Rio+20, Future Earth, and the ILKE project, RIHN

Ehime UniversityTakashi KUME

-Co-design, co-production, and co-adaptation for sustainable development and adaptive governance-

Rio Summit, three Conventions, and Rio+20

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC)

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Rio Summit, three Conventions, and Rio+20

UNFCC

CBD

UNCCD

Rio+20 (2012) after two decades of the earth summit, 1992

UNCCD states…

Rio+20 Outcome Yields New Milestone for Global Land Stewardship

In the outcome document, world leaders agree:

・ to strive for a land-degradation neutral world

・ to reaffirm their resolve under the UNCCD to take coordinated action nationally, regionally and internationally

・ to monitor, globally, land degradation and restore degraded lands in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas.

However, UNCCD also states…

・ Every year, 12 million hectares of land become unproductive through desertification and drought alone

・ 75 billion tons of soil are lost forever.

・ 1.5 billion people are directly affected by land degradation. ・ The 12 million hectares lost annually have the potential to produce 20 million tons of grain

Report card of UNCCD

Degrading land area

Rich nations neglected the CCD. It’s not an acute concern.

The convention has been constrained financially. It’s the most underinvested of all conventions.

15% (1991)

24% (2008)

(Tollefson and Gilbert, Nature 2012)

Future EarthFuture Earth: New global platform for sustainability research launched at Rio+20

ICSU and four research programms (IGBP, IHDP, DIVERSITAS, WCRP)

International Human dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change

Future Earth and its goal

Future Earth is a 10-year international programme on integrated Earth system research for global sustainability.

The goal of Future Earth is to develop the knowledge required for societies worldwide to face challenges posed by global environmental change and to identify opportunities for a transition to global sustainability.

Co-design and co-production of scientific knowledge

This requires an active involvement of researchers and stakeholders

One of the larger challenges is how to build trust between all stakeholders, and to ensure continuous engagement

Future Earth’s main stakeholder groups

Dry lands

・ More than 35% of the earth’s surface is covered by dry lands

・ 38% of the global population live in dry lands

・ 250 million people in developing areas

(Gilbert, 2011)

(Reynolds et al., 2007)

The Dryland Development Paradigm (DDP)

The DDP: supported by a set of tools for policy and management action, helps navigate the inherent complexity of desertification and dryland development, identifying and synthesizing those factors important to research, managemnet and policy communities

(Reynolods et al., 2007)

Five general lessons from the DDP for sustainable development in drylands

1) Need to adopt integrated approach・ Ecological and social issues are fundamentally interwoven

2) Need to heightened awareness of slowly evolving conditions・ Short-term measures tend to be superficial and do not resolve chronic problems

3) Non-linear processes to be recognized・ Dryland systems exhibit mutlipe social and ecological conditions

4) Cross-scale interactions must be anticipated・ Problems and solutions at various scales influence each other

5) A much value must be place on local environmental knowledge・ Its practice is central to the management of most drylands but is often undervalued

Local Environmental knowledge (LEK) is one of five principles of the DDP

・ LEK is key to functional co-adaptation of Human-Environmental system (social-ecological system)

・ Support for LEK is crucialbecause ・ experimental learning is slower where monitoring feed back is harder to obtain ・ there is relatively less research

・ Key implications of LEK for research, management, and policy

The development of appropriate hybrid scientific and LEK must be accelerated both for local management and regional policy

Co-design, co-production and co-adaptation(from (Rio+20) Future Earth and DDP)

Co-design and co-production of knowledge is a way to answer or comprehensive solutions of integrated environmental change with development and sustainability issues involving complexities and uncertainties. (from Future Earth draft paper, 2012)

LEK is key to functional co-adaptation of Human-Environmental system (from DDP, Reynolds et al., 2007)

→ Involving multiple stakeholders into a programme is essentially important

→ LEK is threatened by rapid change, so identifying new alliance of local and science-based knowledge systems to speed up this acquisitions is particularly important.

Research project conducted by Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN),

Kyoto, Japan

Creation and Sustainable Governance of New Commons through Formation of Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge

Prof. Tetsu SATOPrincipal Investigator

transdisciplinary and solution-oriented blends of scientific and local knowledge produced in collaborative actions to manage local ecosystem services

dynamically produced and transformed by interaction and interpenetration of knowledge systems between scientists and stakeholders

knowledge base for decision making and practices by local stakeholders

diverse producers of ILEK including skilled workers of primary industries (farmers and fishers), local companies, NGOs and local government officials

・・・ most of them are knowledge users at the same time

Key Concepts

Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK)

ILEK is a blend of diverse types of knowledge utilized by stakeholders for adaptive governance

Professional scientistsSpecific knowledge

Participatory research 　 by stakeholders

Knowledge production in the primary industry (Farmers, Fishers)

Knowledge from local government and other entities

Knowledge in livelihood, Indigenous knowledge, Ethnic technology, etc

Structure of Integrated Local Environmental Knowledge (ILEK)

20

East Asia EU/ North America Developing Countries

　 　 Yakushima (D-01, D-02)

　 　 Sarasota Bay, USA 　 　 Sabah, Sarawak (D-01, D-04)

　 　 Shiretoko Peninsular 　 　 Anatolia plateau, Turkey

　　 Guinea Secondary Forests

　 　 Shiraho, Ishigaki Island

　　 US Virgin Islands 　 　 Lake Malawi National Park

　 　 Aya Forests, Miyazaki 　 Rhön, Germany 　　 Coral Reefs of Fiji, Palau

　 Lake Biwa (E-01, C-06, C-09)

　 Carpathian Ecoregions ・ Coastal area, Thai (R-02, Ishikawa)

・ Nansei Islands(D-02, Ishikawa)

・ Sa ｔ oyama landscape, Austria

・ Batang Bay, Philippines (Ishikawa)

　 Kusiro Wetland, Nishibetsu

・ Columbia Rive, USA ・ Semi-arid areas, Africa (Tanaka PR)

・ Ten-ei Village, Fukushina ・ Alaska Lakes 　 Moukalaba-Doudau, Gabon

・ Motegi, Tochigi ・ EU protected areas ・ Coastal areas, Chile

　 Noto Peninsular (to be determined) 　 St George Island, Grenada

・ Obama, Fukui 　 Kalimantan, Indonesia

　 Toyooka, Hyogo 　 Mekong, Vietnam

・ Tsushima Island

・ Onna Village, Okinawa

　 Muan-gun, South Korea

　 Shirakami forests 　　 Dadohaehaesang, South Korea 　 Yunnan Terraces paddy fields, China

List of Case Study Sites

reference sites for different systems

・ South Sulawesi, Turkey (C-09, Water management ）・ Laos paddy field, forests (R-02, R-04, Ecohealth)・ Jabodetabek, Indonesia (C-08, Megacities)

RIHN, LSNES, Others , 　★ Social Experiment Sites, ●Multi-scale Potentials

Karapinar, Turkey is a case study site of the ILEKKonya

Karaman

Elegli

Karapinar

Konya Closed Basin

Environmental problems of Karapinar (1)

Desertification due to overgrazing, mechanization and decreasing vegetation (sicne 1960s)

Groundwater degradation by pumping up groundwater for irrigated agriculture (since 1980s)

About 90 thousand wells are illegal and as of 50 thousand wells are still working. （ Yilmaz, 2010 ）

Facing to groundwater depletion

Steep degradation of groundwater level

0m

10m

20m

Average groundwater degradation is 28.3mm/year thickness during 2002 to 2009.

Environmental problems of Karapinar (2)

Sinkhole formation due to excessive groundwater pumping for irrigated agriculture

33 sinkholes were developed during 1979 to 2009.

13 sinkholes were developed during 2006 to 2009.

Environmental problems of Karapinar (3)

990m1020m

MEKE MAAR

Falling water levels due to excessive groundwater extraction in the surrounding Konya basin (Ramsar, 2006)

Multiple stakeholders in Karapinar

Stakeholders(Social capital)

Institutions

Infrastructures(Reservoirs,

canals, monitoring

systems etc.)DSI

Soil and water instituteKOP (Konya Ova project)

Universities

NGOs(TEMA)

Konya Seker

Farmes

Local governorMayor

Local mass media

RAMSAR

Multiple stakeholders in Karapinar

DSI

Universities

TEMA

Konya SekerFarmes

Local governorMayor

Local mass media

RAMSAR

Toprak ve Su KOP

RIHN

Case study of Karapinar

Objectives of study

To seek ways of balance competing goals for farmer’s income stability and solving the environmental problems

・ ILEK is a key concept

・ Involving multiple stakeholders into the project to produce ILKE and to support adaptive governance in the region.

ILEK project, RIHN and GEC-JapanGEC-Japan is a networking platform initiated by the RIHN in order to facilitate and promote institutional and research collaboration among Japan representatives of the Global Environmental Change programs, IHDP, DIVERSITAS, IGBP and WCRP.

Input outcomes of the ILEK project to Future Earth via GEC-Japan, RIHN

Outcomes of the ILEK project

GEC-Japan, RIHN

Future Earth, ICSU

Summary・ UNCCD at Rio+20

・ Future Earth (ICSU and four programms)・ Co-design and co-production・ Involving multiple stakeholders

・ DDP (and dryland syndrome)・ Needs of LEK (Local Environmental Knowledge) for co-adaptation

・ The ILEK Project (RIHN) ・ ILEK and Multiple stakeholders

Thanks for your attention

Photo: Xingzhang Urumqi, CHINA

Our activities

Visit Konya Ovasi Projesi and had meeting

Field trip to OBRUK in Karapinar

Report cards of the three conventions at Rio+20

UNFCC CBD UNCCD

(Tollefson and Gilbert, 2012)

Scores of main assignments: all “F”

The world has failed to deliver on many of the promises it made twenty years ago at the earth summit in Brazil, Rio Summit, 1992.

Report card of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

In 1992: 22.7 billion tons

Carbon Dioxide

In 2010: 33 billion tons (up 45%)

・ United states never ratified the protocol

Kyoto Protocol (reduce by 5.2% by 2010)

・ Developing countries doubled emissions・ Emission from China is the largest

Report card of Convention on Biological Diversity

・ 30% of amphibians・ 21% of birds・ 25% of mammal species

Risk of Extinction

The Aichi targets are still not very focused and they add no obligations.

We will still be talking about it at Rio+80 (Sendahonga, Director of global policy at IUCN).

We need to tie conventions together

A new synthetic framework to tackle environmental problems, such as desertification, is needed for sustainable development

Problems are linking

Human- Environment System (social-ecological system) is needed to consider

(William Dar, D.G. of ICRISAT)

Natural Condition of Karapinar

・ Area 3030km2

・ Located in Center of Central Anatolia・ Altitude approximately 1,000m・ Arid climate （ precipitation: 300mm/year ）・ Ave. temperature 10.9℃・ More than 90% residents are farmer・ Soil degradation and desertification・ Sandy – Silt loam soil・ Low organic matter soil・ Annual plants

Crop pattern of Karapinar

Land use ha %

Cultivated 150.000 51,0Grazeland 130.444 44,0

Forest 2.013 1,0Non arable land 14460 4,0

Total 293.917 100

65,898

30,638

52,186

Rainfed Irrigated Falow

Crops ha %Field crops 96535 62,3

Fallow 52183 37,1Vegetables 1080 0,4Orchards 203 0,1Vineyards 140 0,1

Total 150140 100

Recent and future activities of UNCCD

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

COP11 will be held in Windhoek, Namibia from 16 to 27 September 2013.

titleFuture Earth will be a global platform to deliver:Solution-orientated research for sustainability, linking environmental change and development challenges to satisfy human needs for food, water, energy, health;Effective interdisciplinary collaboration across natural and social sciences, humanities, economics, and technology development, to find the best scientific solutions to multi-faceted problems;Timely information for policy-makers by generating the knowledge that will support existing and new global and regional integrated assessments;Participation of policy-makers, funders, academics, business and industry, and other sectors of civil society in co-designing and co-producing research agendas and knowledge;Increased capacity building in science, technology and innovation, especially in developing countries and engagement of a new generation of scientists.

Dryland 　 Syndrome

1) High variability

(Khagram et al., 2003)

2) Low fertility

3) Sparse population

4) Remoteness

5) Distant Voice

・ Precipitation is scarce and typically more-or-less unpredictable

・ Dryland soils contain small amounts of organic matter and less aggregation

・ Human populations of drylands are usually sparser

・ More mobile and more remote from markets

・ Distant from the centers (and priorities) of decision makers

★world-wide degradation of ecosystem services　　 emerges in parallel at diverse local areas in the world　　 common root causes (globalization, climate change, demography)　　 needs of solutions corresponding to each local settings

★ecosystem services as “new commons” （ eg. Hess 2008)　　 ecosystem services require collaborative managements　　 multiple stakeholders including ‘outsiders’ of communities

Mechanisms of stakeholder-driven solutions and knowledge bases supporting collaborative actions are needed.

bottom-up approaches for solutions of diverse global environmental problems

requirements for “new paradigm” of global environment studies incorporating viewpoints of stakeholders (knowledge users) of local communities to support adaptive governance 44

Residential Researchers supporting stakeholder-driven local actions as scientists and community members

researchers living in local communitiestransdisciplinary research as a part of stakeholders contributing solutions of local environmental issues (Sato 2009)

Bidirectional Translator facilitating circulation of scientific knowledge into local communities by evaluation and reconstruction of knowledge from the viewpoints of knowledge users

translate local knowledge and skills among stakeholders in the community into scientific languages

dynamically mobilizing local networks through production and circulation of ILEK to support Decision Making and Adaptive Governance for construction of sustainable communities using ILEK

Residential Researchers Bidirectional Translator of Knowledge

Key Concepts

1. ILEK is formed through collaborations and interactions between diverse knowledge producers and users in the process of stakeholder-driven activities to solve local environmental problems.

2. Residential researchers and translators emerge in local communities and dynamically change their positions and functions as an actor in local networks, by producing and circulating ILEK. Their catalytic roles support adaptive governance of local ecosystems.

3. Bidirectional translators mediate knowledge flow across multiple scales from global to local. This facilitates coordinated bottom-up and multi-scale solutions of global environmental problems such as degradation of ecosystem services.

Working Hypothesis