International workshop on 5-10.2015

Status Quo ofPrinciple 10 in Japan
Yayoi Isono
Tokyo Keizai University

Actsconcerning principle 10
We have many statutes concerning P10.

Administrative Information Disclosure Law: Many cases concerning environmental matters werebrought to court, seeking for disclosing information.
Administrative procedures Act
Code of Civil Procedure, Administrative Case Litigation Act, Code of Criminal Procedure
Environmental impact Assessment Law
City Planning Act(public hearing), River Act(public participation), Waste Disposal and PublicCleansing Act(written comments by interested persons) , Act for Infrastructure DevelopmentPlans(Understanding and acceptance by residents. Biodiversity Basic Act

Public participation by-law (local level)

However, people feel frustration about limitation ofstatutes and attitude of administrative authorities.

Case1
Construction process of Fukushima interim storage facility forsoil and wastes produced by decontamination.

Soil and wastes contaminated by radioactive material will keepin the facility for 30 years.
Traditional attitude of administrative authorities of Japan
Deliberation of information is inadequate.
Stakeholder participation is inadequate, as well.

State chose the policy of Peoples’
return to hometown after
decontamination
Fukushima nuclear accident produced
massive radioactive contaminated soil
and wastes.

Decontamination of radioactive
materials is removing soil, cutting
branches of trees, and washing away
radioactive material from the roofs orroads.
Treatment of Radioactive material Act

Interim Storage Facility Site

Fukushima-city

FukushimaDaiichi
NuclearPlant
dumping site

Futaba Gun
Population Futaba-town:8,449人 Okuma-town：11,505人
Planed facility : 2,200 millon m2 in Futaba town and Okuma townDecontamination

Short-time storage sites.
The central government promised thatsoil etc. would be moved out from shorttime storage site to a interim storage
facility in 3 years from, however nobody
believed the words.
Interim storage facility (withradioactive material more than
100000Bq.)
They must be safely disposed.

Interim Storage Facility

Summery of Timeline
2011.10 Released “Basic policy on an interim storage facility “ ← There was no opportunity for thepublic to review it, as well as no opportunity in policy making process.
2011.12 Negotiation among Statee and local governments started. The State requested to consider
whether they will accept the plan or not, to Fukushima prefecture and 8 towns and villages in Futabaarea.

2012.03 The authority explained its plan on the facility site to 8 towns and villages in Futaba-Gun.
2012.11 Governor of Fukushima prefecture accepted the site investigation with the reservation oftaking adequate account to the local governments and their residents.
2013.01 The authority held meetings to explain about the site investigation at several places. One
meeting took 2 hours.
2013.04 Site investigation commenced at Okuma town.
2013.05 First meeting of Study Committee on Safety Measures for Interim Storage Facility. First
meeting of Study Committee on Environmental Protection Measure on Interim Storage Facility as well.
← Study by Specialists

2013.12 State requested acceptance of the facility construction plan to 3 towns.
2014.02 Governor of Fukushima prefecture requested gathering the site in 3 towns to 2 towns.
2014,04 The central government accepted it.

Summery of Timeline
2014.05 Futaba town and Okuma town accepted the meeting to explain the construction
plan of the facility to residents.
2014.05-06 Closed meetings to residents(No accurate information had not directly givenby the state till the day. Residents got information through newspaper, TV, or internet.)

2014.08 Minister of Ministry of Environment explained the plan to 2 town council.
2014.09 Closed meetings to explain the matters concerning acquisition to land owners
and land right holder in the site. Many land owners of 2200 owners did not attend anymeetings.

2014.122015.01

Okuma town accepted the facility.
Futaba town accepted the facility.

2015.03.13 State will bring some amount of soil on the land in the site.
Only a little land has been acquired yet. Most land owners hesitate to negotiate to sell
their land. Most land owners have not accepted the offer. Their reasons are various.

Today, the government understands importance of
disclosure of administrative information and theparticipation of interested people, even no requirement of
the act.
So that, the authority, the MoE, held local meetings toexplain its plan to the residents of 2towns and local
governments. Information has been delivered through theinternet.
However, the central government had no intention whateverof changing the framework of its plan.

Some Issues
Timing of participation ← Too late participation
When stakeholders should participate?
Needs of review system of the policies and plans. participationin review process.
Who should participate in the process.
residents of 2 towns, Fukushima prefecture, general public
Measures of deliberation of information

Case 2Ken-o-do(Metropolitan Inter‐City Expressway) case
4 suits were brought to courts：Both of injunction of construction, action for revocationof the project approval under the Land acquisition Law.
This case shows limitation of “access to justice” in Japan.

Many movements against road construction have been happened all over Japan.
Nikko Taro-sugi (called Taro cider) case is famous in road construction cases, because
traditional culture and scenery was protected by justice(Tokyo high court, 13. July1973）.
Standing: landowner (Nikko Tosho-gu shrine)
must consider about traditionally culture, even the administrative decision is in thescope of administrative discretion.

Ken-O-Do（圏央道）- One of three ring roadsof metropolitan area
- 40-60km radius from thecentre of Tokyo- 300km long.

It passes Takao mountainthrough tunnel.

Standings
These litigations are called “Takao-san Tengu litigations”
Plaintiffs : Tengu, plants, a Takao nature conservation group, residents, landowners in the site of the road.
Standing; Tengu, nature, conservation group, denied
Standing; Residents near the road and land owners in the site, affirmed
First filing suit was in 2000(injunction of its construction)
Tengu: long nose goblin, imaginary creaturePublic interest of roadv.s.
Nature conservation, noise, safety
Ring road : 30km of road operated then.
The authority estimated that part of Takao tunnel would be one of the most busy
part of the road.
reduction of congestion of city centre
Plan is reasonable from the aspect of transport policy and financial policy.
v.s.
Traffics would not be so heavy as the authority insisted.
Takao-san is a treasure of biodiversity(plants:1321 species, birds;137species)- nature should be protect for future generations.
Takao-san is one of the most popular recreational place for residents of Tokyo. 260 million people come and climb it every year.
The road will disrupt the quiet and scenery of the village in the valley.

Plaintiffs lost all litigations.
Tokyo high court decision(20 July 2012）- affirmed a danger of vanish of some species, disruption ofscenery, and increase of air pollution and noise.
- questionable about accuracy of the estimation of traffics
by the authority- But, “public interest” of the road surpasses interests whichplaintiffs insisted.
Other court: facts alleged by plaintiffs is unreasonable.

standing is very nallow; property right holders, persons
who are in danger of suffering health damage
When plaintiffs file a suit against the administrative
authority, they can hardly win.
That is the reality.

Case 3 Yamba Dam caseTone river is the second longest river. in Tokyo.
Yamba Dam is planed in 1952. But anti-dam movement
by local people was very strong.
Yamba dam is planed for the purpose of supplying
drinking water to Tokyo and other 4 prefectures. and ofprevention of flood.
Tokyo and the other 4 prefectures pay some rate ofconstruction cost.
Local governments where the dam , accepted the plan in
1995.

People who oppose it, claim that it disrupt thenature scenery. They additionally claim that it
is useless facility, because there will notdemand of drinking water more, and that theriver authority expect much lager flood thanreal expectation.

Limitation of Access toJusticeSome residents and people living in Tokyo Metropolis and the 4 prefectures, brought inhabitant
litigation to 5 courts.
Inhabitant Litigation:- litigation for false practice of local government finance.
- Not tax payers suit, but similar to it.
- Standing: residents- Local level, not state level

It is indirect means in order to stop the construction. It makes only stop financial spendingof the cost at local level.
Actions for the Judicial Review of administrative Disposition in Administrative caselitigation act
Article 3 (1) The term "action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition" as used in this Act means anaction to appeal against the exercise of public authority by an administrative agency.

There is no administrative disposition in this process.

Conclusion
Many acts are legislated now.
It is very difficult for plaintiffs, who alleged environmental
protection, to win cases against administrative authority.
Even though public participation is nominal, administrative
authorities mostly have won cases.

Exception is waste disposal site case.

Thank you for your kindattention