Definition of Ecosystem Services, stock or flux?

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:24:24 +0900
...As you know, Japan is now making a subglobal assessment for Satoyama and Satoumi.
Although I did not join the SGA meeting during July 22-24 (Utsunomiya) but I joined Scientific Council for Shiretoko World Heritage meeting.
I have still be confused the definition of ecosystem services. It might be unique in Japan, we have many forests but we [use few] forest products. In this case, ecosystem services increases or decreases? I heard that the SGA meeting gave no answer! If ES is counted by potential (ES increased because of rich forest), Japan still hasrich ES in many components. If ES is counted by actual productivity. Japan has very poor ES by barter of exporting industrial products, and the main direct driver should be "underuse", but MA did not refer to this direct DF (land use change, climate change, overexploitation, exotic species, pollution). I think that other developed countries do not use firewood and charcoal because they use fossil fuel. "Underuse" may be common in developed countries.(I am unsure whether underuse is an important factor for biodiversity loss or not).
[My draft "change of Japanese ES" uploaded on http://d.hatena.ne.jp/hymatsuda/20090721 .]

PS. I visited Chile this May, and discussed relationship between Japan and Chileancoastal fisheries institution with Juan Carlos Castilla. I sympathized his life work.I recommend Shirtoko should be Biosphere Reserve. BR usually consists of core, buffer and transtition zones, harnessing sustainable use. Satoyama has a mosaicstructure but sometimes no core zone. Therefore, Satoyama may give an alternative concept of sustainable use than BR's Sevilla concept.