Transcript Hypothetical relationship between risk source and factors

Hypothetical relationship between
risk source and factors
Hiroyuki Matsuda
(Yokohama National University)
Pew Marine Conservation Fellow 2007
Science Committee of DIVERSITAS
Japan MAB Coordinating Committee
(Chair)
WWF Japan Conservation Committee
Society for Conservation of Fisheries Resources and
Marine Environment
CoFRaME
1
OBJECTIVES
• Ecological risks & deterioration of ecosystem services are
•
•
•
•
caused by unrestrained human activities (MEA 2005), it relates to RIHN’s principles of human-environmental interactions.
how ecological risks impact the sustainable linkage between
agricultural/marine foods and public health, from socio/ecological perspectives, in the watershed area of Southeast Asia.
to explore the current state of heavy metal concentration in
the aquatic resources of the lake, its impacts on public
health… to precisely track the route of pollution;
to analyze long-standing presence of chemical materials in
agricultural field, its impacts on food supply and ecological
changes in material cycles (groundwater and water quality);
to combine social sciences with physical natural sciences
including medical science to devise ecological risk
management for sustainable food and health linkage.
2
My experience following J. Nakanishi
-- Studies to applications -taxonomist
• Extinction risk assessment method
– Redlist of Japanese Vascular Plants (1997, 2007)
• Risk/benefit analysis in Env. Imp. Assess.
economist
– Aichi EXPO 2005 (2003) & Nakaikemi LNG (2002)
• Adaptive management of deer in Hokkaido (1997)
– Revision of Japan Wildlife Law (1999)
mammalogist
• Fisheries co-management in Shiretoko WH (2009)
– Changing recognition of global fisheries status
• Field verification of zinc risk (2008)
Social sci.
– ? Is zinc concentration standard appropriate ?
• Bird strike risk by wind farms (??)
– Establishment of Soya & Awara WFs
benthos, toxicologist
3
ornithologist
My Study Fields (not) invited by local organizations
Amur-Okhotsk Consortium
Sekisei Lagoon
CoTs starfish
Soya (Windfarm)
Hokkaido (Sealion)
Nakaikemi
(EIA in wetland)
Awara
(windfarm)
Amami
Nemuro (equinococcus)
Hokkaido (deer)
Oshima
(Brown bear)
Hasama Riv (Zinc)
Rights of Nature
Kesen-numa
(Pacific saury)
Mongoose
Tanzawa (deer)
Lake Biwa
(Cormorant,
Corbiculid clam)
Yakushima (deer,
World Heritage, MAB)
Shiretoko (deer,
World Heritage)
Kamakura (raccoon)
Shikoku
Black bear
Chub mackerel
Aichi (EIA for EXPO2005)
JFA advisor for CITES issues
1st Japanese Pew MC Fellow
Japan MAB Coordinating Comm.
Nissui external advisor
Past IWC SC Japan Deligate
4
WWF Japan advisor
Merits of YNU-RIHN collaboration
at Lake Laguna
• Seek feasible solution based on global standard
•
•
•
& consensus building of local community
Modify the global standard if necessary
Use a sound method to each case, not apply our
method to any case (Resident-base scientist)
Experience of advice to policy-makers in Japan
• Systematic collaboration between natural and
•
social scientists
Experience of Asian field studies!!
– Best chance of collaborating Phillipine!!!
5
Flow diagram for ecological risk management
Consensu
s building
public
scientists
0. Concerns, issues
Scientific
procedure
1. Screening
2.Delimit management scope, invite stakeholders
3.Organize local council and scientific committee
Reset goals when infeasible
Reset goals
when not agreed
8. Check necessity and
purpose of management
4.Characterize “undesired events”
5. Enumerate measures of effects
6. Analyze stress factors by modelling
7. Risk assessment for no-action case
9. Set preliminary numerical goal
10. Choose monitoring measures
11. Select method of control
13. Decide measures & goals
Revision required
Rossberg et al. 2005 LEE
12. Check feasibility of goals
14. Initiate management
15. Continue management and
monitoring
16. Review numerical
goals and purposes
Finish program
6
Difference from G-COE
Eco-risk Asia GCOE
• Collaborate with NIES
Food/Agro Risk
• Collaborate with RIHN
– Core Natural Scientists
– Social Scientists
• Education-oriented
• Research-oriented
•
•
program
Most of budget is
used in education &
PDs including abroad
project
Most of budget is
used in specific
research including
abroad
7
Structure of this project
• Core Member Team?
• The Environmental Risk Analysis Team.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Hiroyuki Matsuda (environmental ecology)
Shigeki Masunaga (environmental chemistry)
Satoshi Nakai (human health science)
Borja A.C. Santos (Limnology)
Postdoc?
Others?
• Ecosystem Degradation Evaluation Team
• Health Risk Evaluation Team
• Socio-Economic Evaluation Team
We may need task-specific collaboration among teams
8
Missions of Team 1
• To investigate the exact sources of particular pollutions,
factors responsible for the pollutions, the routes of
pollution and the way in the food chain,
• To evaluate poisonous level of shellfish and duck that
feed on shellfish from fish farming areas due to heavy
metal concentration,
• to investigate the actual conditions of the domestic
animal disease, route of pollution, and probable impact
on human health and the sequence of restoration,
• In the process of identification of the pollutants, inductively coupled
plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS), gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) and liquid chromatography-mass
spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at YNU and isotope ratio mass
spectrometer (IR - MS) at RIHN will be used.
9
What are risks that we investigate?
• “Food risks”, which result from both inadequate
•
•
•
supply of food as well as poor and contaminated
quality of food, are contributing significantly to
the public health risks.
“Agricultural risks” are damages on agriculture
product and sustainability that result from soil
degradation/erosion, salt damage, irregular
water cycling, flooding/drought caused by
agriculture/technology innovation
“Economical risks” and “social conflict risk” result
from breaking safety standard of agricultural/
fisheries products (these products may not be
sold/exported).
Disaster risk caused by insufficient/inappropriate
river management
10
Problems
• There are probably too many problems that do
•
•
•
not satisfy environmental/safety global standard.
However, fewer problems really threat on human
health and ecosystem services.
Need to establish cost/effective measures to
regulate these risks in developing countries.
To investigate a new type of (agricultural) risk
that stops plantation development due to a big
ecological/health impact on reveries.
– Pollution problem occurred in developed countries
– Business risk due to too rigorous global standard.
• Global environm. standard may amplify poverty.
• To cope with coexistence with risks
• Is the current team structure really appropriate?11
Environmental Risk Analysis (drinking water quality)
Source
environment
agriculture
rivers
urbanization
lakes
mines
exposure
End-point
fisheries products
Human health
agriculture products
ecosystem
atmosphere
stock farm products
factories
import
soil
economy
drinking water
ground water
Social conflict
• Source is either agricultural field or resident area (factory?)
• Even if groundwater height decreases, does it really concern
human health?
• If quality of tap water is worse, is health risk concerned?
•12 If water supply decreases, is drinking water not enough?
12
Environmental Risk Analysis (mercury)
Source
environment
agriculture
rivers
urbanization
lakes
mines
exposure
End-point
fisheries products
Human health
agriculture products
ecosystem
atmosphere
stock farm products
factories
import
soil
economy
drinking water
ground water
Social conflict
• Source may be either IT or pulp industry or background.
• Is fish really contaminated?, above health standard?
• If concentration in fish >> standard, does it threat
health risk (pollution problem)
• 13Conflict between consumers and polluters may appear
13
at least if the contamination level is > standard.
Environmental Risk Analysis (eutrophication)
Source
environment
agriculture
rivers
urbanization
lakes
mines
exposure
End-point
Green algae
Human health
agriculture products
ecosystem
atmosphere
stock farm products
factories
import
soil
economy
drinking water
ground water
Social conflict
1. Major sources are sewage and agro-chemicals
2. Green algae threat fishes and impacts on fisheries and
human health (eating contaminated fish)
3. Economic conflict between fishers and farmers/villages
14
14
if environmental regulation is too rigorous.
Environmental Risk Analysis (eutrophication)
Possible solutions
• Propose a reasonable emission regulation
(neither too strict nor too weak)
• Seek rivers, lakes and bio-control
techniques to avoid eutrophication
15
Environmental Risk Analysis (mercury)
Possible solutions
• Risk communication (no further
regulation) – the meaning of contamination level above safety standard.
• If the contamination level really threats
human health risk, what level should be
desired?
• Anyway, how to reduce the contamination
level?
16
Environmental Risk Analysis (water quality)
Possible solutions
• Water management is necessary, and
regulate water consumption by farmers
and residents
• Predict what will happen without water
management, and use this prediction for
risk communication
17