Green Access Discussion Paper

DP-2015-006

The Past, Present, and Future of the Environmental
Impact Assessment System in Japan-Tokyo’s Experience and MOE’s Initiative-

Ken-ichiro Yanagi
2015/3/3

3-2-06 yanagi

International Workshop on "Participation Principle Indicators
under the Environmental Law: Towards Establishing
International Collaboration in Pursuit of Environmental Justice"
at 9th-10th March 2015
Organizers: GREEN ACCESS PROJECT II “Review of Legal Indicators for theParticipation Principle in Environmental Matters - Promotion of an International Cooperation
towards Strengthening the Environmental Democracy” (JSPS Grant-in-Aid), OSAKAUNIVERSITY, PROJECT TIGER “Policy decision-making and public participation onenergy, chemicals and water management: an international comparative study” (Global
Initiative Program), and MITSUI & CO., LTD., ENVIRONMENT FUND – Project“Proposing an Asian Version of the Aarhus Convention – Constitution of anInternational Cooperation for Implementing the Environmental Justice”

GREEN ACCESS PROJECT II
Osaka University

The Past, Present, and Future of the Environmental Impact Assessment System
in Japan ―Tokyo’s Experience and MOE’s Initiative―
Ken-ichiro Yanagi
Prof. Graduate School of Law, Meiji University
Preface
Article 20 of the Basic Environment Act, enacted in 1993 (Act No. 91 of 1993),
established provisions concerning environmental impact assessment. This
environmental impact assessment plays a very important role as a tool forbuilding a sustainable society. However, environmental impact assessment todate has tended to be understood as a regulatory method for preventing
environmental pollution, because Japan experienced dreadful pollution in thepast and has expected environmental impact assessment to be effective as amethod for preventing any recurrence of such pollution.
For that reason, when the Basic Environment Act was established and when it
was revised, there were repeated disputes over the issue of regarding
environmental impact assessment, in principle, as a method for preventing
pollution. For one, it is because in the disputes over the role of an environmental
impact assessment system in Japan, attention was mainly directed to the social
effects of this system from the very beginning. It is also apparent from the factthat expectations and concerns were expressed in various fields regarding what
institutional benefits can be brought by implementing this system or, on thecontrary, what level of social loss or confusion may be brought about byimplementing this system.
Given that 21 years have passed since the Basic Environment Act wasestablished, in addition to giving an overview of the past, present, and future ofenvironmental impact assessment, I would mainly like to introduce here theissues considered in the current revision.
My brief presentation today is divided into four parts. First, as an introduction, I
am going to overview the Environmental Assessment System in Japan. Second, I
would like you to learn two cases experienced by Tokyo Metropolitan
Government. Well, our capital city, Tokyo, has been working on environmental
issues on voluntary basis over two decades, no matter if the ordinance stipulates
or not. And the two cases you are going to know, are just two among many.
Next, the Ministry of Environment has also taken various kinds of initiatives. I am
1

going to introduce you the SEA Introduction Guidelines which was notified by
the Ministry back in 2007. Lastly, I am going to raise some Challenges Ahead forfurther discussions in your groups today in this workshop.
1.

Tokyo amended its EIA Ordinance over 10 years ago, 2002

The amendment was to make it possible to conduct systematic considerationfor environmental impacts at early planning stage. It was back in 1993 when
they first established a Committee for Examining Holistic Environmental
Assessment System. And it was the year 2000 when they started to try such
holistic system by applying an environmental evaluation before the final
approval of their programs and projects. These attempts were totally on theirown initiative. They spent budget and human resources of their own. And they
accumulated experiences and lessons from them more than other cities like
Yokohama, Osaka or Nagoya did. The Ministry of Environment notified SEA
Introduction Guidelines in 2007. 5 years after Tokyo’s amendment of its
Ordinance. Then, they amended EIA Law. In the amended law, they are
introducing primary consideration of environmental assessment at early projectstage. You now can design your projects with more flexibility by this amendment.
But, they are only project level. Not program or planning level consideration. Itmeans that it has not fully reflected SEA Guidelines 2007.
Let me show you a figure which shows Japan’s environmental assessment
system at a glance.
2.

Japan’s environmental assessment system

Let me go from the bottom to the top. At the bottom is project level EIA. Let’ssay “Level 1”. Project EIA is stipulated by the EIA Law, and the Ministry enforced
its amendment in 2013.
The difference between former EIA Law and the Amended Law is, now you arerequested to propose several alternatives for project location and project size.
And you can change project design before the final approval stage, in order toavoid and reduce adverse impact.
For example, when you construct a road, you are responsible to prepare several
routes from the starting point to the ending point, and then choose the best one.
Layout and structure will also be proposed after location and size is fixed.
2

LEGISLATIONS IN
JAPAN

Sustainability
Assessment

EU’s Initiative

Level 3
POLICYThe Netherlands(Environmental Test)

Level 2

Amended EIA
Ordinance (Tokyo
Metropolitan
Government)

SEA&

ACCOMPLISHMENTS
IN EUROPE

PLAN

EU Directive

Environmental andSocialConsideration
Assessment

SEA Introduction
Guidelines 2007
(MOE)

PROGRAM

Amended EIA
Law (MOE)

Level 1
Project EIA

EIA Law (MOE)

PROJECTAt the level 2 of this figure, SEA Introduction Guidelines is placed. The Amended
EIA Law remains at project level, and it does not reflect all of what SEA
Guidelines indicate.
As you can see, Tokyo goes ahead of the country. The planning stage
systematic environmental consideration is officially introduced in the Amended
Ordinance. For formulation of large-area multiple development plan over 30 ha,
you are requested to examine location, size, target area, target population,
land use plan from very early stage of planning. And for project plans, you willcompare and evaluate alternatives from environmental aspects from earlystage. There are two issues you have to keep in your mind when you follow theAmended EIA Ordinance of Tokyo.
One is to predict and evaluate environmental impact with quantitative data.
They are ambient air, offensive odor, noise and vibration, water pollution, soil
contamination, ground, geographic and topographic condition, water cycle,
ecosystem, shade, electromagnetic interference, wind environment, landscape,historical sites and cultural properties, contact with nature, waste, greenhousegas. Another one is to evaluate qualitatively. Tokyo’s Environmental Basic Plan
is going to be taken into consideration as the framework. And you will assess towhat extent you can achieve environmental goals in the plan which you aregoing to implement. And you can include social and economic evaluation forthe overall evaluation of alternatives.
The most right side of this figure shows the accomplishments in Europe. They are3

far ahead of Japan. EU Directive reaches the planning stage environmental
assessment. And the Netherlands implements environmental test. That is at thelevel 3, called “sustainability assessment.
3.

Innovative actions taken by Tokyo Metropolitan Government

The first case is the Systematic Consideration for Environmental Impacts on the
Metropolitan Radial Road Number 5.
Please have a look at the map at the bottom of this slide. There is a road on theleft side of the map extending from southwest to northeast is the Mitaka City
Road Number 3.2.2. It is 6,570 meter long, and 30 meter wide. The road at thecenter which crosses with Mitaka City Road is the Metropolitan Radial Road
Number 5. 1 kilometer of the Mitaka Road and 1.3 kilometer of the Radial Road
Number 5 had not been developed for long time. And it caused heavy traffic
jam in the surrounding area. In 2000 and 2004, for 500 meters each, Tokyo
approved the project implementation for the Mitaka Road.
As for the Radial Road No.5, Tokyo decided to introduce holistic environmental
assessment system on its own initiative. They decided to disclose project
information at the planning stage, and collect public comments.

Case 1: Systematic Consideration for Environmental Impacts on Radial Road #5••

The City Road in Mitaka City #3.2.2 (6,570m of with 30m wide) connects to the Metropolitan
Radial Road #5 in Suginami Ward.
1 km of the Mitaka Road #3.2.2 and 1.3 km of the Radial Road #5 had not been developed,
which caused heavy traffic jam in the surrounding area.

Suginami Ward
Metropolitan Radial Road #5

MitakaCity

Project Area (1.3km long and 60m wide)

4

Legend: Project

They proposed 3 alternative plans, A, B and C. And compared each other. Plan
A was to keep the width as 50 meters as it was, to reserve Tama River
Waterworks and green space, and to conserve surrounding environment bybuilding green embankments on the pedestrian road. Plan B was to enlarge thewidth up to 60 meters, to improve the green space of Tama River waterworks,
and to conserve the surrounding environment by creating 10-meter wide bufferzones and green embankments. Plan C was to make the width from 50 meters
to 46 meters, to put Tama River Waterworks underground, to preserve green
space, to create green embankment on the pedestrian road.
As the road is located in Mitaka City and Suginami Ward, Mitaka and Suginami
Ward requested environmental, social and economic considerations.
They requested Tokyo to consider water quality of Tama River Waterworks,
ambient air, noise and vibration, flora and fauna, historical and cultural sites,
information discloser and public participation. They strongly requested Tokyo not
to do any harm to the local community. Such considerations on social andeconomic aspects had not actually been taken in Japan in the past. This
Metropolitan Road is one of such very rare cases.
The figure shows the plan they finally adopted. The Plan B is the basis of it.
Tokyo modified the plan based on the Urban Planning Law, and submitted the
project EIA based on the EIA Ordinance in April 2004. Tokyo then approved theplan in 2005.

••

Tokyo approved the project implementation for the Mitaka Road #3.2.2 in 2000 and 2004.
Tokyo introduced a systematic consideration for environmental impacts at early stage to
the Radial Road #5 on its own initiative.
– Three alternative plans were proposed for comparison.
– Mitaka City and Suginami Ward requested environmental and socioeconomic
consideration for water quality of Tama River Waterworks, air ambience, noise andvibration, flora and fauna, historical and cultural sites, information discloser andpublic participation.

••
Widened to 60m
10m
Buffer Zone

Embankment

7.5m

25m

7.5m

Promenade

Fence

Promenade

Fence

10m
Buffer Zone

Embankment

Tama River Waterworks
Accredited Historic Site
Former width: 50m

5Tokyo modified the project
design to widen the road from50m to 60m for environmental
preservation.
Tokyo then conducted EIA
and approved the project in
2005.

4.

The Environmental Assessment for 2020 Olympic and Paralympics GamesAs you may be aware of, Japan will co-host the Summer Games for the second
time. First time was in 1965, 55 years ago. Olympic Games now need various
kinds of resources. United States gave up the 1976 Winter Games in Denver as
Environment organizations strongly opposed to it. And then Austria hosted it inInnsbruck. It was just 20 years ago, in 1994, when the Olympic Charter included“environment” in its chapters first time in its history.
To the candidate cities for 2020 Games, Madrid, Istanbul and Tokyo, the IOC
requested a lot. One of them was to implement an environmental assessment
on all the infrastructure for the Games. At that stage, nobody knew which city
would be chosen as the site for the Games. But all three candidate cities were
obliged to submit EIA report to the IOC. The IOC requested the cities to staycoherent with the local legal framework. And to conduct the Olympic Games
Impact Survey after the Games are over.
That means Tokyo was supposed to fulfill the Amended EIA Ordinance and do
more. Tokyo actually raised its hand for 2016 Games. But it was not selected.
In addition to EIA, Tokyo this time decided to implement an IEE on voluntarybasis. They created three pillars for evaluate comprehensively. That is, Facilities
evaluation, Games evaluation and Overall Plan evaluation in both IEE and EIA.
I have to mention here that Tokyo has a vision, “Tokyo 2020”. And theimplementation of the Olympic Games is linked with all the policy measures ofTokyo. It was intended that Olympic Games should contribute to the promotionof environmental measures of Tokyo.There are 18 environmental items forevaluation.
They are ambient air, water quality, soil, odor, growing condition of living
creature, water cycle, noise and vibration, shade, landscape, contact withnature, conformity of passers-by’s space, historical sites and cultural properties,
water use, waste, eco-material, greenhouse gas and energy.
In addition to 18 items for environmental evaluation, 17 items for socioeconomic
evaluation are included as mandatory.
They are land use, community severance, resettlement, sports activities, culturalactivities, volunteer, community, awareness toward environment, safety,
hygiene, disaster prevention, traffic, accessibility to public transportation, Traffic
safety, economic impact, employment and financial feasibility of the project.
6

These evaluation items can be added later on, upon requirement. EIA focuseson the environmental impact at post-Olympic stage, what we call “follow-up”
stage, as well as implementation stage.
Tokyo will conduct a follow-up study regarding the prediction and evaluation. If
the study results are different from prediction results, They will identify the causesof such difference. If negative impact is more serious, or, if positive impact is lessthan expected, they may re-examine mitigation measures and add some more.

OVERALL FLOW OF ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR TOKYO 2020 OLYMPIC ANDPARALYMPIC GAMESFY2011Develop Guidelines

SubmitApplication Fileto IOCFY2012

Conduct IEE on

1) Facilities,2) Games, and3) Overall Plan Develop Guidelines for Environmental
Assessment

SubmitCandidature Fileto IOC

Conduct IEE
 Anticipate and Evaluate Env’l Impact
caused by the O&P Games Examine Mitigation Measures Overall Evaluation
IEE Evaluation Report
1.
Salient features of site locations
2.
Find causes of env’l impact
3.
Salient features of local contexts
4.
Select env’l and social items to befocused upon5.
Anticipate env’l and social impact
6.
Examine mitigation measures
7.
Examine env’l preservation measures8.
Summary of evaluation results

IOC’s Official
Visit to Tokyo

OVERALL FLOW OF ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT FOR TOKYO 2020 OLYMPIC ANDPARALYMPIC GAMESFY2013Develop EIA Guidelines

IOC DecideJapan as Host
Country

Develop EIA Guidelines for1) implementation stage, and2) Follow-up stage

Conduct EIA
 Anticipate and Evaluate Env’l
Impact caused by the O&P Games Examine Mitigation Measures

FY2014
Conduct EIA on
1) Facilities,2) Games, and3) Overall Plan

Follow up
before / during / after
the Games

EIA Evaluation Report

Construction
Works

Demolition
Works

Follow up
 Monitor the env’l evaluation results
 Monitor if the mitigation measures aretaken Assess the effectiveness of mitigation
measures
Follow up Report7This figure, Overall Flow of Environmental Assessment for Tokyo 2020 Games,shows what I just explained.
5. Guidelines on SEA Introduction
The Ministry of Environment formulated the Third Environment Basic Plan in April
2006. And the establishment of the SEA Guidelines was described in this Basic
Plan. Later in the same year, they started to examine the contents of the
Guidelines, and they notified it to the relevant ministries, prefectures, and theordinance-designated cities in 2007. The Ministry of Environment promotes the
Guidelines saying that introduction of SEA will make the process ofenvironmental

examination

moreaccountable,

and

help

implement

appropriate environmental considerations in the plan. SEA Introduction
Guidelines

showscommon implementation procedures

and evaluation

methodologies in the planning stage. Such as comparison and evaluation of thedegree of environmental impact of all the alternatives. And conduct survey,
predict and evaluate them based on the project maturity.
Each relevant ministry is encouraged to establish their own specific guidelines
for SEA implementation. The flow shows you the procedure of SEA
Implementation.

PROCEDURE OF SEA IMPLEMENTATION
Officially announce initiation of study on
SEA.

1. Initiate SEA

Officially announce at an appropriate timing
to collect public opinions on:• which alternatives to apply forcomparison and assessment• which environmental elements to assess• how to perform such assessment.
Request relevant prefectures andmunicipalities to provide local environmental
information.

2. Officially Announce the Assessment
Methodologies
Local Environmental Information
Public Opinions

Conduct survey, forecast and assess theenvironmental impact with the assessment
methodologies that reflect public opinions

3. Implement Survey, Forecast and Assess theEnvironmental Impact

8

PROCEDURE OF SEA IMPLEMENTATION•

4. Prepare the Draft Environmental Statement andPublish•Opinions from relevant prefecturesand municipalities, and MOE•

Compile and officially announce
assessment results and collect public
opinions.
Request relevant prefectures andmunicipalities for their opinions.
MOE express its opinion whennecessary.

Summarize environmental statement basedon public opinions and those from relevant
prefectures, municipalities and MOE

5. Prepare and Publish the Environmental
Statement•

6. Reflect the Assessment Results to the Plan•

Based on the assessment results,
extend environmental considerations
when selecting locations and scales
Share information on the extent to which
the assessment results have beenreflected upon official announcement ofplanning decision

6. Some issues which are left unfinished for Japanese Government
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA), geo-spatial planning, upstream EIA,
and IEE (hereinafter upstream EIA/SEA) are processes that can identify adverse
environmental impacts of individual projects at an earlier stage than EIA. Thus
their findings provide more opportunities to influence basic aspects of projects
such as location, size, technologies used, etc. However, there are challenges for
implementing effective upstream EIA/SEA.
I would make reference to two challenges for the preparation of a meaningful
upstream EIA/SEA and project EIA. One is, how to secure public involvement
The Amended EIA Law encourages public participation. But that is notparticipation for decision making, but participation for information collection as
the public is the one who has specific environmental information at the projectsite. At SEA level, my opinion is public participation should mean participation indecision making. Tokyo Metropolitan Government already tried it. When they
applied the holistic environmental assessment for the Metropolitan Radial Road
No.5, they invited three citizens as the Council members for the qualification of
EIA document.
In the EIA Council of Kawasaki City, they choose three representatives fromdifferent civic organizations. Like the case of Tokyo and Kawasaki, public9

involvement in decision making process is one of important steps for SEA.
Another challenge is, in addition to environmental aspect, social and economic
aspects should also be taken into consideration to compare alternatives at theplanning stage. Tokyo Metropolitan Government has already introduced it in
the Amended Ordinance.
This is the figure you already overviewed at the beginning of my paper, about
the environmental assessment system of Japan. The same figure is now with the
2 cases of Tokyo Metropolitan Government in red color. And you can now again
have a look at where the SEA Guidelines is. The Metropolitan Radial Road No. 5
is placed in the Level 2. It is SEA level. With experiences like this one, Tokyo went
on to the amendment of its EIA Ordinance. Upstream EIA/SEA results should be
utilized at downstream EIA effectively.
In order to do so, you may want to consider how to simplify and shorten the timefor each procedure of EIA. According to the Amended EIA Ordinance of Tokyo,
after they develop a statement at planning stage, they are supposed todevelop survey plan, draft evaluation and final evaluation at project
implementation stage. It generally takes time. But you can simplify the process
and shorten the period by making use of previous surveys results to develop a
special statement of environmental impact. When you develop a special
statement at the planning stage, then you can skip survey plan and draft
evaluation if the Council approves the proposal from project proponent. Thatmeans you submit only the special statement and the final evaluation. There is
one such case which Tokyo approved in the past. Tokyo’s Ordinance is only
applied to the plans developed by Tokyo itself. And Upstream EIA/SEA should be
conducted when you are ready to examine the alternatives from social andeconomic aspects. If there are not sufficient feasible alternatives available inreality, you can include those which you would not implement to compare
each other. f the project proponent does not find it effective to examine
non-feasible alternatives, then you may want to conduct project-level EIA. In
these cases, project proponent should tell why they do not think so. The final
decision should be left to the Council. Such decision making process should be
disclosed to the public in easy way.
If any part of SEA procedure is exempted, it must be reported and disclosed.
Transparency and reliability should be secured in the process.
On the other hand, the environmental assessment for 2020 Olympic Games isplaced in the Level 3 that is the sustainability assessment level. They have linked
10the Olympic with Toyo’s Development Plan. And they see the post-Olympic
impact not only from environmental aspect, but also from social and economic
aspects.
What the Japanese Government needs to consider is to upstream theAmended EIA Law to SEA level. The Amended Law still remains at project level.
They need to go beyond it.
Tokyo took social and economic considerations at the planning stage of theMetropolitan Radial Road #5. This initiative also should be taken into the law.
Tokyo will co-host the 2020 Olympic and Paralympics Games. That will becomea milestone for future introduction of SEA and sustainability assessment.
No other municipality in Japan or even Japan itself has conducted such
advanced assessment. We will see the results after 2020. We need to keep oureyes on the progress and accomplishments of Tokyo. You can say the Olympic
Games is an event, but not a mere event. It is big enough to change our society.
We need to take advantage of this opportunity to improve the sustainability ofwhole Japanese society.
Reference
1 Michio Hashimoto, Shishi Kankyou Gyousei (History of Environmental
Administration Written by a Private Citizen) p.68 (TheAsahi

ShimbunCompany, 1988). In response to the request by Shizuoka Prefecture for theindustrial development plan for Mishima and Numazu, a large-scale preliminary
survey was conducted by the Kurokawa mission at the initiative of the Ministry ofTrade and Industry. This was the first government-led environmental assessment.
The environmental assessments following it include "Preliminary Assessment of
the Environmental Impact Associated with the Development of a Large Scale
Industrial Base in the East of Tomakomai" and "Preliminary Assessment of theEnvironmental Impact Associated with the Construction of Radial Road No.36."
2 Toru Ikegami "Japan's response to environmental impact assessment(environmental assessment)": "Legal aspects of environmental assessment,"
Kankyo Hou Kenkyu vol 4 p.11 (Yuhikaku, 1975)
3 United States Government(1969) The National Environmental Policy Act of1969.Public Law 91-190 .91st Congress.S.1075,1 January 1970, Washington DC.
4 Yoshimoto Watanuki "Environmental Law in the United States" Jichi Kenkyuu
volume 48, number 9, p.8 ...
5 Central Council for Environmental Pollution Control “Methods of Japan's
11Environmental Impact Assessment System." (Report) ChuKoShin No. 171 (1979)
6 Bill presented by the Cabinet "Bill for Environmental Impact Assessment"(Submitted to the 94th Ordinary Diet Session) (1981)
7 Environment Agency Ten-Year History of the Ministry of the Environment"Promoting environmental impact assessment" Chapter 1, Section 3 of each
topic (Gyosei, 1982)
8 Cabinet decision "Implementation of environmental impact assessment"(August 28th, 1984)
9 Kawasaki City: Municipal law regarding environmental impact assessment in
Kawasaki City (published on October 20th, 1980, put into effect on July 1st, 1981)(1976)
10 Tsuneyuki Morita "Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment
Systems in Local Governments" Kankyo Joho Kagaku 11(2), p79-86.
11 Ministerial ordinance issued by the Prime Minister's Office No. 37, June 12th,1998
12 For details, see the report issued in July 2009 by the Environmental Impact
Assessment System Integrated Study Group.
13My book Comprehensive Study of the Environmental Assessment Law(Seibunsha, 2011)
14The subsidies for the three areas of road maintenance, sewage treatment
facility maintenance, and port maintenance will be integrally administeredunder the budget of the Cabinet Office instead of their respective authorities:
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and the Ministry of the Environment. The
scheme will significantly enhance the autonomy and discretion of local
authorities regarding projects: (a) an integral public funding will allow for adegree of freedom in infrastructure development at the discretion of local
authorities based on the regional revitalization plan, (b) a single point of contact
through the Cabinet Office significantly simplifies administrative procedures
such as plan application and budget request, (c) the system allows local
authorities to manage their projects within their budget according to theprogress made, to reallocate funds between projects or the number of projects
between different fiscal years.
15 Study Group on the Environmental Impact Assessment System, “Report of
the Study Group on the Environmental Impact Assessment System” 2009, p 24

12