An Interview with Dr. Masatoshi Funabashi

In this interview, we sat down with Dr. Masatoshi Funabashi to discuss his research interests as well as viable solutions to create a more integrative and sustainable mode of food production in order to maintain a balance between humanity and the natural ecosystem. He is a Program-Specific Professor in the Division for Research on Social Common Capital and the Future at Kyoto University, and is working on the expansion of social common capital to the field of agroecology. We discuss the perils of unsustainable modes of production as well as potential alternatives that provide a more sustainable form of production.

––– Please describe your research area and what led to your current interests.

Funabashi: When I was an undergraduate student at the University of Tokyo, I began by studying life science. My research area expanded to study every area of biology, which encompassed biology, anatomy, physiology—all relevant disciplines that are consistent with integrative biology, until I became a certified veterinarian. At the same time, I studied mathematical science and engineering for my master’s degree, and realized that we are losing sight of living systems as a whole. For example, there are professionals that only study small elements of living systems, such as biomolecules and viruses in cell culture, which are constrained in experimental settings and exclude a large part of interactions with the natural environment. This does not necessarily lead to an integrative view of public health and does not adequately prepare us to form macroscopic views on how to address emerging social problems and sustainability issues. Realizing this led me to pursue a Ph.D. in France in the field of complex systems science. Eventually, I began to think that industrial applications such as agriculture is one of the major causes for environmental degradation and global warming. This includes our current modes of food production and urbanization. One can only begin to tackle this issue by studying what is at the intersection of sustainability, environment and health.

––– How can we balance sustainable food production with the increasing demand for food?

Funabashi: The number of human beings is not the primary problem. In ecology, it’s about the systems, how to balance them, and how they interact. In a demographic sense, it’s true that we are experiencing the highest growth of human population in history. But at the same time, it’s also a matter of how we formulate society, how we couple the essential human activities with the natural ecosystem cycle so that the natural ecosystem would not perish.

––– Your research provides insight on synecological farming (SynecocultureTM); what are the key characteristics of synecological farming, how is it different from traditional farming methods, and what do you think are the key differences between the farming methods?

Funabashi: The first thing I was shocked when I was investigating was the loss of biodiversity at an unprecedented rate. What we are witnessing is an acceleration of mass extinction caused by human activities. My goal was to conduct a test driven by science and technology to seek a more sustainable and cultured way of production. On TV, we are seeing the harm of large-scale monocultural methods, especially in the US, but if you look at the statistics, the majority of producers in the world are actually small scale. These people are also damaging by accumulation; there is an image of small-scale farming being good for the environment, but it’s not true if you go to the developing world. Small farmers are actually destroying the ecosystem. If food production is really optimized in a large monocultural way, I may not be so focused on this issue, but as I see and observe the actual situation, it’s actually not a matter of optimizing the monocultural method. There is also an issue of social discrepancy. Developed countries are trying to eat more food produced from the large-scale monocultural method, whereas underdeveloped countries are struggling to catch up with large-scale monocultural production to export food. At the same time, lay people are struggling on a small scale and they are still degrading the environment. In light of this, I am exploring in which sectors and in which aspects we can leverage science to seek alternatives.

––– In your research, you explore the impact ICT (information and communication technologies) can have on our ecosystems - how specifically can ICT provide a solution for the future of food production?

Funabashi: ICT is not the foundation of Synecoculture, but rather an essential supporting tool for the education and training of people, as well as for the analysis of large ecological datasets that would be necessary inputs to optimize. The basic foundation of Synecoculture is the self-developing capacity of ecosystems and human ingenuity that makes sustainable use of the environment. We have to change our mindset from a monocultural way of food production to a mode whereby ecosystems are self-organized. This is a topic of complex system science. Biodiversity contributes to this. In order to obtain such benefits, we have to not only focus on single crop production but rather the multi-functionality realized at the ecosystem level, such as climate regulation, regulation of pathogens, control of flood, resistance to drought, etc., that are intermingled in complex systems. In addition, businesses and individuals also have to make profits as well.

––– If we were to transition to such a mode of production, how can we ensure firms remain profitable?

Funabashi: From our first experimental plots in Japan, we were able to show empirically that profits per surface area were higher than the traditional monocultural method on small scale. If you think about the marketing lever, there may be other efforts mechanisms than market mechanisms, such as not overly relying on large distributors. One potential solution is to reconsider the current model of a small number of intermediaries serving a large number of consumers. This issue is not only a matter of producing food, but also how we sell produce and make the economic system stable and sustainable. We have to think about social and economic systems, including the distribution systems to be adapted to a new way of production. This also led to my interest in Professor Hirofumi Uzawa’s theory of Social Common Capital.

––– How should we think about the role of distributors?

Funabashi: It is quite hard to replace large-scale monocultural systems in advanced countries, including in Japan. On the other hand, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the former models are already not sustainable. People are very eager to try alternatives. That's how we are striving and starting to do Proof-of-Concept (PoC) of social implementation. At the same time, we also need to design institutional capital and how we establish institutions to control economic activities. It’s not easy to directly implement such changes in developed countries. However, we are trying to make the first pioneering cases that would bring profit to not only farms but also to local ecosystems. Through this kind of PoC, we are witnessing successful cases not only from an economic perspective but also on how much biodiversity we can recover and how much diversity we can introduce.

––– Some people claim that agriculture and food production may account for a fourth of GHG emissions - to what extent do you believe the shift towards more sustainable production may help reduce GHG emissions?

Funabashi: We don't really know how much GHG emissions are affecting our system. It’s just an estimation. We are hypothesizing human activities are triggering global warming, which I also believe to be true, but there is still a lot we don’t know in terms of the detailed mechanisms. Statistics suggest agriculture and food production are accountable for a fourth of GHG emissions, but I actually believe this is an underestimation. If you also include distribution, this figure will rise even more. At the same time, while changing our modes of food production will not be sufficient to achieve the goals of emissions reduction, if such changes are accompanied by changes in social structure, then we may expect a multiplier effect. Specifically, we can consider decentralization, which is a bit against the current trend of globalization, to avoid the monopoly of a single country or sector that is accumulating more and more wealth, leaving other sectors and people underdeveloped. We can reverse this by decentralizing food production systems and decentralizing the way we live on this planet.

––– What specifically can we consider in terms of institutional change?

Funabashi: We have to introduce a multitude of things, including introducing the concept of commons, commonwealth, and other forms of governance that would benefit not only the present and immediate stakeholders but also all relevant stakeholders including future generations. Market mechanisms based solely on private goods are not sufficient. We essentially need to think about how to change in a more community-conscious way and adapt our governance systems accordingly.

––– if we were to enact such changes, how can we avoid a moral hazard?

Funabashi: One is the social institutional way. Consider the structure of the tragedy of the commons. You have to be aware of such scenarios and avoid such a catastrophic scenario by adding subsidies, community rules, sanctions, or other positive drivers that would mitigate such consequences. At the same time, this kind of institutional system should resonate with the actual ecological dynamics. The property of the ecological community is not something you can control - it is already there. You have to couple scientific indicators with smart governance institutions. Try to have the maximum synergy, for the moment what I can see are just partial indicators that are not yet reflected in policymaking. We need to ensure that policymakers are conceiving systems that have better affinities with natural systems.

––– Out of your many endeavors, one of them was your contributions to helping develop sustainable agriculture in Burkina Faso - what led you to Burkina Faso and how would you describe your experiences there?

Funabashi: I started from examining theoretical implications by constructing a mathematical model that explains the productivity of monoculture and Synecoculture. In one extremity, the model converges to monoculture, and in the other extremity the model converges to Synecoculture. I realized that if we adopt Synecoculture in harsh environments, e.g. temperatures being too high, soil being too dry, and other extreme marginal conditions that would not be very favorable, there are significant positive synergies we can expect from the biodiversity that Synecoculture provides. I went to Burkina Faso and asked NGOs and farmers to participate in implementing the experiment. The result was out of expectation. We actually had to modify our theory a bit upward to adapt to the reality of the positive results.

––– What is the state of the experiment in Burkina Faso today?

Funabashi: We conducted continuous experiments for three years, which were conducted by a local NGO and by African people. This is very different, say from European models that tend to introduce new technologies, new chemicals, etc. to be used in Africa. Local African NGOs started to make their own path of development based on locally available things such as plants, seeds, etc. without necessarily relying on external resources. Unfortunately, we had to end the program after three years due to terrorism. The Sub-Saharan region is very unstable politically. The region was affected by terrorist activities rife with robbery because of poverty. This poverty comes from the deterioration of the local ecosystems, in particular with climate change because there is spontaneous desertification happening as a result of extreme weather events. There is also a human cause since humans are slashing native forests and converting them into agricultural land. Changes in the use of land accounts for roughly half of the desertification in such areas. As a result of malnutrition and poverty, young people are forced to become terrorists. Security problems are persistent in this region, and we move around. We moved out headquarters to Togo, where security and peace are stronger, and eventually we were able to reach out to 32 African countries. Many sub-Saharan countries, civil society, university professors, NGOs, and other organizations are cooperating with us to make substantial development based on natural capital that they have, and maintaining their level of high natural capital.

––– How do you view the replicability of the results?

Funabashi: Different case studies of our Synecoculture project were already conducted with the public sector in the Republic of Mali and Togo in West Africa, several scientific replications and an open-source community of more than 1,500 members exist in Japan, and recent PoCs are being developed with the private sector in China and Ecuador. The production data in Burkina Faso and in Japan that proved the theoretical implication is publicly available [1]. In fact, Synecoculture is now most spread in the Sahel region and local authorities have been monitoring the impact. The productivity depends on market access. We have to consider both the ecological productivity, which is purely the edible biomass created, and the economic profitability to measure for how much the produce can be sold in the market. It is not easy to replicate in certain geopolitical situations, but we believe that if you have access to water, you can get good results and assure the minimum productivity level.

––– How do you view the future of such projects?

Funabashi: There are top-down and bottom-up initiatives occurring in parallel. Bottom-up, we are developing a network of civil society under open-source initiatives, in parallel with promoting businesses through Sony Group and relevant stakeholders. At the same time, we need to enhance institutional support and establish a top-down framework to accelerate this transformational change to cope with climate change and to reverse the tendency of biodiversity loss. After the outbreak of COVID-19, I see people becoming increasingly aware that we are losing biodiversity. The feedback of enhancing biodiversity can be realized by the positive intervention of human activity such as Synecoculture, which is a crucial factor to transform our civilization. People are starting to realize this and starting to respond. What I also see interesting is that social common capital relies more significantly on the institutional aspect than market mechanisms, and it is crucial to reconsider how we can rely on the political and economic framework to make it better for the utility of the future generation.

––– We have focused primarily on the supply side and how we can make interventions to make production more sustainable; what are your thoughts on the demand side, i.e. how can individuals and consumers help to promote more sustainable production models?

Funabashi: This is a complex problem. When I went to Vietnam, I could see local people buying supermarket products knowing the products have been exposed to certain agrichemicals. They buy it anyways since it’s cheaper than organically produced goods without being aware of the actual effects on their body. This is a matter of science and education. First of all, measuring the health effect is really complicated. This is not simple to measure, as there are various factors involved which are not easy to separate, especially in the long term. We have to also think about how to educate people in the most constructive manner. There is a significant amount of controversy and certain beliefs which are hard to reconcile with scientific evidence. One proposition is to have people participate in food production to some extent, e.g. some percentage of their daily lives, even once in a year. This will drastically change people’s perception of how the ecosystem produces food and help to both democratize and enlighten people about food production. Fundamentally, democracy is based on the participation of each individual. If you look at food production, it is not yet happening. We are leaving the responsibility of food production to private companies and private farms and leaving it to the market mechanism to properly distribute and handle. By doing so, we are giving up the health aspect of food from our daily life; we all have to re-engage in food production in order to both educate and democratize how food is produced and consumed.

––– How would you describe Professor Hirofumi Uzawa's theory of social common capital and to what extent Professor Uzawa's work has influenced your work?

Funabashi: First of all, Professor Uzawa is a very interesting figure, especially because of his discerning face, in particular his eyes and his beard. I actually first discovered Professor Uzawa’s work through my father, Harutoshi Funabashi. He was among the first environmental sociologists in Japan and worked on researching Minamata disease, nuclear waste, and later the 3/11 nuclear catastrophe. As a consequence, he had a lot of common fields with Uzawa. My father had read Uzawa’s works, and it seems Professor Uzawa also joined one of my father’s lectures. I believe that what Uzawa was saying was quite fundamental. The economy itself is meant to sustain our livelihood and to support our pursuit of happiness and so on. However, the actual development of economic theory is not necessarily guiding us towards a sustainable path, which I think was Uzawa's point. This is a similar sentiment I feel towards biology and life science. Today there is a lot of work being done in the development of molecular biology and it’s very micro, much like in economics how mathematical formulae and models can explain market transactions. At the same time, the manner in which economic theory is being developed has, in my perspective, failed to achieve an equal world and increase societal happiness, which is the one of Uzawa’s critiques. In a similar manner, so-called life sciences are not improving the biosphere. The problems we are facing are quite similar. Microscopic academic research fails to address the broader picture.

––– Social common capital is concerned with the most important functions of society – from its natural capital, social infrastructure, and institutional capital. What functions of society do you think are working well in contemporary society and what functions do you believe need to be redesigned?

Funabashi: Regarding social infrastructure, I recently co-authored a report published by WEF as a member of the BiodiverCities committee [2]. The idea is how we could replace the so-called grey infrastructure, like concrete infrastructure, with something greener. Grey infrastructure is hindering the natural circulation of water and becomes vulnerable to flood whereas it is not resistant to drought and other problems such as intense rainfall. There are other issues such as the heat island phenomenon. These are all negative externalities that have social costs. On the other hand, we can adopt green infrastructure, which is such as making green river banks instead of concrete canals. By doing so, we can try to regain the natural circulation of water. Moreover, we should change the materials of building construction so that buildings can maintain heat in a greener fashion, such as through passive conditioning. The investment opportunity is huge and we are only exploring a tiny bit of what it should be. In terms of Uzawa, I am aware that Uzawa was criticizing today's carbon market. He was advocating a creation of a form of international fund, whereby each government paid for climate stabilization. It’s a form of CO2 tax, proportional to each country's GDP. For me, it’s a bit too strong in a top-down sense. In today's democratic world, from a practical perspective, it’s difficult to adopt this kind of single measure and impose all these regulations on all countries, considering how many countries have to independently agree and adopt such a proposition. But Uzawa’s ideas should be listened to. We have to think deeply about what kind of changes we need and how to make compromises with the decision-making reality.

––– How can we better manage natural capital and what kind of specific policy initiatives do you believe are necessary to deliver impact at scale?

Funabashi: In Uzawa's era, natural capital was roughly considered as forests, oceans, and natural ecosystems. To be specific, Uzawa used the term natural capital, and in a Japanese context, the natural environment (shizen-kankyou). Natural capital and natural environment are, however, slightly different. In the agricultural field, undesirable components of the natural environment such as weeds and vermin, are not usually considered natural capital, since it is imposing some cost to the production process. It’s not a resource per se but rather a cost. However, from the viewpoint of the natural environment, regardless of what human society is making profits out of, all forms of biodiversity are contributing to the productivity and stability of ecosystems. This is a very different point of view and more of a complex systems science view on ecosystems. From my professional experience, we could point very precisely on what economists are saying and what ecologists are saying. Ecologists’ views on natural ecosystems under human disturbance have recently developed in the last thirty years or so, which actually overlaps with the late period of Uzawa. This isn’t intended as a criticism, but now that we also have the ecologists’ perspective, I believe this is one of the key ingredients to consider.

––– Finally, what kind of initiatives are you involved in at Kyoto University and how do you see the future development of your ongoing research and projects?

Funabashi: By having a research division at Kyoto University, we want to create a platform for dialogues that transcend the private sector, policymakers, and academia. This is not easy to do, but is one of the values that a university could provide. It is also consistent with Uzawa's principle that universities could be a place to develop essential ideas for society. I am very eager to maintain and develop this place and envision this as a research division that has elements of an academic start-up that requires a dimension of entrepreneurship.

( Interview by Ryo Takahashi)
[1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-80005/v1
[2] https://www.weforum.org/reports/biodivercities-by-2030-transforming-cities-relationship-with-nature/
* Synecoculture is a trademark of Sony Group Corporation.