155

Ramsar Wetlands-Rice Paddies and the Local Citizens ofOsaki-Tajiri Area as a Social-Ecological System in the Context
of ESD and Wetland CEPA
Paul OFEI-MANU and Satoshi SHIMANO*
Environmental Education Center, Miyagi University of Education
149 Aramaki Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan*e-mail: satoshis@staff.miyakyo-u.ac.jp

Abstract
The midway point has arrived of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD,
2005-2014) launched to advance the goals of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Also, the Wetland Convention’s Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) Program has begun its third
6-year program, ending in 2015. The results of these two programs, a mix of successes and obstacles, haverelevance for ecological sustainability knowledge acquisition and the subsequent sustainable use or ‘wise use’of natural resources within and across scales.
This paper attempts to reflect on the wetland CEPA (WCEPA) program of Osaki-Tajiri, near the
Kabukuri, Izu and Kejo wetlands, from the perspective of ESD. It also tries to identify ESD-related WCEPA
learning processes, interrelations and interactions of the WCEPA program with the biophysical/ecologicalcomponents of the wetland-paddy rice ecosystem and the outcomes, including co-benefits. Examples ofactivities or social-ecological interactions that portray an adaptive co-management and co-benefit approach
toward sustainability are identified. Using ESD principles, WCEPA needs to improve its future activities tobring about an overall increase in resilience of the Osaki-Tajiri social-ecological system and, simultaneously,
achieve its sustainability targets/goals.
Key words: ESD, Greater Sendai RCE, Ramsar wetland, rice paddy, social-ecological system,
Wetland-CEPA

1. Introduction
Environmental deterioration, particularly that due toglobal climate change, is expected to exacerbate the loss
and degradation of many wetlands and lead to the loss of
biological species in many regions. Increases in alien
invasive species and excessive nutrient loading are additional problems expected to pose a growing threat tothese wetlands (MA, 2005; EEA, 2005). Because environmental protection is critical for the continued use of
wetlands, which are an essential natural resource forhuman well-being, calls are increasing for development
and implementation of strategies and plans that will allow human societies to deal with changing wetland
ecosystems more effectively. The requisite adaptation
strategies must focus not only on coping with or reducing
the biophysical drivers of change through political reforms and codes of organizational practice but also on
personal behavioral changes, for which capacities tothink critically, analyze problems and reflect on current
understanding must first be fostered (Fazey et al., 2009).
Global Environmental Research
14/2010: 155-166
printed in Japan

These capacities are acquired through formal, non-formaland (to some extent) informal learning. Strengthening
the implementation of Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) – related and the Wetland Convention’s Communication, Education and Public Awareness(CEPA) programs could enhance the resilience of thelocal people. When the acquired knowledge and skills are,in turn, applied to sustainable use of the wetlands
resources by the entire ‘community of practice’ (Reed etal., 2010), the resilience of the ecosystem – as well as its
link with humans that depend on it – could be maintainedor even increased. Through lifelong learning (individual,social, experiential, cognitive, etc.) for sustainability,
local people gain an opportunity to explore how complex
socio-economic systems can achieve both continuity inthe short to medium term and ecological integrity in thelong term.

©2010 AIRIES

156

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANO

2. Wetland CEPA and ESD
2.1 Wetlands
Wetland ecosystems are estimated to cover more than
9% (1,280 million hectares) of the Earth’s land surface. It
is generally estimated that more than 50% of the world’s
original wetlands have been destroyed or degraded globally in a relatively short period of time, for example during the twentieth century in parts of North America,
Europe, Australia and New Zealand (TEEB, 2008; MA
2005). Water determines wetland formation, processes
and characteristics and wetlands have diverse physicalcharacteristics and geographical distributions. They are
critical resources important for delivering a wide range of
ecosystem goods and services including regulating,provisioning, livelihood services and cultural services
that contribute to general human well-being (MA, 2005;
Fiksel, 2006; López-Hoffman et al., 2010). Wetlands,
such as mangroves and floodplains, can play a pivotal
role in the physical buffering of climate change impacts.
They can also contribute to the economic well-being of
the local citizens. When both the marketed and nonmarketed economic benefits of wetlands are included, thetotal economic value of unconverted wetlands is often
greater than that of converted wetlands (Washitani, 2007;
MA, 2005; Costanza et al., 1997). Although the rate ofwetland loss seems to have slowed down, particularly insome industrialized countries (Hotes, 2007), and despite
an increasing global awareness of their importance,
wetlands continue to face serious threats of loss anddegradation owing to human activities. In fact, thedegradation and loss of wetlands and the associated species is more rapid than that of other ecosystems (MA,2005; GACGC, 2001).
2.2 Wetland Communication, Education and Public
Awareness (WCEPA) program
Through its ‘wise use’ concept and its accompanying
wetland communication, education and public awareness(WCEPA) program, the Convention on Wetlands (alsocalled the Ramsar Convention, after the Iranian citywhere it was signed in 1971) may halt, at least in part
global wetland degradation. The mission of the Convention on Wetlands is “the conservation and wise use of
all wetlands through local, regional and national actions
and international cooperation, as a contribution towards
achieving sustainable development throughout theworld” (Ramsar Secretariat, 2007). As of December 2010,
160 nations have joined the convention as Contracting
Parties and more than 1,911 wetlands around the world,covering nearly 187 million hectares, have been designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010). The
first WCEPA program (Resolution VII.9) gave a call forthe development and implementation of action plans for
WCEPA. The second WCEPA program (Resolution VIII.
31) which was adopted by the 8th Conference of theContracting Parties (COP8) in Valencia, Spain, in 2002
was intended to operate for the period 2003-2008. The

latest WCEPA program (Resolution X.8), adopted at
COP10 in 2008, in Changwon, Korea reiterates the callfor Parties to formulate their own WCEPA Action Plans
for priority activities that address international, regional,
national, and local needs (Ramsar Secretariat, 2008).
Although only five countries, namely Australia, Germany,
Hungary, Spain and China have submitted their National
WCEPA Action Plans to the Ramsar Secretariat as of2009, Japan and other countries are currently working
towards that goal (Ramsar Secretariat, 2010).
The wise use concept of wetlands is about maintaining their ecological character through the implementationof ecosystem approaches within the context of sustainable development (Ramsar Secretariat, 2005). It depends
on the recognition of the ecological functions of wetlands,
which can be of value in multiple economic and noneconomic ways to human society (MA, 2005). It is
important to note that the Millennium Assessment’s(MA) conceptual framework for ecosystems and humanwell-being provides a structure that supports the promotion and delivery of the Ramsar Convention’s “wise use”
concept, thus enabling the guidance provided by theConvention to be expressed within the context of humanwell-being and poverty alleviation. There is also an
emerging CEPA Work Program for the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), and discussions are underway on a work program on education, awareness andparticipation for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (MA, 2005).
Both programs, related to biodiversity conservation andclimate change mitigation, respectively, will serve theoverall protection of and enhancement of the integrity ofwetlands.
In some regions, particularly at the newly adopted
Ramsar sites, official adoption of WCEPA into the wetland ecosystem conservation and restoration programs in
the locality has been preceded by ESD-based program
activities. In other instances, WCEPA activities havebeen present but low-key such that they are not widely
known relative to ESD-based programs in the area, as
occurs in RCE Greater Sendai.
2.3 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
ESD, comprising formal, non-formal and informal
sectors of education is about developing the knowledge,
skills, understanding and values to participate in decisions about changes in lifestyles and behaviors that will
improve the quality of life now and sustain the planet in
the future (Goldstein, in Ofei-Manu, 2007). ESD provides the opportunity to address sustainability challenges
by integrating the principles, values and practices ofsustainable development (SD) directly into education.
ESD is a lifelong learning process, holistic and interdisciplinary (McKeown, 2002) in nature (IGES, 2005). ESD
is values-driven and built on principles of critical thinking and problem solving. It is a multi-method concept
involving different pedagogies and participatory decision
making; it has applicability in day-to-day personal andprofessional life (IGES, 2005) and is locally relevant.

Ecological System in the Context of ESD and Wetland CEPA

ESD’s implementation is informed by diverse philosophical currents and orientations that include philosophiesof education and environmentalism (Babikwa, 2004), theunderstanding and implications of which are crucial to
the sustainability concept.
Originally, ESD was described in Chapter 36 ofAgenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992)
with the main thrusts of (1) improving basic education,(2) reorienting existing education programs, (3) developing public awareness and understanding about sustainability and (4) training (UNESCO, 2003). A proposal
for a Decade of ESD – spearheaded by the Japanese
government and NGOs – was included in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, which was agreed at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.
This led to the initiation of the UN Decade of ESD(2005-2014) and the emergence of ESD as a global
movement (Nomura & Abe, 2009). The ultimate goal of
the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) is to integrate the principles, practices
and values inherent in sustainable development into all
facets of learning to encourage changes in behavior, andorganizational and institutional practices that allow for amore sustainable and just society for all (UNESCO,
2007). This goal is being pursued by an array of stakeholders at various levels: UN organizations and programs,
national governments, international and national NGOs
and individual activists (de Haan et al., 2010). In searchof a strategy that would facilitate translation of the ESD
agenda at the local level, the United Nations University(UNU) has championed the establishment of Regional
Centres of Expertise (RCE) and has supported RCEs
around the globe. The Greater Sendai RCE is one of thepioneers, established in June 2005. The RCEs werecharged with several responsibilities, i.e., to serve as aframework for harnessing, exchange and facilitation ofvertical, horizontal and lateral integration of knowledge
and information through close cooperation among theconstituent regional and local actors in a region or local
area (Fadeeva et al., 2005; Mochizuki et al., 2005).
2.4 Comparisons of WCEPA and ESD-based
programs
Table 1, which compares characteristics of the
WCEPA and ESD-related programs, shows that they
have some educational principles in common. It also
points out opportunities for strengthening WCEPA using
ESD principles and thus advancing the sustainability
concept.
The WCEPA program and ESD can be implemented
in formal, non-formal and informal education settings.
They both deal with the concept of sustainable resourceuse, with WCEPA focusing on “wise use” of wetlands
and ESD dealing more broadly with learning that takes
into account the ecological, social, cultural and economic
dimensions of sustainable development. There are alsosimilarities in their core thrusts and objectives. Differences, however, exist. WCEPA is meant to support the157

implementation of the Wetland Convention (Ramsar
Secretariat, 2008). It consists of “the tools for placing
people’s social, political, economic and cultural realities
within the context of the goods and services provided bywetland ecosystems” (Ramsar Secretariat, 2007). Thissuggests its relatively ‘narrow’ or specialized nature.
ESD, in contrast, is based on values, principles andpractices of sustainability (de Haan et al, 2010;
McKeown, 2002). It is broader in scope, creating space toaddress complex issues that are linked to the sociocultural, economic and environmental aspects of wellbeing. In principle it is applicable to all ecosystems. In
addition, by virtue of its scope, in addition to sustainable
resource use, ESD also addresses cross-cutting issues
such as gender, human rights, ethics and environmental
security. With respect to scale, ESD – more than WCEPA– is linked from the local to the regional to global levels
through the RCEs. RCEs can facilitate the duplicationand dissemination of good ESD practices. For example,
the Greater Sendai RCE started an annual meeting of
national and regional (Asian) RCE youth leaders, as aplatform for exchange and collaboration for ESD
activities among the youth in Japanese and other Asian
RCEs. The more “specialized” WCEPA, which has also
been adopted by a couple of UN bodies or conventions(MA, 2005) in contrast, might have simpler target
objectives. It avoids the complexities the broader ESD
agenda might face during its implementation and requires
less logistics and fewer personnel. The table might beuseful in offering guidance in situations where consideration is being given to adopting the WCEPA program,an ESD-based practice or both, particularly for a Ramsarsite and in circumstances where funding and resource
personnel are limited.

3. The Case of Osaki-Tajiri, Miyagi Prefecture
3.1 Kabukuri, Izu and Kejo Wetlands
Japan has lost 61% of its wetlands over the past 100
years; Miyagi Prefecture lost 92%, most of which wereconverted to rice paddies (Kurechi, 2007). The losses ofnatural wetlands and qualitative changes in rice paddy
environments have had major negative impacts on wetland-dependent species, as dry paddies are found not tobe very useful to wetland wildlife. Contrary to the earlier
practice of retaining water in paddies during winter, functioning as semi-natural yet important habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife, paddies in modern times havebeen robbed of their wetland functions when fields areleft to dry out completely during winter. This has helped
drive many wetland species including the Japanese
Crested Ibis and the White Stork towards extinction.
The Ramsar site “Kabukuri-numa and the Surrounding Rice Paddies” in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, is the
1,545th wetland to be added, in November 2005, to theRamsar Convention’s “List of Wetlands of International
Importance” dedicated to the conservation and wise useof wetlands. Together with Izu-numa and Kejo-numa,
both of which were added to the List in 2008 and are

158

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANO

Table 1 Comparison of the educational characteristics of the Wetland CEPA program and the ESD concept.
CEPA

ESD

Basic description

Educational outreach program to support theimplementation of the Wetland Convention(Ramsar Secretariat, 2008)

Education (learning process) for the advancement of thesustainable development concept based on values,
principles and practices of sustainability (de Haan et al.,2010; other references)

OriginConvention on Wetlands in Ramsar Iran in
1971

Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 (1992 Rio Earth Summit) wherearguments were consolidated on the important role ofeducation in achieving sustainable development

Date of inception

1999-2002 CEPA I (Resolution (VII.9)
2003-2008 CEPA II (Resolution VIII.31)
2009-2015 CEPA III ( Resolution X.8)

Earlier than 2005 but became operational as a global
education initiative with the launch of DESD (2005-2014)

Core thrusts

Communication, education, public awareness Quality basic education, re-orienting the educational
curriculum, awareness creation and training in all sectors(Chapter 36 of Agenda 21)

Core objective

Capacity building, using CEPA for promotion “To develop the knowledge, skills, perspectives and valuesof valuing and wise use of wetlands
that will empower learners of all ages to assume
responsibility for creating and enjoying a sustainable
future” (Richmond, 2010, p.19)

Adoption by otherconventions or UN bodies

Adopted by CBD; adoption by UNFCCC in
progress; ‘wise use’ concept supported andpromoted by MA conceptual framework

The designated lead agency of DESD is UNESCO. The UN
Inter-Agency Committee on DESD has been established.
The UNU’s RCE initiative facilitates ESD implementation
at the local/regional level.

Implementation andadoption of national action
plan in Japan

Not yet adopted and implemented; there isaction at the local level, though

Adopted and implemented

Framework/medium forcapacity building

Wetland education centers for learning andtraining about wetlands and wetland-related
CEPA, e.g., Kabukuri Wetland Club

Elementary and secondary schools, higher education
institutions, NGOs, community learning centers, etc.

Scope (types) of education

Formal, non-formal and informal

Formal, non-formal and informal education

Sectoral operation in
Osaki-Tajiri area

Currently more ‘established’ in the
non-formal sector

More popular in the formal sector and to some degree, thenon-formal sector

Scope of coverage

Mainly limited to/‘specialized’ in dealing
with wetlands at the moment

Applicable to all ecosystems; more generalized

Scope of scale

Heavily local currently and relatively lessfocused, though its activities are to addressneeds from local to global levels

More consistently linked from the local to regional to global
level (e.g., through the RCEs and the DESD Secretariat)

Time of operation in
Kabukuri, Kejo and Izu
Ramsar sites

2005 to present, preceded by a form ofenvironmental education; although aninternational CEPA workshop was held in2000 (KWC, 2009)2005 to present; preceded by a form of environmental
education

Synergistic potential

Its degree of specialization will aid
Being broader in scope, might address more issues related
stakeholders of nearby ecosystems who might to a sustainable society; could allow WCEPA to draw on its
want to implement a similar program but are principles and practices
already using the more generalized ESD

Effectiveness of program’s
governance of the local
systemRelatively less establishedMore established with the backing of internationalorganizations (e.g., Greater Sendai RCE)

General performance frominception until now

Mixed results at the local level where it
mainly operates; requires improvement

Mixed results at both local, and regional levels, requires
improvement

located in the same area, they form the “Ramsar
Triangle” (“numa” literally means marsh in Japanese).
Kabukuri-numa was the first Ramsar site to include thesurrounding rice paddies as an agro-wetland buffer zone
to an open-water wetland (Kurechi, 2007; KWC, 2009).
Kabukuri-numa is a wintering site for the white-fronted
goose and the Middendoff Bean Goose and has 409 plant
species and 219 bird species. Kejo-numa, where 112 bird
species have been confirmed, serves as a wintering site
for the Thick-billed Bean Goose, White-Fronted Goose,

Baikal Teal and Whooper Swan and has over 700 plant
species (KWC, 2009). Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds, particularly geese, swans and ducks, use thesewetlands in winter hence making the area an ecotourism
attraction. The wetlands also support a wide range of
biological diversity (Washitani, 2007). In addition to
being declared a Ramsar site, it is an area that had been
subject to a range of policy plans and protection efforts(Kurechi, 2007).

Ecological System in the Context of ESD and Wetland CEPA

3.2 ESD and WCEPA programs as resiliencebuilding tools for Osaki-Tajiri inhabitantswetlands (social-ecological) system
Human communities and the wetlands they moststrongly affect can be viewed as integrated socioecological systems (Pinkerton, 2009). The “Ramsar
Triangle” and the people of Osaki-Tajiri can therefore beanalyzed from that perspective. Learning to enhance
adaptive capacity – the capacity of actors, both individuals and groups, to respond to, create and shape variability
and change in the state of the system (Chapin III et al.,2009) – is a crucial element for maintaining the resilienceof the system. Resilience is defined as the capacity of asystem to absorb disturbance and reorganize while
undergoing change so as to still retain its function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Chapin III et al., 2009;
Folke et al., 2005). Resilience reflects the degree towhich a complex adaptive system is capable of selforganization and the degree to which the system canbuild capacity for learning and adaptation (Adger et al.,2005). The strategies for improving resilience include
broadening knowledge sources including local knowledge, co-production of knowledge through ‘social learning’ and other forms of learning, all of which result inincreasing human ability to cope with change (Fazey
et al., 2007) and uncertainty. WCEPA and ESD-based
programs can enhance local stakeholders’ knowledge
about the relationships between a wetland’s biophysicalsystem (including its hydrological system, watershed(nutrient) loadings, water clarity, use by migratory birds,etc.) and socio-economic activities (including land-wateruse, such as rice paddies), other ecosystem goods andservices, recreational activities, local policies in thecontext of the role of the wetlands in the political andsocio-economic dynamics in the region, economic
growth through ecotourism and the sale of the morevaluable organic produce (particularly rice). Thus suchprograms constitute a crucial part of restoring balance tothe socio-ecological system.
3.3 Wetland-related social learning activities inOsaki-Tajiri
The Greater Sendai RCE in Miyagi, Japan has beencoordinating its ESD practices in Osaki-Tajiri throughcollaboration and partnerships among many stakeholders
such as (a) local authorities, farmers, teachers andstudents from the elementary, junior high and highschools in the area, (b) NGOs: Rice Paddies (Tambo),
Japanese Association of Wild Geese Protection,(JAWGP) and Kabukuri Wetlands Club (Numakko
Kurabu), and (c) Miyagi University of Education Environmental Education Centre, all representing formal,
non-formal and informal education contexts in the region.
The Miyagi University of Education has served as thesecretariat of RCE Greater Sendai since its establishment
in 2005. The RCE’s objectives and focal points ofactivities have been location-specific: attempts have been
made to introduce the concepts of enhanced community
participation (school-community partnerships) and com-159

munity development grassroots movement or the use of acommunity-based approach to social change (‘machi
zukuri,’ i.e., ‘town building’) (Mochizuki, 2006). The
current focal points of activities, each including several
actors, are:1) Sendai City: Under the umbrella of the Forum forEnvironmental Education and Learning in Sendai (FEEL
Sendai) and other platforms including “Environmental
Forum, Sendai,” “Citizens’ Forum,” “Sendai Eco-challenge,” “Social Experiment on the Environment” and“Mori Mori Environment Rescue Team Program,” theaim is to raise the awareness of one million citizens
regarding values and activities that lead to environmentally-friendly behavior for achieving a sustainable society.
In addition, the Miyagi University of Education Environmental Education Centre, through education, researchand outreach activities, attempts to assist in the development, dissemination, implementation and evaluation ofsustainability education programs focusing on elementary and secondary school teachers and students in thecity (Mochizuki, 2005).
2) Kessennuma City has ESD partnerships, particularly in the city schools. It also has a partnership insustainable community development with respect topromotion of fresh, locally produced food.
3) Osaki-Tajiri Area: This area is the focus of thispaper. Since its inception in 2005, the Greater Sendai
RCE has been working with the local people, to equip the
local community with competencies to adopt ways inwhich the natural environment can coexist with their
human needs. This is done in three ways: (a) conservation and wise use of the wetlands in the area, (b)enhancing the conservation value of rice paddies as
replacement habitat for wetland flora and fauna, whilestrengthening the linkages between the winter-flooded
rice fields and conservation movements and formal
education actors in the locality and (c) recovery of thesocio-ecological integrity and enhancement of humanwell-being in the region. In the same vein as RCE Greater
Sendai, a few local NGOs, i.e., Kabukuri Wetlands Club
(Numakko Kurabu), Rice Paddies (Tambo) and Japanese
Association for Wild Geese Protection (JAWGP) whose
activities are considerably tilted towards the WCEPA
program and aim at promoting the value and wise use of
wetlands, have been working with farmers, teachers,
students and local citizens.
These activities can be described as (a) knowledgetransfer and exchange, hence co-production of knowledge, as evidenced in Example 1 below, (b) experiential
and cognitive learning through ‘citizen participatory
research,’ demonstrated in Example 2, and (c) awarenesscreation as shown in Example 3. They have helped theparticipants to acquire some level of sustainability
knowledge, particularly ecological knowledge relevantto the local ecosystem.
Three examples of social learning activities in theOsaki-Tajiri Ramsar area, promoted by the ESD-based
and WCEPA programs, are presented below.

160

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANOExample 1:
A multi-stakeholder team project involving students,
farmers, researchers, local wildlife preservation organizations, schools and NGOs. The participants conducted
experiments on farms next to the Kabukuri-numa andIzu-numa wetlands. They tested how leaving winter-flooded rice fields fallow after the fall rice harvest
until the following spring had an effect on the enhancement of biodiversity and improvement in the quality of
the agricultural lands over a number of winter seasons(1998/99–2005/06), as compared to conventional fields.
Figure 1, largely emanating from the Osaki-Tajiricase and to a limited extent from the literature shows the
ESD/WCEPA-linked social learning processes among
the stakeholders, their interrelations and interactions withthe biophysical/ecological components and the corresponding outcomes including co-benefits in the
Kabukuri-numa/rice paddy ecosystem in connection with
the nearby ecosystems. The main objective of the program was capacity building through learning for sustainable or ‘wise’ use of the wetlands-paddies’ goods andservices.

The results showed winter-flooded paddies to be an
ideal environment for waterfowl like wild geese andducks for their feeding, nesting, resting and other activities in the area. There was also an enhancement of thewetlands’ biodiversity due to an increase in plant andanimal species (Fig. 1). Other possible benefits included
nourishment of the water table, purification of polluted
water, elimination of greenhouse gases, improved pest
management and prevention of cadmium absorption(JAWGP, 2005).
As a form of knowledge transfer partnership, farmers,
students and local citizens have been supported by researchers from tertiary educational institutions including
Tohoku University, Miyagi University of Education and
Miyagi Institute of Agriculture as well as local paddyfield wildlife organizations, namely Tambo and JAWGP.
The tertiary institution researchers in turn received
local/traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from thestakeholders, particularly the farmers, resulting in
co-produced knowledge (Fig. 1). Suzuki and Murakami(2009) cited non-formal traditional knowledge transferfrom the past to the present as one of the crucial ways ofFig. 1 Social learning at the Osaki-Tajiri Ramsar sites.
Stakeholders’ ESD/WCEPA-linked social learning (scientific, local, innovative and experiential) processes (red ink, smooth-edged rectangles),their interrelations (black ink, rectangles) and interactions with the biophysical/ecological components and the outcomes (purple ink, ovals)
including co-benefits (blue ink, ‘blade’) in the Kabukuri-numa/rice paddy agro-ecosystem. The learning processes and the corresponding
stakeholders involved are numbered. The stakeholders include farmers, landholders, students, experts (NGOs and researchers/academics),“organic” rice and ecotourism-related business people, tourists, local government, politicians, remaining citizens, ESD/WCEPA representative
authorities and stakeholders of nearby ecosystems. The main objective is capacity building through learning (awareness creation, knowledge, values
and skills acquisition) for sustainable/wise use of the wetlands-paddies goods and services. Co-benefits are the result of the actualization of theseveral learning processes (broken red arrows) which are considered interlinked (broken brown arrows).

Ecological System in the Context of ESD and Wetland CEPA

forging more sustainable modern lifestyles. A notable
example of traditional knowledge is the concept ofsatoyama which is a traditional rural agricultural
ecosystem that was common before the rapid development and modernization of local Japanese communities.
Satoyama consists of a mosaic of patches of forests,
grasslands, paddies, ponds and creeks supplying various
resources to support traditional agriculture and village
life (Washitani, 2007; Washitani, 2001; Morimoto, 2009).
The TEK of satoyama is evident in the use of landscapes
to provide dual or more services. For example, rice paddy
fields, and the ponds and ditches that irrigate them,provide a staple of the Japanese diet and also function as
wetland habitats for wildlife. Managed woodlands
harvested for firewood and charcoal also provide ideal
habitats for many species of wildflowers. Furthermore,large tracts of pasture and grassland are home to small
mammals, birds and insects. Restoration of satoyama andwetlands by local citizens has become a key componentof conservation ecology practices in Japan, wherepractical, hands-on, community-based learning is important (Kobori, 2009). Moreover this effort is not
limited to Japan: recently, the Japanese Ministry of theEnvironment and the United Nations University Instituteof Advanced Studies have launched the Satoyama
Initiative in an attempt to promote this concept ofsustainable rural societies in harmony with nature aroundthe world, through international cooperation.
Example 2
The second example of a social learning activity is asurvey to verify harvest yields, fertilizing effects andweed-control effects, simultaneously surveying theorganisms living on different rice paddy field surfaces:
those surfaces of unploughed cultivated paddy fields left
inundated with water in winter but not treated with any
agricultural chemicals or chemical fertilizer, compared tothose of conventional farming and cultivation methods(BRGSA, 2006). The resulting significant increase intubificid worms, that “turn” the soil, produce a natural
fertilizing effect through the release of bacteria into thewater, enhanced by water bird droppings, the decomposition of rice straw by fungi and a massive growth ofalgae. Several organisms, including algae and green
protoplasts such as spirogyra, euglena, duckweed,
sayamidoro, and amimidoro were found to proliferate,
along with water fleas, rotifers and other protozoa(BRGSA, 2006), suggesting increased biodiversity.
Volunteering students and local citizens with little orno prior scientific training acquired scientific skills andconducted research-related tasks such as surveying floraand fauna in rice paddies through observation and measurement. They were hence acting as citizen scientists(Fig. 1). Participants also learned about a more sustainable method of agriculture: abandoning agriculturalchemicals and thus reducing the nutrient load. This might
help revamp the local economy (Fig. 1), given that“organic” rice sells at a higher price than regular riceproduced with agrichemicals. Furthermore, local NGO
resource persons have shared practical and academic

161

information on the recent subject of alien invasive
species related to the area with the students, farmers andlocal citizens. Also, the Miyagi University of Education
has started to deliver teacher training courses on ricepaddies as learning sites, in collaboration with the Osaki
City Board of Education.
Example 3
Awareness creation and capacity building throughfairs, festivals and farm visits. As part of the awarenesscreation program which involves building the capacity ofprimary and secondary school students towards environmental and cultural sustainability, Osaki-Tajiri holds
annual festivals related to agriculture, ecology andculture. They include Ramsar’s World Wetlands Day andKodomo Biodibashiti (Child Biodiversity) Festivals by
Ramsar Center Japan, during which local and international participants, especially students, engage in awareness creating activities. They present reports on the wiseuse of wetland resources and rice paddies in theirrespective countries. They also present research aboutbiodiversity in rice paddy environments and local cultures through an inventory of organisms found in thepaddies (Shimano, 2010), and reports on alien invasive
species. In winter, school children go to the wetlands toobserve migratory birds that feed and nest there. During
farm visits, farmers teach children about the practices ofsustainable wet-rice agriculture that assist in enhancing
biodiversity.
Such awareness-creating programs, currently popularamong the youth, could be an effective communication
strategy essential to achieve ESD/WCEPA goals especially among adults in the area. It should be noted however, that like many other parts of the region and, in fact,of the nation, ESD principles have yet to be introduced
into the mainstream education curricula of primary andsecondary schools (Ofei-Manu & Skerratt, 2009a).
Because Japan is one of the initial sponsors of the DESD,
Japan’s education and environmental ministries should
also lead in mutual collaboration. They should formulate
a concrete ESD policy that could be integrated into
existing mainstream policy, and influence the adoption ofstrategic frameworks in social, environmental, economicand educational policy (Tilbury & Janousek, 2007).
Overall, these interactive learning processes among
the stakeholders in the context of ESD-based and
WCEPA programs are resulting in capacity building of
the stakeholders. This has a positive effect on the more
efficient use of wetland resources for sustainableagriculture, raising the economic value of the “organic”
rice and vegetables produced there for the farmers and,also, as post-harvest flooded fields for feeding and nesting sites for wintering waterfowls. The presence of thewaterfowl, namely wild geese, swans and ducks in thewetlands in turn serves as a tourist attraction for the local
people and visitors, offering them a “sense of pride” inthe wetlands. There is also a genuine participation of
stakeholders due to an increased concern for the environment as evidenced by the annual participation of
about 800 people consisting of local farmers, students,

162

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANO

teachers, local government officials and local citizens in
the formal and non-formal ESD and WCEPA programs in
Osaki-Tajiri area. Additionally, a sense of inclusivenessand collective ownership through inventorying flora andfauna in the wetlands-paddies is generated among thestakeholders. Again, there is information flow among
stakeholders during execution of the field projects andorganization of the fairs and festivals to create ecologicalawareness. The information flow is later extended tonearby localities when some of the participating teachers
are transferred to other school districts. The building ofrelationships and trust between academia and the local
people makes researchers feel that they are making
themselves useful to society. A sense of self-efficacy on
the parts of both the local people and researchers is
another social learning outcome in the case of OsakiTajiri, which serves to develop a foundation for a moresustainable and resilient community.
One problem, among a few others that need to beaddressed, concerns school children, who largely determine the eventual future success of the WCEPA and ESD
programs. Since wetland flora and fauna surveys are
currently not included in mainstream curricula, extra
time and logistical arrangements are needed to organize
activities in the rice paddies. Scheduling of field activities sometimes poses difficulties because they have alower priority than regular school activities. Also, there isno framework or mechanism in place to ensure continuityof program activities among students outside the local
area or when they grow past the current participating age
group.
3.4 Wetland stakeholders’ adaptive co-managementof and co-benefits from social-ecological systeminteractions
Knowledge and skills linked to the concept of adaptive co-management could be acquired by learning to use
ESD-based and WCEPA education tools. Adaptive comanagement systems are flexible community-based
systems of resource management tailored to specificplaces and situations, and developed through selforganization and networking of local groups who canlearn, facilitate information flows by drawing on avariety of sources of information and knowledge, andactively adapt to and shape change (Olsson et al., 2004a;
Olsson et al., 2004b).
An example of an adaptive co-management system inOsaki-Tajiri was a proposal to dredge the Kabukuri-numa.
It became an opportunity for stakeholders to initiate amovement towards wetland protection and co-existenceof wildlife with agriculture (Kurechi, 2007; Mochizuki,2007). To reach this goal, the first requirement wasawareness, understanding and agreement among the local
community that rice paddies are valuable buffer zones forwetlands. Incentives for meeting this requirement included discussions and negotiations on agricultural andenvironmental policies necessary to reduce environmental burdens and activate the wetland functions of
paddies. Landholders agreed to re-convert tens of hec-tares of rice paddy fields back to wetlands. Farmers andothers cooperated to implement a winter-flooding regime
for nearby cultivated paddies (Fig. 1). Consequently, thenumber of geese using Kabukuri-numa as a roosting site
increased, indicating that enlarging the area of the wetland augmented the site’s wildlife carrying capacity.
Thus a consensus reached by local farmers and otherstakeholders through negotiation, information flow andsharing to adapt to the new reality to allow wildlife toshare the benefits of the wetlands, led to the area’s
designation and addition to the Ramsar List (Kurechi,2007).
The result could also be considered a co-benefit for
both the local people and the wild birds (Fig. 1). A
co-benefit approach to sustainability, although not necessarily a new concept, is an area of investigation where
the concerned parties seek to mitigate the present
environmental burdens, while simultaneously trying to
make it beneficial to possibly all the parties involved. A
co-benefit approach is currently being applied especiallyat the policy level in the energy, transportation and climate sectors. Highlighting co-benefits in sustainability
decisions can win over stakeholders especially when
there is conflict of interests. Some co-benefit components
such as efforts to maintain clean air or water for healthand reputational reasons for society and industry,
respectively, however, may be considered intangible andhence difficult to quantify or demonstrate.
Another winter-flooding co-benefit relationshipbetween human and biological life is that waterfowl suchas white-fronted geese were seen not only to consume
matter in the rice paddy fields but also play a part in
fertilization of the paddy fields through their droppings(JAWGP, 2005; Kurechi, 2007). Also, the flourishing ofgeese/wildlife populations due to the increased winter-flooding area in the wetlands has contributed to aboost in ecotourism in the area. The results of wise use of
the rice paddies through growing Ramsar brand rice havebenefited both the wildlife and the economy (KWC,
2009). More of such relationships regarding adaptive
co-management and co-benefits need to be identified in
the future.

4. Discussion
The results on ESD (and WCEPA) performance withregard to attainment of their respective goals of asustainable society through the wise use of natural
resources at the local, national and regional levels have
proven to be a mix of successes and failures and there isroom for improvement. Some modest achievements havebeen made, including nations’ commitment to integrating
ESD into formal education, the presence of ESD innational policy documents and the establishment of
national coordinating bodies for the DESD (de Haan
et al., 2010; UNESCO, 2009; Suzuki & Murakami, 2009).
ESD practitioners, academics and policy makers as wellas other informed advocates and action networks havemade suggestions for a thorough reassessment of theEcological System in the Context of ESD and Wetland CEPA

approaches, content and magnitude of addressing ESD atthe local level (e.g., in schools and companies, see
Ofei-Manu, 2007) and at broader scales (IGES, 2005).
These suggestions have become more appropriate giventhat the DESD has already reached its midpoint and thatWCEPA is in its third six-year program, which ends in2015. The DESD has so far managed to raise awarenessabout the importance of ESD on the global education
agenda. In places it has become an important aspect ofeducational reform (de Haan et al., 2010). A firstevaluation of the activities has been done within theframework of DESD in 2009: the Global Monitoring and
Evaluation Initiative by UNESCO has taken stock ofwhat has been accomplished during the first five years of
the DESD and at the same time has identified obstacles
encountered in creating structures, provisions andconditions that enable the development, implementationand strengthening of ESD. (Tilbury, 2010; Walls, 2010;
in this issue).
One aspect of ESD that needs further appraisal is thewide range of interpretations of its meanings – the needto recognize ESD as a multi-stakeholder endeavor and,also, the competencies it enables students to acquire toshape their future within the framework of sustainability,
without being yet another addition to the education
agenda or curriculum. Critical factors of ESD implementation include the ability to orientate present andfuture human behavior toward sustainability, using
critical, values-driven, systems thinking and an interdisciplinary, multi-method, holistic, participatory approach to solving problems and making decisions that are
locally relevant. Other challenges facing the future
implementation of the ESD program include the use of
appropriate indicators and methods for monitoring andevaluation, support for ESD-related research, focused
capacity building, coordination and involvement of themedia (who have little impact at the moment in the regionof reference), regional unevenness of ESD implementation, awareness of ESD in the wider educational community and in the general public, the reorientation of
curricula and the availability of sufficient funds for ESD
programs (de Haan, 2010; Ofei-Manu & Skerratt, 2009a,
2009b; Mochizuki, 2006).
Some of the shortcomings of the WCEPA program
include the failure to: (i) develop pilot projects and evaluate different approaches for applying WCEPA inpromoting the wise use of wetlands, (ii) complete areview of existing WCEPA programs, needs and capacities in areas of implementation, (iii) document the lessons
learnt in implementing WCEPA programs, (iv) identify
the sources of expert information and training opportunities in WCEPA, and (v) take the necessary actions toencourage synergies on WCEPA activities amonginternational conventions and programs including ESD(Ramsar NPRF, 2005).
The Osaki-Tajiri case provides an example of jointly
promoting WCEPA and ESD in the framework of the
RCE initiative, building on close collaboration between
formal and non-formal education. ESD and WCEPA can163

add value and synergy to each other, especially in sharing
knowledge about how to undertake effective educational
outreach programs in a specific area. For example,
WCEPA in the context of ecological/environmental
education could be instituted by the related local NGOs
already mentioned above, while ESD-based programs
implemented through the RCE could take care of theeconomic, socio-cultural and other aspects of the issues
facing the “social-ecological system” against the backdrop of sustainability. It is imperative that synergies andcomplementarities between the two programs be identified in order to avoid duplication in human capacity
building and program activities and, also, waste of resources and time. This is key especially when ESD isincreasingly bound to coexist with WCEPA in wetlands
already designated by Ramsar (as occurs in Osaki-Tajiri)
or yet to be designated. To facilitate this, a prior empirical study to assess the inhabitants’ level of awareness/knowledge of ESD and WCEPA and their contribution to
the sustainability of the Osaki-Tajiri social-ecologicalsystem will be appropriate for effective future implementation of these programs. One aspect of synergy
between these two programs will be in the area ofdeveloping relevant indicators for monitoring andassessing the performance (resilience) of the wetlands.
Some of the indicators might include biodiversity
components (e.g., species abundance, wetland extent),
ecosystem integrity (e.g,. water quality, river flow), ecosystem services (e.g., water supply, flow (flood ordrought) regulation, number of visitors) and drivers andpressures (e.g., changes in wetland area due to urbanization and/or agriculture, water exploitation).

5. Recommendations and Conclusion
Social learning can be defined as a change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to become situated within wider social units or communities of practicethrough social interactions among actors within social
networks (Reed et al., 2010). Against this backdrop, theOsaki-Tajiri “social-ecological system” demonstrates amulti-stakeholder social learning initiative for regionalsustainability based on partnerships and the mobilization
and utilization of combined expertise of actors. It involves the community, NGOs and local and national
governments. It offers a typical example of addressing
the challenges of promoting both environmental andeconomic agendas of the rural community. It is a case thatstarted as a citizen’s movement to conserve wetlands but
has evolved into a participatory program for engaging
with the community for the preservation of biodiversity
as well. It also provides an informative example of joint
promotion of WCEPA and ESD in the framework of theUnited Nations University’s RCE initiative, building on
close collaboration between formal and non-formal
education. Nevertheless, further capacity-building efforts
are necessary at all levels of both formal and non-formal
education sectors (Stevens, 2007; UNECE, 2009) in thearea, particularly for decision makers, program imple-

164

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANO

menters and educators. Raising public awareness ofsustainable development further in and through institutions of formal education as well as the community using
the media and NGOs should be encouraged. The media
should do well to reach the general public (Ofei-Manu &Skerratt, 2009a; UNECE, 2009) including the corporate
sector (Ofei-Manu & Skerratt, 2009b) with relevant
information and to engage them in confronting sustainability issues. The academic and research institutions
under the umbrella of RCE Greater Sendai should
strengthen their cooperation with the local NGOs andsupport their educational activities.
Provided all the basic conditions are met, theOsaki-Tajiri “social-ecological system” can serve as an
ongoing ESD experiment on social learning which iscurrently one of the RCEs’ main (but currently less developed) research objectives (UNU-IAS, 2009). Such research should be undertaken in a transdisciplinarymanner, linking biophysical and social sciences and addressing the complex intersecting problems of theenvironment, economy, politics and culture. Thus theintegration of resilience learning – a form of social
learning of multi-disciplines that fosters society’s capacity to adapt to change while maintaining sustainability ofsystems – into ESD/WCEPA programs, should be
encouraged. Where appropriate, learning should expand
from knowledge of structures to knowledge of processes
that sustain the social–ecological capacity to respond to
ecosystem change (Jordan et al., 2009; Folke, 2004).
Also, indigenous knowledge should be valued andconserved as an integral part of ESD and WCEPA.
The ecosystem knowledge and understanding among
farmers, local governments and citizens, NGOs, etc. inOsaki-Tajiri, which is partially used for monitoring,interpreting and responding to ecosystem dynamics, is of
crucial importance for sustaining ecosystem services andfor strengthening the capacity for dealing with uncertainty and change (Olsson & Folke 2001; Olsson et al.,2004a). Understanding the range of roles wetlands canplay in the lives of the local people of Osaki-Tajiri in thecontext of the range of benefits and values provided by
the wetland ecosystem can provide valuable information
to local decision makers. This can aid in their formulationof policies and decisions that will directly affect the people and their livelihood.
Wetlands provide important goods and services which
help sustain human life, conserve biological diversity,and combat the impacts of climate change. Even though
they remain poorly understood, their general ecologicalimportance is as significant as the conventionally “moreimportant” ecosystems like the tropical rainforests.
Through social learning, experimentation and innovation,
ESD and WCEPA could play significant roles in letting
people understand that the adjacent ecosystems are connected, constantly interacting with each other, anddependent on the sum of their parts; by removing or
significantly altering one part, the whole could be detrimentally affected (SCBD, 2010). This means that stakeholders will need to extend their conservation knowledge

and skills to the nearby ecosystems as well. Increasing
understanding of ESD-WCEPA as a process of change
beyond DESD’s 2014 limit among the stakeholders in theOsaki-Tajiri Ramsar wetlands and nearby ecosystems
might be the most important legacy secured for thesustainability transition in the region.
References
Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter and J.
Rockstrom (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal
disasters. Science, 309: 1036. DOI:10.1126/science.1112122
Babikwa, D. J. (2004) Education and the Creation of Sustainable
Rural Communities Uganda and Japan: Some Lessons for the
DESD’, UNU/IAS.
http://www.ias.unu.edu
Baseline Report Greater Sendai Area (BRGSA) (2006) Baseline
Report, RCE Greater Sendai.
http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/RCE%20Greater%20S
endai%20baseline%20report.pdf
Chapin III, F.S., C. Folke and G. P. Kofinas (2009) A framework
for understanding change. In: F.S. Chapin III, G.P. Kofinas.
and C. Folke eds., Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship:
Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in A
Challenging World, Springer, New York, 3-28.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.
Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Niell, J. Paruelo, R. G.
Raskin, P. Sutton and M. Van den Belt (1997) The value of theworld’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387:
253-260.
de Haan. G., I. Bormann and A. Leicht. (2010) Introduction: The
midway point of the UN decade of education for sustainable
development: current research and practice. International
Review of Education, 56: 199-206.
Drew, W.M., K.C. Ewel, R. L. Naylor and A. Sigrah (2005) A
tropical freshwater wetland: III. Direct use values and othergoods. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13: 685-693.
European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2005) Sustainable Useand Management of Natural Resources.
http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1136560259_eea_report_
9_2005.pdf
Fadeeva, Z., H. van Ginkel and K. Suzuki (2005) Regional centresof expertise on education for sustainable development: concepts
and issues. In: Z. Fadeeva and Y. Mochizuki eds., Mobilizing for
Education for Sustainable Development: Towards a Global
Learning Space based on Regional Centres of Expertise,
UNU/IAS.
http://www.ias.unu.edu/binaries2/RCEreport.pdf
Fazey, I., J.G.P. Gamara, J. Fischer, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer and
M. Christie (2009) Adaptation strategies for reducing vulnerability to future environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology andthe Environment. DOI: 10.1890/080215
Fazey, I., J.A. Fazey, J. Fischer, K. Sherren, J. Warren, R. F. Nossand S. R. Dovers (2007) Adaptive capacity and learning to learn
as leverage for socio-ecological resilience. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 5: 375-380.
Fiskel, J. (2006) Sustainability and resilience: towards a systems
approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2: 14-21.
http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol2iss2/0608-028.fiksel.pdf
Folke, C. (2004) Traditional knowledge in social-ecologicalsystems. Ecology and Society, 9: 7.
http://www.ecologyand society.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson and J Norberg (2005) Adaptive
governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review ofEnvironment and Resources, 30: 441-473. doi10.1146/annurev.
energy.30.050504.144511
German Advisory Council on Global Change (GACGC) (2001)

Ecological System in the Context of ESD and Wetland CEPAWorld in Transition: Conservation and sustainable use of thebiosphere. Earthscan, London
Hotes, S. (2007) Diversity of wetland ecosystems – Integrating
multiple spatio-temporal scales for coherent conservation
strategies, Global Environmental Research, 11: 125-134.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (2005)
Sustainable Asia: 2005 and Beyond: In the Pursuit of Innovative
Policies, IGES White Paper.
Japanese Association for Wild Geese and Protection (JAWGP)(2005) Winter-flooded Rice Fields. Tohoku regional nature
protection center, Ministry of Environment, Japan.
Jordan, R., F. Singer, J. Vaughan and A. Berkowitz (2009) Whatshould every citizen know about ecology? Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 7: 495-500.
Kabukuri Wetland Club (KWC) (2009) Ramsar sites in Japan:
Kejo-numa and Kabukuri-numa and the surrounding ricepaddies. Tohoku regional nature protection center, Ministry ofEnvironment, Japan.
Kobori, H. (2009) The conservation and management of
biodiversity in Japan, Current trends in conservation educationin Japan. Biological Conservation, 142: 1950-1957.
Kurechi, M. (2007) Restoring rice paddy wetland environments
and the local sustainable society – Project for achieving coexistence of rice paddy agriculture with waterbirds at Kabukurinuma, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. Global Environmental
Research, 12: 141-152.
López-Hoffman, L., R.G. Varady, K.W. Flessa and P. Balvanera(2010) Ecosystem services across borders: a framework fortransboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment, 8: 84-91. doi:10.189A0/070216
McKeown, R. (2002) Education for Sustainable Development
Toolkit.
http://www.edstoolkit.org
Millennium Ecosystem Assessments (MA) (2005) Millennium
Ecosystem Assessments: Synthesis Report, Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: Wetlands and Water.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf
Mochizuki, Y. (2007) Partnerships between environmentalists andfarmers for sustainable development: a case study of
Kabukuri-numa and the adjacent rice fields in the town of Tajiri
in Northern Japan. In: A.E.J. Wals ed., Social Learning towards
A Sustainable World. Principles, Perspectives and Praxis,
Wageningen Academic Publishers, 385-404.
Mochizuki, Y. (2006) Articulating a global vision in local terms: A
case study of a regional centre of expertise on education forsustainable development (RCE) in the Greater Sendai Area ofJapan, UNU-IAS Working Paper, No. 150.
http://www.ias.unu. edu/binaries2/IASWorkingPaper150.pdf
Mochizuki, Y. (2005) Articulating a global vision in local terms: A
case study of a regional centre of expertise on education forsustainable development (RCE) in the Greater Sendai Area ofJapan, UNU-IAS Working Paper, No. 139.
http://www.ias.unu. edu/binaries2/IASWorkingPaper139.pdf
Mochizuki, Y., T. Koganezawa and K. Mikami (2005) A case of thegreater Sendai area RCE in Japan. In: Z. Fadeeva and Y.
Mochizuki, eds., Mobilizing for Education for Sustainable
Development: Towards a Global Learning Space based on
Regional Centres of Expertise, UNU/IAS.
http://www.ias.unu. edu/binaries2/RCEreport.pdf
Morimoto, Y. (2009) What is Satoyama? Points for discussion on
its future direction. Landscape of Ecological Engineering, 5:91-96. DOI 10.1007/s11355-010-0120Nomura, K. and O. Abe (2009) The education for sustainable
development movement in Japan: a political perspective.
Environmental Education Research, 15: 483-495.
Ofei-Manu, P. and G. Skerratt (2009a) The current level of concern
and knowledge of environmental sustainability (ES) is areflection of its marginalization from the core school curriculum

165

and by the media in Japan. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 5: 15-34.
Ofei-Manu, P. and G. Skerratt (2009b) Does the present concern
and knowledge of environmental sustainability among businessworkers (in Greater Sendai Area RCE, Japan) reflect its
occurrence in company publications? The Environmentalist,
88:12-16.
Ofei-Manu, P. (2007) Education and Training for Sustainability in
Schools and Business Enterprises in Japan – A Comparison ofApproach and Effectiveness. MSc Dissertation, Staffordshire
University, UK.
Olsson, P. and C. Folke (2001) Local ecological knowledge andinstitutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study ofLake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4: 85-104.
Olsson, P., T. Hahn and C. Folke (2004a) Social-ecologicaltransformations for ecosystem management: The developmentof adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern
Sweden.
http://www.beijer.kva.se/PDF/9423918_Disc174.pdf
Olsson, P., C. Folke and F. Berkes (2004b) Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social ecological systems.
Environmental Management, 34: 75-90.
DOI: 10.1007/s00267- 003-0101-7
Pinkerton, E. (2009) Coastal marine systems: conserving fish andsustaining community livelihoods and co-management. In: F.S.
Chapin III, G.P. Kofinas. and C. Folke, eds, Principles of
Ecosystem Stewardship – Resilience-based Natural Resource
Management in a Challenging World, Springer, New York,241-257.
Ramsar National Planning Tool-National Report Format (NPRF)(2005) National planning tool for the implementation of theRamsar Convention on Wetlands and the approved format fornational reports to be submitted for the 9th meeting of theconference of the contracting parties, Uganda.
http://www. ramsar.org/pdf/cop9/cop9_nr_japan.pdf
Ramsar Secretariat (2005) A conceptual framework for the wiseuse of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecologicalcharacter. 9th meeting of the conference of the parties to theconvention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Kampala, Uganda,
8-15 November 2005.
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-cop9/main/ramsar/1-30-169_4000_0__
Ramsar Secretariat (2007) Wetland CEPA: The Convention’s
Programme on Communication, Education and Public
Awareness (CEPA), 2003-2008. Ramsar handbooks for the wiseuse of wetlands, 3rd edition, vol. 4, Gland, Switzerland.
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/lib_hand books 2006_e04.pdf
Ramsar Secretariat (2008) Resolution X.8: The convention’s
program on communication, education, participation andawareness (CEPA) 2009-2015. 10th meeting of the conferenceof the parties to the convention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)
Changwon, Korea, 28 October-4 November 2008.
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-cop10-proceedingsof-the-23879/main/ramsar/1-30-170%5E23879_4000_0__
Ramsar Secretariat (2010) The convention’s CEPA program 2010.
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-activities-cepa-conventio
n-s-cepa/main/ramsar/1-63-69%5E7774_4000_0__
Reed, M.S., A.C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J.
Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond and L.C. Stringer(2010) What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15: r1.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/volXX/issYY/artZZ
Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2010)
Water, Wetlands and Forests: A Review of Ecological,
Economic and Policy Linkages.
www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-47-en. pdf
Richmond, M. (2010) Envisioning, coordinating and implementing the UN decade of education for sustainable development.
In : UNESCO ed., Tomorrow Today, Tudor Rose, Leicester,
UNESCO, 19-22.

166

P. OFEI-MANU & S. SHIMANO

Shimano, S. (2010) RCE Greater Sendai: ESD in wetlands and ricepaddies, RCE Bulletin Issue, 12, March 2010, p. 5.
http://www. rcerm.eu/RCEBulletin12.pdf
Stevens, C. (2007) OECD Work on Competencies for Educationfor Sustainable Development (ESD).
http://www.unece.org/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/EGonInd/8mtg/
ESDCompetenciesOECD.pdf
Suzuki, K. and C. Murakami (2009) Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) in Japan. Japan council on the UN decadeof education for sustainable development (ESD-J).
http://www. esd-j.org/j/documents/esd_in_japan_english.pdf
The Economics of Ecosystem Biodiversity (TEEB) (2008). The
Economics of Ecosystem Biodiversity.
http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/TEEB/TEEB_interim_rep
ort.pdf
Tilbury, D. and S. Janousek (2007) Asia-Pacific contributions to
the UN Decade of education for sustainable development.
Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1: 133-141.
Tilbury, D. (2010) Are we learning to change? Mapping global
progress in education for sustainable development in the lead up
to ‘Rio Plus 20.’ Global Environmental Research 14: 101-107
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)(2009) Learning from Each Other Strategy for Education for
Sustainable Development. ECE/CEP/159 UNITED NATIONS.
http://www.unece.org/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/SC/.../ESDpubl
icationTOC.pdf
United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) (2007) Highlights on DESD Progress to Date. UN
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 1-10.
http://www.desd.org/Highlights%20on%20ESD%20progress-%
20April%202007.pdf
UNESCO (2003) United Nations Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014).
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=27234&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html
UNESCO (2009) Review of Contexts and Structures for Educationfor Sustainable Development: Learning for a Sustainable World.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001849/184944e.pdf
United Nations University – Institute of Advanced Studies(UNU-IAS) (2009) Education for Sustainable Development(ESD) Program. Research and Actions to Advance Partnerships
for ESD Across Geographic, Knowledge and Sectoral
Boundaries.
http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/ESD%20Programme%
20presentation%20at%20UNU-IAS%20board%20meeting.pdf
Wals A, (2010) DESD we can? Some lessons learnt from two
mid-DESD reviews. Global Environmental Research 14:
109-118.
Washitani, I. (2001) Traditional sustainable ecosystem “satoyama”
and biodiversity crisis in Japan: Conservation ecological perspectives. Global Environmental Research, 5: 119-133.
Washitani, I. (2007) Restoration of ecologically-diverse floodplain
wetlands including paddy fields. Global Environmental
Research, 11: 135-140.

Paul OFEI-MANU
Dr. Paul Ofei-Manu graduated with a PhD and
MSc in Agricultural Sciences (majoring in Bioenvironmental Science) from Iwate and Yamagata
Universities, respectively, in Japan, and an MSc in
Sustainability and Environmental Managementfrom Staffordshire University, UK. He also holds
an environmental professional AIEMA qualification from the Institute ofEnvironmental Management and Assessment, UK. His major research
fields are agroecology, human ecology, education for sustainability,
sustainable production-consumption systems, and corporate sustainability
management and policy. He is currently a researcher at the Environmental
Education Center, Miyagi National University of Education, Japan. In
addition, he founded the Sustainable Organizations and Societies for Africa
Inc. (SOSAf), an environmental sustainability company in Ghana.

Satoshi SHIMANO
Satoshi Shimano is an Associate Professor at
the Environment Education Center, Miyagi
University of Education in Sendai, Japan (2005present). His major research fields are biologicaldiversity, microbial ecology, and molecular
ecology of soil, especially the biology of protists
and mites. In addition, recently he has been studying the protists of ancientlakes as a way of monitoring of global atmospheric change.

(Received 2 December 2010, Accepted 24 December 2010)