Global COE Program - Kyoto University - In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa

Date:November 28  2011 (Mon.) 　16:00-
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Takahiro Sato and Taizo Wada
2. Makoto Nishi

Date:October 11 2011 (Mon.) 　16:00-
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1.Mohammad Najmul Islam
"Coping Strategies from Flood and River Erosion Hazard Risks on Char (Island) Livelihood within the Padma Riverine Area in Bangladesh"
 

2. Haris psf Gunawan
"Peatswamp Forest and Restoration Experiments to Promote the Local Community Livelihood and Ecosystem Services Functions in Riau Biosphere Reserve, Indonesia"
 

3. Hakimi Shafiai
"Islamic Finance for Agricultural Development: Theoretical and Practical Considerations, With a Special Reference to Activation of Idle Land in Malaysia"
 

Date:September 12 2011 (Mon.) 　16:45-
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation
1. Kohei Wakimura (Osaka City University)
“Humanosphere and Tropical Zone in Global Environmental History”
 

2. Osamu Saito (Hitotsubashi University)
“The First Demographic Transition in Human History”
 

3. Kozo Matsubayashi (CSEAS)
“Human Survival and Disease –From the Standpoints of Evolution and Adaptation”
 

Comments
1. Kaoru Sugihara (CSEAS)
2. Akio Tanabe (ASAFAS)
 

Date:July 11 2011 (Mon.) 　16:00 ー 18:10
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Date:June 20 2011 (Mon.) 　16:30 ー 18:30
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Date:May 16 2011 (Mon.) 　16:30 ー 18:30
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Date:April 18, 2011 (Mon.) 　16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room No. 332, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Date:March 28, 2011 (Mon.) 　16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room No. 330, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
16:00  "Purpose and Contents of Volume 5 "
Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor)

16:10 "Measuring ‘Sustainable Humanosphere’: Exploration of the Frontiers of Existing Indicators"
MINE, Yoichi (Doshisha University) 

16:30 "Humano-sphere index: Assessment of the sustainability of Human-sphere and its value"
Taizo Wada (G-COE Researcher)

16:50 "Indexing Geosphere and Biosphere - its components and inter-relationships"
Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor)
 

 

 

 

Date:March 28, 2011 (Mon.) 　16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room No. 330, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor)
Title: Purpose and Contents of Volume 5
 

2. MINE, Yoichi (Doshisha University)
Title: Measuring ‘Sustainable Humanosphere’: Exploration of the Frontiers of Existing Indicators
 

3. Taizo Wada (G-COE Researcher)
Humano-sphere index: Assessment of the sustainability of Human-sphere and its value
 

4. Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor)
Title: Indexing Geosphere and Biosphere - its components and inter-relationships
 

 

Date:February 28, 2011 (Mon.) 16:00 － 19:00    

Venue: Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

Date:February 16, 2011 (Wed.) 18:00 ー 20:00
Venue: Meeting Room 330, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presenation:
1. Mamoru Kanzaki (Professor, Faculty/Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University)
2. Masayuki Yanagisawa (Associate Professor, CIAS)
3. Yasuyuki Kono (Professor, CSEAS)）　　　　　

Date:January 24, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 - 18:00  (A date has been changed.)
Venue: Meeting Room No.331, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Kosuke Mizuno (Professor, CSEAS)
Title:General idea of volume 4 and its relation to other volumes
 

2. Shuichi Kawai (Professor, LISH)
Title: Forest, Plantation, and Agro-forestry: How do we grasp the sustainability of Riau Province?
 

3. Motoko Fujita (Researcher, G-COE)
Title: Highlights and Prospects: Biodiversity Team, Biomass Team, and Social Economy Team

Date:January 31, 2011 (Mon.) 16:00 － 19:00    

Venue: Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

Date:)November 22, 2010 (Mon.)) December 22,2010 (Wed.) 16:00 － 19:00    

Venue: Room Number 331, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

Date:：November 15, 2010 (Mon.) 　 November 12, 2010 (Fri.)　　16:00 ～ 18:00
 

Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Kaoru Sugihara（Professor, CSEAS, Kyoto University）
Title: “Volume 1 'Long-term Dynamics of Environment, Technology and Institutions': An Overall Editorial Perspective with Comments on the Themes of Parts 2 and 3”
 

2. Kohei Wakimura（Professor, Osaka City University）
Title: “Tropics and Humanosphere in Global Enivironmental History”
 

3. Yoichi Mine（Professor, CSEAS, Kyoto University and Doshisha University）
Title: “About the Theme of Part 4 with a Brief Note on Land and Human Security”

Date:Oct 25, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 － 19:00    

Venue: Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

Date:November 1, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

1. Takahiro Sato (G-COE assistant professor)
Title: The principle of geosphere, biosphere and humanosphere: Towards the development of Sustainable Humanosphere Index）

2. Yoko Hayami (Professor, CSEAS)
Title: Reconstructing the Domain of Humanity towards a Sustainable Humanosphere: From Relatedness to Care

3. Makoto Nishi (G-COE assistant Professor)
Title: Do the practices of care enhance the resilience of societies?

Date:October 2, 2010 (Sat.) 13:30~    (The time schedule has been chnaged.)

Venue: Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

【Record of Activity】

Date:September 28, 2010 (Tue.) 16:00 ー 18:00
         (The time schedule has been changed.)

Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation：Nathan Badenoch　（CSEAS）　

Title:
One less butterfly, one less language - who cares? Considering biocultural diversity and the future of governance 
 

【Abstract】
At the global level, there is significant overlap between the “hot spots” of diversity in natural and human systems. Biocultural diversity studies has emerged as an area of synthesis between natural and social scientists, who have begun to look at the distribution, composition,and threats to the world’s diversity. In addition to providing a new conceptual framework that could build bridges to policy makers, an index of biocultural diversity has also been developed. This talk will provide a general introduction to this interesting field of study, discuss the development of the indicator, and offer some points for consideration within the framework of governance paradigm research.

 

【Activity Report】
Dr. Nathan Badenoch (Visiting Associate Professor, Hakubi/CSEAS) attempted to examine the linkage between biocultural diversity and the future of governance. First, he defined the term “biocultural diversity” and introduced two correlations of biodiversity with cultural diversity. The first correlation was “Losing species, losing languages” (Harmon 1996); the second correlation was related to the “Index of Biocultural Diversity” (Loh and Harmon 2005).
 

In addition, Dr. Badenoch showed the number of languages that are disappearing from the world. According to Dr. Badenoch, one of the reasons why we should care about this is that languages are the repositories of history. In order to tackle this problem, he discussed some levels (global, regional, national, or local) and focuses (market mechanism, decentralization, etc.), and contended that we need a more dynamic framework to carry out the next step of analysis.
 

Dr. Badenoch provided useful input for our global index project, the “Sustainable Humanosphere Index.” Through this research meeting, we realized that we need to consider the aspect of biocultural diversity in the development of the “Sustainable Humanosphere Index.”
 

(Shiro Sato)

Acitivity Record>>

Date:July 12, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1.　Kazuo Funahashi　（Ryukoku University）
2.　Juichi Itani　（ASAFAS, Kyoto University）

 

【Acitivity Record】
Prof. Kazuo Funahashi began by giving a presentation on the development of livelihood activities in Don Daeng Village in Northeast Thailand. The area where the village is located is known for the enormous annual variability and heavy concentration of precipitation. Up until the 1960s, when there were still bountiful uncultivated areas, the people of the village secured the “good fields” as settlers, and grew a variety of crops with the aim to increase rice yields and reduce instability. However, since the 1970s, when the uncultivated lands ran out, people began to perform migrant labor in the cities to secure stable cash income. In this process, rice cultivation became increasingly oriented toward high investment/high yield, and the introduction of irrigation led to a reduction in damage from drought, though it also increased vulnerability to flooding. Not only did the values of the villagers also move away from stock (good fields) to flow (cash income), but changes were seen in inheritance customs, social security, and gender relations.
 

Next, Assoc. Prof. Juichi Itani, using case studies from several regions of Tanzania, gave a presentation on the use of diverse crops and cultivation methods in areas with unstable precipitation. People in those areas cope with the irregularity of rainfall by adopting a combination of crops such as maize, finger millet, and rice. A range of cultivation methods are adopted, including citemene, a form of slash-and-burn cultivation, the matengo pit method, which prevents soil erosion and makes it possible to secure natural fertilizer, and the mound method, which promotes the decomposition of organic matter. Agriculture in Africa has not undergone a linear change from traditional to modern and from extensive to intensive cultivation methods. Rather, people have tried to maintain their livelihoods by creating a variety of methods with different degrees of “intensity,” and combining them together in different ways, in response to their ecological and social situation.
 

In response to these presentations, there were several comments from the floor. One participant noted that the case studies cited by Assoc. Prof. Itani might be appropriately called “biosphere-inspiredbased cultivation methods,” in the sense that they represent a way of further diversifying the diversity of the biosphere, and that in contrast, the case study given by Prof. Funahashi from Don Daeng Village could be said to represent a “geosphere-inspired cultivation method,” that pursues stability. Another participant offered the comment that normally in the context of economics, it is important to make a distinction between labor intensity and land intensity, but that the intensification of traditional cultivation in Africa cannot be understood through such criteria, as it involves a process of responding to specific environmental constraints.
 

(Makoto Nishi)

 

 

Date:July 11, 2011 (Mon.) 13:00 － 18:00    

Venue: Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall , CSEAS

 
 

Date:June 28, 2010 (Mon.) 14:00 － 19:00
Venue: Room 332, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

 
1.　Makoto Nishi（GCOE Assitant Professor)

 

2.　Hiroaki Nakanishi（ASAFAS）and Shito Sato (GCOE Researcher) 

・SIPRI Military Expenditure database　
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput）

 

3. Yukihumi Makita（Ryukoku University）　　

・Ｇender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)　　　 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1995/ 　　

・Global Gender Gap Index(GGGI)　　　　
http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm

 

4.　Naho Sato （CSEAS) 　

・Legatum Prosperity Index
http://www.prosperity.com/default.aspx　">http://www.prosperity.com/default.aspx">http://www.prosperity.com/default.aspx　

・World Value Survey
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

・Gallup World Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/world.aspx

【Record of Activity】

Date:June 21, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
16:00-16:10　Kosuke Mizuno (Professor, CSEAS)

16:10-16:40　Shuichi Kawai (Professor, RISH), Kazuo Watanabe (G-COE Researcher)
 

16:40-17:10　Hiromitsu Samejima, Motoko Fujita (G-COE Researcher)
 

17:10-17:40　Kosuke Mizuno (Professor, CSEAS), Kazuya Masuda
 

17:40-18:30　Discussion

 

 

【Record of Activity】
Professor Kosuke Mizuno, the fieldwork research project leader, gave an explanation of the fieldwork carried out in Riau, Indonesia from the end of May to the beginning of June, and an overview of the fieldwork teams. The fieldwork was carried out broadly by the following three research teams: (1) The biomass team, which carried out research concerning biomass production, carbon flow, and water management, (2) the biodiversity team, which carried out research concerning the conservation of biodiversity, and (3) the social team, which carried out research concerning the people who live in the area around the peat-land from the viewpoint of social economy. During the fieldwork, discussions were held with PT Sinar Mas Multiartha Tbk, LIPI, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, University of Riau, NGOs and so on. It was confirmed that the fully-fledged fieldwork would begin from August and the upcoming fieldwork, having formed a cooperative framework between the three teams, will aim to create a foothold for the establishment of a sustainable peat-land management model.
 

Below is a summary of the fieldwork report given by each of the fieldwork team representatives.
 

(1) Biomass team
An explanation of the social background surrounding the fieldwork (the problem of global warming and REDD Plus), the factor research necessary for this and relevance for this fieldwork was given by GCOE researcher Kazuo Watanabe. The purpose of the fieldwork by the biomass team was to analyze the soil, vegetation, atmospheric carbon and water, and energy balance by field investigation and remote sensing, and to determine a method for the sustainable use of peat-land biomass. A report was given on the varieties and features of the vegetation (tree heights and so on), the locations at which water quality data was taken and the fieldwork routes by the use of maps. In addition, Professor Shuichi Kawai reported on the status of applications to JST, JST-JICA and SCF, and the status of budget procurement for this fieldwork.
 

(2) Biodiversity team
A report on the purpose and current status of the research and plans for future fieldwork was given by GCOE researchers Hiromitsu Samejima and Motoko Fujita. The purpose of the biodiversity team is to clarify impacts on biodiversity of the destruction of the forest and peat-land and to determine solutions for reducing these impacts. An explanation concerning the state of destruction of the forest and peat-land, and the (at present somewhat inadequate) biodiversity monitoring methods of PT Sinar Mas Multiartha Tbk, the company managing the plantation was given, followed by an explanation of plans for upcoming fieldwork. The team is scheduled to carry out fieldwork using RCT to measure the varieties and numbers of animals by placement of infrared cameras, and a method to determine the varieties and numbers of birds by recording bird calls, with the cooperation of PT Sinar Mas Multiartha Tbk.
 

(3) Social team
GCOE researcher Kazuya Masuda gave an explanation of the fieldwork site, problems and fieldwork plans. The subjects of the fieldwork are the two villages, Tanjung Leban, a coastal area where people have led a traditional lifestyle since ancient times, and Air Raja, an inland area where migrants have settled. Problems in these villages are, for example, that in Tanjung Leban traditionally cultivated rubber trees are being replaced by the more economically efficient oil palm, and in that Air Raja, with the increase in population, the expansion of cultivated land is advancing into the peat-lands. In order to resolve these problems it will be necessary to clarify the connection between the problem of the peat-land and the expansion in the cultivation of oil palm, and investigate the differences in thinking between the government, the villages and PT Sinar Mas Multiartha Tbk regarding the problem of the peat-land.
 

An active question and answer session was held following the presentations. Several issues are given below in note form.
 

●There is a concern expressed by NGOs that if fieldwork data were publicized, the company might make use of the data, but there are various methods that can be used to prevent this, including not receiving money from the company and then not making any proposal or recommendation when submitting the material to a magazine. Also, if NGOs can make better use of the data, then there is no necessity to be concerned about this problem.
 

●Is it not necessary to make a comparison with natural forest in order to measure sustainability?
 

●In order to build up a cooperative framework, it is necessary to have a dialog with key persons in each of the organizations. Not the relationships that have been made up to now; it is necessary to form relationships with people who are in a position to actually make decisions based on the dialogs with us.
 

(Michisada Yucho)

Date:May 31, 2010 (Mon.) 17:00 － 19:00
Venue: Room 331, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

 

1.Shuhei Kimura　（FUji Tokoha University）
Thirty years of Natural Disasters 1974-2003:The numbers
http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/ADSR_2008.pdf
http://www.emdat.be/old/Documents/Publications/publication_2004_emdat.pdf
 

2. Fumikazu Ubukata　（Okayama University）
Environmental Sustainability Index
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/
 

3.Shiro Sato　(G-COE Researcher, Kyoto Univerity)
Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996-2008
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424591
 

Date:May 17, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Review of G-COE publication titled "In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere: A New Paradigm for Humanity, Biosphere and Geosphere"

Presentation:
Makoto Tani (Professor, Kyoto University)
Kazunomu Iketani (Professor, National Museum of Ethnology)

 

 

Date:April 26, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: No. 330 Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentator：
1. Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor)
2. Taizo Wada (G-COE Researcher)
3. Makoto Nishi (G-COE Assistant Professor)
 

Commentator:
Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS) 　

Date:April 19, 2010 (Mon.) 16:00 ー 18:00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

1. Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)
2. Koichi Fujita (Profesor, CSEAS): Iniviative 1
3. Masayuki Yanagisawa (Accosiate Professor, CIAS): Initiative 2
 

4. Kosuke Mizuno (Professor, CSEAS): Initiative 3
5. Yoko Hayami (Professor, CSEAS): Initiative 4
6. Takahiro Sato (G-COE Assistant Professor): The Second Paradigm
7. Discussion
 

 

Moderator: Makoto Nishi (G-COE Assistant Professor)

 

Date:March 23, 2010 (Tue.) 16：30～18：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

This seminar will be co-organized by NIHU Program: Contemporary India Area Studies (INDAS).
 

Presentator:
Kohei Wakimura（Professor, Osaka City University）

Akio Tanabe (Professor, ASAFAS, Kyoto Univerisity)

Commentator:
Mario Ohshima（Professor, Osaka City University）

Date:February 15, 2010 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentator: Koji Tanaka（Professor, CIAS, Kyoto University）

【Record of Activity】

Date:Janurary 18, 2010 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

【Record of Activity】
The presenter, Professor Shuichi Kawai, described the status of industry reforestation in the four fields in Indonesia (Riau Biosphere, MHP, PT Wana Subur Lestari and Alas Kusma) that are being studied in surveys by the Research Institute for the Sustainable Humanosphere and under Initiative 3. He also explained environmental factors and technological efforts related to the sustainability of timber production in each region, mainly framing his discussion in terms of production, with a focus on the sustainability of the forest biosphere. Associate Professor Osamu Kozan introduced the process of analyzing diverse observational data collected on PT Wana Subur Lestari, and highlighted the important factors to consider when carrying out the sustainability assessment in peat swamp forests. On the relationship between the biosphere and the humanosphere, Associate Professor Fumikazu Ubukata went on to analyze differences in the logic of these two spheres (biosphere and humanoshere), as well as the differences in consciousness these logical differences give rise to. Associate Professor Ubukata also raised a wide range of points about issues such as what we mean by “forest” in the first place, what kind of differences separate natural forests from man-made forests, and what the position is of non-forest biospheres.
 

A variety of views were expressed in response to these presentations. Rather than classifying forests into categories such as “natural”/”man-made,” based on the existence or non-existence of human intervention, it was suggested that it would be better to evaluate them with a focus on their functions, including biodiversity, carbon fixation and material circulation. Some argued that it should be based on their cultural, ecological, and economical value. It was also suggested that industrial forests be thought of as the product of a balance of transition and human intervention. In addition to these discussions on interpretations of forest biosphere, suggestions were also made on a number of issues, such as the use of a sustainability assessment method using threshold values, which should be examined in thinking about Indonesian forest biospheres as tangible places for paradigm formation. In the future, there is a need to make an effort to further develop these arguments, centering on Initiative 2 and 3, and highlight the broader implications for forests.
 

(Sato Takahiro)

【Record of Activity】

Date:November 9, 2009 (Mon.) 16：30-18：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1.Hiroyuki Yamamoto（Center for Integrated Area Studies, Kyoto University）
2.Makoto Nishi（CSEAS, Kyoto University）
 

【Record of Activity】
Associate Prof. Hiroyuki Yamamoto, the first reporter, gave a presentation on the appearance of disasters in highly fluid societies and desirable ways for reconstruction assistance, taking the case of Indonesia.

First, he pointed out that earthquakes began to become disasters in Indonesia in the 1980s when houses, which had previously been constructed of wood and bamboo, were replaced by bricks and mortar, and argued that what was worrisome in a disaster was not the hazard itself, but rather the fact that the affected society could no longer maintain a balance. Then, he defined Indonesian society as one with high social fluidity, based on frequent movement between regions, making it difficult for the society to accumulate knowledge and experiences. He also argued that the failure of reconstruction assistance provided by humanitarian aid organizations could be attributed to their inadequate understanding of the high social fluidity in Indonesia. As illustrations, he cited two examples. First, he referred to the fact that there were many empty temporary houses in Aceh, one of the areas that were devastated by the Indian Ocean Tsunami at the end of 2004. He mentioned the case of Posko, a local liaison office, and pointed out that in reconstructing their post-disaster livelihoods, people there did not aim “to go back to where they had been,” but rather were aiming toward a direction different from that in the pre-disaster times. From this, he concluded that one problem of reconstruction assistance was the assumption among providers that the recipients wanted “to go back to where they had been.” He then referred to some stories involved people in Bengkulu, an Indonesian province devastated by the Sumatra Earthquake of 2007. First story was about those who threw the rice delivered as aid to the ground, and second was about those blocked rescue vehicles. He analyzed that those seemingly inscrutable actions that local people were not trying to regain what they had lost in the disaster, but rather trying to make the outside world, which they gained access to in the wake of the disaster, to understand the problems they had faced from before the disaster.
 

Dr. Makoto Nishi, the second reporter, introduced the case of Ethiopia, discussing the way that technology, institutions and relatedness should be structured in order to build a society that can coexist with the infectious disease HIV/AIDS. First, he referred to the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful and use Condom) approach to HIV/AIDS and to the provision of medicines financed by the Global Fund. He pointed out the problems associated with each of these efforts and argued that the involvement of local communities was required. Based on the findings of a field survey in Gurage Province, Ethiopia, he discussed two points: the need for creating relatedness that could accept the differences between infected individuals and uninfected individuals toward creating a society that can coexist with the virus, and secondly the need to make the best use of health workers in the medical insurance system in order to cope with the individual conditions of each household. Then, he pointed out the necessity for interlinking three aspects: science & technology, social institution and relatedness.
 

Touching on the two presentations, Associate Prof. Yoichi Mine presented the concept of “resilience” and drew a correlation between the presentations and the idea of human security. Then, in the light of the message provided in Associate Prof. Yamamoto’s presentation, which referred to the “strength” of a highly fluid society to absorb a disaster that devastated its society, Associate Prof. Mine made inquiries about how the balance of the pre-disaster society had been disrupted and toward which direction the post-disaster society was shifting. In response to Dr. Nishi’s quotation of the successful case of Uganda, where the ABC approach had worked, Prof. Mine inquired about the morals that supported relations among people, and suggested that even though the importance of local communities was understandable, the most important issue in this regard would be how to design governance at the

Commentator：
Yoichi Mine（GLOCOL, Osaka University）

 

 

【Record of Activity】

Date:October 19, 2009 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation：
MINE, Yoichi (Associate Professor, Global Colloboration Cenber, Osaka Unveresity ）
 

Commentator：
SATO, Takahiro (G-COE reseacher, Kyoto Unviersity)
WADA, Taizo (G-COE reseacher, Kyoto Unviersity)
UBUKATA, Fumikazu (Associate Professor, Okayama University)

Title:Human Security and Development – Is it possible to index international standards?

【Record of Activity】
Associate Professor Yoichi Mine, the reporter, provided a full account of the concept of human development, which has become established as an international standard over the past two or three decades, and human security, which has gained importance as a new international standard in recent years. He outlined the background underlying their evolution, their principles and interpretations, as well as the possibilities for creating indices and the challenges involved. His presentation provided many suggestions for the Sustainable Humanosphere and Sustainable Humanosphere Index that we have aimed to create in this program.
 

Human rights, human development and human security are all international standards that have been formulated in the setting of the United Nations and been developed over the past two or three decades, and at the same time concepts with strong political implications. Human development is a concept developed based on economist Amartya Sen’s capability approach in the light of people’s criticisms toward various social problems (unemployment, the gap between the rich and the poor, problems of medical insurance, etc.) arising from economic development under the initiative of the World Bank and IMF and based on people’s expectations for a more “humane” development. While the Human Development Index, which was developed as a tool for evaluating human development, is sometimes criticized as being an oversimplification of the issues involved, it has significance as an effective counterweight to those who focus solely on economic growth, as it makes changes to conventional economic indicators (i.e. per capita GDP), which value economic development alone, by adding factors related to livelihood and education to the economic indicator. Human security is a new concept that prioritizes the protection of each individual from various risks and fears (poverty, infectious diseases, disasters, conflicts, etc.) under the circumstances following the end of Cold War and in the midst of ongoing globalization. It differs from the conventional notion of national security, which focuses on the military and public security of nations. While human development takes as its idea an ever-rising progressive development path, human security has a saw-tooth appearance, as it presumes temporary setbacks caused by threats. For this reason, in human security, the crucial tasks are seen as taking early preventive measures and watching for both persistent threats and sudden risks, as well as weathering damages caused by downside risks (hazards of sudden crises). Regarding the core area to be protected under human security, the report co-authored by Ogata and Sen presented areas such as subsistence, living and dignity, though the report did not recognize differences among individuals, regions, and values and failed to specify more concrete factors. Regarding the indexation of human security, issues raised included how to categorize main constituents, the purpose of the indexation, and problems of regionality and commonality. Following Associate Prof. Mine’s presentation, Dr. Taizo Wada, the commentator, pointed out that the nature of human security differs depending upon the ages of individuals and the surrounding socio-economic conditions, and he discussed how informal care (nursing care supported by family members and local communities) and informal safety nets, which were important for individuals in developing countries, could be reflected in human security. Dr. Takahiro Sato explained various attempts at indexations for the humanosphere index and asked a question about the relation between human security and “sustainability” and between the “vital core” and the humanosphere. Associate Prof. Fumikazu Ubukata commented on the possibility of focusing on risks concerning the interface between human development/human security and humanosphere. In reply to those questions, the reporter mentioned the necessity of taking socio-economic conditions into account in order to approximate reality more closely with the index, the importance of informal areas and difficulties in indexing qualitative matters, the necessity to introduce physical assessment criteria, possibilities for categorization other than the nation, and differences in time scale such that the reporter assumes a zero-sum situation for human security and conceives a much longer time span for the humanosphere. Also, many questions and comments were raised from the floor and fruitful arguments were conducted from many fields on the possibility of adopting a typological approach instead of indexation, the necessity to pay attention to the reproduction of human beings and to the intimate sphere, and the relationship between the new concepts and practices.

(Xiaogang Sun )

 

Date:Oct 19, 2009 (Mon.) 14：30-15:30
Venue: 3 Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial bldg.

Presentation:Endang Sukara

Title: Biosphere Reserves in Indonesia

 

  【Record of Activity】

In 1991, The World Conservation Union proposed a strategy for sustainable living entitled “Caring for the Earth”. Among the principle rules of this idea are to have a better way of living, and to take more responsibility with regards to nature. These days nature faces increased population pressures, economic pressures, natural disasters, and man-made disasters. In order to meet all of these challenges technological rationality, political rationality and ethical rationality are essential. One of the political approaches has been carried out in Indonesia, where in order to conserve nature, 50 National Parks have been established across the archipelago. However, this approach has secluded people that have already been living inside the area. This method can be achieved politically but its actual implementation is difficult. This system has proven unsuitable in recent times. UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere program tries to address this issue, with a concept of management applicable in the protected area and the surrounding area. It tries to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between man and the environment. The concept applies zones and uses a protected area as the core zone. It has the characteristic of involving multiple stakeholders from the surrounding area. Currently, there are 7 Biosphere Reserves in Indonesia: Leuser (Aceh), Lore Lindu (Sulawesi), Siberut (South Sumatra), Cibodas (West Java), Tanjung Puting (Kalimantan), Komodo (Nusa Tenggara) and Giam Siak Kecil Bukit Batu (Riau). The emerging Challenges for these Biosphere Reverses are global climate change, need for better environmental services and forest conversion. New Biosphere in Riau, Sumatra is a critical area for these conservation efforts, as this area has been identified as the widest area of low land vegetation with a high level of biodiversity. The place is even more interesting as one of the few Sumatran tiger and Sumatran Elephant sanctuaries in Indonesia. For the new Biosphere Reserve, an action plan proposal for 2009 ~ 2013 has been formulated.

( Kusumaningtyas Retno)

Date:Septermber 7, 2009 (Mon.) 17：00～18：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall
http://www.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/about/access_en.html 

Presentation：Toshitaka Tsuda (Professor, RISH, Kyoto Univesersity)
Commentator: Osamu Kozan (Associate Professor, CSEAS, Kyoto University)

Date:July 13, 2009 (Mon.) 15：00～17：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
Hiroyuki Matsuda (Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences Yokohama National University)
 

Commentator:
Masahiro Yamao (Graduate School of Biosphere and Science, Hitoshima University)

 

【Record of Activity】
 

At the 20th G-COE Seminar of the Paradigm Formulation, the presenter Professor Hiroyuki Matsuda outlined his views on the question of how ecosystems, using a diverse set of data, should be conserved and made use of. Professor Matsuda’s presentation of the topic offered an easy-to-understand introduction to preservation of ecosystems, which is an important theme directly connected to sustainable development of the humanosphere. Among other issues touched upon, he discussed the question of how to judge the certainty of information when consensus-building in society on the basis of scientific data is demanded.
 

Unlike the majority of fisheries scientists, who insisted the need to limit the fish catches drastically based on data collected from a limited ocean area, Professor Matsuda maintained that the possibility of continuity of fishing industry, if only they consider the age composition of fishes, providing data from Southeast Asia that shows catches to be actually increasing. And citing the experience of the Shiretoko World Heritage site, he pointed out that voluntary restraints by local fishermen are very effective, in particular in maintaining the sustainability of fishing industries in coastal regions.
 

Next, he moved to the topic of biodiversity., He explained that the difficulty of creating clear incentives for biodiversity is the one of the reasons why COP10received so little attention. Then he introduced new efforts to finance activities to conserve ecosystem byusing Ecological Footprint as an indicator, and those to conduct transactions in biodiversity itself.
 

Concerning Japanese forests, which are relatively rich in biodiversity, he emphasized that the increase of productivity can cause the decrease of ecosystem services and that the relationship between biodiversity and other benefits is not always linear correlation. Important was creating incentives to sustain ecosystem services on a global scale, considering insufficiency and uncertainty of scientific knowledge on biosphere.
 

Professor Masahiro Yamao responded to the presentation, from the viewpoint of a specialist in the economics of Southeast Asian fishery villages, on three points: the importance of field observation, the gap between national institutions and regional life strategies, and the danger of “underuse” in Japanese forests. Firstly, he reported on the conditions in Southeast Asia, where the policy gap between central and local governments has grown, and rapid decentralization process makes local governments confused and he proposed the importance of the existence of the agencies that intermediate them. Next, he indicated the possibility that biodiversity could give rise to poverty, stating the need for a diversified strategy encompassing not only the regional view on resource use, but also one at the level of family finances. Finally, noting that biodiversity in rural-mountain areas in Japan may decline as a result of underuse, he indicated that there is a need to make clear the goal(s) of the national policy on these areas.
 

Following these presentations there was a lively exchange of ideas involving roughly a dozen members of the audience. One attendee commented that there is a difference in the treatment of endangered species between tropical zones and temperate zones; in temperate zones, the habitat for living creatures is secondary nature, whereas in tropical zones, there still remains what is essentially primary nature. There was also the comment that it is difficult to explain, in terms of ecosystem services, why there is a need to preserve diversity in tropical zones, which have a much higher density of species per area. Professor Matsuda responded to this comment by pointing out that the co-existence of many species, even in secondary nature, can act as an index for sustainable management.
 

Responding to the observation that there are differences between south and north in the way diversity is tackled, Professor Matsuda insisted that preserving Japan’s forest ecosystems demanded a consideration not of Southeast Asia, but rather of Japan’s own forests and forestry industry. Moreover, it was also pointed out that the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) has designated most tropical forests as HCVF (High Conservation Value Forests), posing a disadvantage for inhabitants who depend on the forests. In addition, doubts were raised regarding the need for quantitative indicators of biodiversity, and while Professor Matsuda conceded the potential role such indicators could play as stimulus, he also highlighted the need for case-by-case response rather than a global standard. He voiced particular concern about biodiversity credit transactions, expressing his view that these transactions also conceal north-south problems. Lastly, he argued that questions about excessive fishing caused by the difficulty of measuring fluctuations in marine resources, which arise in the context of Japan’s costal fishing industry, can be explained in terms of differences between costal and offshore fishing.
 

(Motoko Fujita) 　

 

【Record of Activity】

Date:June 15, 2009 (Mon.) 16:30-18:30
Venue: Meeting Room, RISH, Kyoto Univeristy
 

Presentation:
Tadashi Kobayashi (The Osaka University Center for the Study of Communication-Design)

Title: What is the Trans-science? - From the viewpoint of STS -

【Record of Activity】

Professor Tadashi Kobayashi began with an outline of debates over science (works such as C.P. Snow’s The Two Cultures, which discusses the gulf separating literary intellectuals and scientists, Merton’s Sociology of Science, which describes the norms and structure of the scientific community, and Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), which he interspersed with a self-introduction. In his outline, Prof. Kobayashi explained that Kuhn had stressed the efficiency of knowledge production in what he called “normal science” more so than he had the “paradigm shift.” Nonetheless, he pointed out that as a result of conditions in the 1960s and 1970s, the latter concept ended up attracting more attention.
 

The criticism of science that emerged in the 1970s was in Japan separate from the world of universities and tended to happen outside the realm of academia, whereas in Europe and America it remained within the universities and was institutionalized. Research and education of this kind from the humanities and social science, focused on social aspects of scientific technology, is known as Science, Technology and Society (STS). In discussing STS, Prof. Kobayashi introduced his own publication series entitled Kagaku minaoshi sosho (Science review series) and his practice of holding consensus development conferences.
 

Prof. Kobayashi also explained the concept of “trans-science” as a “group of problems related to the fact that while questions can be asked of science, science cannot return an answer.” For example, there is broad agreement among scientists that the probability of a nuclear power plant being damaged in many places at once is very low; judging how to assess this agreement, however, is difficult. In the context of BSE-related issues, the decision to reopen the Japanese market to the import of American beef was likewise a problem of mixing science and politics. These examples, Prof. Kobayashi claimed, demonstrate that uncertainty in systems has grown over recent years, the scope of technology-related social concerns having broadened and become more complex (a field referred to as SHEE Sciences: The Sciences of Safety, Health and Environment plus Ethics); these changes, he argued, call for improved mutual understanding and cooperation between society and technology.
 

In his easy-to-follow presentation of the above topics, Prof. Kobayashi incorporated his own personal experiences while showing careful consideration of both sides of the science-humanities debate, in doing so drawing the interest of many in the audience. While maintaining the impossibility of a “unified literature and science” that would do away with the barrier separating the humanities and science, Prof. Kobayashi reiterated that this relationship should not become a “Berlin Wall,” but rather a door which can be easily opened and passed through.
 

In response to this presentation, Dr. Fumikazu Ubukata raised a question about the state of science and society in Asia and Africa, introducing the example of the controversy regarding the spread of eucalyptus. He noted that among the so-called developing countries, there is a large gap between science and society, one that is greater than in Europe and America. While the system supporting science in these countries is weak, there is a great deal of wisdom about topics outside of science.Dr. Ubukata brought up the question of what points to consider in thinking about this gap.
 

Another comment was raised by Dr. Naoki Shinohara, who suggested that distinctions should be drawn with respect not to “scientific technology” but to “science and technology,” repositioning issues between the four pillars of science, technology, society and humanity. He emphasized the necessity to highlight not only those elements of human nature that are easy to change, but also those essential elements that are more difficult to change. As an example of the latter, he cited the time lag between the discovery of a scientific idea and its practical application, and wondered how this lag should be perceived and understood.
 

In responding to the comments above, Prof. Kobayashi highlighted how few countries there are in which science is used as a first language, and mentioned the need to consider Japan’s position with respect to Asian and African regions and its intellectual responsibility in this regard. In addition, he stressed the importance of appropriate technology issues and of the essential need to incorporate local knowledge in Asian and African regions, yet admitted that this process had not materialized. While STS strives to promote such work, he emphasized that this was not enough on its own, and that scientific investigation of local knowledge was also required.
 

The main problem in science and technology, Prof. Kobayashi said, was that of the “unknown unknown,” or in other words not knowing what you don’t know. Just forming a consensus about this issue is itself extremely difficult, he said. While it would seem that only political solutions are thus possible, he argued on the contrary for a mutual understanding that scientific mistakes are inevitable, and suggested that a consensus was needed for making rational mistakes.
 

Regarding Dr. Shinohara’s comment about time lag, Prof. Kobayashi suggested that rather than thinking of the translation of basic research into scientific applications in a linear way, it is more productive to consider the path via which innovation is created. With respect to the comment about “unchangeable aspects of human nature,” he pointed out that today’s scientific technology can affect mental and spiritual aspects once seen as “unchangeable,” and stated that the situation is as such very complicated.
 

In questions from the floor, audience members brought up the issue of overspecialization in the humanities, of diversity in humanities and science and of the difficulty of finding symmetry between the two (as in the fact that there is no system to raise questions regarding the failures of social science in areas such as economic policy). Differences in assessment systems were cited as an example of factors obstructing connections from being made between the humanities and science, such efforts having come to be treated as a kind of “side business” difficult to assess as a “main area of study.” In addition, someone also pointed out that there may be a need for the perspective of STS to include consideration of the ecological environment and the view of corporations and the market.
 

In advancing mutual understanding between science and the humanities, one of the central goals of our program, discussions at the seminar carried a great deal of significance. On the other hand, however, it also became evident that there is no all-purpose solution for bridging the gap between these two worlds. Based on the discussions at this seminar, greater efforts in the future must be invested in concrete research activities aiming to draw connections between the humanities and science.
 

(Shuhei Kimura)

Record of Activity>>

Date:June 12, 2009 (Fri.) 10：00-12:00
Venue: 330 Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial bldg.

Presentation
Prof. Mitsuru OSAKI
Director of Sustainability Governance Project of Hokaido University

Title: Project for Peat Carbon Initiatives
(Hokaido University Project with LIPI 1997 – 2006)

【Record of Activity】

Earth with tropical peat carbon is mainly located in Indonesia, the Amazon region, Brazil and Central African countries. The total carbon peat of tropical forest is estimated at about 83.8 Gt, with Indonesia accounting for about 50% of this amount at 44.5 Gt, located in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Papua. The management and restoration of this area is very important. The project for peat carbon initiatives is situated in the Mega Rice Project, a 1 Million-Hectare Project began during the Soeharto presidency in the Center of Kalimantan. The project is located nearby Sebangau National Park and Kahayan National Park. Several local institutions such as LIPI, University of Palangkaraya and Bogor Agricultural University take part in the project with the title: Wild Fire and Carbon Management in Peat Forest of Indonesia. The area is currently devastated. The soil type in the area is sandy podzolic. It has extremely poor nutrients, Al3+ and contains toxic with pH no more than 3, Acid Sulfate Soil. The original vegetation is Melaleuca cajuput. Currently the planting of oil palm and sago palm are increasing in this area. The emission of carbon from the peat area to the air by forest fires in Indonesia due to El Nino in 1997, 1998, and 2002 was estimated at about 5 – 8 Mt C/Mill.Ha/year, equal to 1 – 2% of the carbon emission of fossil fuel in Japan.

In the program "Fire and carbon management in peat-forest in Indonesia"(2009-2014) Several activities such as (1) satellite image sensing to measuring the groundwater level, (2) assessment of carbon (the instruments installed at three locations), and　(3) carbon management and peat management. Apart from these activities some social studies of local culture and also development programs such as Eco-education and training, volunteer work on planting trees and reforestation by local people were implemented during the project.
 

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) exist as part of the effort to mitigate global warming. The REDD system in particular pays more attention to the peat forest areas.
 

Discussion
(Prof. Kobayashi) The soil of peat swamp areas has extreme acidity with pH often less than 3. When the peat forest is depredated, the soil nutrient is leached. Boron content, which is an important nutrient for plant growth, is absorbed by the peat that creates difficult conditions for plants to grow. Only limited species can survive in these conditions such Melaleuca and some Shores sp. When it has become degraded, peat forest is difficult to regenerate. A soil layer of at least 1 meter from the peat is necessary for microorganism that support the survival of vegetation to grow on the surface of peat area.
 

Comments
Dr. Kozan Osamu:
(1) Abundance of tropical precipitation takes part in the formation of the peat in the swamp areas.
(2) In the abandoned areas, such as the research site, the kind of rehabilitation activities which are suited needs to be given considerable thought. For example the establishment of oil palm which would generate additional economic value for the community, but its ecological value to the environment has to be examined further.
(3) Concerning the question of the time scale to produce a local solution, a simulation can be conducted to measure the evaporation of water in the peat swamp area.
(4) Regarding the question of observation/studies on the balance of CO2, microorganisms, plant/vegetation has been conducted by the Research Institute of Sustainable Humanosphere since 2002 by using a monitor tower. The data of forest water evaporation, CO2, energy transport (FFPRI FluxNet), will be made available to the public.
 

(Kusumaningtyas Retno)

Record of Activity>>

Date:May 18, 2009 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Title:

Presentation：Hidenobu Jinnai（Hosei University),

Commentator：
Shigeo Fujii（Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University）
Takanobu Iwashiro (Hosei University) 　　　　　　　　

【Record of Activity】

At the seminar, Professor Hidenobu Jinnai, looking back over his research career, gave a presentation on Tokyo’s renaissance as a “city of water.” Thinking about cities is essential in approaching issues regarding the sustainability of the humanosphere, and Professor Jinnai’s report, which focused on how cities have historically been shaped through their involvement with the surrounding environment, and in particular with the aqueous environment, was highly suggestive to our G-COE program.

In conventional urban engineering studies, the central focus has traditionally been on the scrap-and-build approach, with little consideration regarding the nature of existing cities. Objecting to this conventional approach, Professor Jinnai went to Italy to study methods of architectural history to “read” city.. Upon returning home, he proceeded to conduct a study on the Shitaya district of Tokyo, demonstrating that a unique space with a unique sense of order had been created in this area and had persisted through the ages. Extending his field study from the uptown to the downtown of Edo (Tokyo) using old maps of the city, Professor Jinnai went on to show that Edo had the character of a “city of water,” or of what could be called an eco-city. Thus for example roads ran through ridges and the living spaces of old worriers were located in the hills, whereas local communities were formed around valley roads, resulting in an organic structure well-suited to the terrain. Professor Jinnai called this “urban morphology,” a pattern of urban structure that has been passed down in roughly the same form through generations, with today’s Tokyo avenues retaining roughly the same layout as those of the former city of Edo. Interest in this phenomenon has increased since the 1970s and 1980s, when the concepts of amenity and the life environment were imported into Japan from the UK.
 

The rich interaction in the Edo period between urban inhabitants and their aqueous environment, mediated through water transportation, fisheries and rituals, lived on, with new meaning, into the Meiji era, despite the appearance of the modern urban space evidenced in construction of modern bridges and promenades. These interactions, however, were lost in the 1960s and 1970s, a period of rapid economic development. Nonetheless, in the 1970s, industrial plants started pull away from the Tokyo waterfront, making room for the return of the aqueous environment, for the return of fish and of people, and the waterfront has since achieved remarkable progress.
 

Professor Jinnai went on to cite and describe various efforts in districts of Tokyo (Tsukudajima, Fukagawa, Setagaya, Omiya Hachiman, Hino, etc.) to reclaim, maintain and assign various meanings to the interaction between urban inhabitants and their city’s natural environment.
 

Following Professor Jinnai’s presentation, Mr. Takanobu Iwaki digested Prof. Jinnai’s research method and applied it to the case of Bangkok, Thailand, which combined maps (old-style maps and GIS), field study (interviews and location survey) and literature search. By pursuing changes over a longer span of time, Mr. Iwaki suggested that problems faced today are made much clearer.
 

Discussion continued with Professor Shigeo Fujii, who began by introducing activities of the “Global Center for Education and Research on Human Security Engineering for Asian Megacities.” Professor Fujii pointed out that, due to differences between urban foundations constructed in different eras in the methods and systems for drawing and discharging water, there was a need to consider water works and sewage treatment systems specifically suited to the conditions of each individual Asian city.
 

Various questions were also raised in the general discussion session. Discussion touched on the commonalities shared between cities that live together with their aqueous environment, on positive aspects of commercial and industrial activities co-existing within the environment, as well as on the question of what elements contributed to the formation of Edo as an eco-city (ecological conditions such as terrain and geography, inhabitants’ view of the world, urban planning). Participants engaged in a productive exchange of views on these and other topics.
 

(Kimura Shuhei)

Date:April 20, 2009 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Fujita, Koichi,
“Agricultural Society, Industrial Society, and Next?”
 

2. Fujita, Motoko,
“An Interdependency between Human and Birds in Urban Environment”
 

3. Hayashi, Takahisa,
“Reconstruction of GCOE project in Riau, Sumatra”
 

4. Hayami, Yoko, “Relatedness of Life in the Human　Realm: Rethinking Reproduction towards Sustainable Humanosphere;

【Record of Activity】

In his report, Professor Koichi Fujita focused attention on the concept of “poverty push,” which cites resource constraints caused by population increases as an example of a trigger precipitating a shift from agrarian society to industrial society. In doing so, Professor Fujita highlighted the view, held by some, that contemporary Asian society experiences suffering because it has been partially subsumed within industrial society. Given that it is impossible at this stage for Asian society to return to being an agrarian society, the path of development through improvement of agrarian productivity, which ultimately determines the success or failure of industrialization, should not so easily be rejected; it was in this sense that Professor Fujita said he was not convinced by the concept, embraced by this GCOE, of “from production to subsistence.” The report by researcher Motoko Fujita cited the reciprocal relationship between birds and people in urban environments as an example of unanticipated mutual interaction between the humanosphere and the biosphere. Dr. Fujita illustrated this idea by referring to the fact that while urbanization reduces avian diversity in general, certain birds nonetheless adapt to the urban ecological system and make use of unusual materials carried into the city from outside, in doing so affecting the functioning of the ecological system. The report by Associate Professor Takahisa Hayashi introduced collaborative research sites in the Riau province of Sumatra, in Indonesia. Hayashi also described the framework for future projects and outlined progress to date. As an example of collaborative research projects, Hayashi presented an integrated study bringing together his own experiments and field studies, consisting of development through experiments on trees that can be easily saccharified, as well as a field research of tree species in natural forests. The report by Professor Yoko Hayami extended the her view which interpreted the reproduction of families, the labor force and social systems as “relatedness of lives” and in this way reexamined the realm of reproduction, previously were subordinated to production-centered systems, striving toward a freer way of living. Comparing the production of “modern families” in Europe with that of “families” in Southeast Asia, she found that in the latter case, the reproduction of relationships constituting the basis of the succession of life was not limited to biological linkage alone.
 

A number of questions and comments arose in response to the reports above, and a lively discussion ensued. Among questions regarding industrialization, one person commented that the explanation of industrialization put forward under the concept of poverty push seemed like a one-sided way of looking at the causes of industrialization. Another person pointed to a conflict in the assertion that while partial industrialization is problematic, industrialization is necessary, and suggested that the expression “from production to subsistence” provided an important cue in discussing how to solve this conflict. Regarding cities and ecology systems, others in the audience argued that it is important for us to find a point of balance between production and conservation of ecology systems, and that it is essential that we consider how to design a city from an ecological viewpoint. Regarding family and reproduction, someone asked what sort of reproduction holds wider significance to the public beyond the private domain. A comment from the floor highlighted the danger that too much emphasis on reproduction in the context of culture and semantic systems may limit discussion on Humanosphere to reproduction issues alone.
 

Through these discussions, a bridge was created at the seminar between various past initiatives and new activities, enabling a deeper level of discussion regarding the expression “from production to subsistence.”
 

(Fumikazu Ubukata)

Date:February 16, 2009 (Tue.) 16：30～18：30
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
Akimichi Tomoya(The Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN))
Exploring the Plausibility of the Eco-commons: Continuity andDisruption of the Human Ecosystem

Commentator:
Kazunobu Iketani (National Museum of Ethnology)
Yasuyuki Kono (Professor, CSEAS)

 

【Record of Activity】

At this meeting, Professor Tomoya Akimichi gave a presentation on diverse topics revolving around the concept of “eco-commons”. The idea of “eco-commons” is a broadening of the perspective of “commons”, which is commonly used, to look at both institutional issues related to use and management in human society and the ecological system on an equal footing. This perspective makes it possible to grasp the networks of very complex relations and flows which revolve around things as well as fauna and flora existing in a space or a locality, and their historical changes.

One of the cases brought up by the presenter was floods in southern Laos. Doing a case study requires a proper scope and resolution adapted to the particular issue, and in discussing the floods in the southern Laos, the presenter discussed the complex cause-and-effect relationship between changes in local and global policy measures and the ecology of fauna and flora in the water system over a time period of approximately two decades. The analysis included water discharged by dams and its effect on vegetable farming on river banks, Mekong giant catfish and waterweeds, and water dosage of the related river systems, as well as local folk knowledge related to them (for example, “when the water level drops, ants eat fish, and when the water level rises, fish eat ants.”)

The presenter then discussed fishery management in the context of the commons. There, Professor Akimichi classified access rights into three categories: open access, limited access and sanctuary, and discussed changes over the two decades in the fish conservation zones of the Mekong river system (the failure of fishery management through top-down conservation efforts led to the temporary liberalization of the conservation zones to village public enterprises and to efforts to relieve the weak).

The presentation was enhanced by Professor Akimichi’s deep understanding of the local situation acquired through his years of research activities, and it was not so easy to grasp the entire picture that provided the background for individual cases. However, in his presentation he maintained his consistent stance to think issues through the specific practices of local people who lived between the sustainability and depletion of resources use, and between the global trend and local way of life.

In response to the presentation, Professor Kazunobu Ikeya, one of the two commentators, tried to point out the significance of Professor Akimichi’s study, under the title of “Can we go beyond “Akimichi’ology?” as follows: presentation of a framework that compares different localities in terms of individual folk histories; presentation of common points to be shared by related disciplines going beyond anthropology; linkages with international discussions and debates; and reciprocating efforts to link local studies with studies in Japan. Then, Professor Ikeya asked what is to be added to the theory of the commons to cope with the situation of the 21st century. More specifically, he insisted the importance to gain a grasp of changes in the framework surrounding natural reserves (sanctuaries), which have shifted from the natural ecology to political arguments, and to incorporate urban problems (in particular urban waste) and migrants’ commons into eco-commons.

Professor Yasuyuki Kono, another commentator, discussed the proximity between the global symbiosis paradigm aimed for by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies and the eco-commons theory conceived by Professor Akimichi, and then raised two questions: what kind of structure can support the eco-commons (local or global, or neither of the two) and can the concept of eco-commons be further expanded by paying attention to issues such as infectious diseases propagated by migrant birds, going beyond the “locality” in the conventional sense.

From the floor, in addition to questions regarding Professor Kaoru Sugihara asked about how the presenter defined the terms like “ownership” and “trade” and about the difference between Geosphere and Biosphere from the framework of eco-commons. Professor Shigeru Araki raised two questions: first, does Professor Akimichi’s eco-commons concern the global or local scale, or it should be understood in some other way; and second, was the change between the three models for fishery resource management spatial or temporal. Professor Hiromu Shimizu delivered remarks on possible perspectives that could be seen by looking at the eco-commons as a humanosphere.

There was only limited time for the Q&A session, but the workshop clearly indicated a desirable direction for area studies, bringing into view both the local and global and both society and ecology. Professor Akimichi’s study showed one possible path in this direction. If we think through how these discussions can be utilized for the accumulated studies of individual researchers, a new paradigm for G-COE will begin to take concrete shape.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date: February 9(Mon.)，2009 　14：30-17：00
Venue:Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall, Large Meeting Room (3F),
Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University,

Kyoto University Global-COE Program In Search of
Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa
Paradigm Formulation Group and Initiative 2 Joint Seminar

Invited Speaker: P. K. Ramachandran Nair (Florida University)

Commentators: Shinya Takeda (Graduate School of Asian African Area Studies, Kyoto Univ.)
Oekan Soekotjo Abdoellah (Center for Southeast Asian Studies)

Abstract:
Modern industrialized farming and forestry systems may look good if we
look only at their production benefits and ignore the costly social
and environmental side effects. The emphasis on a selected few species
of plants and heavy use of chemical inputs for maximizing their
production has caused serious environmental problems, and the
promotion of large-scale farming at the cost of smallholder systems
has serious social ramifications. By adopting these systems to meet
today's needs, we are seriously compromising the ability of future
generations to satisfy their needs.  A serious casualty in the push
for such single-commodity paradigms is the age-old practices of
growing crops and trees together. Although many of which have stood
the test of times and are still being practiced, they are often
ignored in development paradigms. During the past thirty years,
however, the positive benefits of integrated land-use systems such as
agroforestry to the producer and the environment have gradually been
recognized.
The time has arrived for utilizing the benefits of the remarriage of
crops and trees in addressing some of the major threats facing the
world today, such as food- and nutritional security, eroding soils,
and expanding deserts.  Above- and below-ground diversity of ecosystem
processes facilitated by such mixed-species stands provides more
system stability and resilience at the site-level, and connectivity
with forests and other landscape features at the landscape- and
watershed levels. Agroforestry has also been recognized as a
greenhouse-gas mitigation strategy under the Kyoto Protocol. Recent
research under a variety of environments has confirmed the premise
that agroforestry systems have the potential to enhance carbon (C)
sequestration in soil compared with treeless (agricultural) systems
because of the ability of trees to store C in their deep roots.
Too often, we treat agriculture and forestry separately, yet these
sectors are interwoven on the landscape and share many common goals.
In order to meet society's needs and aspirations for
tree/forest-derived goods and services, we need a paradigm shift: we
must find ways of embracing the principles of agroforestry and other
integrated systems. "Business as usual" is no longer an option.

About Speaker:
Prof. Dr. PK Nair is a pioneering researcher and educator and a world
leader in agroforestry.  He is Distinguished Professor and Director of
the Center for Subtropical Agroforestry at the University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, USA. A native of India, he was educated in
India, England, and Germany.  Working as a multiple cropping
agronomist at the plantation crops research institute in southern
India during the 1970s, Dr. Nair developed the multistory cropping
with tree crops, now acclaimed as a sustainable agroforestry system.
During the late 1970s, he became one of the founders of ICRAF (World
Agroforestry Centre), Nairobi, Kenya, where he worked for nine years.
He has received numerous honors and awards including four honorary
Doctor of Science degrees (Universities of Kyoto, Japan; Kumasi,
Ghana; Guelph, Ontario, Canada; and Santiago de Compostela, Spain);
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS); IUFRO (International Union of Forest Research Organizations)
Scientific Achievement Award; and the Humboldt Prize, Germany, 2006.
He has authored/edited 12 books and nearly 200 research papers; and
has extensive international experience. He was Editor-in-Chief of
Agroforestry Systems journal for 11 years, and is currently the editor
of the book series Advances in Agroforestry (Springer Science). A
major area of his current research is soil carbon sequestration in
agroforestry systems.


Recent Publications
P. K. R. Nair et al. (Edited)  2004 New Vistas In Agroforestry: A
Compendium For The 1st World Congress Of Agroforestry, (Advances in
Agroforestry). Kluwer.

B. M. Kumar & P. K. R. Nair (Edited) 2006. Tropical Homegardens: A
Time-tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry (Advances in
Agroforestry) Springer.


Land-Use System Sustainability: Business as Usual?
By
SHINOHARA, Naoki
KANZAKI, Mamoru
P. K. Ramachandran Nair

【Record of Activity】

P. K. Nair tried to illustrate the potential of agroforestry as integrated land-use, which contributes to preventing the degradation of cropland, increasing the capacity of the carbon pool, and enabling the sustainability of crop production, etc. Examples of such synergistic effects of agroforestry were introduced. The results of recent studies conducted by his research team on the carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems were also introduced. He reported that the benefits of integrated land-use systems such as agroforestry to the producer and the environment have gradually been recognized over the past thirty years. He emphasized that the time has arrived for utilizing the benefits of the combination of crops and trees in addressing some of the major threats facing the world today, such as food- and nutritional security, eroding soils, and expanding deserts. He said, "Agriculture and forestry have been treated separately. However these two industries and land-uses are interwoven on the actual landscape and share many common goals." He concluded now is a time when we must find ways of embracing the principles of agroforestry and other integrated systems. "Business as usual" is no longer an option.

Two commentators, Shinya Takeda (ASAFAS, Kyoto Univ.) and Oekan Soekotjo Abdoellah (CSEAS, Kyoto Univ.), followed Nair. Takeda introduced an example of an agroforestry system in Lao PDR where lac scales were introduced as a substitute for the shifting cultivation. He analyzed that the successful introduction of the agroforestry system was possible because of the increasing demand for lac in the Chinese market. His talk clearly suggested that the economical background is quite important for the successful introduction of the system.

Oekan reported on the current situation of traditional home-garden systems in Indonesia. The commercialization of agriculture has resulted in the conversion of traditional home-gardens into cash crop fields on Java Island. Although the awareness of agroforestry is increasing in the world, many of the non-commercialized traditional cropping systems may face economical difficulties.

From the floor, doubts about the generalization of the positive effects of agroforestry on productivity and the economy as a whole were raised. The importance of macro-economical analyses was also pointed out from the floor.

The positive points of agroforestry were emphasized by the researchers from the 1970's onwards. The system, however, has failed to become a major landscape in tropical countries. As Nair pointed out, however, in the face of global climate change and sustainability issues "business as usual" may not be an option in agriculture. The Second World Congress of Agroforestry will be held in Nairobi in August 2009. Further extension of integrated land-use as one of the tools for sustainability is currently anticipated.

(Mamoru Kanzaki and Ayako Sasaki)

Date:Janurary 19, 2009 (Mon.) 16：00-18：00PM
Venue:Inamamori Memorial Hall, the 3rd of floor

Title: The Rise and Fall of Political Power in Andean Civilization

Presentation:Yuji Seki (National Museum of Ethnology)

【Record of Activity】

In a departure from the Asia and Africa regions, which were the major forums for Paradigm Formulation group, this seminar featured a report on the results from archeological studies on the “formative period” of the Andes region.

Based on the findings of Japanese studies on the region over the past forty years, Professor Yuji Seki of the National Museum of Ethnology gave a presentation focusing on the problem of power, approaching the problem from the aspect of changes in control over resources of power, such as economy, military and ideology. The archeological method, which visualizes and elucidates how such resources of power were produced and distributed, by examining diverse remains, including the shapes of earthenware shards and skulls, remains of canal irrigation, construction techniques for stylobates and traces of starch grains, provided great stimulus for researchers in social sciences and humanities who are used to analyzing abstract and invisible things in contemporary society, such as “power” and “nation.” Furthermore, his analytical method, which applies analysis of iconography and weapons, isotopic analysis and collagen analysis, was truly interdisciplinary and thus was very much suggestive considering the goals of the GCOE.

In the questions and answers session, Professor Yasuyuki Nagafuchi (Nagoya Institute of Technology), the commentator, raised a question that touched upon the bedrock of Professor Seki’s presentation, by bringing up theories on the powers of kings in Asia. Specifically, his question involved: (1) the perspective of evolutionism contained in the way that various societies are presented as cases; (2) the relevance of discussing the question of power in terms of the three categories, i.e. economy, military and ideology; (3) the problem of power (does it exist without exceptions?); and (4) the problems of long-distance trade and exchange. Many questions were raised from the floor, involving the mechanism of micro-governance in society at that time, the source of support for long-distance trade at the time, and the infrastructure that allowed the expansion of the scale of temple architecture and its relations with the economy. Professor Seki gave answer to each of the questions based on specific findings from the relevant surveys, although he expressed some reservations, admitting that he could not answer all of the questions raised. In his answers, Professor Seki presented the hypothesis that power is not an element that brings forth the gigantic shrine facilities, but rather that power emerges as a result of the practice of constructing the shrine facilities.

As Professor Seki touched upon at the outset of his presentation, the Andean civilization is considered one of the five major world civilizations, and that like the other civilizations, a process can be observed where the society was created through people’s interactions with the local ecology, with the society then spreading into diverse environments. The development of Andean civilization, part of which was highlighted by this presentation, contained suggestions for the participants in considering alternative forms of development, which are different from the Western type.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date:December 15, 2008 (Tue.) 16：00‐18：00PM
Venue: Meeting Room, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

Presentation:
Hiroyuki Yano (Professor, RISH)

Commentator:
Kenichi Abe (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) )

【Record of Activity】
The presenter expressed passionate view on the potential of the material “wood” and on a Japanese style of science (“J science”) where one does not simply utilize a material but rather listens to the voice of the wood and make use of the feelings of the wood itself.

It is important today, when the population is growing, and where consumption is expanding along with it, to reexamine our society’s dependence on oil resources and build a society based on solar energy. For that purpose, the first thing we must do is to utilize biomass, in particular, woody biomass, which accounts for 90% or more of biomass.

Wood is lightweight but strong. One experiment showed that a single fiber of pulp can withstand a load of 1.7 GPa. In addition, it was shown through an experiment on the central pillar of the five-storied pagoda of Horyuji Temple that the strength remained nearly unchanged even after 2000 years. Further, wood has a small coefficient of thermal expansion. While pulp consists of nanofibers with a width of just 10 nanometers, this characteristic has not been fully utilized. The development of nanotechnology during the last 10 years or so has opened the way for the manufacturing of nanofibers into material for products.

Examples of such products include cars made from plants (which can help to reduce carbon dioxide emission through their light weight), televisions or flexible computer substrates made from nata de coco, and other products. The presenter claimed that what scientists do to create these technologies is just 1 %. Wood (living matter) constitutes 99% or more of these technologies. As a scientis he tries to enter the feelings of trees, accept it, and develop its potential. This scientific method (J science) which involves respecting all living things and borrowing their power, is something that should be disseminated to and shared with the rest of the world.

The commentator, invoking ecological anthropologist T. Ingold, raised the question. From Ingold’s viewpoint, there is a serious gap between the spherical perspective (where human beings are embedded in and integrated with the environment) and the global perspective (where human beings are disembedded from the environment). Following him, the commentator asked what the presenter, or GCOE for that matter, was aiming for, and suggested that we should consider changing the nature of the car-centered society. In addition, he pointed out problems with the use of biomass resources for energy (that it is distributed energy with very low energy density, and that CO2 will be emitted when converting wet peatlands to bioethanol production). Further, perspectives on “Futurability,” which the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature has proposed as an idea to replace sustainability, and of “reproductive consilience” (a concept of E.O. Wilson) toward it were explained.

From the floor, questions associated with the actual technologies (how to make them beneficial not only for big corporations but also for local residents, and how to prevent the cost reduction from leading to increased consumption). and the ways to learn the logic of the biosphere were raised.

At this seminar, we caught a glimpse of the future direction for science and technology that GCOE seeks, largely as a fruit of interactions between researchers in the natural sciences and humanities. We hope to see further development.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date:November 17, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00‐18：00PM
Venue:A447, Research Building No.2, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto University

Presentation:
Tetsuzo Yasunari (Professor, Hydrospheric Atmospheric Reseach Center, Nagoya Univsersity)

Date:November 4, 2008 (Tue.) 17：00-19：00PM
Venue:AA447, Research Building No.2, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto University

Presentation:

Masaaki Sumi (Professor, Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, University of Tokyo)

Commentator:
・Kazuo Matsushita (Professor, Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University)
・Akio Tanabe (Associate　Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University)

Date:October 20, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00-18：00PM
Venue:AA447, Research Building No.2, Kyoto University, Yoshida Main Campus,

Presentation:
・Koichi Fujita (Professor, CSEAS)
・Wakatsuki Toshiyuki(Professor, Kinki University)

【Record of Activity】

At this seminar for paradigm formulation, two presenters gave reports on the theme of the Green Revolution, from different perspectives and using different cases. Although the Green Revolution is often discussed in terms of the successful improvement of rice varieties by IRRI, or wheat by CIMMYT, the first presenter, Professor Koichi Fujita (CSEAS) suggested the importance to understand its context. He pointed out that the progress of the Green Revolution in India (and Punjab in particular)was supported by the major transformation of agricultural policy (toward an emphasis on technology) against the backdrop of the major droughts in the mid 1960s, development of irrigation canals during the British colonial period, existence of medium-scale farmers, use of tube wells, and other factors in the region. And he categorized the Green Revolution in India into two waves: the first starting in the middle of the 1960s and the second in the 1980s. He pointed out that the first period was a time of industrial stagnation due to the national government’s emphasis on agriculture, but that during the second wave of the Green Revolution, which was promoted by small-scale irrigation using pumps, rural villages in India in general became affluent offering markets for the industrial and service sectors, leading to economic “take off” from agricultural production onto a growth path. He then derived the following lessons from the Indian case: the control of water was critical for the growth of agricultural production; land capital investment for improvement would not take place without a certain level of population pressure; and the growth of income in agricultural villages was important for economic growth.

Second, Professor Toshiyuki Wakatsuki (Kinki University) reported on his work focusing on Western Africa. Firstly he pointed out that behind the failure of crop improvements to result in higher yield in Africa, there are the low level of soil fertility and the unstable precipitation, and then stated that although irrigation was important, only 1% or so of the total land area was fit for it in Africa. On that basis, he described his project aiming for the achievement of stable yield growth by transferring a set of technologies for identifying appropriate lands, making rice paddies and cultivating them while controlling the volume of water used. Although rice paddies have a potential sustainable productivity about 10 times that of non-paddy fields when considering differences in yields and the need for fallows, creating paddies requires land improvements such as the transformation of land with bushes into rice fields. Professor Wakatsuki is trying to spread this system by educating a small number of farmers at a demonstration site.

During the question and answer session, there was in-depth discussion on the central issues of the two presentations. One participant pointed out the importance of paying attention to the work of farmers who served as the foundation for the Green Revolution (by improving farming tools and fertilizers during the Edo period, for example). Also, questions were raised on the sustainability of the two cases of agricultural production growth taken up here. (Although India appears to have succeeded, aren’t there problems such as a decrease in the underground water level? Can the system of rice paddies supported by large rivers in Asia be called sustainable in Africa with its different environment?) Further, there was an exchange of views on the relationship between the purchasing power of agricultural villages and economic growth in the case of India, and on ways to raise the motivation for land improvement and the question of cooperation and individuality in land improvement in the case of Africa.

The discussion clarified not only the factors behind success concerning food production and economic growth in each case but also problems being faced. In order to formulate a new paradigm for a sustainable humanosphere, it will be necessary to continue to delve into these two aspects.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date:September 22, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00～18：00PM
Venue:E207, East Buiding, CSEAS

Presentation:Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)

Commentator:
Ishihara Keiichi (Professor, Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University)
Fukao Yoko (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University)

【Record of Activity】

Dr. Kaoru Sugihara discussed the future of industrial development and resource utilization based on statistical data on energy consumption at the national level and other issues. First, he explained the process of industrialization and change of energy consumption, drawing a contrast between the West and Asia. While the industrial development of western countries during the mid 20th century led to a major increase of consumption of commercial energy (coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity, with the main resource at the time being coal) and a decrease of non-commercial energy, Asian countries did not experience a large decrease of non-commercial energy during their industrialization process, and their per capita energy consumption remained relatively small. 　

Next, the process of Japan’s industrialization was reviewed as a case study. In Japan, land was scarce but wood and water resources were abundant, and in that sense Japan was not a resource-poor country. In the first half of the 20th century, it became an importer of resources as it switched to a coal-based economy, where industrialization was pursued through an intensification of resource utilization. Japan’s economic development was supported by so-called “oil triangle”, the trade relations among the West, Middle East, and Japan, in particular the export of products to the West. In the present situation where oil prices are skyrocketing, it is difficult for countries in Southeast Asia to do the same. In addition to it, the weight of alternative fuels such as biomass cannot be expected to increase rapidly. Therefore, in their development paths, these societies will have to look toward an efficient way of using energy: using it intensively and using diverse sources.

Next, Dr. Keiichi Ishihara reported on energy productivity (referred to as “energy efficiency” in the Sugihara report) in Vietnam. He showed the environmental Kuznets curve and demonstrated, based on an analysis of the I/O table, that in Vietnam, which is undergoing industrialization, energy consumption is large in the cement industry and agricultural sector (which uses chemical fertilizers and includes the chemical industry) in particular and that the energy productivity is low.

Dr. Yuko Fukao reported on a study of the recovery of water and greenery in the Huangtu Plateau, in which she is involved, and the present situation of the area. She argued that although there are abundant coal resources, prices have been increasing rapidly in recent years, putting pressure on the livelihoods of people involved in agriculture. and thus the condition of migrant workers who have brought in cash income for this area and supported industrial production of the coastal area will be reformed at the national level.

From the floor, there was a question on the definition of commercial energy. Comments concentrated on Sugihara’s argument that one of the reasons for the successful transformation of energy consumption was that Japan was blessed with resources and a well-developed resource-saving economy. It was confirmed that the ability to respond effectively was a special feature of Japan. Also, a question was raised on how resource-saving technology could be spread to countries without incentives for such technology. On the Fukao paper, there was discussion about the dilemma of economic development and the sustainability of agriculture in China.

Thus, in this workshop, the historical paths of economic development were reviewed and, based on this examination, the situation faced by different countries within the process of economic development was demonstrated. It can be said that through this workshop the tasks involved in searching for a development path based on sustainable humanosphere were clarified.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date:July 14, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00-18：00PM

Venue:E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Presentation:
Norio Okada (Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute)

Commentator:
Kazuo Ando (Professor, CSEAS)
Yoden Shideo (Professor, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University)

【Record of Activity】

Risks in the 21st century have grown increasingly complicated, demanding the development of countermeasures in a context where knowledge is lacking about the risks brought on by nanotechnology and the spread of new diseases. Given this situation, various management techniques for risks and disasters were presented, based on planning system theory as developed in infrastructure planning. Disasters are phenomena that exceed fixed thresholds, phenomena of low frequency and high impact that, as in the case of major earthquakes, occur at intervals which surpass the life cycles of human beings. From the perspective of achieving sustained management in a setting with diverse high-uncertainty risks, urban areas need to be considered from both the aspects of disaster prevention and development. With the high frequency of disasters in Southeast Asia, for example, it can be said that we should aim not only at maintaining survival, but also work on integrated disaster risk management which perceives disaster as an opportunity.

The multilayer systems which make up society have a complex structure, from space-time structures that cannot be seen (consciousness, customs) to those that can be seen (architectural structures, legislation). For example, in order to realize high-quality infrastructure, it is essential to understand engineering which is closely related to infrastructure and legal systems. In particular, while disasters in the past occurred and were managed only at a local level, society has nowadays expanded in various ways and continuously increases its complexity. In aiming at a more stable society, it is necessary to recognize the importance of what is the local, of communities and of agents, and to place diverse human resources on an equal footing. Finally, in order to verify and draw predictions in an actual social context, Implementation science is important in testing and evaluating conditions, while over the course of application, Adaptive management is important in realizing solutions at a social level.

(Osamu Kozan)

Date:June 16, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00-18：00PM

Venue:HW407, RISH
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/access.html

Title: Environmental Ethics

Presentation:
Nozomu Koizumi(Associate Professor, Osaka Prefecture University)
Title: Transgenic Crops and Human Survival

Commentator:
Mamoru Kanzaki (Associate Professor, Faculty Gruduate School of Agriculture)
Title: What do We Fear about Transgenic Crops?

【Record of Activity】

In his presentation, Dr. Koizumi Nozomu discussed the present circumstances surrounding the research, production and consumption of genetically-modified crops. World conditions in the cultivation of genetically-modified crops were outlined first, and it was pointed out that over the past 10 years, there has been a sudden increase in the cultivation of these crops, centered on North and South America. The effectiveness of herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops and the situation of their cultivation were subsequently presented as a representative example of implementation, and it was indicated that the introduction of such crops contributes to decreases in costs and a reduction in the burden on the environment. Golden rice and decaf coffee crops were also introduced as examples of what can be expected in the future from present research in this area. Finally, conditions in the consumption of genetically-modified crops in Japan were explained, drawing comparison with world trends. An inconsistency was highlighted between the public disapproval of production and consumption of genetically-modified crops in Japan, and the fact that genetically-modified crops are in reality already being consumed through vegetable oil and soy source made from imported ingredients. In the presentation by Dr. Kanzaki Mamoru, the risks of genetically-modified crops were debated from the standpoint of ecological science. It was firstly emphasized that the technology of genetic recombination goes beyond the framework of traditional breeding technologies and offers a different kind of innovation, in doing so raising questions of bioethics. Then, two potential concerns were pointed out in the introduction of genetically-modified crops; the possibility of disturbing conventional agriculture which has low resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and the possibility of spreading genetic contamination of crops due to difficulties involved in completely controlling the flow of pollen. Finally, it was indicated that although these issues should be dealt with through risk management, the essential problem is that we have not yet formulated assumptions for these risks, and it was pointed out that, for this reason, environmental and corporate ethics play a significant role.

Discussion:

• Are we not overestimating the value of genetically-modified crops? The only really popular commodities at the moment are herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops. Regarding food safety, the standards that are employed in the inspection of genetically-modified crops are extremely exacting. While the effectiveness of crop management is certainly questionable, from the start many of the issues involved are not particular to the problem of genetically-modified crops.
• The problem of gene leakage is important. In the case of trees and shrubs in particular, direct influence of transfer on humans is small, unlike its influence on food products; influence on ecological systems, however, is very large. Another issue is that of the degree to which new technologies, including the monopolistic development and use of technologies by multinational corporations like Monsanto, contribute to improvements in the lives of the poorest segments of the population in developing nations.
• There is no way to deal with risks that cannot be anticipated. The management of forests is more difficult than the management of fields, so the risks of gene leakage are as such higher. For the most part, however, these problems are not different from problems of naturalized plants encountered in the past. In the case of development in developing countries, not all problems concern multinational corporations, as seen for example in the case of papaya development. In the background for the failure of this kind of practical development to go forward in for example Thailand, however, is the fact that Japan does not purchase genetically-modified crops. As this case demonstrates, it would seem that there are cases in which the ego of a developed country gets in the way of technology transfer to developing countries.
• What happens to ethics of the market given the fact that in Japan’s attitude with regard to genetically-modified crops, there is a total inconsistency between the country’s official stance and actual patterns of consumption? Should the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries not be made to explain this attitude more clearly?

(Fumikazu Ubukata)

Date:May 19, 2008 (Mon.) 17：00-19：00PM

Venue:E207, 2nd floor of East Bldg. CSEAS

Title: Meaning of Life from Viewpoint of Brain Science
       - Paradigm Reconversion in the Aged Society -

Presentation:
Kozo Matsubayashi (Professor, CSEAS)
Emiko Ochiai (Professor, Graduate School of Letters)
Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)

【Record of Activity】

 Even if the human genome is completely deciphered and we are able to create order-made transplantable organs using regenerative medicine, it seems unlikely that humans would agree to the transplanting of brains. In that case, it would be difficult to live past the age of 120. Up till now, the three parts of the human brain -- comprising the brain stem in charge of the life support system, the cerebral limbic system acting as a source of countless wants and desires, and the cerebral cortex supervising and carrying out the desires coming from the limbic system – worked in harmony to create human society and a “meaning of life.” Concepts such as “gratitude,” “sacrifice,” “risking one’s life for others,” or “faith,” which are innate to humans, can be thought of as wisdom built into the cerebral cortex to control the infinite number of desires arising from the limbic system.

 It would be a paradigm shift if the human wisdom of the 21st century would become truly self-aware of the importance of balancing biology, ecosystem, human technology and civilization and endeavor to create a society in which truly felt a balance between “sustainable humanosphere,” “a beautiful of life,” and “a meaningful of life.”

【Discussion】
Comments from Dr. Ochiai Emiko
• Why has the incidence of Alzheimers and the number of elderly patients increased dramatically? Perhaps it is because society’s perception of the elderly has changed that the number of cases has increased.
• If that is the case, the question of how society accommodates the elderly becomes important.
• After the birth rate declines, there is a period of transition to a new equilibrium. In the U.S. and Europe, that period lasted half a century, and in Japan, 20 years. It is believed that this new equilibrium corresponds to our stable modernity. In other Asian countries, there has been no transition period which has led to instability in the present day.
• If we compare networks for the care of children and the elderly among Asian countries, while strong networks exist in China and Singapore, thanks to “community,” help from relatives, and introduction of hired domestic workers, in Japan these networks are weak.

Comments from Dr. Sugihara Kaoru
• In response to the question “what does it mean to ‘live/survive’?”, although it is possible to define this from many viewpoints such as human development, welfare, and politics, it is also important to include a cultural meaning, “life with dignity,” in the definition.
• Although the direction of the discussion was to learn from Asia, from the perspective of Asia and Africa, the priority is not happiness, etc. but rather the procurement of financial resources in order to survive. Perhaps the “gap” in the meaning of “survival” between the two groups getting larger?

Other comments
• The structure and balance between the three parts of the brain – the “brain stem” controlling the life-support system, the “limbic system” which governs emotions, and the “cerebral cortex” which makes culture and civilization possible -- is essential for the survival of humankind. This is analogous to the fact that the structure and balance of the three layers of geosphere, biosphere, and humanosphere (in the narrow sense), which is the theme of this program, is the foundation of sustainable development for the survival of humankind.
• If we think of pre-modern times, stable modern times, and destabilization due to globalization as three stages of development – it would be interesting to explore a new approach for considering how “living/survival” can be defined differently in the third stage.

(Taizo Wada)

Date: April 21, 2008 (Mon.)  16:00-18:00PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Presentation:
1. Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)
2. Yasuyuki Kono (Professor, CSEAS)
3. Noboru Ishikawa (Associate Professor, CSEAS)
4. Akio Tanabe (Associate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)

Chairman:
Naoki Shinohara (Professor, RISH)

【Record of Activity】

Kaoru Sugihara (Convener, CSEAS)
Titel: Sustainable Humanosphere Research: Zoom In and Zoom Out

1. A historical view of the 3 spheres(geosphere/biosphere/humanosphere) and their definitions

If one takes the history of earth to be a history of the development of spheres, there are broadly three (1) geosphere, (2) biosphere, and (3) humanospheres. While separate theories/knowledge bases have been developed for each sphere, the spheres do not exist independent of each other but rather through mutually interaction. In the future, it is necessary to study the relationship between these three spheres.

Some 4.6 billion years ago, the birth of the planet marked the beginning of the geosphere, comprised of lithosphere, pedosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere, and the creation of conditions which made the development of life possible (John McNeill, Something new under the sun). About 4 billion years ago, the development of life marked the beginning of the biosphere. Although it is possible to define the biosphere as a sum of the biota, another definition is the history of the evolution of life up to the higher animals. The humanosphere began 200,000 years ago with the evolution of early humans. Given the confusion due to the differences in English and Japansese understanding of term "humanosphere", I propose the term ningenken (human habitat) to refer to the humanosphere in the narrow sense, and seizonken (join the following three spares together: geosphere, biosphere and "humanosphere in the narrow sense") to refer to the humanosphere in the broad sense.

2. The 3 spheres and approach to research

In modern social science there is a tendency to think about nature from a geosphere perspective, and not a biosphere perspective. For example, in economics, facts are summarized based on geographic or land units, energy is thought of only in terms of coal or petroleum, while humans were considered labor force for production, ignoring their reproductive function. However, it can be said that the geosphere is significantly impacted by the humanosphere and biosphere. It is necessary to operationally (as a practical research strategy) divide the three spheres and to think about the following relationships.

Given the division of nature into 3 spheres, the research approaches can be summarized as follows.

(1) Natural Science Perspective (focus on the relationship between the geosphere and biosphere)

(2) Social Science Perspective (focus on the relationship between the geosphere and humanosphere, in the narrow sense)

(3) Bio-Moral Perspective (focus on the relationship between the geosphere and humanosphere, in the narrow sense)
It is necessary to discuss what a humanosphic perspective, which integrates these three perspectives, should look like.

 

3. What is the issue of highest priority for each of the 3 spheres?

(1) Geosphere: Ecological destabilization
What should be humanity’s response to changes in the geopsphere?
e.g. El Nino

(2) Biosphere: Loss of biodiversity
How should we respond to the loss of biodiversity due to human action?
(There is an ideology that the Biosphere also has “rights”)

(3) Humanosphere: Shortage of clean energy
How do we fulfill our energy needs, while limiting the impact of human population growth on the biosphere and geosphere?

4. What is a sustainable Humanosphere path?

Based on Dr. Kono’s presentation regarding Initiative 2 at the International Symposium, the three paths are presented in 2-dimensions with natural resource utilization and production as axes.

1. Productivity-driven path:
A path where natural resources are selectively used to increase productivity. This is the development path currently followed by countries mainly in the temperate zone.

2. Environmentally sustainable path:
A path that has as its #1 priority harmonizing with the potential of natural resources, and not emphasizing increase in productivity. Environmentally deterministic.

3. Humanosphere-sustainable path:
A path that strives for increased productivity while harmonizing with the potential of natural resources.

(Takahiro Sato, Taizo Wada)

 

Yasuyuki Kono (CSEAS)
Title: The natural environment of the tropics and technologies to make full use of its potential

If Initiative 1 can be said to have followed the time axis, we would like to consider spatial distribution in Initiative 2. We will discuss how the natural environment of the tropics, as exemplified by Southeast Asia, differs from other regions and technologies that make best use of the potential of these regions.

For example, in the case of agriculture, the demand-based model emphasizes production, marketing, and distribution, and thus the stability of production and price is prioritized. As a result, technologies were developed to make the environment conform to standard conditions and a system of technologies to deal with standardized products was put in place. We may call this form of agriculture temperate-region or market-dependent agriculture. On the one hand, we suggest that in order to develop an agriculture that is appropriate for tropical regions, the first step should be development of environment-inspired technologies that are appropriate for the tropical environment. An example would be development of a system for getting agricultural goods, which are not stably produced, to market efficiently. In other words, this would be a tropical-region, self-sufficient agricultural system. At the previous seminar there were comments from several of the natural scientists that the assertions of area studies researchers sounded like the mere concept of “local production for local consumption.” With development of new technologies, however, it should be possible to create a new paradigm for agricultural systems. In the past, the green revolution provides an example of a shift from traditional agriculture to use of high-yielding, irrigation- and fertilizer-dependent varieties.

Turning our attention to different agricultural/economic sectors, in East Africa, for example, livestock farming shifted for a period of time from traditional methods to owned land-enclosure farming, but this ended in failure. In this region, change in environment can be drastic, covering long distances as well as long time spans, and farming methods that don’t take advantage of these changes will not work. Another example is the afforestation of Southeast Asia, where natural forests have been clear cut and replaced with large-scale monoculture. This change does not leave many options for the future. It is with this perspective that I want to evaluate the direction that our technology leads us.

In proceeding with this research, I would first like to evaluate the tropical environment from a natural science perspective. For example, Köppen’s classification of climate was proposed in 1923 and amended in subsequent years. Although he explained empirically the distribution in vegetation as a function of temperature and precipitation, this is inaccurate in Asia and Africa, where there is particularly little data. Later, Budyko presented a heat balance of the earth in 1963, and using the latent heat of evaporation to express　both the heat balance and the water balance, discussed the distribution of vegetation based on quantifiable estimates from a geophysical model. While the techniques used to analyze environment and vegetation at a global scale are simple and rough, they are useful when comparing tropical regions with other climatic regions.

In the case of livestock farming in East Africa, the strategy failed because they assumed that external conditions were statically balanced. Simple plans were inadequate to deal with the greater than expected change in environment over time. It is necessary to understand the dynamic equilibrium in a way that we deal with large changes in the long run or we move geographically to deal with them.

To summarize, we should be moving towards connecting large distances rather than limiting the target subject of our study inside a certain space, considering long term equilibrium and cycles rather than single years and seasons, unifying technology and institutions as means of development rather than separating them, promoting efficient use of water and natural resources to improve lifestyle rather than population growth to propel market economy. I think that these are the issues which should be discussed in the future.

(Osamu Kosan)

 

Noboru Ishikawa (CSEAS)
Titel:Biomass-resource society in time and space

The Initiative 3, under the theme of “sustainable forest sphere,” promotes collaborative interdisciplinary　and applied research and activities based on the accumulated research of the Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere and Center for Southeast Asian Studies.

In recent years, in Indonesia where deforestation has been considerable, it has been said that industrial forestry plays an important role in reforestation and development of related industries. However, because increase of these endeavors has led to greater tensions with surrounding communities and in some cases promotion of further deforestation, what is desired is a “sustainable forest sphere” which balances coexistence with local communities and forest management.

In research seminars up to now, a variety of research related to industrial forestry from both natural science and social science perspectives has been presented, including soil nutrient and carbon cycling of forested sites, ecological functions of peat swamp, the conflict between plantations and small farms, and space-time database systems using GIS. At the International Symposium held in March 2008, Our presentations, titled “Forest Metabolism: Changing Nature of Biomass in Humanosphere,” included the relationship between people and forest cover over the last 400 years, the 140-year history of change in a “biomass resource society” of Sarawak, the importance of biosphere reserves, and the potential and issues of carbon sequestration and sustainable forestry using Acacia mangium.

This initiative, which promotes cooperative research in specified locations, also serves as a place to comprehensively evaluate other initiatives’ research approaches. For example, taking industrial forestry as the interface between humanosphere and biosphere, enables us to investigate technology and view-of-nature – how the ambiguous dividing line between natural and artificial worlds is created – in a biomass resource society. It allows us to analyze how zairai-chi (indigenous, local knowledge) adapts to changes in the forest sphere and the relationship between scientific knowledge and zairai-chi. Through these concrete investigations, we can promote organic relationship-building with other initiatives and give feedback in order to rebuild the unit of analysis and research framework.

(Fumikazu Ubukata)

 

The Potential of Sustainable Humanosphere and Region
Akio Tanabe (Institute for Research in Humanities)

The humanosphere considered in Initiative 4 is defined as the social and ecological environments in which people with diverse values live. Our goal is to build a framework to enrich human life that is closely-intertwined with its environment.

To do so, it is necessary to rethink the relationship between nature and society. From the perspective of modern science, Nature has been treated as an autonomous entity that is separated from Society, and manipulated scientifically and technologically. Given our increased ability to intervene in the body and environment due advances in technology, it is difficult to move forward with our discussion while viewing nature and society as divided. It is not likely that our current hyper-consumption society, which views nature only as a resource and exploits it uni-directionally, will survive. We need a framework connecting new technologies for a sustainable humanosphere with institutions and practices that make possible to improve the quality of life for human as a whole.

Therefore, nature should be understood as something built within the entirety of life on earth including human beings, through interactions with human beings. Thus it is necessary a paradigm shift in which “nature” is not viewed – as it currently is – as “the nature” as a given object to be used, but rather as “natures,” which act as key players in both the local and global environment. This conceptualization, in which natures and societies are considered parts of a whole, requires an integrated science that can describe the entire unity, or network, avoiding dichotomizations such as modern/traditional, global/local, objective scientific view/traditional world view. It takes both modern and zairai-chi (indigenous, local knowledge) as its base, interlinking the two, so that we might enable nature to express its full potential. This would be a true general science of sustainable humanosphere. Such potential for a sustainable humanosphere exists in regions of Africa and Asia. Focusing on the local ecosystem, institutions, technologies, values, and practices　(subjectivity), which exist in each locale, research in area studies should strive to understand human-society-ecosystem network through concrete examples.

(Masato Kasezawa)

Date: Janurary 21, 2008 (Mon.) 16:00-18:00 PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Presentation:
Hiroshi Matsumoto (Executive Vice-President for Research and Finance, Kyoto University)
Title:"Glocal energy issues: Toward an expansion of sustainable humanosphere"

Iwao Matsuoka (Senior Adviser, JITI)
Title:"Current issues on energy and global waming"

【Record of Activity】
(Matsuoka)
The problem of global warming is no longer an item that environmental policy alone deals with. It is a standard diplomatic matter, and a business. It is also an issue that does not directly reflect government intentions, as it is greatly influenced by domestic policy in developing countries. There is a shortcoming in the current international framework because adequate international assistance cannot be expected in compensation for future emissions.

 

Compared with the ozone hole (Freon regulations), it is easy to grasp the difficulties of the global warming issue: The ozone hole exists, and it has been possible to create policies in response from a scientific point of view, such as by reducing the use of refrigerants and gas, which are seen to be the cause. Global warming is a future problem, and because it involves virtually everything that humans do, is not just a scientific, but also a political issue. Because its effects do not surface where the damage is made, although the introduction of methods such as Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) at an international level are possible, if some countries or regions continue to discharge emissions, it will still affect the entire planet.　The Kyoto Protocol (1997) was adopted to confront this issue, and includes “flexible mechanisms” (economic instruments). Of significance are the numerical targets (First commitment period: 2008 to 2012. Five percent reduction by Annex 1 countries) and economic instruments　(such as Emission Trading and CDM).

If we consider CDM in the transportation sphere, it is not just CO2 from cars that affect the environment, but also NOx and SOx. Developed countries can probably use technologies to reduce the amount of gases being emitted, but then the issue of the dissemination of the technologies to developing countries arises. Mostly businesses, and not governments own the technologies, and it is unrealistic to think that they will provide them to developing countries (or rival companies in those countries) without compensation. There are many more related issues, such as safety guarantees and the improvement of traffic, and it is not a simple issue of the reduction of gas emissions. More comprehensive solutions are sought. From the perspective of CDM transport methodology as a comprehensive policy, the experience in developed countries can be utilized in developing countries, and there is a need for international mechanism to assist the policy.

(Matsumoto)
Population and economic growth rates are used to estimate increase in demand for food and energy/resource consumption. If the population in developed countries remains stagnant for the next fifty years, even without any change in the amount of energy/resources they require, and if we assume that the population in developing countries will rise from the current five to nine billion and that they will require three times the amount of energy/resources, the current consumer lifestyle energy needs of 15 billion living tons can be calculated to rise to 37 billion. How to provide this while dealing with environmental concerns is an important question. Even if population growth in developing countries remains at its current rate, people in developed countries will have to reduce their standard of living by around 40%.

There is a limit to the number of years we have left of our main energy and mineral resources. Some precious metals will be exhausted within this century, unless new sources are unearthed or they are recycled. There are different estimates as to when oil will run out, but 40 to 50 years sounds appropriate. Keeping this in mind and combining estimates regarding population and energy/resources, the limit will be reached as early as 2020. To protect the humanosphere for future humankind, we must supply more renewable energy and food that is environmentally friendly, and reuse our resources.

If energy is a way for a glocal, sustainable humanosphere to expand, then the development of new energy is of particular importance, such as solar and wind generated electricity, bioethanol and fuel cells, which impose a smaller burden on the environment. Although solar and wind generated electricity have unlimited energy source and generally only emit carbon dioxide in the initial state of installation, the energy source is unevenly distributed and unstable and costs to generate electricity are high. Bioethanol is a renewable energy source and if combusted does not increase the amount of carbon in the earth’s surface (it simply recycles), but even if, for example, we cultivate all our land to produce raw material for ethanol, the ethanol produced will still not be able to replace the amount of gasoline currently being consumed. If we consider the characteristics of new energy sources and the amount of oil consumed in the following ways, we can imagine a scenario where the energy currently taken from oil is taken from these alternatives: bioethanol for transportation; solar and wind to generate electricity for variables; and nuclear power and space solar power to generate electricity for base use.

Date: December 17, 2007 (Mon.)  16：00-18：00PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Presentation:
Koji Tanaka (Professor, Center for Integrated Area Studies)
Title:"Frontier Society and Agricultural Intensification: An Agricultural Development Pass in Asia" 

 With the advent of farming, humankind has witnessed population growth, the advancement of various technologies, the development of a sedentary society, the division of social classes, and the formation of cities and states. Farming has also affected the global environment, and changes to the latter have then affected farming, creating a cycle of cause and effect. The impact of this cycle on technology and institutions is not small. Understanding the agricultural development path of a specific region and comparing it with others can lead to an understanding how humankind has used the humanosphere over time and is important in creating new paradigms for the future. The concepts of a frontier society and intensive agriculture are considered key in the process of Asia’s agricultural development path.



【Record of Activity】

 Agriculture in East Asia (temperate) and Southeast Asia (tropical) have journeyed separate paths to become what they are today. In East Asia, where small-scale peasant farming is the dominant form of agriculture, the intensification of land and labor utilization has progressed quickly. In Southeast Asia, however, although there has recently been progress in the intensification of agriculture by small-scale peasant farming, like East Asia, it differs because it works in tandem with plantation agriculture, both of which farm the same produce.

 The presenter has in the past used the frontier hypothesis as a model to identity Southeast Asian society as a frontier society and examine its characteristics. Profit-seeking and speculative Southeast Asians have already pursued this frontier. The Southeast Asian Frontier is a multidirectional and lasting one that changes with the times, constantly pursuing the most advantageous forms of livelihood. The Southeast Asian developmental path model, which has always pursued the development of the frontier to exploit resources, may no longer be valid today, when resources and the environment are reaching their limits. With this in mind, what kind of paradigm for sustainable development is appropriate?

 The first to consider is whether East and Southeast Asia will be able to control their common wealth within the frame of “East Asian Community” that they have been promoting and moving towards. Of course, competition in the agricultural sphere is positive, but for agricultural activities that are heavily reliant on nature, there is a sense in which economic competition alone cannot control it. Is it possible to establish a paradigm of agriculture as the common wealth of the community, with inter-community understanding of the importance of running it properly? A common understanding would exist that each country is to maintain its optimum scale of agriculture, with this production base as the community’s common property, thus forming the framework for the East and Southeast Asian community paradigm for sustainable development.

 The concepts of “product complex” and “life complex,” as mentioned by Professor SUGIHARA Kaoru at the November seminar, can also be explained. In East Asian agriculture, the combination of crops is very diversified, so its combination level as a life complex is high. On the other hand, Southeast Asian agriculture, which can respond to different variables, has a diversified network of products. We can also understand Southeast Asian agriculture as a system of ecological equilibrium, that is, a “life complex,” that has existed over the centuries and made “product complex”product combination possible.

(Keisuke Hoshikawa)

Date:November 19, 2007(Mon.)  16：00-18：00PM
Venue: Kyoto University, Uji Campus, (HW525)

Presentation:
1. Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)
Title:"Capitalism and Environmental Sustainability: From comparative histories of Europe,USA, East Asia and tropics"

2. Kohei Wakimura (Professor, Osaka City University)
Title:"Disaster and society in South Asia of the 19th century: Famine, malaria, and cholera"

【Record of Activity】

Kaoru Sugihara
 How have regional humanospheres been secured amidst a history of population growth and economic development? How can we use the knowledge gained from these experiences for the future? These are the questions posed at this seminar, which, while exploring research on global and Asian economic history, made linkages with sustainable humanosphere studies and offered suggestions as to how to comprehend the global universality and diversity of humanospheres.　Discussions began by classifying the development path of the world economy into the European model (with its “tendency” towards capital/resource-intensive technological development paths, supported by coal and resources from the New Continent) and the East Asian Model (“Industrious Revolution”), then comparing their response to the finiteness of resources. How the logic of capitalism and a sustainable environment can be made compatible was then considered from these three perspectives; “product complex” as a culture that nurtures the regional nature of economic development path; “life complex” as a regional living body that must be sustained; and “material/energy cycle,” which regulates the previous two as a biosphere. The importance of considering tropical regions, which occupy a core location in the global environment in terms of heat energy and biodiversity, as a third area for studies, was also pointed out.

Kohei Wakimura
 Disasters such as famine and epidemics were common in nineteenth century South Asia. This age, however, was not defined by poverty or stagnation. Rather, as this seminar points out through an examination of food production and demographic statistics in British India from the late nineteenth century to early twentieth century, this was an age of a vibrant economy of primary product exports. However, big fluctuations in food production caused low-caste people to lose their jobs during droughts, making them fall victim to famine. Malaria and cholera epidemics were also rampant at the time, further increasing the mortality rate. Growth in primary product exports brought instability among the lower castes. This was due to the ecological strain of and migration caused by the cultivation of marginal lands, urbanization, and the deteriorating, disease-ridden environment brought about by climate change. This is thought to have given rise to the famines and epidemics, with India’s ecological conditions and the social structure based on those conditions fundamentally to blame.

(Fumikazu Ubukata)

Date:October 15, 2007 (Mon.)  16:00-18:00PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS 

Presentation:
・Takashi Watanabe (Professor, RISH)
・Yoshiharu Omura (Professor, RISH)
・Takahiro Sato (G-COE Research Fellow, CSEAS)

 

【Record of Activity】
 Biomass is defined as “renewable organic material of biologic origin, with the exception of fossil resources such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas.” In terms of energy, it can be categorized into starch, lignocellulose and oil. Watanabe Takashi explained his hypothesis that lignocellulose, with its high energy efficiency, is the key to fuel production. He introduced the idea of biorefineries based on biomass. Biorefineries will become the leading actor in the next generation scientific industries, and can lead to a new system producing not just energy fuel but also other polyphenic raw materials (chemical products). In contrast to 20th century-style fuel refineries, which allowed only industrial areas to develop, 21st century-style biorefineries will transform the industrial structure, as local economies become vibrant through regional specific investment.

 In plantations on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, bioethanol is being produced from molasses and cassava, and biodiesel is being produced from oil palm. This production is still taking place on a limited scale in comparison to other countries. The development of oil palm plantations involves many negative aspects such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and river pollution caused by industrial waste, so it is necessary to point out that many problems arise in the process of utilizing biomass. During his studies, Omura Yoshiharu has collected basic data on the items that should be taken into account as we build a sustainable society. Over the coming 50 years, the population of developing countries will double and the world population will reach 10 billion. Energy consumption will rise 2.5-fold, and preserving the status quo will no longer be an option. We need to envision how to establish a system that can enable well-balanced food and biomass production on a global-scale. The very foundation of the regional studies we carry out is to understand the meaning and value of the humanosphere. In particular, we must create a database that reflects energy and resource diversity as well as the sociological aspects of the region. For specific research contents, we will focus our data collection on biomass energy in the tropics and come up with a scenario for diffusing this energy whilst taking social systems into account in an appropriate way. Finally, as Omura Yoshiharu sets his sights 50 and 100 years into the future, he looks toward space, and expounds the idea of installing a photovoltaic power receiving station in the equatorial zone (because the equatorial zone is most appropriate for such a project). Sato Takahiro discussed the case of Tamil Nadu, India, where the state government’s introduction of an energy crop (Prosopis juliflora DC.) to ease poverty led to a fall in agricultural production. When introducing any energy crop, it is important to take in consideration the balance with overall agricultural production. Expounding on this idea, when assessing the energy production technology and institutions suitable for a region, it is important first to clarify the potential agricultural productivity of the region based on climate and other data. Sugihara Kaoru discussed the following ideas on biomass in the context of energy history: (1) the relative importance of biomass as an energy resource; (2) the fact that even today, biomass energy is the main form of energy in non-oil-producing developing countries; and (3) the structure of biomass consumption in India. He emphasized the importance of producing rural bio-energy in line with regional realities, by, for example, creating energy plantations and utilizing existing technology without having to destroy natural forests. In addition, Mizuno Kosuke introduced Jatropha curcas, which is beginning to become popular in Indonesia. If it is planted on community-owned land, the energy can be maintained on a family-by-family basis. If it is accumulated and sold, it is possible to establish an energy production system free from large corporate plantation forests.

(Rumi Kaida)