• Research questions:

• To characterize the current physical baseline conditions of the• To characterize the current physical baseline conditions of the Nakahechi Route 

• To examine the influential factors on trail condition from both an environmental and cultural aspects

• To explore the meaning of trail conservation and restoration under the concept of cultural landscape

Study Area• Nakahechi Route

Takijiri‐ōji:

official start , “passage into the precincts of the sacred mountain begins”

Kumano Hongū Shrine:

Takijiri‐ōji Kumano Hongū Shrine

Kumano Hongū Shrine:

One of the three major shrines of “Kumano Sanzan” sacred sites (About 38km)

– Trail Design & Maintenance

From ancient time to early modern period

Local vs. Broad

Local efforts from villagers & feudal

Paved by stones in Edo period

“Kiridōshi” – Soil excavation for building trails on flatter 

terrain

villagers & feudal lords

– Trail Design & Maintenance

Contemporary period  and current time

The restoration and conservation project for roads of historical importance, subsidized by the Agency of Cultural Affairs in the 1950s (歴史の道保存整備事業)

Volunteer efforts & Michi‐Bushin（道普請)

GPS Data Preliminary survey

( Sep. Oct. 2013)

Divided into 5 segments 

• Field survey 

– Preparation

Major two impacts are: trail incision by soil loss and root 

exposure

Methodology

and made sample points of 

100m intervals 

Developed a five‐class rating 

system for general condition 

Avoid the difficulty of measuring rugged terrain for traditional measuring‐wheel 

method 

Based on prior application of condition class methods and in 

consultation with management stuff

Sample area divided into 5 segments and with sample points of 100m intervals 

Segment 1: Hosshinmon‐oji  ~ Kumano‐Hongu Taisha Shrine

• Sampling and measurement procedures

– Field Survey

• 17 Oct. ~ 5 Nov. avoiding typhoon and unstable weather

• 10 times with two people each survey

• Sampling and measurement procedures

– Measurement

• Sample point & Sample Area

Decide a rectangle sample area centering the sample point: 10m length, width as with the trail 

• Sampling and measurement procedures

– Measurement (Trail condition variables)

•Maximum incision: Depth at the deepest site

Nylon line (Original Trail Surface)Has to be decided Has to be decided carefully and with consistency 

Current Trail Surface

•Root exposure: measured as percentage along sample area of the surface characteristics : soil, litter, vegetation, rock, mud, gravel, water, and others up to a total of 1 to increase accuracy

•Rate the sample area based on the predefined condition class system

– Measurement 

Environmental Cultural

• Topography

• Landform Grade

• Landform Aspect

• Vegetation

• Forest Type

•Managerial

• Trail Design

• Trail Maintenance

•Use‐Related Variables

• Use type

• Use level

• Analyses

Assembled in Microsoft Excel 2010 

Exported to R studio version0.97.551 for statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics

Inferential statisticsInferential statistics

Attached to attribute table in ArcGIS for visual display

Results1:

Trail condition indicators

General Condition Class: All 254 samples

Class I Barely damaged trail

Class II Lightly damaged trail

32

56

10 4

151Class III Moderately damaged trail

Class IV Highly damaged trail

Class V Severely damaged trail

Segment1 Segment2&3

Segment4 Segment5

Results1: Trail condition indicators

Maximum Incision: 241 natural‐surfaced samples

Min.  Median    Mean Max.    NA's 

2.00 10.00    12.59   46.00      22

Severe incision: >= 30cm

Non‐severe incision: < 30cm225 14

Segment1 Segment2&3

Segment4 Segment5

Results1: Trail condition indicators:

Root exposure: All 254 samples

Min.   Median    Mean   Max. 

0.00   0.025  0.053 0.40

None exposure: 0

Slightly exposed: (0 <,  <= 0.1)127 90 32 5

Moderately exposed: (0.1 <, <= 0.25)

Highly exposed: (0.25 <)

Slightly exposed Moderately exposed Highly exposed

• Result2  Description Statistics for the influential variables

• For environmental variables

Landform grade

54% with Steep upper side‐slope of more than 40°

Forest type 

75% Plantation forest, 5% ill‐managed with sparse understory vegetation, 67% with understory indicating management already lagged behind, 28%complex structure indicate a relative timely management

• Result2  Description Statistics for the influential variables•Cultural variables

Trail Grade(°)

Trail Slope Alignment Angle(°)

[0‐20) [20‐50) [50‐70) [70‐90) Totals

(0‐2.9] 36 8 4 10 58(0a,0b,0c,0d,0e,0f)

(2.9‐5.7] 37(1) 7 2 12 58(0,0,2,0,0,2)

(5.7‐8.5] 27(3) 3 3 5 38(1,0,0,0,0,4)

(8.5‐11.3] 19(5) 6 2 7(3) 34(1,1,2,4,0,2)

Good 35% Good 11%

77% of the stone‐surface

62% of the steps

( ] ( ) ( ) ( , , , , , )

(11.3‐16.5] 13(2) 15 7(1) 7(1) 42(6,1,2,2,3,4)

(16.5‐31] 6 5(1) 5 9(1)  24(1,2,5,0,1,5)

Totals 13720%

449%

2317%

5054%

254100%

Trail Grade: Mean=7.78° Median=6.29° Range=0.5~28°

Cross‐table for trail grade and TSA, with managerial variables represented by (a,b,c,d,e,f) in which, a=Edo stone‐surface; b=Modern stone‐surface; c=Historical Stone steps; d=S50 stone steps; e=S50 timber steps; f=crosspiece. Figures in bold are samples with “Kiridōshi” style 

Susceptible 15%

Environmental Managerial Use‐Related Variables

Results3: Influential factors

Negative binomial regression analyses using Maximum incision as condition indicators (Natural‐surfaced samples)

Step‐wise selection methods of both direction, smallest AIC 

•Topography

• Landform Grade

• Landform Aspect

•Vegetation

•Forest Type

•Trail Design

•Trail Location

•Trail grade

•Trail Width

•TSA

•Kiridōshi style

•Trail Maintenance

•Soil Excavation in 1950s (Shōwa)

•Steps construction in 1950s(Shōwa) 

•Restoration and conservation activities in modern times (RM)

•Use type

•Use level

Variables Subgroup Variables Subgroup

EnvironmentalLandform Grade( ﾟ )

< 20 b

20 ~ 3030 ~ 40 > 40None

00.5776 a (0.0082**)0.3030(0.0707 .)0.1744(0.2434)0.2767(0.1032)

EnvironmentalVegetation Forest Type Natural Forestb

Plantation0

0.1726(0.0710 .)

Managerial Trail Width 

(cm)0.0021(0.0005***)

ManagerialTrail Grade(°) 0.0912(0.0000***) c

Model with the smallest AIC

ManagerialSoil Excavation 

in 1950s YesNo b

0.4276(0.0000***)0

Use‐relatedUse Type Non‐accessible 

by automobileAccessible by automobileb

0.5541(0.0097**)0

AIC: 1439.8

a  Unstandardized maximum incision coefficients, count of log for maximum incision(cm).  b Reference category for categorical variables in GLM models.  c Two‐tailed t‐test significance.Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Discussion1:

Current condition of the trail

Of the distance from Takijiri‐oji to Hongu Grand Shrine, the majority is in good  condition. (Result 1)

Durability of the Nakahechi Route largely due to its general good design and location. (Result 2 Trail design variables)

Hillside design (large TSA) mitigate the steep landform grade

Special protection for parts of the trail of steeper grade (e.g. surface paved by stone)

Spatial variances for different segments  (Result 1 Visual display)

Discussion2:

Cultural variables with Trail degradation

Good management (Result 3)

Although long and gentle slope are preferred, construction of steps are necessary for steep slopes and setting of crosspiece might be a temporal remedy 

Lack of management (Result 2) Lack of management (Result 2)

Deterioration of the stone surface

Inappropriate management (Result 3)

Change of trail width in an inappropriate wayDeterioration of the stone‐

paved surface

Discussion3: Management implication

Different management approach for different levels of impact problems and addressing the spatial variance

Constant repairs for slight and moderate damaged part

Technique and financial support from central and local government for “hot‐spot” restoration

Involve local people, other trail users 

Cultural properties vs. Cultural landscape 

Future steps – Users (Tourist, Nature guide, Local people)

Users’ perceptions on the trail impact problems and how it affects their experiences 

Landscape values associated with the trail  

English literature:Cole,D.N. 1983. Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions. USAD Forest  Service Research Paper INT‐303. U.S. Department of Agricultural,  Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Marion, J.L., J.F. Wimpey, and O.L. Park. 2011. The science of trail surveys : recreation  ecology   provides new tools for managing wilderness trails. Park Science  28(3):60‐65.Nepal,S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in Sagarmatha(Mt.Everest) national park, Nepal: a logistic  regression analysis. Environmental Management 32(3):312‐321 Olive,N.D., and J.L.Marion. 2009. The influence of use‐related, environmental and 

managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of  Environmental Management 90(3): 1483‐1493.Wimpey J and J L Marion 2011 Formal and informal trail monitoring protocals and baselineWimpey,J. and J.L. Marion. 2011. Formal and informal trail monitoring protocals and  baseline conditions: great falls park and potomac gorge. Final Research  Report. USDI,U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Tech Field Station, Blacksburg,  Virginia, USA.Japanese literature:池田雅之, 辻林浩. 2013.日本人の原風景Ⅱお伊勢参りと熊野詣. かまくら春秋社. みくまの総合資料館研究委員会. 1996. 熊野の自然と歴史. 和歌山県新宮市教育委員会. 和歌山県本宮町. 1983. 歴史の道（熊の道）整備報告書.和歌山県本宮町.和歌山県中辺路町. 1983. 歴史の道（熊の道）整備報告書.和歌山県中辺路町.和歌山木材協同組合．1993. 和歌山県木材史.和歌山木材協同組合．

What is new under IPBESWhat is new under IPBES

A paper presented by RodgerA paper presented by Rodger MpandeMpandeA paper presented by Rodger A paper presented by Rodger MpandeMpandeIPBES Member ( Africa)IPBES Member ( Africa)

International Workshop on Sustainable International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio Management of Socio ––Ecological Production Ecological Production

Landscapes in Landscapes in NotoNotoJapan, FebruaryJapan, February

20142014

2013 IPBES intersessionalprocess

Africa Regional Consultation Meeting, Kenya

Conceptual Framework Workshop, South Africa

Intersessional process

Activities Timing• Work programme• Requests• Recognizing indigenous and local

knowledge

Early in 2013

knowledge• Survey and writeshop on SES• Catalogue of assessments

Bureau and MEP meetings June, BergenAugust, Cape Town

Workshops:• ILK and different knowledge systems• Conceptual Framework

June , TokyoAugust, Cape Town

Open online review of documents June - July

Regional and other contributing activities

Activities Timing

Regional consultations- Latin America and Carribbean- Pan-European- Africa- Eastern Europe

February -November

- Asia-Pacific

Seoul International Symposium and Workshop on the regionalinterpretation of IPBES Conceptual Framework and KnowledgeSharing

September, Seoul,

High-level Forum on Biodiversity and Development for Post 2015 and Informal consultation on IPBES and Capacity Building

November, KL

Regional panel discussion in advance of IPBES-2 November, Washington D.C,

Second Plenary

Antalya, Turkey 9-14 December 2013

IPBES-2 Agenda

• Work programme

• Financial and budgetary arrangements

• Rules and procedures for the operation of the Platform

• Communications and stakeholder engagement

• Institutional arrangements

Objective 1: Strengthen capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement IPBES functions

Objective 2: Strengthen the Objective 3: StrengthenObjective 2: Strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services at and across the sub-regional, regional and

global levels

Objective 3: Strengthen the science-policy

interface with regard to thematic and

methodological issues

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate IPBES activities, deliverables and findings

Work programme deliverables

• Priority capacity building needs are matched with resources thro gh catal sing financial and in kind s pport

Objective 1: Strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement key IPBES functions

through catalysing financial and in kind support

• Capacities are developed, with support provided by a network on capacity building

• Procedures and approaches for working with indigenous and local knowledge systems are put in place

• Priority knowledge and data needs are addressed through catalysing efforts to generate new knowledge and networks

• Guidance on production and integration of assessments from across all scales

Work programme deliverables

Objective 2: Strengthen the

• Regional and/or subregionalassessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services

• Global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services

science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services at and across the sub-regional, regional and global levels

• Fast track assessment on pollination and food production

• Fast track methodological assessment on scenarios analysis and modelling

Work programme deliverables

Obj ti 3 St th thanalysis and modelling

• Fast track methodological assessment on value, valuation and accounting

• Thematic assessment on land degradation and/or invasive alien species

Objective 3: Strengthen the knowledge-policy interface with regard to thematic and methodological issues

• Catalogue of relevant assessments

• Catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies

C i ti t h d t t t i

Work programme deliverables

• Communication, outreach and engagement strategies, products and processes

• Reviews of the effectiveness of IPBES guidance, procedures and approaches

Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate IPBES activities, deliverables and findings

IPBES institutional arrangements

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)

Responsible for scientific oversight of work programme, supported by the secretariat 

Bureau

Responsible for oversight of work programme, supported by the secretariat 

Plenary

Decision­making body Responsible for the overall work programme, working through subsidiary bodies,supported by the secretariat ad‐hoc meetings

Time­bound and task­specific expert groups for assessments, policy support tools and other studies Consisting of selected experts, lead by MEP or selected expert Co‐Chairs, one each for deliverables  1 c), 2 a), 2 b), 2 c), 3 a), 3 b), 3 c), and 3 d)

web­based meetings e­conferences for stakeholder engagement

SecretariatEnsure efficient functioning of the Platform through support to the Plenary, the Bureau and MEP, preparation of documents and organization of meetings, facilitation of communications; financial management; delivering 4 a) 4 d)

pp y

ad‐hoc meetings,meetings of the forum and horizon scanning

Time­bound and task­specific task forces on capacity­building and on knowledge and data constituted by strategic partnerships, led by the Bureau and MEP, delivering  1 a) and 1 b), and 1 d)

web­based meetings, web‐based match­making

e­conferences for stakeholder engagement

technical support: provided by Secretariat, secondment of staff or potentially a technical support unit

for stakeholder engagement

technical support: provided by the secretariat, potentially a technical support unit and relevant task forces

IPBES Analytical Conceptual Framework

Operational conceptual model of IPBES

Communications and stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement strategy:

Strategic partnerships:Strategic partnerships:

Institutional arrangements

UN collaborative partnership arrangements:

• Collaboration amongst UN partners in implementation of the work programme, exchange of information, staffing, financial aspects, reporting, etc.

• UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP to enter into an agreement

Secretariat under recruitment

• Head of secretariat (D-1)

• Programme Officer (P-4, UNEP secondment) – Work programme

• Programme Officer (P-4) – Communications and stakeholder engagement

• Programme Officer (P-3) – Programme support

• Programme Officer (P-3) – Admin & Finance

• Associate Programme Officer (P-2) – Programme support

• Administrative and finance support staff (3 positions)

• Other secondments?

Indicators for Co-management of Production Landscapes:

Joining science, Traditional and Local Knowledge, policy expertise and consumers for

sustainability

Prof. Henrik Moller (University of Otago)

Translated by Dr. Yuki Fukuda (Snow Parrot Ltd.)

Kā ora te whenua, kā ora te tangata

If the land is healthy, the people are healthy

and

If the people are healthy, the land will be healthy

Sustainability is a group ‘social contract’

• We share land, futures and values

• We feed and nurture each other

W t h d l f h th• We teach and learn from each other

• We identify with our place, our nation

• … so we must collaborate to reach a shared vision

Satoyama and Satoumi forPeople, Profit and the Planet!

People collaborate if they …• are respected

• are listened to

• have their values accepted

• are trusted with responsible and meaningful roles to set and achieve the goals

• feel proud to belong or are members of the community/club/group

… willing participation is the key indicator of long term success

‘Environmentality’ and Co-managementFikret Berkes, Arun Agrawal

• Rooting governance and power in local communities

• … to enable participation, responsibility, innovation and collective experiential learning

• ‘Co-management’ is not just for the “commons” –private land is as connected socially, economically and ecologically

Kotahitanga: Think holistically

P bli

Ecological, social & economic flows

Ki uta , ki tai  … from the mountains to the sea

Private land

andPublic land

Ecological, social & economic flows

Satoyama Satoumi , Take a bow!

‘Environmentality’ and Co-managementFikret Berkes, Arun Agrawal

• Rooting governance and power in local communities

• … to enable participation, responsibility, innovation and collective experiential learning

• ‘Co-management’ is not just for the “commons” –private land is as connected socially, economically and ecologically

… so we need collaborative planners and politicians

Top‐down

Complementary paradigms for maintaining and restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services

Shallow Power Devolution

Eg. Regulation / forcing

Fast if compliance in place

Flexible/reversible

Bottom‐up Deep Power Devolution

Builds ‘Environmentality’

Slow to get going

Lasting

Science (External /Expert) 

knowledge

Complementary paradigmsfor co‐discovery and management intervention

Top‐down• Technical skill to meet  

complexity• Expensive• Power of the ‘etic’

Local practitioner’s knowledge

Bottom–up 

• Power of the ‘emic’• Builds ‘Environmentality’• Solution & problem already 

owned by practitioners• Stronger uptake

Science (External /Expert) 

knowledge

Complementary paradigmsfor co‐discovery of how, where and when to intervene

Little participation

Scientists and policy makers

 

M

Local practitioner’s knowledge

A lot of participation

Citizens’

science

Adap

tive Man

agement

TLKParticipatory Action

Research

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Fikret Berkes 1999, 2008, 2011)

“… a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down throughprocesses and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another

and with their environment."

Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) view of the world: a natural fit with

Satoyama - Satoumi

Knowledge

BeliefPractise

Incorporate Traditional & Local Knowledge (TLK)

• It’s powerful and complements science!

• It’s locally tuned: many of the sustainability opportunities emerge from farming withopportunities emerge from farming with local ecology, markets and society

• It links to identity and beliefs .. Keys for participation in the next Japan Satoyama and Satoumi Assessment in Ishikawa Prefecture

Networks and indicators to cement and guide collaboration (1)

• An inclusive process and tools needed for continuous interaction, monitoring progress, learning, accountabilityg, y

• Face-to-face meetings and lots of conversations .. it’s a slow but enriching process

• Get wide range of people involved from the start and on an equal footing

Networks and indicators to cement and guide collaboration (2)

• Linking dispersed ‘actors’: Farmers, local business, citizen scientists, scientists, ILK holders, managers, policy makers, consumers

• Agreed and standardised indicators, scored by the participants themselves (“citizen scientists”) for adaptive management

• Analysis and collective feedback by scholars

… who must not take over the process!

• Web-based tool under development 2013-2019• Seeking international collaboration (see handout and

report)• Harmonising sustainability frameworks and indicators• Customer scrutiny and choice• Market access and price premiums

… too many eco‐labels? what do they mean?  Do they incentivize sustainable farming?

Taramea

• Ngāi Tahu has a perfume making tradition using the plant taramea.

What is the NZ Sustainability Dashboard?

• Online network

• Mainly self-assessed KPIs reported annually

I t t b h ki• Instant benchmarking

• Trend analysis, Targets, Trigger points

• Automated reporting

• Upscaling

• Cultural authenticity and sustainability credentials

Sheep/beef & Dairy Conference 2007

Sustainability frameworks and their indicators

• Defendable, trusted, adaptable

• Wide ranging, holistic

• Locally grounded while matching and• Locally grounded while matching and integrating with international frameworks and indicators (eg. IPBES, and FAO’s SAFA protocols)

• IUCN host• UNESCO/ United Nations University (Tokyo)

promoting ILK integration with science• 2014 – 2018 first work program• Framework and indicators under development• Ishikawa Prefecture as a pilot test?

Environmental integrity

Socialwell-being

SAFA: SAFA: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems

Economic resilience

Good governance

Individual sustainability indicators (1) (Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

1. Policy relevant and meaningful

2. Neutral rather than ideologically g ybased

3. By preference, quantified

4. Clearly defined and repeatable

5. Broad acceptance

Individual sustainability indicators (2) (Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

6. By preference performance based

7. Affordable monitoring

8. Affordable modelling

9. Sensitive and specific

10.Link indicators to targets or thresholds

Sets of sustainability indicators (1) (Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

1. Representative

2. Declare values and goalsg

3. Low number of indicators

4. Capacity to upscale

5. Mix of simple and aggregated indicators

6. Wide scope and integration

Sets of sustainability indicators (2) (Moller & MacLeod 2013, hand-out table)

7. Trade-off generalisability and specificity

8. Data records and management

9 Li k d t t d d d tifi ti9. Linked to standards and certification requirements

10.Explanatory and context information monitored

11.Benefits are measured

12.Forward focus

Balance simplicity and complexity

‘The best explanation is as simple as possible, but no simpler.’ (Albert Einstein)

‘P f ti i tt i d t h th i l‘Perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away’. (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

‘Seek simplicity . . . and then distrust it.’ (Alfred North Whitehead)

Conclusions (1)

• Satoyama – Satoumi is inspiring and has a lot to teach Eurocentric environmental frameworks

• Nest JSSA within FAO’s SAFA and IPBES frameworks

I TLK i d li ll• Incorporate TLK, science and policy excellence

• Designing the indicators for learning and demonstrating progress will be challenging

Conclusions (2)

• Use a bottom-up integrating tool to nurture networks and combine TLK and science

• Consider market mechanisms to incentivise sustainability and nurture Satoyama – Satoumi principlesprinciples

• Pay most attention to collaborative process and co-design … journey without a road map … loose goals and milestones

• Allow space and time for innovation and change

• Be realistic … good things take time!

Thanks!

• NZ’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (principle funder of NZ Sustainability dashboard project)

• NZ Wine, Zespri & kiwifruit Packhouses, BioGro, , p , ,Ngāi Tahu

• UNU‐IAS, OUIK, Kanazawa University, Ishikawa Prefectural University, Kyoto University, Ishikawa Prefecture

• Saito  Osamu ‐sensei and team

Kulturlandschaft and Satoyama Sustainable management of socio‐ecological production landscapes: 

Parallels and differences between Austria and Japan 

Wolfg

ang Holzn

er, Iris sibirica

Pia Kieningerピア•キー二ンガー

Institute of Integrative Nature Conservation Research, Department of Integrative Biology & Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources & Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

a with

 „Grim

ing/Styria

“

1International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Outline

■ Cultural landscape & the relevance of agricultural land use forthe preservation of landscape quality

■ Challenges for the preservation of cultural landscapes

■ Two selected types of cultural landscape in Austria■ Alpine pastures & grasslands

■ Vineyards

■ Landscape governance strategies

■ Similarities and differences ‐ need for research

2International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

▪ 8.5 mill. inhabitants ↔ Japan: 120 mill.▪ 83,879 km2 Hokkaido▪ 47.5th latitude North Hokkaido▪ Very mountainous: ~ 70% Japan▪ Grossglockner with 3,798 m 富士山▪ Forests: 47.6% ↔ Japan: 66.3%▪ Agricultural areas: 38.3% ↔ Japan: 12.1%

Austriaオーストリア

Source

: http

s://maps.go

ogle

.com/, 19.01.2014

▪ Like elsewhere in Central Europe, wilderness/untouched nature is very scare,only on the highest tops of the mountains, or little remnants of virgin forests(3%) Landscape in Austria / Europe = Cultural landscape: „Kulturlandschaft“

____________________________

(Sources: STATISTICS JAPAN 2014; FEDERAL RESEARCH & TRAINING CENTRE FOR FORESTS, NATURAL HAZARDS & LANDSCAPE2012;STATISTICS AUSTRIA 2013, 2012; MLIT 2011; TIEFENBACH 1998)

Alps, view from Mariazell 

3International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Cultural landscape („Kulturlandschaft“)

▪ Culture, customs (shaped by centuries of human land use)▪ Traditional agricultural know‐how and techniques of sustainable land use▪ Hotspot of biodiversity and other ecological functions▪ Place of spiritual, physical and aesthetical well‐being▪ Local identity▪ Economic source: e.g. food production, energy & tourism (GDP: 5.5 % in 2012)

Lower Austria – Forest quarter, Kottes 

(Source: STATISTICS AUSTRIA 2013B)

4International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

„Kulturlandschaft“

Wo

Dürnstein in the Wachau, UNESCO World Heritage Lower Austria – Poppy field 

olfg

ang Holzn

er

Lake Neusiedl, National Park

St. Nikolai, Styria, Nature Park Sölktäler, Narcissusmeadow

5International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Agriculture – key for cultural landscapesオーストリアの農業

Trend: less but bigger farms

80% less favoured areas

Mountain Areas

Intermediate LFA 

Affected by Specific Handicaps

W. H

olzn

er

(Sources: GREEN REPORT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 2014; AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE SURVEY 2010; MAFF 2014, 2013A)

▪ Primarily family farms (92.7%)  ▪ Ø farm size 18.8 ha  ↔ Japan: Ø 2,39 ha  ▪ 54.2% part time  ↔ Japan: 71.5%▪ ~ 20% organic farmland

6International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Challenges for the preservation of cultural landscapes

Afforestation

Over‐use

Settlement development

Tullner Feld, Lower Austria

Schneeberg, Lower Austria

Ski slopes

J. Gruber´,w

ww.grossa

rltal.in

fo Großarl, Salzburg

Under‐use,abandonnement

High age

7International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Type 1: Alpine pastures & grasland

Alpine Pastures

Nomadic shepherd, Rantenalm, Styria

(HOLZNER ET AL. 2007)

(KIENINGER ET AL. 2011)

8International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Biodiversity ‐生物多様性

Gentiana pannonica, Styria

Pia Kien

inger

Gentiana lutea, Tyrol

Leontopodium alpinum, Großglockner

Marmot

The European Alps arelisted among the 200most important eco‐systems to preserve thebiodiversity of the world(WWF s.a.).

___________Source: WWF 2004 in CIPRA 2014; Fotos: Wolfgang Holzner

9International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Potential timberline

PasturesUndergrazed pastures colonized by dwarf shrubs(indicating that „the forest comes back“)

Pastures

ALPINE ZONE

Potential timberline

S U B A L P

 I N

Alpine Pastures

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_11.02.2014

Grass cutting abandoned on steep slope ‐ Alnus‐shrub invading

PasturesPinus mugo spreading onundergrazed slope

Subalpine spruce forest

N E             ZO

 N E 

(HIGH)  MONTANE ZONE (BELT) Nature Park Sölktäler, Styria

Wolfg

ang Holzn

er

10International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Matthias Poelzl

Narcissus radiiflorus, depending

The forest is coming!!

Grasland

Wolfg

ang Holzn

er

f , p gon grassland management

Mountain farming:▪ Hard work, need for much labour▪ Outmigration of young people, no successors, degradation of  houses and villages▪ Aging population: 

10.34% of farm managers = 65+ years  ↔ Japan: 61.8 % of farm household members 

Ø age of a farmer ~50 years  ↔ Japan: Ø age 65.8 years

In many areas, farm‐tourism and other farm‐diversification as additional income________________(Sources: HIEGELSBERGER 2013; STEIRISCHE STATISTIKEN 2013; STATISTICS JAPAN 2013; MAFF 2013B)

11

Type 2: Vineyards •葡萄畑

UNESCO World Heritage Wachau

▪ In four regions in Austria▪ Comparatively small scale farms, with Ø 4.1 ha land and Ø 1.3 manpower ▪ High potential for a rich flora and fauna___________ (Source: GREEN REPORT OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 2014)

12International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Rich structure:Enough space between the rowsFramed by shrubs and forestsTerraces with slopes, stone or loess walls

13International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Biocultural diversityGreen lizard ‐ Lacerta viridis

Pia Kien

inger

Himantoglossum  adriaticum

Steinfeder ‐ Stipa pennata

Cypripedium calceolus___________Fotos: Wolfgang Holzner

14International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Challenges for vineyards

“PHYTODIVERSITY AND VITICULTURE ‐ANALYSIS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OFAGROPOLITICAL MEASURES” (HOLZNER

Katharin

a Bardy

▪ Herbicides/insecticides▪ Sowing vegetation cover poor inspecies

▪ Frequent mulching/chaffing/mowing▪ Removing of structures (e.g. trees,pile of stones, vineyard shelters)

▪ Abandonment of vineyards on verysteep slopes

AGROPOLITICAL MEASURES” (HOLZNER,KIENINGER & WINTER)

15International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

1.) Public funding

Landscape governance strategies in Austria

Direct payment/„single farm payment“

1st pillar 2nd pillar

Rural developmentLess favoured areas, Agri‐environmental 

scheemes

EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Food production& market aid

4th axis: Leader (= methodical tool: bottom‐up approaches, co‐operation, networking & integration of the local population).

1staxis: 

Competitiveness2ndaxis: Environment &landscape

3rd axis: Quality of life& diversification

Laws and regulations (e.g. NATURA 2000) 

Effect of these both main strategies is assessed by biological indicators, e.g. species numbers

2.) 

16International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

3.) Consumers support the preservation of cultural landscapes by buyingregional products (PENKER AND KLEMEN 2010)

▪ EU protected Geographical Indication

▪ Austria: “Gourmet regions” (113)

▪ Nature Park (48)Steinfeder ‐ Stipa pennata

Wolfg

ang 

Holzn

erGreen lizard

Wolfgang H

olzner

17International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

▪ Direct marketing (on farm sales, farmer markets, local food co‐operations) = important income source for farmers

4.)  (Farm) tourism and tourism fees going into local landscape programmes(PENKER 2009) Holidays on the farm: 9,895 farms with 113,764 beds =

11% of the Austrian guest beds

__________________(Source: Green Report of the Ministry of Agriculture 2014)

18International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

5.) Participative integration for the assessment of biodiversity (= involvement of  farmers): Farmers monitoring their „own“ biodiversity 

▪ *2004 (in line with the Austrian biodiversitymonitoring)

▪ 700 farm holdings▪ Set of 50 indicator species of plants & animals▪ Allowance ~4000¥/ha/year

Goal▪ Awareness & understanding among farmers for the importance of theirmanagement for biodiversity

Results▪ Raising commitment of farmers to nature conservation & their status withinsociety

▪ Data for the assessment of biodiversity in cultural landscapes

19International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

6.) Volunteers in landscape stewardship, collective action & initiatives (KIENINGER& PENKER 2009)

Local initiative Bergmandl

▪ „Bergmandl“Non‐landholders mowing & removing shrubbs & trees, in order to stabilise the agro‐ecosystem & protect rare grassland plants & animals (KIENINGER & PENKER 2009)

© K

▪ „Rent a Rebstock (vine plant)“ 

Ophrys insectifera

W. Bejvl

& A. Pürstin

ger

W. B

ejvl

Karl H

indle

▪ Tanada – Ownership – System(KIENINGER ET AL. 2009, 2011, 2013)▪ Rising popularity▪ 590 ‐ 800€/year/60 – 100 vineplant 60 – 100 bottles wine▪ Collective working days▪ Urban‐rural exchange

20International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Many similarities▪ Integration of use and conservation▪ Relevance of farming for biodiversity▪ Pressure from land abandonment▪ Food quality linked to place of production

Differences

SEPL´s in Japan‐Europe

Ohyamasenmaida – Chiba Prefceture Differences▪ Smaller farm structures in Japan▪ High average age of farmers in Japan▪ Different approaches of landscape governanceAustria: Focus on biodiversity

Measures: Laws, regulations, subsidiesJapan: Focus on humans for the revival on里山

Measures: Activities involving people

Need for more comparative studies

21

Dürnstein – Wachau ‐ Austria

International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

AOKI & ARNBERGER 2008ARNBERGER, AIKOH, EDER, SHOJI, MIENO 2010BRANDENBURG 2005BREILING 2006BREILING, HASHIMOTO, SATO, AHAMER 

Selection of Japan related researchin Vienna 

“AGED COMMUNITIES AND ACTIVE AGEING ‐A CASE STUDY OF VILLAGES IN THE JAPANESE ALPS”

2005 BREILING & HASHIMOTO 2004HAMASAKI, MIYAGI, PROCHASKA 2011HOLZNER, WERGER, IKUSHIMA 1983HOLZNER & NUMATA 1982HOLZNER, HAYASHI, GLAUNINGER 1982KIENINGER, PENKER, YAMAJI 2013KIENINGER, YAMAJI, PENKER 2011KIENINGER, PROCHASKA, HOLZNER 2010KIENINGER & PENKER 2009KIENINGER, HOLZNER, KRIECHBAUM 2009PROCHASKA 2013WILHELM & DELANEY 2013WILHELM 2005

Planned research projects

▪ BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN AUSTRIA & JAPAN (KIENINGER, ÖDL‐WIESER, PENKER,  PROCHASKA‐MEYER)

▪ PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES OF SEPLS IN AUSTRIA  &  JAPAN(HOLZNER, KIENINGER, LINHART, PROCHASKA‐MEYER)

(KIENINGER, LINHART, PROCHASKA‐MEYER)

22International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

„Kulturlandschaft“‐ research at BOKU

HUMAN‐NATURE RELATIONSHIPS (KIENINGER ET AL. 2009)

RIVER LANDSCAPEMANAGEMENT(BÖCK ET AL. 2013)

LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE(PENKER ET AL. 2013)

ORGANIC  FARMING(VACAKLI ET AL. 2011)

SUSTAINABLE 

RURAL RESILIENCE(KUMMER ET AL. 2012)

BIODIVERSITY(Holzner et al. 2006)

RURAL SOCIOLOGY

HIGH MOUNTAIN MANAG.(HOLZNER ET AL. 2007)

LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS(KIENINGER ET AL. 2013)

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES(FLINT ET AL. 2013)

TRADIT. KNOWLEDGEETHNOBOTANY

(PIRKER ET AL. 2012)

FOREST MANAG.(VACIK ET AL. 2013)

CLIMATE CHANGE(CONTI ET AL. 2014)

GRASSLAND MANAG.(WINTER ET AL. 2012)

BOTANY/ZOOLOGY(KOCH ET AL. 2011; PACHINGER 2013)

AGRAR‐ECONOMY(KANTELHARDT ET AL. 

2013)

BIOMASS(BRUCKMAN 2013)

INTER‐ AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH

RURAL SOCIOLOGY(LARCHER & VOGEL 2010)

GENETICS(KROPF ET AL. 2009)

23International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

BOKU‐Satoyama Platform for Nature Conservation‐ & BiodiversityResearch

Vienna Satoyama Study Group  “Satoyama Club” (里山研究会)

Better use of inter‐ and (trans‐) disciplinary natureconser ation and biodi ersit research

Interdisciplinary collaboration between BOKU scientists &researchers from a broad range of University departments in Vienna.

conservation and biodiversity research

24International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Wolfg

ang Holzn

er

Thank you very much for attention!ご清聴ありがとうございます!

Sincere thanks to the organizers of this workshop.

Contact/information▪ Pia Kieninger: pia.kieninger@boku.ac.at

▪ウィーンの里山研究会: http://satoyamastudies.wordpress.com▪ BOKU‐Satoyama Platform: http://www.boku.ac.at/satoyama.html?&L=1▪ BOKU University: http://www boku ac at▪ BOKU University: http://www.boku.ac.at

25International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

Bibliography

AOKI, Y; ARNBERGER, A (2008): A data book of outdoor activities in Austria and Japan. R‐200‐2008, 78; National Institute forthe Environmental Studies, Japan, Tsukuba; ISBN: 1341‐3643.ARNBERGER, A; AIKOH, T; EDER, R; SHOJI, Y; MIENO, T (2010): How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparisonof trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. URBAN FOR URBAN GREEN. 2010; 9(3): 215‐225.BÖCK, K; MUHAR, A; OBERDIEK, J; MUHAR, S (2013): Die Wahrnehmung von fließgewässerbezogenen„Ökosystemleistungen“ und Konfliktpotenzialen am Fallbeispiel „Flusslandschaft Enns“. Österr Wasser‐ und Abfallw (2013)65:418–428.BRANDENBURG, C (2005): Experience of Japanese Landscape ‐ some selected observation considering the usage of variousmaterials in Japanese Landscape. Research Report form the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan, 190, 14‐17.BREILING, M (2006): Rural Tourism: Experience from Austria and Opportunities for Japan. in "Landscape Planning andHorticluture" J of Awaji Shima Landscape Planning & Horticultural Academy ALPHA. 7/1: 1‐11.BREILING, M; HASHIMOTO, S; SATO, Y; AHAMER, G (2005): Rice‐Related Greenhouse Gases in Japan, Variations in Scale andTi d Si ifi f h K P l I P dd d W E i V l 3 1 39 46Time and Significance for the Kyoto Protocol. In: Paddy and Water Environment. Vol.3.1:39‐46.BREILING, M; HASHIMOTO, S (2004): A Comparison of Watershed Management in Japan with the Danube Region in Europe. InLimnological Reports Vol.35 pp 41‐57. Proceedings 35th IAD Conference Novi Sad, Serbia and Monte Negro.BRUCKMAN, VJ (2013): Considerations for sustainable biomass production – Assessing the nutritional status of oak dominatedstands. Energy Procedia, 40: 165‐171** CONTI, L; SCHMIDT‐KLOIBER, A; GRENOUILLET, G; GRAF, W (2014): A trait‐based approach to assess the vulnerability ofEuropean aquatic insects to climate change. HYDROBIOLOGIA. 2014; 721(1): 297‐315.DÖTZL, M; PEYR, S (2010): Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010 – Betriebsstruktur, Schnellbericht 1.17. [Agricultural Structure Survey,2010]. STATISTIK AUSTRIA (ed.), Vienna.

26International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

** FLINT, CG; KUNZE, I; MUHAR, A; YOSHIDA, Y; PENKER, M (2013): Exploring empirical typologies of human‐naturerelationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape urban plan, 120: 208‐217.HAMASAKI, M; MIYAGI, K; PROCHASKA, I (2011): 『ユタとスピリチュアルケア：沖縄の民間信仰とスピリチュアルな現実をめぐって』. Naha: Borderink.HIEGELSBERGER, M (2013): Im Wandel – Die Oö. Landwirtschaft und der ländliche Raum. Details zur Agrarstrukturerhebung".http://www.land‐oberoesterreich.gv.at/cps/rde/xbcr/ooe/PK_Hiegelsberger_NEU_24072013.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).HOLZNER, W (ed) (2007): Almen. Almwirtschaft und Biodiversität. Grüne Reihe des Lebensministeriums, Band 17,Bundesministerium für Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Böhlau Verlag, Wien.HOLZNER, W; SAUBERER, N; MILASOWSZKY, N; MOHL, I; BANKO, G; BOGNER, D; WINTER, S; PETERSEIL, J; KRIECHBAUM, M;KLINGLER, S; ZECH, S; ULBEL, E; KUMMER, S; SCHADAUER, C (2006): MOBI‐e. Entwicklung eines Konzeptes für einBiodiversitäts‐Monitoring in Österreich. Lebensministerium, Wien.HOLZNER, W., WERGER, MJA; IKUSHIMA, I (eds.) (1983): Man´s impact on vegetation. The Hague, Boston, London: Dr. W. JunkPublishers.HOLZNER, W; HAYASHI, I; GLAUNINGER, J (1982): Reproductive strategy of annual agrestals. In: Holzner, W., Numata, N. (eds.):Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 111‐121.Holzner, W; Numata, M (eds.) (1982): Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague, Boston, London: Dr. W. Junk Publishers.KANTELHARDT, J.; KAPFER, M.; FRANZEL, M; KIRCHWEGER, S (2013): Development of Efficiency in Alpine Farming ‐ ACombination of the Malmquist Index Approach and Matching–. [Gewisola 2013, Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin, Deutschland,Sept 25‐27, 2013]. In: Gewisola , Schriftenreihe der 53. Gewisola‐Jahrestagung ,http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/156136/2/A2‐Kantelhardt‐Development_c.pdf** KIENINGER, PR; PENKER, M; YAMAJI, E (2013): Esthetic and spiritual values motivating collective action for the conservationof cultural landscape‐A case study of rice terraces in Japan. RENEW AGR FOOD SYST. 28(4): 364‐379.** KIENINGER, PR; YAMAJI, E; PENKER, M (2011): Urban people as paddy farmers: The Japanese Tanada Ownership Systemdiscussed from a European perspective. RENEW AGR FOOD SYST. 2011; 26(4): 328‐341.

27International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

KIENINGER, P; HOLZNER, W; ANDRIANOS, L (2011): „Eine uralte Welt verschwindet vor unseren Augen.“ PastoraleLandnutzung einst und heute: Über die Almwirtschaft in den Sölktälern und den Weißen Bergen. zoll+ ÖsterreichischeSchriftenreihe für Landschaft und Freiraum, 18, 80‐86; ISSN 1025‐2479.KIENINGER, P; PROCHASKA, I; HOLZNER, W (2010): Steirerkas & Edelweiß. [Poster]. 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) of theConvention on Biological Diversity, OCT 28‐29, Nagoya, JAPAN.KIENINGER, P; PENKER, M (2009): tanada‐ownership‐system. Kulturlandschaftserhaltung auf Japanisch. zoll+ ÖsterreichischeSchriftenreihe für Landschaft und Freiraum, 14:45‐49.KIENINGER, P; PENKER, M (2009): Ehrenamtliches Engagement für die Kulturlandschaft. zoll+ Österreichische Schriftenreihe fürLandschaft und Freiraum, 14:92‐94.KIENINGER, P; HOLZNER, W; KRIECHBAUM, M (2009): Biocultural Diversity and Satoyama. Emotions and the fun‐factor innature conservation ‐ a lesson from Japan. BODENKULTUR, 60(1): 15‐21.** KOCH, MA; SCHERIAU, C; SCHUPFNER, M; BERNHARDT, KG (2011): Long‐term monitoring of the restoration anddevelopment of limestone grasslands in north western Germany: Vegetation screening and soil seed bank analysis. FLORA.206(1): 52‐65.** KROPF, M; COMES, HP; KADEREIT, JW (2009): An AFLP clock for the absolute dating of shallow‐time evolutionary historybased on the intraspecific divergence of s‐western European alpine plant species. Mol Ecol. 18(4):697‐708.KUMMER, S; MILESTAD, R; LEITGEB, F; VOGL, CR (2012): Building Resilience through Farmers' Experiments in OrganicAgriculture: Examples from Eastern Austria. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, 1(2), 308‐321.** LARCHER, M; VOGEL, S (2010): Qualitative Analysis of Household Strategies and Developments of Austrian Family Farmsengaged in Organic Agriculture. GER J AGRIC ECON. 59(2): 106‐116.MAFF (2014):農林水産基本データ集. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/index.html (verified February 03, 2014).MAFF (2013a):農家に関する統計. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/07.html (verified February 03, 2014).MAFF (2013b):農業労働力に関する統計. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/08.html (verified February 03, 2014).MAYER, P (2012): Österreichs Wald [Forests in Austria]. BFW ‐ Bundesforschungszentrum für Wald [Federal Research & TrainingCentre for Forests, Natural Hazards & Landscape] (ed.), Vienna.

28International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

MINISTRY OF LIFE (2014). Grüner Bericht 2013 ‐ Bericht über die Situation der österreichischen Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft[Green Report of the Ministry of Agriculture 2013]. http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm3/download/viewdownload/82/649‐gb2013.html (verified February 03, 2014).MLIT (2011): 平成24年度 . 土地に関する動向 .平成25年度 .土地に関する基本的施策 . http://tochi.mlit.go.jp/wp‐content/uploads/2013/06/4ff1222d343d23a13a93db92b5877a56.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).Pachinger, B; Prochazka, B (2013): Which flowering field stripes benefit wild bees? A comparison of seed‐mixtures andmanagement. [Poster]. [60. Seminar of the Association of Institutes for Bee Research, Würzburg, Germany, March 19‐21,2013], Apidologie, 44: 13‐13.** PENKER, M; ENENGEL, B; MANN, C; AZNAR, O (2013): Understanding Landscape Stewardship ‐ Lessons to be Learned fromPublic Service Economics. J AGR ECON. 2013; 64(1): 54‐72.PENKER, M; KLEMEN; F (2010): Transaction costs and transaction benefits associated with the process of PGI/PDO registrationin Austria. [International EAAE‐SYAL Seminar: Spatial dynamics in agri‐food systems: implications for sustainability andconsumer welfare. Parma, OCT 27‐30, 2010]. In: Arfini, F., Cernicchiaro, S., Donati, M., International EAAE‐SYAL Seminar., p. 93(abstract), full paper on CD‐ROM or on http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/95213/2/paper%20completo%20117.pdf.p p p g p p p p** PENKER, M (2009): Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. LAND USEPOLICY. 26(4): 947‐953.PROCHASKA, I (2013): “Kaminchu – Mittlerinnen zwischen Diesseits und Jenseits. Spirituelle Heilung in Okinawa/Japan”[Kaminchu – Mediators between this world and the hereafter. Spiritual healing in Okinawa/Japan], V. Futterknecht e.a. (eds.)Heilung in den Religionen [Healing in the religions]. Vienna: LIT, 245‐262. STATISTICS AUSTRIA (2013a): BevölkerungszahlÖsterreichs. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/presse/070030(verified February 03, 2014).STATISTICS AUSTRIA (2013b): A tourism satellite account for Austria.http://www.statistik.gv.at/web_en/statistics/tourism/tourism_satellite_accounts/value_added/index.html (verified February03, 2014).

29International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

STATISTICS AUSTRIA (2012): Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/presse/064587 (verified February03, 2014).STATISTICS JAPAN (2014): Population. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm (verified February 03, 2014).STATISTICS JAPAN (2013): Statistical Handbook of Japan 2013. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm(verified February 03, 2014).STEIRISCHE STATISTIKEN (2013): Land‐und Forstwirtschaft: Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010 . Heft 2. Amt der SteiermärkischenLandesregierung, A7 Landes‐ und Gemeindeentwicklung (ed.), Graz.http://www.verwaltung.steiermark.at/cms/dokumente/11682776_74838451/d198312b/Heft%202‐2013%20Agrarstrukturerhebung%20Publikation.pdf (verified February 03, 2014).TIEFENBACH,M (1998): NATURSCHUTZ IN ÖSTERREICH. Federal Environment Agency – Austria (ed.), Band 91, Wien.** VACIK, H; TORRESAN, C; HUJALA, T; KHADKA, C; REYNOLDS, K (2013): The role of knowledge management tools insupporting sustainable forest management. FOREST SYST. 22(3): 442‐455.** VAKALI, C; ZALLER, JG; KOPKE, U (2011): Reduced tillage effects on soil properties and growth of cereals and associatedweeds under organic farming. SOIL TILL RES. 111(2): 133‐141.g gWILHELM, J; DELANEY, A (2013): No homes, no boats, no rafts: Miyagi coastal people in the aftermath of disaster. In: Tom Gill,Brigitte Steger and David H. Slater (eds.): Japan Copes with Calamity: Ethnographies of the Earthquake, Tsunami and NuclearDisasters of March 2011. Oxford u.a.O.: Peter Lang. pp. 99‐124.WILHELM, J (2005): Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Beliefs of Japanese Fishing Villages. With Special Reference toYoriiso (Miyagi) and the Sanriku Region. In: Japanese Religions, 30(1&2): 21‐53.WINTER, S*; JUNG, LS*; ECKSTEIN, RL; DONATH, TW; OTTE, A; KRIECHBAUM, M (2012): Controlling the toxic grassland plantColchicum autumnale with minimal negative impacts on plant biodiversity. [42nd Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society ofGermany, Austria and Switzerland, Lüneburg, GERMANY, SEP 10‐14, 2012] , Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, 42:67.WWF (s.a.): Alpine Programme. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/alps/ealp2/ (verified February 03, 2014).

30International Workshop on Sustainable Management of Socio‐Ecological Production Landscapes in Noto, Pia Kieninger_10.‐11.02.2014

里山と里海をつなぐ陸ガニ類の役割

2014.2.11国連大学国際セミナー

役割

石川県立大学環境科学科

柳井清治

里山と里海はどのように結びついているのか？

北日本における森・川・海の物質循環

中島2001(原図Kline,1997)

1.

2.

3.

本日の講演内容

陸ガ二類の住む森

陸ガニの種類と生活史

森の落ち葉を食べる陸ガニ類

4.

5.

6.

夏の放仔と魚類の利用

メガロパの回帰

陸ガニ類の住む場所，消えた場所

7. 森と海を繋ぐ陸ガニの役割・持続的な生態系管理とは？

１.陸ガニが棲む森

九十九湾

金沢市

鹿島の森

照葉樹の原生林１９３７年国の天然記念物に指定

2.陸ガニの種類とその生活史

着底

成体 幼生

親ガニ ゾエア

メガロパ稚ガニ

アカテガニ

メガロパ

クロベンケイガニChiromantes dehaani

河畔の湿地に住む

稚ガニ

Ecotone

Chiromantes haematocheir

森にすむ

アカテガニの特徴

Chiromantes haematocheir西日本・台湾･韓国･中国東部沿岸・甲羅や爪が赤い

・甲羅にスマイルマークがある･

カニのオスとメス・オスは爪が大きい・腹部が狭い（オス右），広い腹部（メス左）

木登りと水浴びが大好き ３．陸ガニは何を食べる？木の葉 木の実

キノコ イモムシ

森の様々な資源を利用する樹木の緑roomMash 葉

地面に落ちた枯葉

森の落ち葉を食べるアカテガニの知恵• 陸カニ類は葉を水に浸けて食べる

陸カニ類は葉を土中に埋没させて食べる

４．カニが里海の魚を育む 卵を抱えたメスガニ（7月）

夏の夜の放仔活動

20

30

25

鹿島の森における放仔個体の日変化(2011年）

spawning

欠測

鳥出現

ライト

放仔個 15

7月21日

7月22日

7月23日

7月24日

7月25日

7月26日

7月27日

7月28日

7月29日

7月30日

7月31日

8月1日

8月2日

8月3日

8月4日

8月5日

8月6日

8月7日

8月8日

8月9日

8月10日

8月11日

8月12日

8月13日

8月14日

8月15日

8月16日

8月17日

8月18日

8月19日

8月20日

5

0

spawnin

月齢

個 15

体 10

(/m)

放出された幼生の動き

(2012年7月）

陸ガニの幼生を狙うアジ類（九十九湾）

陸ガニの幼生を狙うボラ類（鹿島の森）

捕獲された魚たち

スズキ

マハゼ

ボラの胃内容物ゾエアで占められる

ボラ

ﾃﾅｶﾞｴﾋﾞ

スズキの胃内容物

金沢大学臨海実験所

ゾエアはどこまで移動するのか？

のとキンプラ

九十九湾のとふれあい海洋センター

富山湾

２０１３年７~９月調査 （金沢大学協力）

九十九湾のゾエア密度の推移

８月 ９月7月

のとキンプラ

金沢大学臨海実験所

富山湾

富山湾 富山湾

５．メガローパの回帰と上陸まで9月上旬 ゾエア(左）とメガロ－パ(右）

1mm

魚類によるメガロパの利用（大聖寺川河口）

稚ガニの上陸

９月下旬~１０月

水辺エコトーンの改変の影響

ヨシ原 砂地コンクリ＋落葉

コンクリ

６．陸ガニ類の住む場所，消えた場所

高密度

低密度

arch

site

s

土地利用が陸ガニの密度に与える影響

森林

道路

Num

ber

ofre

sea

堤防と住宅地

カニ密度のランク

0123

陸ガニ類を介した森・川・海までの物質循環これまで知られている森林からの間接的物質の流れ

分解・栄養分 植物プランクトン

動物プランクトン

カニを介した直接的な物質循環

海

小型魚大型魚

ゾエア

メガローパ

川・潟

カニによる摂食

再び森へ

水辺エコトーン

まとめ

– 陸カニは森の落ち葉を主に利用

• 木の実，キノコそして昆虫類などを摂食

– 陸カニは夏の夜，浜辺でゾエアを海に放仔

• 満月に向かって放つカニの数は増加

– 陸カニのゾエアは海に下り，１ヶ月後メガローパとなり回帰

– 陸カニのゾエアの多くはボラ・アジなど小魚に利用

• →さらにスズキなど大型魚に利用

– 森で育った陸カニは，潟や海の魚類にとって重要な餌

– 陸ガニ類の減少は水辺エコトーンの減少が大きく関係

– 里山・里海の連続性を回復することが，今後持続的な生態系を作る上で重要