EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Japan Looks to Ancient Village Wisdom to Save Biodiversity
Four decades ago the oriental white stork became extinct in Japan, the victim of rapid industrialisation and modern farm practices and heavy pesticide use that destroyed its habitat.
As Japan hosts a UN conference on biodiversity this week, the high-tech nation is pushing the initiative to promote some of its ancient village wisdom as a way to heal battered environments worldwide. (photo by Flickr user pelican) Today, the graceful migratory bird soars again over restored wetlands around the small town of Toyooka in western Japan, now a showcase for an ambitious conservation effort called the Satoyama Initiative.
As Japan hosts a UN conference on biodiversity this week, the high-tech nation is pushing the initiative to promote some of its ancient village wisdom as a way to heal battered environments worldwide.
The initiative draws lessons from before Japan became studded with megacities and crisscrossed by bullet train lines, when most people lived in villages near rice paddies, bamboo groves and forests.
In the pre-industrial age, woodlands gave villagers plants, nuts, mushrooms and wildlife as well as natural medicines, textiles, fuel and timber for building, all usually harvested sustainably over the centuries.
These managed ecosystems - neither pristine wilderness nor cultivated agricultural landscapes - are known as "satoyama", a composite of the words for villages (sato) and mountains, woods and grasslands (yama).
Today ecologists, somewhat less poetically, call them "socio-ecological production landscapes".
At the 193-member UN meeting in Nagoya aimed at stemming the loss of plant and animal species, Japan is seeking to sign up groups and countries to exchange conservation lessons and ideas through its Satoyama Initiative.
In Japan, as elsewhere, these human-influenced natural environments have been on the decline as many forests have vanished, agriculture has become modernised, and small farm villages have been abandoned.
Bucking the trend has been Toyooka, a town of about 90,000 people in the west of Honshu island, which prides itself on undoing much of the past damage that had wiped out the oriental white stork.
The bird, which has a wingspan of two metres and is officially designated a national treasure in Japan, became extinct in the country in 1971.
Local farmer Tetsuro Inaba, 68, remembers how when he was a child the birds were still a common sight across the country, before they slowly vanished, with the heavy use of pesticides delivering the final blow.
"When I took over the farm from my father, the farmers here were addicted to pesticides. In hindsight, we used terrifying amounts," he said.
When wild stork numbers in Toyooka fell to just 12 in 1965, the city caught a pair and started an artificial breeding programme. But the conservation attempt failed. And the rest died out in the wild by 1971.
"They had lost their reproductive capacity because of the mercury that had accumulated inside their bodies from pesticides," says Inaba.
In 1992, Inaba became a community leader, determined to "live with the storks" - a species that survived in parts of Russia, China and Korea.
Inaba and other farmers studied how to grow rice without pesticides.
They also rebuilt waterways and flooded some rice fields for longer or all year-round to bring back fish and frogs that are food sources for the storks.
"When I learnt that frogs eat noxious insects, I was very moved. I said to myself 'we can do farming without pesticides'," said Inaba.
As the local habitats slowly recovered, Toyooka released storks into the wild five years ago. They had been bred in captivity from six young birds donated by Russia's far-eastern city of Khabarovsk two decades earlier.
Now, about 50 storks live in local wetlands and fields and 100 in a public park in Toyooka, a fact that the city proudly promotes to attract tourists.
The birds have become the emblem of the local brand of "Stork-Nurturing Rice", popular with ecologically-minded consumers who can order it online.
Inaba said growing organic rice is more challenging than it was when farmers doused fields in pesticides, but said he was determined never to go back.
"I want to pass on the landscape that I saw as a child," said Inaba. "I hope our efforts here will spread to the rest of the country."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
18 Comments so far
Show AllIt is always a thrill to look across a lake and see 50, 60, 70 White Storks roosting in a Cedar Cypress.
The title to this piece is misleading. Not using petro-chemicals isn't ancient wisdom, but let's not split hairs.
Long live the Oriental White Stork.
It is all very well to laud this effort, and to hype the Satoyama Initiative. Mr. Inaba's steadfast efforts deserve kudos. But it would be wrong to overlook the heavy damage that Japan and other industrialized countries have done and continue to do to the world's environment and peoples.
Domestically, Japan has a historical fondness for concrete. This is in large part due to pork barrel projects that benefit local power brokers, who in turn support the national political party.
http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=842&catid=23&subcatid=152
With regards to other countries, Japan is in the habit of signing bilateral trade agreements. These usually involve toxic dumping of Japanese industrial waste in the other country-- Japan doesn't want toxic waste within its own borders, and (like many industrialized countries, including the US) has found ways to export it.
Read and be aware:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-14-02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IB21Ae01.html
"Domestically, Japan has a historical fondness for concrete"
I read somehwere that in Japan many of the wooden forms used to pour concrete foundations are made of Indonesian mahogany. The country has a long way to go, but fostering biodiversity is a good start.
This little article is a drop of hope in the deluge of hopelessness outside our windows. If only humanity would take its focus from all the arguments, and all the short-sightedness... if we could only see that it IS both selfish, AND selfless to care for our world. It serves us either way to have a future, to not have to move into a sterile bubble to survive.
Isn't what follows OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE?
"Inaba and other farmers studied how to grow rice without pesticides."
"we can do farming without pesticides',"
"growing organic rice is more challenging than it was when farmers doused fields in pesticides, but ..."
"the city proudly promotes ... tourists"
"The birds have become the emblem of the local brand of "Stork-Nurturing Rice", popular with ecologically-minded consumers who can order it online."
What is harder? Growing our produce organically with less immediate profit, or by destroying our planet for cheap, non-sustainable methods of production? How cheap, and for how long will we profit, once the supply chain is cut off at the source?
It's easy people, we have to stop crapping in our own living-rooms and kitchens. Haven't we learned this yet?
–SS
The reason those "Village economies" were so sustainable for so long is because the people took what was needed to support local needs, be it food or shelter.
With Capitalism, growing food or logging trees is no longer about the need to eat or have shelter. It is about making a PROFIT and maximizing those profits. It is not about growing food and ensuring one can grow food for the next ten generations. It is about extracting as much profits from the little space in as limited time as possible .
The illusion we live under is that by converting natural resources into CAPITAL in the form of MONEY that Capital can then substitute as the "Provider of food" in the future.
At the larger level we can see how this plays out the world over. Countries have overexploited their arable land. They have destroyed their own enviroments in order to industrialize so as to create "Revenue" via trade.
They now use the "Money" generated by these actions to buy up farmlands in other countries.
While this process is not limited TO Capitalism, Capitalism is the system that takes this to the extreme just by the nature of how it structured.
Gw, I'm with you. On structure: Capitalism is shaped like a funnel. Real capital, natural resources, are poured in and monetary wealth is funneled into the hands of few. Meanwhile, the Earth suffers degradation, so life on Earth suffers.
People used to take what they needed from Nature and were thankful. Under capitalism, people take all they can get and, never satisfied, always want more. Having it all is their dream.
Darwin often used the term profitable when describing the success of species. Long necks are profitable for Giraffes. Tough scaly hides are profitable for Crocodiles.
Capitalism is not profitable for life on Earth. The key to sustainable living on Earth is to live off the interest and never touch the capital.
Then what is to be done with Capitalism? Your analogy that Earth's resources are our only real capital is incomplete. The raw resources are not worth much to us until humans process/develop/manufacture/apply artisanship to them.
Once this occurs, what do we do to ensure compensation for all the imagination and labor that went into turning those raw materials into products and services (this includes needed goods such as food as well)? We must have a market. How do we run that market? What goods and services do we allow to be freely sold and which do we strictly regulate/outlaw, which do we tax, which do we exempt? Which goods are part of the collective commons, and which goods are solely unique products of an individual mind? These questions don't just go away when we 'get rid of' Capitalism.
I myself thought this article was showing how humans can make real, sustainable, valid profits by working responsibly and harmoniously with the Earth instead of out-of-sync with it. I didn't see it as a indictment of Capitalism, so much as an indictment of short-sighted approaches to profit, and the deadly dangerous effect of the industrialization/contamination of our agricultural and natural habitats. Of course, I must have missed something.
–SS
It isn't an analogy, the Earth and the life on and in it is the resource, the capital.
"humans process/develop/manufacture/apply artisanship"
There in lays the problem. You stated it yourself later.
"I didn't see it as a indictment of Capitalism, so much as an indictment of short-sighted approaches to profit, and the deadly dangerous effect of the industrialization/contamination of our agricultural and natural habitats."
And the short sightedness and contamination are a direct result of capitalism.
You are definitely missing something.
Well, my questions were intended to be the opportunity for you to clear things up.
You say,
"It isn't an analogy, the Earth and the life on and in it is the resource, the capital."
And I said we can't just live off raw-resources... Or maybe we can?
Are you advocating that we all shed our clothes, and live in the wilderness (I'm being facetious here for a reason), eating from the trees and off the ground, and drinking from the streams and lakes? As far as I see it, even if we do this, and we don't account for and manage the population vs. resource capacity, as well as a huge number of other factors, we can *still* get out of sync with nature and create a huge problem.
No doubt about it, a system has to be put in place once you drown Capitalism in the tub. And sorry to tell you, Socialism isn't an immediate panacea to our ecological dilemmas... Marx made a number of important analyses on socio/economic problems, but had little to say on ways for humans to ensure harmonious, sustainable coexistence between humanity and nature.
I'm not trying to start an argument with you, despite that being what many others intentions seem to be here. I'm sincerely interested in hearing your answers, but I'm not going to simply be satisfied with the standard rhetoric for what I consider real problems, requiring real, practical, and non-rhetorical solutions.
–SS
Fair enough. Food, clothing, shelter, and energy are the basics. Modern culture is terribly inefficient in all four categories.
Food needs to be grown organically closer to the kitchens. Nature provides much, but nowhere near enough for a monster population like six billion plus. Gardening is natural, many animals do it. If the switch was made, then millions of acres could be turned back to habitat. Jethro Tull agriculture is a wasteful blight that produces an inferior product.
Clothing is simple, cotton. Enough clothing is thrown away in the u.s. to cover the planet each year. Fashion is a meaningless wasteful perversion of capitalism. Function not fashion. Why care if there is a spot or stain or little hole? Clothes should be passed down and worn until worn out, then used as rags or whatever.
Modern culture is way beyond necessity when it comes to shelter. I've lived in tents, trucks, cabins in the woods, and small to moderate houses. frankly, I preferred the former three.
Everyone could reduce consumption of energy, including me. Transportation is the biggest waste in this oil driven culture. That is why the oiligarchs are running things. Everyone thinks they need it. So few live where they work. I drive less all the time and enjoy life more. A little energy is needed for cooking and a little more to survive winter's chill. There is more than enough sunlight to go around.
Socialism isn't the final solution, but a step in the right direction. It is based on caring for others and equality. Sure, it can be corrupted, but the Sioux Nation was like socialism on steroids. Status was attained by giving, not accumulating. It is more mind set than system.
I'm tired and running out of gas,
Peace and goodwill, Buck
Enjoyed your response.
"Food needs to be grown organically closer to the kitchens."
Great point. Think globally, buy locally. 100% with you.
"Nature provides much, but nowhere near enough for a monster population like six billion plus."
We absolutely need sensible approaches to a more sanely populated planet. Couldn't agree more here. Importantly, I believe the best and perhaps only means to address this concern is education-based, with absolutely no affiliation to coercive or surreptitious solutions.
"Gardening is natural, many animals do it. If the switch was made, then millions of acres could be turned back to habitat. Jethro Tull agriculture is a wasteful blight that produces an inferior product."
Well, I'm not sure he had any inkling of the mad technology and science that would come to dominate the agriculture of our era (MONSANTO anyone?), but yes, we are far too reliant on industrial mass-produced farming that seeks to isolate life-forms, place them on a sterile rack and transform them from a once autonomous organism into simply another impersonal product. We are providing the subsistence of our lives with a system that drains life and doesn't sustain it.
"Clothing is simple, cotton. Enough clothing is thrown away in the u.s. to cover the planet each year. Fashion is a meaningless wasteful perversion of capitalism."
As an artist and a lover of all art, I think this might be a place we're I hope we can just agree to disagree. I'm no fashion buff (ask anyone) but I understand the appreciation of it. But seriously, I can't imagine what you are saying is that all decoration and art is undesirable? How about pageantry? Theater? Bright colors?
"Modern culture is way beyond necessity when it comes to shelter. I've lived in tents, trucks, cabins in the woods, and small to moderate houses."
We're probably not going to convince the majority to live as close to the elements as you prefer. But what about the greening of cities, urban collectivist gardening, rooftop agriculture and forestry, self-sufficient homes (water, waste, electricity all recycled) ?
How about building cities up and down, instead of outward? Limiting populous/populated areas to separated corridors, preserving huge swaths of connected unspoilt wilderness?
"Everyone could reduce consumption of energy, including me. Transportation is the biggest waste in this oil driven culture."
Mass transit. Big priority for me. Clean(er), fast, efficient, safe. Internal Combustion Engine? Satan's 2nd best invention after gun-powder. Any car getting less than 50mph belongs only in a museum in my opinion.
"That is why the oiligarchs are running things. Everyone thinks they need it."
Most people don't realize that viable alternatives, technologies, and methods exist, in some cases have existed since time immemorial, but in some cases only now do we have the knowledge to do some precarious things quite safely.
And this is my point. You and I probably agree at heart very much. But yes, there are many things in my life that not only make me comfortable, or that I'm familiar with, but that actually make my life, and this world better. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water and this makes me smart, not another dupe adding to the problem.
Whether we like it or not, we're not going to do away with cities, highways, factories or the majority of the accoutrements of the modern world.
The solution won't be 'no cars', but instead, 'no gasoline'.
Not 'no plastic packaging', but 'no non-biodegradable packaging'. Not 'live in tents', but 'live in non-polluting, non-resource abusing communities'. Not 'reject technology', but instead 'demand technology that reflects our better nature, that solves a problem, while not inadvertently creating others'. Not 'No Rich', but 'No Poor'.
Ergonomics, Organics, Recycleables, Sustainable Agriculture, Responsible Waste, Incentives for Reduced Consumption. We have the technology and know-how to live according to our modern standards AND our ethical, ecologically responsible standards.
"Socialism isn't the final solution, but a step in the right direction."
A Socialist framework, yes, on that we can agree.
"It is more mind set than system."
Nail on the head. Whack!
"I'm tired and running out of gas,
Peace and goodwill"
And to you. Sleep well (or hope you did).
–SS
SS, (think nixon, head tilted down, eyes peering up, sweaty brow) "I am not a techno-phobe." Jet ski's, snow mobiles, even helicopters are great tools and emergency vehicles, but are used as toys for recreation, play. Phones were supposed to aid communication, connect people, but instead it isolated the individuals and disconnected them from the reality before their eyes. "Wait a second, I have to take this call." Computers the same, great tools, much abused.
On fashion; everyone doesn't have to dye their clothes with walnut husks, but it is fun, interesting, and a pleasing color. I was referring to trends and the impractical, Thoreau's americans following the head monkey in Paris, Zappa's "Brown shoes don't make it," changing a wardrobe to fit this year's style seeking social status and acceptance. High heeled shoes quickly come to mind, tee shirts and caps with advertising, shirt ties, nylon, rayon, jackets that don't keep you warm, and hats that don't offer protection from the sun. Art designs and personalized decoration? Love it, but vanity is a dangerous accessory. Clothing is an offshoot of shelter. Practicality is the bottom line.
Transportation; (energy per pound) bicycles are more efficient than walking disregarding manufacture. Barges beat trains, fossil fueled flight a frightening folly.
Reducing consumption is the single most important step in living sustainably. People don't need record collections, eight track collections, cassette collections, dvd collections, ad finum. Does the world really need Silly String and electric toothbrushes?
Modern packaging practices are antagonists to pragmatism.
Curbs and dumpsters are re-user's bargain bins, modern manufacture foraging, a pauper's forge.
Talk later, I, too, am thoroughly weary of the squabbling.
Buck
How about we do it democratically administered rationally planned fashion to start with?
RR
I just hope this is not "Too little, too late." So much of the rest of the world is polluted beyond repair, it seems.
They're probably just ordinary storks, with some black paint.
And why are they chained to that rock?
Brian. That is an ID band on the storks leg.
Modern humans are rapers and pillagers. They don't even know what wisdom means and most aren't too sure what nature is either.
The Agrarian and Industrial revolutions have turned us into greedy monsters who crap in our own nest.
When we become extinct, nature will not shed a tear. Not one! And neither will any other life form.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Perhaps Japan can find it in that bay where every year hundreds of dolphins are hearded and then massacred in a most horrible way??? Effing hypocrites.