Preamble

The year 2010 is not only designated as the International Year of the Biodiversity but also marks Japan's hostingof the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Nagoya,
Aichi Prefecture. It is also a year when Japan and the entire world face a significant turning point in tackling issues on
biological diversity. While it has become increasingly clear in many respects that biological diversity is indispensablefor our daily life, and as related science has advanced a great deal, I do not believe that social awareness of its
importance has gained much, even nearly 20 years after the Convention on Biological Diversity was first adopted in
1992. I accepted the role of chairman of the Japan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee, in hopes of pursuing
significant changes in the current situation, and with 2010 marking a turning point, encouraging many different
segments of society to launch activities focused on conserving biological diversity and its sustainable use.
Over the last 50 years, biodiversity in Japan has undergone dramatic changes to a degree never witnessed in
our history̶changes undoubtedly triggered by the socioeconomic activities of human beings. As a result, Japanesesociety has created a life of material wealth and convenience. In exchange, however, we are now on the brink oflosing living creatures unique to Japan and close to our life, and causing a number of other harmful consequences.
We have also imported a significant amount of products nurtured by nature, and consequently, I fear that we only
end up depriving local people of benefits they should otherwise enjoy, such as ecosystem services, in some cases. I
think we should take a closer look at these changes, and then decide what to do in the future. I regard this Report ofComprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan (Japan Biodiversity Outlook) as the basis thereof.
Similar comprehensive assessments have been already made and published as the Global Biodiversity Outlook(GBO) by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as assessments conducted by the EU, theUK and Australia. This report is an advanced approach aiming to build on these previous assessments. Although we
spent two years conducting this examination before finally publishing the results, we are far from fully satisfied with
its content. There are a number of issues to be addressed in the future, such as inadequate scientific data vital forour examination, ecological services not being properly assessed, and an inability to always present full and concrete
activity options. However, I am confident that we at least present a general picture of biodiversity and the problems it
faces. I would take much pleasure in this report possibly allowing you to find more opportunities for thinking about
biological diversity in Japan, and making use of it in developing activities for helping to conserve biodiversity in the
future.
Lastly, in producing this report, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to the Nature Conservation Bureau of
the Ministry of the Environment, as well as the Japan Wildlife Research Center, for their help in collecting various
data and preparing materials for the Committee, as well as to the members of administrative offices, corporations andNGOs, and other researchers who kindly offered us their valuable data.

May 10, 2010

Tohru Nakashizuka
ChairmanJapan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee

PreambleContents

Summary of Assessments
Introduction
Section 1 Background Behind the Assessment of Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Purpose of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Subjects of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Framework of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Organization of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter I Nature and Socio-Economy in Japan
Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Natural Landscape of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. Outline of Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. From the Second Half of the 1950s to the First Half of the 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. From the Second Half of the 1970s to the 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. From the 1990s to the Present Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter II Assessment of the Causes of Biodiversity Loss
Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. The First Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the First Crisis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. The Second Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Second Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1. The Third Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Contents

2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Third Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1. Climate Change Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Climate Change Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter III Assessment of the Status of Biodiversity Loss
Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Forest and Mountain Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Cultivated systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Urban systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Inland Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Marine and Coastal systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Island systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2. Reason of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Contents

3. Measures for Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Chapter IV General Overview of the Assessment
Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010 (Generalization) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
2. Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Services in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
1. What is the 2010 Target? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2. Assessment of Progress Toward Achieving the 2010 Target in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
1. Biodiversity Loss Observed after 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
2. Loss and Measures Regarding the First Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
3. Loss and Measures Regarding the Second Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
4. Loss and Measures Regarding the Third Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5. Loss and Measures Regarding the Climate Change Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6. Impact of Irreversible Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7. Mainstreaming of Biodiversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Chapter V Problems in the Future
Section 1 Problems Regarding Input from Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
1. Improvement of observation regarding biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
2. Improvement of the openness and usability of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
3. Presentation of data including factors and measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4. Improvement of knowledge regarding ecosystem services and “tipping points” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
5. Prioritized observation of ecosystems with severe loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Section 2 Problems Regarding Output for Setting Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
1. Association with the Post-2010 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2. Multilayered spacial scale of assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Section 3 Problems Regarding Output for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
1. Raising awareness among the general public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
2. Mapping of assessment regarding biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
3. Assessment of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4. Presentation of options for actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Contents

Appendices
Appendix 1 Results of Questionnaire Survey Designed for Experts
Appendix 2 Summary of Opinions Shared by Experts
Appendix 3 References for data used in the Report of Comprehensive
Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan
Appendix 4 Data Used in the Report of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity

Contents

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Summary of Assessments

Five Major Conclusions drawn from Japan Biodiversity Outlook(the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity)
1. Loss of biodiversity as a result of human activities in Japan has affected all ecosystems, and theloss is continuing on the whole.
2. The degree of biodiversity loss has been especially large in inland water systems, marine andcoastal systems, and island systems. The trend towards biodiversity loss is continuing at present.
3. As for the drivers of the loss, the “First Crisis (brought about by development, direct use, and waterpollution),” particularly development, has had the greatest impact, but the speed at which loss
attributable to this crisis has slightly abated. The “Second Crisis (reduced use and managementof Satochi-Satoyama areas)” continues to intensify. Furthermore, among all factors falling underthe “Third Crisis (invasive alien species and chemicals),” the effects of invasive alien species
are particularly prominent. The “Climate Change Crisis (the impact of climate change on livingorganisms)” poses serious concerns for certain ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable. Various
responses have been taken to address these crises, and these responses have been effective to acertain degree, but given the major socioeconomic changes that indirectly drive biodiversity loss,
these responses have not been sufficiently effective.
4. The Japanese people currently enjoy lifestyles characterized by material wealth and convenience,but for the past 50 years those lifestyles have meant the domestic loss of biodiversity anddependence on the supply of ecosystem services overseas. From 2010 onwards, the lingering
effects of past development (First Crisis), the increasing seriousness of the problem of reduced use
and management of Satochi-Satoyama areas (Second Crisis), settlement and further encroachment
by invasive alien species (Third Crisis), rising temperatures (Climate Change Crisis), and otherrelated factors are expected to result in further loss. Thorough responses, including those that
address indirect drivers, are necessary. For that purpose, it is important to build consensus at the
local level.
5. Some biodiversity loss in inland water systems, island systems, and marine and coastal systems
may in the future transform into a grave loss, causing irreversible changes or having other serious
consequences.

Summary of AssessmentsiReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Background
Biodiversity is defined as the existence of a variety of ecosystems. It also means that there are various differencesamong and within species. For example, there are different types of ecosystems, such as forests, rivers, marshlands,
tidal flats and coral reefs. Each has a number of different fauna and flora living and growing there, and within
identical species, there emerges different living habits, depending on location and individual species.
As human beings, we can neither live nor lead a comfortable life without the benefits brought by biodiversity.
Our lives and culture are supported by supplies brought by biodiversity, including foodstuffs, lumber and medicines,
adjustable effects such as the pollination of crops, control of noxious insects or cultural diversity unique to eachregion.
However, there have been reports from all over the world that tropical rain forests are diminishing, coral reefs
degrading and alien species causing damage, leading to concerns about the rapid loss of biodiversity. In 1992, ”theConvention on Biological Diversity (a convention related to the diversity of living things)” was adopted, aiming toachieve the ”Conservation of Biodiversity,” ”Sustainable Use of Its Components,” and ”Fair and Equitable Sharing ofBenefits Arising out of the Utilization of Genetic Resources.” Despite efforts made by each member country, the lossof biodiversity has continued. At the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP6)
held in 2002, the target for the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 was set to achieve ”a significant reductionof the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.”
Japan lies vertically next to the Eurasian continent, with differences in altitude from its coasts to its mountains,
and with territory consisting of a few thousand islands. Reflecting the history of repeated tectonic movements inmerging with and separating from the continent, Japan's land is rich, though small, with a number of biota uniqueto the country. Our marine territory is located along the periphery of the equatorial Pacific Ocean and boasts ofoutstanding marine biodiversity among developed countries, due to a combination of sea currents flowing north tosouth, a long and winding coastline, and a steep slope from shallow seas to deep-sea trenches.
Japan adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993 and has formulated its National Biodiversity
Strategy on four occasions since 1995, leading to recognition of ”the crisis of biodiversity” in our country. We
recently adopted successive initiatives, including enactment of the Basic Act on Biodiversity in 2008, developmentof the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 based on the aforementioned legislation in 2010, and holding of
the forthcoming 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) in Nagoya, Aichi
Prefecture. The importance alleviating the loss of biodiversity is gradually being recognized.

Assessment of Biodiversity
In order to alleviate biodiversity loss, various entities need to commence concrete activities immediately. As astart, we must demonstrate the entire scale of biodiversity loss and the direction of related measures, by understanding
what is happening in biodiversity and what caused the loss thereof, and then assess what can be done.

Summary of Assessmentsii

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Such an assessment process has already begun in the form of an international project: the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA) was implemented between 2001 and 2005, with more than 1,000 experts participating to assess
biodiversity and ecosystems on a worldwide basis. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (GBO2)̶compiled by the
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and published in 2006̶assessed how the measures to meet the2010 target have been progressing. Later in May 2010, the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO3) and this reportwere released to show that the 2010 target had not been met, with more pressure being placed on biodiversity andresulting in continuing loss.
In Japan, the Basic Act on Biodiversity was enacted to provide guidelines for assessing the current status andbenefits of biodiversity in the country. The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 prescribes that “the situationof biodiversity in Japan must be assessed comprehensively, taking socioeconomic aspects into consideration......” Anassessment of biodiversity is now very much required.

Japan Biodiversity Outlook (Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity)
The purpose of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan is to assess the current status regarding
the loss of our biodiversity by comprehensively analyzing existing scientific and subjective information related to thecurrent and changing situation, in order to provide materials on which policies for environmental administration are
decided, and make the general public aware of the current status of biodiversity.
The Japan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee established by the Ministry of the Environment began acomprehensive assessment of biodiversity in FY 2008. This report JBO was published in May 2010 after the resultsof examination over the past two years were compiled while it did not fulfill the purpose sufficiently or satisfactorily.
JBO focused on the period during the second half of 1950s to the present, and assessed the nationwide causes of
biodiversity loss in Japan (particularly the degree of effects) and the current status (in terms of the degree of loss) byusing about 30 indicators and 104 sets of data. The causes of loss were classified into the following four categories
provided by the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010: “the first crisis (development, direct use, and waterpollution),” “the second crisis (a reduction in use/management of Satochi-Satoyama areas consisting of agriculturallands, reservoirs and open fields),” “the third crisis (alien species and chemical materials),” and “the climate change
crisis.” The status was assessed by dividing domestic ecosystems into six classifications: “forest and mountainsystems,” “cultivated systems,” “urban systems,” “inland water systems,” “marine and coastal systems,” and “island
systems.”
When assessing the data, hearings were conducted among biology experts in Japan. We conferred with 208
experts for their opinions at the outset of the assessment process, and with 54 experts when compiling the assessment
report.

Summary of Assessmentsiii

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Loss of Biodiversity up to 2010
To determine the priorities of measures to be taken and examine effective measures, it is important to understandthe loss in ecosystems, the causes thereof, and trends. The causes of biodiversity loss since the second half of 1950s
and the current status of biodiversity loss in 2010 are described as follows (also see Table: Biodiversity loss up to2010).
By 2010, biodiversity loss has spread to all ecosystems, and continues as a whole.
“The first crisis,” not least development, was the most damaging factor behind biodiversity loss in the past, due tosocial demands during the period of high economic growth, with all ecosystems being exposed to this negative impact.
At the moment, the rate of new additional loss is decelerating; however, the impact of development on a smaller scale
and in some regions remains to exist. It is also concerned about that a possible lingering impact from ecosystems
already lost due to past development, where effects might only be seen after a certain time has elapsed. In addition tosuch conventional measures as designating an area of concern as a conservation sanctuary, consideration has also been
given in recent years at the start of land development, but it have not always been seen satisfactory benefits from suchconsideration. Larger loss incurred in the past also remains not to be restored.
“The second crisis” involves a reduced use of biological resources and the progression of vegetation succession
in forest and mountain systems and Satochi-Satoyama areas which are part of cultivated systems. These factors are
triggered by changes in the energy supply structure, in agriculture and agricultural methods, and in depopulation andan aging population in rural areas. To a large degree, we must wait for further research on the effects from this source,
but these issues remain to be addressed, and are concerned about even greater impact. We have been considering how
to sustainably use and control biological resources, but radical measures are difficult to implement.
During “the third crisis,” the effects of alien species have been enormous in recent years. It is concerned about
the effects on inland water systems and island systems, both of which are particularly fragile against alien species.
New regulations were recently introduced regarding the importation and handling of alien species, while certain
invasive species already settled in Japan are rapidly expanding in terms of distribution.
Regarding “the climate change crisis,“ there has been debate on the cause and effect relationship between risingtemperatures and actual effects on biodiversity, but climate change is generally believed to have a strong impact onforest and mountain systems (highlands), marine and coastal systems (coral reefs), and island systems.
The loss of biodiversity caused by these factors has now spread to all ecosystems. Particularly greater loss canbe found in inland water systems, marine and coastal systems, and island systems, and is likely to continue. In theseecosystems, “the first crisis (development)” and “the third crisis (alien species)” interact in a complex manner. The
loss in ecosystems in forests and on agricultural land is also substantial, being exposed to “the first crisis (development)”
and “the second crisis (a reduction of use/management).”
The aforementioned causes of biodiversity loss, namely “the first crisis,” “the second crisis,” “the third crisis,“ and“the climate change crisis” do not act alone. Rather, these factors interact in a complex manner to cause loss in eachecosystem (see Table: Assessment of loss in each ecosystem).

Summary of Assessmentsiv

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table: Biodiversity loss up to 2010
Current state of loss and trends
Degree ofloss fromoriginal
state

Drivers of loss (degree of impact) and current trends

Degree ofFirst
SecondThirdloss fromcrisiscrisiscrisisstate as ofthe second Development,
Invasive alien
Reduction
half of 1950s direct use
speciesinuse
andand current
and water
and chemical
management
trendspollution
compounds

ClimatechangecrisisForest andmountainsystems

Other*1

Cultivatedsystems−Urban
systems−• Decrease in local
varieties of crops
and livestock−

Inland water
systems*2
Marine andcoastalsystems−

Islandsystems−• Outbreaks ofcoral predators• Coralline flat

*3

LegendSubjectofassessment

Drivers

State
Degree of current loss

Trend of current loss

Degree of impact duringassessment period

Current trend of impact

Not Lost

Recovering

Weak

Decreasing

Not significantly lostSame

MediumSame

Lost

Being lost

StrongIncreasing

Significantly lost

Being rapidly lost

Very strong

Increasing rapidly

LegendNote: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors and data that show trends
that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects, and trends of overall loss.
*1: The degree of impact on alpine ecosystems has been and continues to be serious.
*2, *3: While the problem of chemical compounds has been mitigated to some extent, the problem of invasive alien species isserious.

Summary of Assessmentsv

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table: Assessment of loss in each ecosystem
Ecosystem

Assessment of loss in each ecosystem

Forest andmountainsystems

Loss in forest and mountain systems occurred during the assessment period from the second halfof 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ The overall size of a forest apparently does not make a large difference, but pristine naturalforests have diminished through conversion into artificial forests. The connectivity of forests has
also been decreasing. [First crisis]○ During the latter half of the assessment period, the rate of deterioration of pristine naturalforests slowed down, but the quality of ecosystems in secondary forests and artificial forests has
been declining. [Second crisis]○ Recently, as deer populations have increased along with an expanded distribution, the damage
to trees and underlying vegetation has become evident. There are also reports about a negative
impact on alpine plants probably due to global warming. [Second crisis and climate change
crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on forests by development due to changes in the socioeconomic
situation, but ongoing impact raises concern.

Cultivatedsystems

Loss in cultivated systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s
to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ The development of residential land mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well aschanges in agriculture and agricultural methods, contributed to smaller-scale cultivated systems
and lower quality. [First crisis]○ The reduced use of fields, mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well as less useof agricultural land, mostly in the second half of the assessment period, contributed tosmaller-scale cultivated systems and lower quality. [Second crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on cultivated systems resulting from development, as well aschanges in agriculture and agricultural methods, due to changes in the socioeconomic situation,but ongoing impact raises concern. It is also concerned about the growing influence of the
reduced use and control of agricultural land.

Urban
systems

Loss in urban systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to thepresent to some extent, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ A reduction of green tracts of land in cities, such as agricultural land and woods, as well as thedeteriorating quality of river water, during a period of high economic growth in the first half of theassessment period contributed to a reduction and lower quality of habitats for living creatures.
[First crisis]○ The preparation of new green lands in urban areas as well as the improved quality of river water
progressed in the second half of the assessment period; as a result, the distribution of someliving creatures inhabiting such environments is expanding.

Inlandwater
systems

Significant loss in inland water systems occurred during the assessment period from the second
half of 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ A gathering of pebbles and gravel, the creation of artificial rivers, and the reclamation of lakes,
marshes and wetlands since the first half of the assessment period contributed to smaller-scale inland
water systems, as well as lower quality and more fragmentation, throughout Japan. [First crisis]○ Conversely, the quality of lake water and marshes, likely to have deteriorated in the first half ofthe evaluation period, improved in the second half. [First crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on inland water systems from development due to changes in thesocioeconomic situation, but ongoing impact raises concern. It is also concerned that living
creatures may be captured and gathered for ornamental purposes, as well as a greater impact ofalien species. [First crisis and third crisis]

Marine andcoastalsystems

Significant loss in marine and coastal systems occurred during the assessment period from thesecond half of 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ In particular, development in the first half of the assessment period contributed to a significant
reduction in the nationwide scale of some marine and coastal systems, such as tidal flats andnatural coastlines. [First crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on marine and coastal systems by development, such asreclamation in coastal areas, due to changes in the socioeconomic situation, but ongoing impact
raises concern. We also face new concerns over deteriorating erosion of the coastline, aninvasion of alien species, and the effects of global warming. [Third crisis and climate change
crisis]Islandsystems

Significant loss is currently observed in island systems. While there is lack sufficient data to assess
conditions in the first half of the assessment period, the situation deteriorated in the second half of
the assessment period (since the second half of 1970s) and is likely to worsen on a long-termbasis.
○ Due to the development and invasion/settlement of alien species, the habitats of somedomestic species, including endemic ones, are deteriorating. [First crisis and third crisis]○ It is concerned about the effects of global warming on the coral reef ecosystem. [Climatechange crisis]

Summary of Assessmentsvi

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services refer to the benefits and convenience that human beings enjoy from ecosystems. Our lives
depend on ecosystem services. In general, the loss of biodiversity reduces ecosystems services. However, during
the assessment period, it has become apparent that biodiversity is being lost because only some ecosystems received
attention among various ecosystem services and that our overseas dependence on ecosystem services progressedsignificantly.
For example, during the high economic growth period, society demanded that a large quantity of ecosystemservices, such as lumber from forest and mountain systems, and foodstuffs from cultivated systems, should be supplied
efficiently. As a result, agricultural land was developed, forests were converted, and a large quantity of agriculturalchemicals and fertilizers were used, all of which led to the loss of biodiversity.
Also after the high economic growth period, Japan began importing huge quantities of biological resources, suchas lumber and foodstuffs, resulting in a majority of ecosystem services becoming dependent on supplies from overseas
ecosystems. It is possible that domestic ecosystems such as forests can supply what is needed, but in effect, cannot
fully satisfy demand. It has been pointed out that while this situation leads to “the second crisis” domestically, it also
causes a loss of biodiversity overseas.

Loss of Biodiversity after 2010
Based on the premise that socio-economy will progress for the future as currently anticipated and aiming ataround 2050̶the year set as a medium- to long-term target by the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010, thefollowing illustrates the expected loss of biodiversity and the direction of long-term measures.
With regards to “the first crisis” and given that Japan's population is expected to decline, economic growth willslow down, and residential/industrial facilities and social infrastructure have already been constructed to a large
degree, the rate of development will lose pace, but it is expected that the impact of past development will linger. Thus,
it is still an important issue that new development will remain restrained by creating conservation areas, for example,
and that measures must be taken to restore large losses from the past. It should be conducted a technical examinationof what it is needed to consider when attempting to restore nature and start similar projects, while establishing an
ecological network on both a nationwide and regional basis. It is also anticipated that development will continue
to obtain natural materials for maintaining and renewing existing residential/industrial facilities, as well as social
infrastructure. Therefore, it is expected to develop the methods and technologies for the evaluation and avoidanceof influence and restoration of damages. Moreover, it is necessary to take mesures for those areas that require
strengthening in existing measures, including the conservation of coasts and oceans and smaller-scale yet important
habitats.
With regards to “the second crisis,” it is concerned that the situation will become more serious, due to a lackof management and use of Satochi-Satoyama areas (agricultural land, secondary grasslands, secondary forests andartificial woods, etc.), together with a declining and rapidly aging population in rural areas. It is important to try
to manage and use such areas in a sustainable manner by forming a regional consensus as the basis of any action.
Having accomplished this, we should be able to encourage various entities including residents in urban areas andcorporations to participate in the activities, while searching for the best way to find new sustainable uses, such as

Summary of Assessmentsvii

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Satoyama biomass. And as a decreased number of hunters leads to lower capture pressure, it is expected that a rapid
increase in the populations and expanded distribution of medium- to large-size wild mammals, and thus it is necessary
to control the populations of wild birds and animals from a wider perspective. Moreover, it should be considered thatcomprehensive measures with reference to the future socioeconomic situation, such as progressively transforming
secondary forests into natural forests.
With regards to “the third crisis,” it is expected that opportunities for alien species to enter Japan (including
unintentional cases) and the expanded distribution of those already settled here will be a continuing trend to a certain
extent. Therefore, it will need to be continue controlling migration and, at the same time, pay particular attention
to preventing new invasions and eliminating those alien species already settled here (by capturing, collecting or
eliminating those species, or taking preventive measures against potential damage), and technological development isalso another important issue.
With regards to ”the climate change crisis,” the trend of rising temperatures may continue as forecasted, andsome irreversible effects may take place within fragile ecosystems. It is necessary to strengthen monitoring systems,
evaluate how fragile these ecosystems are, and, based on these efforts, realize and implement concrete and appropriate
measures.
Given the degree of loss up to 2010, it is feared that the following in particular will lead to irreversible and muchgreater damage for the future: fragmentation of rivers within inland water systems (the first crisis), the continuing
influence of lower riverbeds (the first crisis), the destruction of small-scale habitats such as springs (the first crisis),an expanding influence by invasive alien species in inland water systems and island systems (the third crisis), a
continuation and expansion of various effects on tidal flats, algal and seaglass bed, coral reefs and natural coasts within
marine and coastal systems (the first crisis and climate change crisis), a lack of management of artificial woods andgreater damage to flora caused by deer (the second crisis). We will need to continue and even increase monitoring, as
well as taking preventive measures.
In order to take measures to address the crisis situation described above, it is important to “biodiversity
mainstreaming” as the basis thereof. The concept of conserving biodiversity and its sustainable use must also bereflected not only in policies developed by the government and local authorities, but also in how private activities inthis area should be organized. In particular, the regional uniqueness contained in biodiversity is indispensable, andthere are many examples of effective measures being taken when the region in question takes the initiative. Therefore
it is hoped that a regional society encompassing cities, towns, villages and communities will form a consensus
regarding the biodiversity of that region.

Summary of Assessments

viii

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Introduction
Section 1 Background Behind the Assessment of Biodiversity
Biodiversity is defined as the existence of a variety of ecosystems. It also means that there are various differencesamong and within species.
Ever since the beginning of life in history, living creatures have survived more than 4 billion years by adapting
and evolving within various environments. Today, there is a true variety of living creatures on the earth. Various
ecosystems were formed and various functions play a part in these ecosystems, through interactions among creatures
as well as those between the creatures and their environment̶the air, water and soil.
Human beings exist by virtue of the benefits brought by biodiversity, that is, ecosystem services. Biodiversity
is the basis of our existence. Our lives and cultures are supported by supplies brought by biodiversity, including
oxygen in the air, soil, foodstuffs, lumber and medicines, as well as the diversity of cultures, each having a regional
uniqueness. Biodiversity also supports the diversity of cultures, where each has its regional uniqueness as treasured
characteristics of a particular region.
However, there have now been reports from all over the world that tropical rain forests are diminishing, coral
reefs degrading, and alien species causing damage, leading to concerns that biodiversity is rapidly being lost. In 1992,“the Convention on Biological Diversity (a convention related to the diversity of living things)” was adopted, aiming toachieve the “Conservation of Biodiversity,” “Its sustainable Use” and a “Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arisingout of the Utilization of Genetic Resources.” Despite efforts made by each member country, the loss of biodiversity
has continued. At the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP6) in 2002, thetarget for the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 was set to achieve “a significant reduction in the rate ofbiodiversity loss by 2010.”
In order to alleviate biodiversity loss, various bodies need to commence concrete activities immediately. As astart, it is needed to demonstrate the entire scale of biodiversity loss and the direction of measures against such loss, byassessing what is being lost in terms of biodiversity, what caused that loss, what is the background behind the loss, andwhat measures can be taken to address the loss. There are not always have sufficient information about biodiversity,
yet it has now become necessary to compile and assess the entire scale of biodiversity loss in a comprehensive manner.
Such an assessment should be conducted by different social strata on various scales, namely worldwide,
nationally and regionally, since differences of scale mean differences in the degree of causes in the background and in
the volume of required resources when measures are taken.
An international project̶the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) have been already begun. The MA
project took place in 2001 and 2005, involving the participation of more than 1,000 experts in assessing biodiversity
and ecosystems on a worldwide basis. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (GBO2)̶compiled by the Secretariatof the Convention on Biological Diversity and published in 2006̶assessed how the measures to meet the 2010
target have been progressing. It showed that biodiversity loss has progressed, with 12 out of 15 indicators showing adeteriorating trend. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO3) and this report were released in May 2010, prior to
the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10). GBO3 showed that the 2010
target had not been met, along with greater pressure on biodiversity and continuing loss. Some countries and regions(particularly in Europe) are now engaged in a process of assessing the status of biodiversity loss on a national level.

Introduction Section 1 Background Behind the Assessment of Biodiversity

1

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In Japan as well, since the Convention of Biological Diversity was adopted in 1993, The National Biodiversity
Strategy of Japan has been drawn up on four occasions, leading to recognition of the need to alleviate biodiversity loss.
In recent years, the 3rd Basic Environment Plan (finalized in 2006) was drawn up, where “Guidelines for the Areas ofConservation of Biodiversity” prescribed nine guidelines. The Basic Act of Biodiversity (enacted in 2008) establishedthe development of guidelines “in order to comprehensively assess the current status and benefits of biodiversity” as atask that the government must undertake. The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 (finalized in March 2010
and based on the Basic Act of Biodiversity), succeeded the 3rd National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan, by positioning
biodiversity loss in Japan as “a crisis in biodiversity.” It clarifies the purpose of its establishment and stated that “itwill comprehensively assess the current situation of biodiversity in Japan, while taking socioeconomic aspects into
consideration” and “with the participation of a number of experts, will implement, compile in a simple manner, andpublish a comprehensive evaluation of biodiversity in Japan.”Within this positive environment, it was decided that the city of Nagoya in Aichi Prefecture would host theth

10 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10), and Japan is encouraged to takemore responsibility for the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use. As Japan is highly dependent on
the importation of biological resources from overseas, such as agricultural, forestry and fishery products, as well as
fossil fuels and mineral resources, we may have significant influence over biodiversity worldwide. With this fullrecognition, it is necessary to take measures progressively to realize the sustainable use of resources on a global basis
in the future.
Given the background described above, the Japan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee (established by the
Ministry of the Environment) conducted “the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan” over a two-year
period since FY 2008, with the intention of completing it before COP10 is to be held. Thus, this report (Report ofComprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan) intended to examine the issue and, though far from reachinga satisfactory outcome, compiled the results at a level as complete as possible for assessment at this point. It was
eventually released in May 2010.

Introduction Section 1 Background Behind the Assessment of Biodiversity2

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan
1. Purpose of Assessment
The purpose of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan is to assess the current status regarding
the loss of our biodiversity by comprehensively analyzing existing scientific and subjective information relating to thecurrent and changing situation, in order to provide materials on which policies for environmental administration are
decided, as well as to make the general public aware of the current state of biodiversity.
This evaluation can be reviewed in the future, reflecting the trend of international debates relating to the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the aims set out by the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan, and new knowledge on thematter.

2. Subjects of Assessment
It is our understanding that “biodiversity loss” refers to a decrease or degradation of biodiversity and the diversityof species/genes, thereby inhibiting sustainable interaction among living things within ecosystems, and interaction
between living things and the environment, or species that comprise biodiversity.
We define the assessment of biodiversity loss as an assessment of causes for such loss, measures taken against
the loss, and the current status of loss. The causes of biodiversity loss and the measures against that loss are assessed
based on the “crisis of biodiversity” and status of loss by ecosystems. The progress toward meeting the 2010 target isalso assessed.

3. Framework of Assessment(1) Classification of causes of loss (crisis of biodiversity)“Crisis of biodiversity” refers to the direct causes of biodiversity loss. Based on the National Biodiversity
Strategy of Japan 2010, such causes are classified into four categories: the first crisis (brought about by humanactivities and development), the second crisis (caused by a reduction of human activities), the third crisis (brought
about by human beings), and the climate change crisis.
The First Crisis (brought about by human activities and development)
The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 defines the first crisis as “a decrease or extinction of species
directly brought about by human activities or development, or a reduction or disappearance of habitats or living space
through the destruction, division or degradation of ecosystems.” For our assessment purposes, we use this definition
and include the effects of development and water pollution as concrete examples.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThe Second Crisis (caused by a reduction of human activities)
The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 defines the second crisis as “changes in environmental quality,
such as in Satochi-Satoyama areas (rural landscapes formed by the sustainable use of natural resources), as well as adecrease of species or changes in habitats or living space, by a reduction or retreat of human activities in nature, alongwith changes in lifestyle and industrial structure, as well as such socioeconomic changes as population growth.” For
our assessment purposes, we also use this definition to define the reduction of use/management of Satochi-Satoyama
areas.
The Third Crisis (brought about by human beings)
The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 defines a third crisis as “the disturbance in ecosystems by thoseartificially brought in, such as alien species.” For our assessment purposes, we also use this definition and include theeffects of alien species and chemical substances as concrete examples.
The Climate Change Crisis
The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 defines the climate change crisis as “a decrease or extinction of
species brought about by global warming, or a reduction or disappearance of habitats or living space through changes
in ecosystems.” For our assessment purposes, we also use this definition.
(2) Classification of ecosystems
With reference to the classification of ecosystems adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the statusof ecosystems is classified according to six ecosystems for our assessment purposes: forest and mountain systems,
cultivated systems, urban systems, inland water systems, marine and coastal systems, and island systems. In viewactual circumstances, there may be some overlapping between these systems.
Forest and mountain systems
For assessment purposes, forest and mountain systems refer to ecosystems comprising forests, including subarctic
evergreen coniferous forests, cool-temperate deciduous broadleaf forests, warm-temperate deciduous broadleaf forests,
and warm-temperate laurel forests, as well as the fauna and flora living in these habitats. For assessment purposes, thealpine ecosystems found in forests exceeding 2,500 meters above sea level in Honshu are also included.
The forest and mountain systems in Japan have been used in various ways throughout our history. As a result,
there are differences in how forests have been related to human activities, whether natural forests (the original
forest and mountain systems), secondary forests used for firewood and charcoal, or artificial forests used for lumber.
Secondary forests and artificial forests are artificially created ecosystems, however, and depending on their use andmanagement, such forests can be habitats for fauna and flora that previously relied on natural forests.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Cultivated systems
For assessment purposes, cultivated systems refer to those ecosystems found on agricultural land (paddy fields
and fields) and in surrounding forests, woods and inland waters, as well as the fauna and flora that live in thesehabitats. In addition to wild animals and plants, crops and livestock also form part of such ecosystems.
The cultivated systems in Japan were formed over a long history of agricultural use, beginning with rice farming.
Such systems are typified by the ecosystems in Satochi-Satoyama areas, where rice paddies and fields are formed
around villages, along with a mosaic of waterways and reservoirs, forests including wood for agricultural use, andgrasslands for harvests and grazing.
These ecosystems were artificially created. However, depending on their use and management, cultivatedsystems can eventually become habitats for those species settling in Japan when the weather becomes too cold or too
dry, as well as for fauna and flora that depend on disturbances in the flood plains.
Urban systems
For assessment purposes, urban systems refer to such green land as forests, agricultural land and parks, rivers,
and seashores within urban areas, as well as the fauna and flora that live in these habitats.
These ecosystems were originally formed when land was transformed for highly urbanized purposes, including
residential, industrial or transportation purposes. Urban systems basically consist of flora and fauna that also live insurrounding cultivated systems, inland water systems, and marine and coastal systems.
Inland water systems
For assessment purposes, inland water systems refer to ecosystems comprised of inland waters, such as rivers,
lakes and marshes, and wetlands, as well as the fauna and flora that live in these habitats. In our assessment,waterways and reservoirs used to irrigate agricultural land are regarded as a part of cultivated systems, but excluded
from inland water systems. The inland water environment in Japan has undergone many changes since ancient times
for controlling food production and irrigation, and thus has been subject to human influence for a long time.
Marine and coastal systems
For assessment purposes, the coast is defined as a land area and a marine area with a coastline in-between; theocean is defined as any vast marine area offshore from a coast. The marine and coastal systems refer to ecosystems
comprised of fauna and flora that live in these habitats. The coast includes ecosystems in shallow waters, such as tidal
flats, kelp coasts and coral reefs. The marine and coastal systems in Japan have long been used for fishing, with living
creatures (including fish) being used as food resources.
Island systems
For assessment purposes, island systems refer to such ecosystems as forests on the smaller islands of Japan,
excluding the four major islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, as well as ecosystems comprised offauna and flora that live in these habitats. In terms of biodiversity, our islands are typified by the Ryukyu Islands
that were formed after a repeated process of separation and merging with the Eurasian continent, and the Ogasawara
Islands (or Bonin Islands) that were formed as oceanic islands, having no connection whatever with the continent.
These islands contain characteristic biota with a number of endemic species, and many of the islands have been
inhabited far back in history.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan5

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(3) Range of assessment
Our assessment covers Japan's total land space and surrounding marine areas (by and large, the Japanese
exclusive economic water zone) as a subject range.
The assessment period covers about 50 years (from the second half of 1950s to the present), including the periodof high economic growth, which is considered to have had a significant influence on our natural environment. As
necessary, we divided the entire period into the first half (from the second half of 1950s to the first half of 1970s) andthe second half (from the second half of 1970s to the present).
(4) Framework of assessment
The following illustrates how the assessment was conducted regarding the causes of biodiversity loss, the statusof biodiversity loss, and the measures taken against biodiversity loss.
The causes of biodiversity loss are assessed by “the degree of loss” and “the trends” of direct causes during theassessment period (from the second half of 1950s to the present). The causes of loss were classified into the following
four categories: 1) the first crisis (development, direct use, and water pollution), 2) the second crisis (a reduction in
use/management of Satochi-Satoyama areas or rural landscapes formed by the sustainable use of natural resources),3) the third crisis (alien species and chemical substances), and 4) the climate change crisis. Causes are assessed
comprehensively by using eight indicators, each describing the degree of influence and the trend. Each indicator
is used in examining data that is considered appropriate, with a final comprehensive assessment being drawn by
combining the assessment based on all the indicators, as shown by using the following visual signs. In the event thatappropriate data cannot be obtained or trends differ depending on the data, note that some elements may be ignored
when the overall result is indicated by the signs.

Table: Assessment of causes
Subject of assessment

LegendDegree of influenceduring assessment
periodWeak

MediumStrongVery strong

Long-term trend of
influence andcurrent trend

Decreasing

Same

Increasing

Increasing rapidly

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of influence indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects and trends of overall loss.

The measures against biodiversity loss are assessed comprehensively by combining the results of four indicators
for these measures against each relevant cause, and those of two basic indicators for measures applicable to all fourcauses. Each indicator examines the data considered appropriate, and a comprehensive assessment is drawn by
combining the assessment of all these indicators being shown by using the following visual signs. As is the casewith evaluating the causes of biodiversity loss, in the event that appropriate data cannot be obtained or trends differ
depending on the data, note that some elements may be ignored when the overall result is indicated by the signs.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan6

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table: Assessment of measures
Subject of assessment

LegendIncreasing

Same

Decreasing

Trend of measures

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing
factors and data showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects and trends ofoverall loss.

The status of biodiversity loss is assessed by “the degree of loss“ and “the trend“ by using the status of theecosystem at the beginning of the assessment period (the second half of 1950s) as standard. The status of loss is
examined by establishing 16 indicators to measure the degree of loss and the trend from the following five viewpoints,
as deemed necessary to maintain interactions between living things in the ecosystem, interactions between living
things and the environment in the ecosystem, and species that constitute the ecosystem. The five viewpoints are: 1)
scale of the ecosystem (i.e., physical reach of the ecosystem), 2) quality of the ecosystem (i.e., structure and functionsof the ecosystem), 3) continuity of the ecosystem (i.e., unity of the ecosystem and continuity within living creaturesin the ecosystem), 4) number and distribution of species (that constitute the ecosystem), and 5) status of biologicalresources (in reference to the four viewpoints above, particularly regarding the ecosystem or species used as biologicalresources). The final comprehensive assessment is made by combining all of these indicators, shown by using thevisual signs outlined below. As is the case with assessing causes and measures, note that some elements may beignored when the overall result is indicated by the signs.

Table: Assessment of status
Subject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly Lost

Degree of loss

Trend ofsituation

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects and trends of overall loss.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan7

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThe assessment was conducted by compiling existing data (a total of 104 sets of data) and examples of
biodiversity, with a total of 30 indicators used to describe the causes, measures and status (Figure: Indicators ofassessment). As a guiding principle from the perspective of maintaining subjectivity, we only use data originallyreleased to the public through statistical materials contained in public documents, or where a scientific process has
been followed. As far as possible, we tried to take national subjects and use time-series data covering the entire
assessment period. We also used subjects in specific regions and data covering only part of the assessment period, as
well as concrete examples.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan8

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicators of theFirst Crisis(6 Indicators)

Indicators of theSecond Crisis(3 Indicators)

Indicators of theThird Crisis(4 Indicators)

Indicators of the
Climate Change
Crisis (2 Indicators)

Causes of loss

1 Development of
ecosystem
2 Direct use of wild animals
3 Eutrophication of waterarea
4 Factors behind adecrease in endangered
species

7 Use of
Satochi-Satoyama

12 Influence on organisms
caused by the Global
Warming

4 (Listed again) Factors
behind a decrease inendangered species

9 Invasion and taking rootof alien species
10 Influences on fauna andflora caused bychemicals
4 (Listed again) Factors
behind a decrease inendangered species

Measurers

Assessment of causes (14 Indicators)

5 Conservation areas
6 Capture/collection
control, projects ofconservation andpopulation growth

8 Scientific conservationand management of
wildlife

11 Restriction of import
and control of alien
species4 (Listed again) Factors
behind a decrease inendangered species

Indicators as a basis of measures (2 Indicators)
13 Recognition of biodiversity
14 Technology transfer and fund provision to overseas countries

Assessment of status (16 Indicators)
Indicators of forest andmountain systems (4 Indicators)

Indicators of cultivatedsystems (3 Indicators)

Scale/Quality of Ecosystem

15 Scale and quality of forest and mountainsystems

19 Scale and quality of cultivated systems

Continuity of Ecosystem

16 Continuity of forest and mountain systems

Number and Distribution of Species

17 Populations and distributions of species
living in forest and mountain systems

20 Populations and distributions of species
living in cultivated systems

Status of Biological Resources

18 Use and maintenance of artificial forests

21 Diversity of agricultural products and farm animals

Indicators of urban
systems (2 Indicators)

Indicators of inland water
systems (3 Indicators)

Scale/Quality of Ecosystem

22 Scale of urban green space

Continuity of Ecosystem
Number and Distribution of Species

24 Scale and quality of inland water
systems
25 Continuity of rivers and lakes

23 Populations and distributions of species
living in urban systems

26 Populations and distributions of species
living in inland water systems

Indicators of marine andcoastal systems (3 Indicators)

Indicator of island
systems (1 Indicator)

Status of Biological Resources

Scale/Quality of Ecosystem

27 Scale and quality of coastal ecosystems

Continuity of Ecosystem
Number and Distribution of Species

28 Populations and distributions of species
utilizing neritic areas

Status of Biological Resources

29 Status of valuable fish resources

30 Populations and distributions of species
endemic to islands

Figure: Indicators of assessment

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan9

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(5) Structure of the report
Based on the framework described above, this report consists of the following: Outline of the Natural
Environment and Socio-Economy in Japan as the Premise of Assessment (Chapter I), Assessment of the Causes ofBiodiversity Loss based on Indicators of Causes (Chapter II), Assessment of the Status of Biodiversity Loss basedon Indicators of Status (Chapter III), Summary of Comprehensive Assessment based on the first and second chapters(Chapter IV), and Remaining Issues (Chapter V) (Figure: Structure of the Report).
Appendix 3 lists the data used in the assessment. Some actual data are shown in diagrams included with the main
text (in Chapter II and Chapter III); data not shown in the main text are shown in Appendix 4.

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan10

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Nature and Socio-Economy in Japan (Chapter 1)
Status of the natural environment and socio-economy as a premise of assessment

Assessment of the Causes of Biodiversity Loss (Chapter II)
Assessment of the
Causes of Loss

Indicators of causes (8 indicators)
Assessment

First crisis
Second crisis
Third crisis
Climate change crisis

Reasons forassessment

Data

Other data and examples

Indicators of the measures by cause (6 indicators)
Assessment of
measures for loss

Assessment

Reasons forassessment

Data

Other data and examples

Assessment of the status of biodiversity loss (Chapter III)
Assessment of thestatus of loss

Indicators by ecosystem (16 indicators)
Reasons forassessment

Forest, agricultural,
urban, inland water,
marine and coast,islandAssessment

Assessment of
measures for loss

Other data and examples

Data

Summary of Assessment (Chapter IV)<Biodiversity loss up to 2010>
Assessment of biodiversity loss up to 2010 (summary)
4 Crisis and 6 ecosystems

Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services<Assessment of progress toward the 2010 target>
Progress towardthe 2010 target
21 Targets

TargetAssessment

Indicator

Data<Measures against biodiversity loss after 2010>
Biodiversity loss and measures by cause of loss after 2010
Remaining Issues (Chapter V)
Issues remaining for the comprehensive assessment of biodiversity in Japan to achieve its duty

Figure: Structure of the report (with assessment shown in bold brackets)

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan11

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

4. Organization of Assessment
The Japan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee (established by the Ministry of the Environment) conducted
the assessment with reference to the opinions of a number of experts throughout the country.
Table: Structure of Committee for Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan (Japanese in alphabetical order)
Committee Member

Title

Makoto Kato
Akio Takenaka
Tohru Nakashizuka (Chairman)
Futoshi Nakamura
Hiroyuki Matsuda
Shingo Miura
Tetsukazu Yahara
Izumi Washitani

Professor, Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University
Director, Environmental Biology Division, National Institute of Environmental Studies
Professor, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tohoku University
Professor, Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University
Professor, Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University
Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University
Professor, Faculty of Sciences, Kyushu University
Professor, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of TokyoIn FY 2008, prior to commencing the assessment, a questionnaire on the causes and status of biodiversity loss
during the assessment period was sent out to a total of 581 biology experts in Japan, including members of the Japan
Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee under the Ministry of the Environment, committee members and directors
related to nature conservation at major academic institutions of biology, and other biology experts, from which
we received 208 responses (see the table below and Appendix 1). With reference to their opinions, we classified
information on the causes and status of biodiversity loss and selected the indicators. For compiling the Report ofAssessment in FY 2009, We sent a draft report to those 208 respondents for their opinions and received 54 responses.
Those responses were used as a reference for the account (see the table below and Appendix 2).
We also referred to contents of a debate during a hearing when questioned by the Sub-Committee ofConservation and Restoration, the Science Council of Japan in FY 2009, as well as debates during symposiums heldat the Ecological Society of Japan in FY 2008 and FY 2009. We were also fortunate to receive some data or analyticalassistance from 16 experts.
Table: List of biology experts who offered opinions
Committees for assessment
related to the Ministry ofEnvironment

Committee and Sub-committee for Selection and Assessment of Wildlife Threatenedwith Extinction, Sub-committee for Vegetation Science under the Committee for Basic
Assessment of Natural Environment Conservation, Department of Vegetation Science
Research, Committee for Bird Banding Assessment, Committee and Sub-Committee
for Assessment of Monitoring Promotion in Significant Ecosystem Surveillance Areas(Monitoring Site 1000 project)

Committee members anddirectors related to nature
conservation at major
academic institutions of
biology

The Ecological Society of Japan, Japanese Forest Society, Japanese Society ofGrassland Science, Japanese Society of Limnology, Oceanographic Society of Japan,
Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology, Japanese Society for Plant Systematics,
Mammalogical Society of Japan, Ornithological Society of Japan, HerpetologicalSociety of Japan, Ichthyological Society of Japan, Entomological Society of Japan,
Japanese Association of Benthology, and Botanical Society of Japan

Introduction Section 2 Implementation of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan12

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter I
Nature and Socio-Economy in Japan
This chapter describes the general conditions of biodiversity in Japan and the country's natural environment,
which form the basis, as well as those of our socio-economy, which exercise influence as an indirect cause of
biodiversity loss, as a premise to assess the causes and status of biodiversity loss.

Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan
1. Natural Landscape of Japan(1) Outline
Japan offers habitats for a variety of living things, since its land area runs lengthwise north to south just off theEurasian continent, has landscapes ranging from seashores to mountains with different altitudes, includes thousandsof islands, is influenced by monsoons that create climatic conditions affording four distinct seasons, and exposed tovarious sources of disturbance, including volcanic eruptions, the flooding of steep rivers, and typhoons. As a resultof the geological process of merging with and separating from the Eurasian continent, Japan also forms the biota of anumber of species, including endemic ones. Our biodiversity has strong links with Asia and the Eurasian continent,
including the movement of migratory birds.
(2) Position and area
Japan lies to the east of the Eurasian continent and consists of an arcuate archipelago parallel to the continentacross the Sea of Japan. The archipelago is positioned between latitude 20 degrees 25 minutes north and latitude 45
degrees 33 minutes north, and stretches a length of 3,000 kilometers. Japan consists of some 6,800 islands, and its
total area is approximately 380,000 km2.
(3) Climate
The Japanese archipelago extends from the sub-tropical zone to the sub-arctic zone, with the Kuroshio Current
flowing from the south and the Oyashio Current flowing from the north in nearby seas. The climate is humid withsignificant monsoons, and generally there are four distinct seasons. 1) Rainfall levels during summer and autumn,
as well as snowfall in winter, are significantly above world averages. In Honshu, the mountainous backbone standson the boundary of two areas, between which striking differences in the seasonal distribution of precipitation are
observed, thereby creating the two characteristic climatic patterns of Pacific climate and Sea of Japan climate.
(4) Landform
The Japanese archipelago belongs to one of the most recent diastrophism belts in the world, showing various
active geological phenomena. The landform is undulating and the mountainous regions, including volcanic areas andhilly country, account for three-quarters of Japan's total land space.

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan13

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThe slopes of this mountainous country are generally steep, with some valleys being finely curved. Hilly
landscapes are seen in many parts of Japan between the mountains and the plains. Plains and basins are relatively
small, dotted between the mountainous regions or along the seashore, with many formed by the alleviation of rivers.
(5) Biogeographical region and historical geology
Flora is classified into six kingdoms, and those in Japan belong to the Paleotropical Kingdom and the Holarctic
Kingdom. Pandanacae and palm trees are representative of the Paleotropical Kingdom, while Japanese chestnut
trees (Castanea crenata) and Salix trees and shrubs are distinctively distributed in the Holarctic Kingdom. Fauna isclassified into six zoogeographical provinces, and those in Japan belong to the Palearctic region and the Indomalaya
region. The Watase Line that cuts through the Tokara Islands forms the boundary between the Palearctic andIndomalaya regions.
A number of fauna that live south of the Watase Line are closely related to species in Taiwan and Southeast Asia,
while those living north of the Watase Line have a high affinity with species on the Eurasian continent. The Blakiston
Line creates a boundary along the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaido and Honshu, and divides the Palearctic regions
into two: the Siberian sub-region in the north where Blakiston's fish owl (Ketupa blakistoni), Brown bear (Ursus
arctos) and Pika (Rock rabbit) live, as well as a number of species in common or closely related to those in Siberia
and the Russian Far East, and the Chinese sub-region to the south, home to the Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus)
and a number of species common with those on the Korean Peninsula. It resulted from a repeated process where landin the Korean Peninsula area that connects the Japanese archipelago with the Eurasian continent was uplifted and thenflooded during an ice age and an interglacial period in the Quatemary Period, when flora and fauna from the continent
gained entry into Japan, followed by the separation of land and subsequent isolation.
(6) Vegetation
Natural vegetation
The Japanese archipelago that stretches far north to south and contains many locations also features wideranging natural vegetation. Due to a humid climate, vegetation under natural conditions (natural vegetation) is mostly
forest. Well-developed forests, in ascending order from the southern regions, are as follows: subtropical evergreen
broadleaf forests (on the Ryukyu Islands and the Ogasawara Islands (or Bonin islands)), warm-temperate evergreen
broadleaf forests (in south-central Honshu), cool-temperate deciduous broadleaf forests (from central Honshu tosouth of Hokkaido), and subalpine evergreen coniferous forests (in Hokkaido). Alpine vegetation is established inareas beyond the vertical forest lines (i.e., mountainous regions of central Japan and Hokkaido). Each of these forests
comprises a number of spermatophytes in common with the continent, as well as endemic species.
Limitations due to soil conditions or hydrologic environment in some special locations have developed mirevegetation, sand dune vegetation or mangroves.
Existing vegetation
In reality, vegetation in the Japanese archipelago has largely been replaced by secondary vegetation throughhuman disturbance. There are also other various forms of vegetation, including vegetation succession subject tonatural disturbance.
The 5th Nature Conservation Basic Survey of the Ministry of the Environment revealed that natural forests andnatural vegetation (including natural grasslands) currently account for 17.9% and 19.0% of our land, respectively. For
other vegetation, secondary forests (including those close to natural forests) account for 23.9%, forested land 24.8%,
secondary grasslands 3.6%, agricultural land (including residential land with a significant amount of green land)
22.9%, urban land 4.3%, and others (such as open water) 1.5%.
Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan14

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Natural vegetation is distributed in areas where human influence is difficult to detect, mainly in steep mountains,on peninsulas, and islands. Plains and gently undulating mountainous areas have a higher occupancy rate of secondary
vegetation, including secondary forests or secondary grasslands, as well as forested and agricultural land.
Forests account for 67% of Japan's total land area. For the past 500 years, when the use of meadowlands andslash-and-burn fields was developed, in addition to the development of agricultural land, the current percentage offorests to Japan's total land stands at a very high level − as high as in the countries of Northern Europe, such as
Sweden (70%), and overwhelmingly higher relative to other developed countries including the United Kingdom (12%)
and the United States (33%).1)(7) Number of species and endemic species
It is estimated that there are more than 90,000 species already known to be living in Japan, and in excess of
300,000 species when including unclassified species, 1). This shows that, despite a limited land space of approximately
380,000 km2, Japan comprises rich biota. The high ratio of endemic species is also quite evident: within the groupof terrestrial mammals and vascular plants, Japanese endemic species account for approximately 40%, reptiles about
60%, and amphibians around 80%.1) On the Ogasawara Islands (or Bonin Islands), virtually all terrestrial birds areendemic species and 93% of land snails are either endemic species or endemic subspecies. On the Ryukyu Islands,
some species such as the Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi) and Pryer's woodpecker (Sapheopipo noguchi), which
are already extinct on the continent, survive as relic species,1) that is, a phenomenon whereby species are observed todifferentiate into endemic species.1) These islands therefore deserve particular attention.
Japan is the only advanced country where monkeys live in the wild. A number of medium-size and large wild
animals (including bears and deer) also live in Japan.
Biota in the Coasts and Oceans
In the marine areas, several currents including the Kuroshio, Oyashio and Tsushima flow around Japan, thereby
creating a varied environment along the Japanese archipelago that extends a long way from north to south. Japan's
coastline is about 35,000 km long or equivalent in length to three-quarters of the earth's circumference, as well as
intricate, where varied ecosystems of abundant biota are observed, including tidal flats, kelp coasts, coral reefs, sandy
beaches, dunes, ledges, seagrass beds and mangroves. Rich habitats exist in Japanese waters that encompass wideranging water temperatures from the subarctic zone to the subtropical zone. It is notable that more different kinds ofsaltwater fish live in Japanese waters than in the Mediterranean Sea or off the West Coast of the United States, both ofwhich are located at the same latitude.1)
Japanese waters form habitats for a number of species − 0 out of 112 species of marine mammals, as well
as about 25% (or 3,700 species) of the world's approximately 15,000 species of saltwater fish, in addition to many
endemic species, live in Japan's coastal areas. Given its location along the periphery of the Pacific Ocean near
the equator (where extremely rich biodiversity can be found), Japan boasts of exceptionally varied species amongdeveloped countries.1)

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan15

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Breeding Grounds/Stopover Points for Wide-Area Migratory Animals
Some wild animals including migrant birds, sea turtles and marine mammals migrate across borders from Pacific
Rim countries in Asia and North America, and from Australia. Some birds such as the White-fronted goose (Anser
albifrons) and Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), which mainly breed in the northern part of the Russian Far East during
summer, as well as the Black-faced spoonbill (Platalea minor) that breeds on the Korean Peninsula or some remoteislands in China, pass the winter in Japan.1) The Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) − a summer bird in Japan − passes
the winter mainly in Southeast Asia.1) A number of species within scolopacidaes and sharadriidaes as a mass not only
use tidal flats in Japan as a stopover point in spring and autumn, but many also spend the winter in Japan.4)
The Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) that hatches in Japan makes a seasonal migration to the North
American coast, and then returns to Japan as an adult to lay eggs.1) Salmon that hatch in Japan make a seasonal
migration to the Bering Sea,1) while the Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) breeds in Japanese waters anduses marine areas off the North American coast as feeding grounds.1) These are just some examples of migratory fishand marine mammals spend some time in the marine areas of Japan during their lives.

2 . Outline of Ecosystems(1) Forest and mountain systems
Due to Japan's mild and humid climate, forests are widely established throughout the Japanese archipelago,
except along the seashores and in areas exposed to strong winds. Reflecting the different characteristics of eachregion, evergreen broadleaf trees dominate in the south or areas of lower altitude, and deciduous broadleaf trees andconiferous trees dominate in the north or areas of higher altitude. These forests form important habitats for manyvarieties of fauna and flora. And in Honshu, alpine vegetation is observed at elevations generally higher than 2,500
meters. Approximately 70% of mammals and about 70% of the birds that breed in Japan (or 170 species out of a totalof 251) rely on forests as their habitats.
The majority of forests in the Japanese archipelago, even after having been exposed to such disturbances as aforest fire or the felling of trees, eventually revive. Hence, forests have historically been used as sites of slash-andburn cultivation, for gathering such foodstuffs as mushrooms and nuts, or for the production of such fuel sources
as firewood and charcoal, and for lumber. Forests as the sites of slash-and-burn fields, fuel sources and production
were normally found near residential areas, given the convenience of transporting materials, and have formed uniquelandscapes as secondary forests, having been regularly exposed to such disturbances.
Until the issue of transport capability was solved, major lumber production sites based on afforestation weresituated near large consuming areas or areas of well-developed water transport (such as Ohme, Kitayama and Tenryu).
(2) Cultivated systems
Ever since rice farming was propagated from the continent, landscapes in Japan have formed like a mosaic
around farming villages, consisting of agricultural land such as rice paddies and fields, waterways and reservoirs
that supply river water to agricultural land, forests such as woods from which fallen leaves and twigs are collected tomake fertilizers for agricultural use, and secondary green land used for meadows and grazing. The use of water forrice farming has also formed a peculiar landscape, such as Yatsuda (rice fields in a ravine) and Tanada (terraced rice
fields). A number of relic species originating from the continent also exist in Japan, having expanded their distribution
during the ice age and settled in Japan, with a majority choosing habitats in the flood plains of a river, such as natural
wetlands and natural fields, but also in forest and mountain systems, and in cultivated systems that are exposed toregular human disturbance.

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan16

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(3) Urban systems.
Since Japanese landscapes include a number of steep mountainous or hilly areas, agricultural as well as
residential sites were mainly developed at estuaries, in such plains as alluvial fans, and on plateaus. Reed plains andestuary tidal flats used to spread around the mouth of inner bays, but the foundation of the three largest metropolitan
urban areas was already established by the Edo period (from the 17th Century to the early 19th Century). Most urban
areas in the Meiji and Taisho eras (from the late 19th Century to the early 20th Century) were once castle towns of the
feudal domain period, and developed as central towns and cities of the region. Medium-size and small towns werealso established in seashore areas and the plains.
The improvement of rivers has also progressed for the purpose of flood control and irrigation since the Edo
period. The land area for urban use doubled from 3% of the total to 6% between 1850 and 1950, and road and rail
networks made rapid progress.5) However, only part of the land in urban areas was covered with asphalt prior tothe high economic growth period, and there remained forests (near residential areas), agricultural forests (as used
for agricultural purposes) and temple/shrine forests (near the sites of temples and shrines) within many urban areas
throughout the country.
(4) Inland water systems
Given Japan's narrow and mountainous landmass, rivers characteristically have a narrow catchment area and flow
rapidly. Moreover, the volume of sediment can be significant, as precipitation tends to be seasonally concentrated due
to typhoons and the rainy season, combined with the geological complexity of the land. Therefore, riverside boulders
have developed and extensive food plains are easily formed. Fish swimming upstream from the sea, such as Ayu(or Sweetfish) and salmon, as well as a number of living things that use the brackish water, are found there. Many
freshwater fish living in Japan's inland waters are endemic species. Wetlands and the surrounding riversides are also
important habitats for many migrant birds, not to mention large cranes and storks, and terrestrial animals, including
amphibians and insects.
Japan's inland water environment has a long history of flood control and irrigation, having been shaped by bothhuman and natural influences. Large-scale land reclamation has been conducted through drainage, as well as theconversion of flood plains into agricultural land (or the development of land for cultivation, such as irrigated rice
fields) , but there was little drastic or artificial transformation of the environment before the 1950s, except for such
events as the extinction of the Black kokanee (Onchorhynchus nerka kuwamurae) resulting from an accidental inflow
of strong acidic water into Lake Tazawa. 6) Until then, it was always the case that a number of fauna and flora were
living in artificially controlled environments. Only when the large-scale construction of dams began in the 1950s
did enormous changes start to affect the rivers. It was around the same time that water pollution and eutrophication
caused by drainage into rivers, lakes and marshlands became an issue.
(5) Marine and coastal systems
Japan consists of islands stretching approximately 3,000 km from north to south, and is surrounded by four
oceans − the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Its submarine topography
is also complex with various marine environments, from a continental shelf of gentle slopes to steep marine areas
dropping sharply into an abyss. As for currents, the cold Oyashio Current flows southwards from the north, while thewarm Kuroshio Current flows northwards from the south. This environmental complexity hosts rich varieties of fishin excess of 3,500 species from the boreal to the tropical, and from the coastal to the deep sea.

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan17

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Surrounded by seas containing rich varieties of fish, the Japanese people have long used the ecosystems of coasts
and oceans in various ways, with seafood being a major source of protein, and seaweed being used as food and as
green manure.
The ecosystems of coasts and shallow waters, including tidal flats, kelp coasts, coral reefs, sandy beaches, dunes
and ledges, have not only been extremely important as habitats and breeding grounds for living things, but also used
for human activity since ancient times, not least where the inner bays have provided popular sites for residential
premises and economic activity. Prior to the high economic growth period, the coastal and shallow water areas had
little artificial modification, such as reclamation or sea walls, and it is expected that a number of good tidal flats andkelp coasts will remain. Japan's self-sufficiency rate regarding seafood was in excess of 100% until the 1950s.7) There
were no problems of eutrophication or water pollution back then.
(6) Island systems
In addition to its major four islands, Japan includes about 6,800 islands, both small and large, including the
Ogasawara Islands (or Bonin Islands) and the Ryukyu Islands, which have long been isolated and contain unique biota.
The majority of these islands serve an important role as stopover points for migrant birds, not least the uninhabitedislands used as breeding grounds.
The Ryukyu Islands were connected by land with the Eurasian continent until about 15 million years ago. The
islands became isolated after the East China Sea formed about 2 million years ago, leading to the establishmentof unique biota with relic species left behind from the continent, and endemic species that were created throughspeciation on the islands. The Ogasawara Islands (or Bonin Islands) are oceanic islands that were never connectedby land with the continent. A group of these islands was created following submarine volcanoes about 150,000 years
ago. The species that were introduced and settled there by chance evolved in their own way, the majority of whichbecame endemic species. The cultivation of the Ogasawara Islands (or Bonin Islands) was encouraged after the Meiji
Era, followed by an expansion of agricultural land and diminishing of forests.

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan18

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2010 pproved by the Cabinet on March 16, 2010).
2) The Society for the Issues of Forestry and Nature Conservation (ed.). The Commission of Japanese Forestry
Industry, 1989. Forests/Forestry and Nature Conservation − The Conservation and Management of New Forestry,
346pp.
3) The Ministry of the Environment, 2006. Report of the FY 2005 Survey on Significant Areas of the Ryukyu Islands,
Recommended as a World Heritage Site (Commissioned).
4) Amano, Ichiyo, 2006. Current State of Migrant Birds which Use Tidal Flats. Global Environment, 11, 215-226.
5) Himiyama, Yukio, 1992. Modernization of Japan and Changes in Land Usage.
6) The Ministry of the Environment (ed.), 2003. Revised・Wildlife in Japan on the Brink of Extinction − Red Data
Book 4 (Brackish-Water and Freshwater Fish), The Japan Wildlife Research Center.
7) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Chart for Supply and Demand of Foodstuffs in Japan.

Chapter I Section 1 The Natural Environment and Ecosystems in Japan19

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan
Given the long history of engagement in agriculture, forestry and fishery in its coastal areas, Japan has created
its own culture of coexistence with a number of living things and the riches of nature. However, following a growing
amalgamation with Western culture in recent years, especially in the development of scientific technology, therelationship between the Japanese people and nature has diminished, and the cultural climate characteristic of Japan
where regional nature and culture were linked appears to be disappearing.
After the Meiji Restoration (in the late 19 th Century) and especially after WWII, the Japanese economy
advanced a great deal, while formerly rich biodiversity has been lost. We were aware of the importance of economic
development, but inclined to forget that richness in biodiversity in fact brings about abundance in our lives.
Given this recognition, the following outlines the socioeconomic trends in Japan over the past 50 years, covering
the period of our assessment from the second half of 1950s (around Showa 30) to the present day.

1. From the Second Half of the 1950s to the First Half of the 1970s<High Economic Growth and Land Development>
During this period, we experienced a period of high economic growth upon completing postwar rehabilitation.
The Economic White Paper released in FY 1956 described a situation where the Japanese economy had recovered toits prewar level, moved on from economic growth of the postwar rehabilitation period, and was entering a new growthphase through "modernization," as "it was no longer the 'postwar' era." The population was growing rapidly at 1%or 2% per annum, and people migrated from rural areas to the cities.1) The industrial structure changed to a heavy
chemical industry-oriented one, and the real GDP kept increasing by approximately 10% annually.2)
Japan began importing cheap oil in large quantities, and the structure of energy supplies shifted from dependence
on coal, hydroelectric generation and firewood/charcoal to mainly oil ("The Energy Revolution"). This dependency on
importing this primary energy supply rose from about 20% in the mid-1950s to about 80% by around 1970.3)
At the same time, the Japanese people changed their lifestyle, whereby nuclear family resulted in fewer people
living in the same household, durable consumer goods−The so-called "Three Sacred Treasures of the Imperial
Household" being an electric washing machine, an electric fridge and a TV − ecame popular, and automobiles spreadthroughout society. The society of mass production and consumption had arrived.
Given Japan's growing population, the migration of people, changes in the structure of energy supplies andindustries, and the construction and improvement of residential properties and industrial facilities consequently
progressed throughout the country. In addition, the development of social infrastructure as the basis of economic
growth advanced. A nationwide comprehensive development plan was drawn up in 1962, and a new follow-up
nationwide comprehensive development plan was also created in 1969, following which large-scale development(called "The Transformation of the Japanese Archipelago Boom") spread nationwide. As a result, residential areas
expanded rapidly, but the area per capita (privatized land) remained lower or at about the same level as in the prewar
era.4) Cities on the plains including along "the Pacific Coastal Belt" stretching from Tokyo Bay westwards to theTokai, Kinki and Setouchi regions, and north of Kyushu expanded due to the industrial and residential sites locatedthere, and coastal areas were reclaimed to supply more land for that purpose. Between 1960 and 1975, the populationof this densely inhabited district (DID) grew 1.5 times, while the land area doubled.1) In contrast, more remote placesin the mountains suffered seriously from depopulation; as a result, the Act for Urgent Measures against Depopulation
was enacted in 1970.

Chapter I Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan20

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In order to meet the growing demand for more water and the need to take measures against damage caused byflooding in urban areas, dams were constructed on rivers, with riverbanks being artificially modified and straightened.
In some areas, enormous efforts were made to collect pebbles and gravel. In addition, more seashore areas werecreated artificially to deal with the potential damage caused by exceptionally high tides generated by typhoons.
<The Agricultural, Forestry, and Fisheries Industries>
The percentage of the population engaged in the primary industries accounted for about 40% of the total
population in 1955, but fell to about 20% in 1970.1) The areas used as agricultural land peaked at about 61,000 km2
in the first half of 1960s and then declined, while agricultural techniques also changed with the spread of agriculturalchemicals and chemical fertilizers, as well as greater mechanization. Farm production was also liberalized in a few
stages since the 1960s, leading to a lower self-sufficiency rate of foodstuffs (on a calorie supply basis) from 79% in
FY 1960 to 60% in 1970.6)
Along with high economic growth, the demand for lumber as a building material, paper and pulpwood showeda marked increase. In order to meet this demand, secondary forests, which lost economic value following the Energy
Revolution, were converted into artificial forests of Japanese cedar and Japanese cypress (via expansive afforestation).
With the liberalized importation of lumber in the 1960s, the supply volumes of imported lumber surged, leading toa lower self-sufficiency rate of lumber of 87% in 1960 to 45% in 1970.7) Fishery production also increased due toexpanded deep-sea fishing.8)<Occurrence of Pollution>
By then, pollution had become a social problem. Many incidents of pollution occurred, such as the Sumida
River in Tokyo beginning to smell bad in the 1950s, and water quality or eutrophication continued to deteriorate inrivers, lakes and marshlands due to industrial and residential drainage. Air pollution in industrial zones then becamea problem in the 1960s. The outbreak of Minamata disease (from poisoning caused by industrial mercury pollution)
was also confirmed in the 1960s.

2. From the Second Half of the 1970s to the 1980s<Stable Growth and the Bubble Economy>
The high economic growth period ended in the mid-1970s with the Oil Crisis (in 1973) as a turning point. RealGDP maintained an annual increase of approximately 5%.2) Population growth became marginal and the migrationfrom rural areas to urban areas slowed down.1) Residential areas per capita (privatized land) started to significantly
exceed prewar levels, and residential land generally became more available compared with the high economic growth
period.4) Based on the point of view expressed in "The Balanced Development of Land," land development extended
its reach to rural areas, and the social infrastructure including roads, railways, harbors, and facilities near rivers andseashores advanced.
Real GDP maintained annual growth in a range of +3% to +5% in the first half of the 1980s2) before the socalled "bubble economy" developed in the second half of 1980s. Industry and population were both concentrated
in the metropolitan Tokyo area in what was described as "the concentration of capital, resources and activities inTokyo." Land prices in central urban areas skyrocketed and resort developments progressed around the urban areas,
encouraged by the Resort Development Act in 1987.

Chapter I Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan21

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Industries>
Rural areas faced the issues of depopulation and aging residents. The ratio of population engaged in primaryindustries relative to the total population continued to decline, and reached as low as approximately 10% in the
1980s. 1) An imbalance in the supply and demand for rice developed, resulting in serious rice production controls being
imposed since the 1970s, and leading to less planted acreage of rice plants. The profitability of forestry deteriorated
and domestic forests were no longer used for industrial purposes. The importation of foodstuffs and lumber slightly
increased. The self-sufficiency rate of foodstuffs (on a calorie supply basis) and that of lumber remained in the 50s
and 30s percentage-wise, respectively.6) Fisheries production peaked in the 1980s and maintained a high level, notleast in offshore fishing.

3. From the 1990s to the Present Day<Low Growth and Depopulation>
An increase in real GDP, including temporary negative growth, remained at under 3% per annum. 2) The
migration of people into the Tokyo area continued, but population growth as a whole slowed and actually declinedin the first half of the 2000s. 1) The total population having falling below 100 million in 2005 raised the possibilityof continuing depopulation, coupled with a rapidly aging society where people aged 65 and older will account for asmuch as 40% of the total population.9)
The globalization of the economy and society continued, and the traffic of people and things over the borderincreased. The importation of freight that had totalled about 10.5 million tons in 1950 rose to approximately 550
million tons in 1975, 760 million tons in 1995, and 820 million tons in 2005.10)
The social infrastructure still continues to be enriched, but investment in construction, which had increased
during the high economic growth period, started to decline in the 1990s.11)<The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Industries>
Depopulation and aging continued in rural areas. The ratio of population engaged in the primary industries to thetotal population continued to fall, and was below 10% after the 1990s and is still declining.1)
The importation of foodstuffs and lumber continued, with the self-sufficiency rate of foodstuffs (on a calorie
supply basis) and that of lumber remaining in the 40s percentage-wise and around 20%, respectively.6), 7) The
importation of seafood increased and the self-sufficiency rate (on a volume basis) remains at approximately 60%.6)<Global Environmental Issues>
When oil prices suddenly soared temporarily in the second half of the 2000s, concerns were rising about whether
there would be a (sufficient) supply of energy and foodstuffs. And since the 1990s, the recognition of problems
related to the environment on a global scale also spread rapidly, with global warming advancing due to the emissionsof greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide to name a few, thereby calling for international measures to be taken.
The amount of carbon dioxide emissions due to human activities has been increasing worldwide since the 1950s, andthe trend has continued since the 1990s.12) In 2006, Japan accounted for 4% of the world's total emissions, and thevolume of greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide reached 1.374 billion tons (converted into volume ofcarbon dioxide) during FY 2007, marking a 9% increase over the level in 1990.12) Emissions through industrial use

Chapter I Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan22

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(including factories) was the largest cause (accounting for 36% of the total), but fell by 2% compared to 1990 levels,
while that through transportation use (including automobiles and ships), other business use (such as office buildings)
and household use rose by 15%, 44% and 41%, respectively.12)

Chapter I Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan23

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, National Census.
2) The Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, System of National Accounts.
3) The Agency for National Resources and Energy, Annual Energy Report.
4) The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, General Study on Prices of Fixed Asset Properties (Land).
5) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Statistics of Cultivated Land and Planted Acreage.
6) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Chart of Supply and Balance of Foodstuffs.
7) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Chart of Supply and Balance of Lumber.
8) The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Annual Report on Production of Fish-Raising Industry.
9) The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 2006: Future Population Projections (estimatedin December 2006).
10) The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (ed.), White Paper on Land, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism in Japan, 2008.
11) The Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Construction Investment Projection,
and Forecast of Construction Investment.
12) The Ministry of Environment (ed.), Annual Reports on the Environment, the Sound Material-Cycle Society andthe Biodiversity in Japan in FY 2009.

Chapter I Section 2 Trends of the Socio-Economy in Japan24

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter II
Assessment of the Causes of Biodiversity Loss
In this chapter, we assess the extent and trends of the influence of factors that directly triggered biodiversity loss
during the assessment period (from the second half of the 1950s to the present day). We examine the trends of themeasures implemented by cause and then assess how the general public has understood the issue, which was the basis
for implementing the measures, as well as the necessary funding and techniques.

Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis
In this chapter, we use four indicators to assess the extent and trends of the impact of "the first crisis" as one
cause of biodiversity loss during the assessment period (from the second half of the 1950s to the present day), and thetrends of related measures implemented.

1. The First Crisis○ "The first crisis" refers to the impact on biodiversity caused by human activity, such as land development.
Development and water contamination are factors that reduce the scale and quality of an ecosystem, as well as its
continuity. The direct use of wild animals and plants (by capturing or collecting them through hunting or fishing,or for ornamental purposes) is a factor in reducing the populations and distributions of species.

2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the First Crisis○ The impact of the first crisis was substantial during the assessment period from the second half of the 1950s to thepresent day, and is likely to increase on a long-term basis.
○ During the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period, rapid and large-scale
development substantially reduced the scale of ecosystems, in the context of highly natural forests, agriculturalland, marshlands and tidal flats. Once an ecosystem has been developed, such impact is likely to linger or emerge
after a certain period.
○ The direct use of wild animals and plants through hunting, for example, is decreasing on a long-term basis
compared with the period after the Meiji era when the capture of wild animals was common. However, the practiceof such direct use continues even today.
○ Compared with the periods of high economic growth and the "bubble" economy, the pressure resulting fromdevelopment has now diminished due to changes in the socioeconomic situation. However, smaller-scale
development, and the capture and collection of certain fauna and flora still continue, and the impact on species
living in an already reduced habitat is likely to be more significant.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

25

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Reason of the Assessment
The following lists the indicators used in the assessment that represent the causes of loss due to the first crisis,and describes the assessment by each indicator.

Table II-1 Indicators representing the factors of loss due to the first crisis and their assessment
Assessment
Long-term trendof impactFirst half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodDegree of impact during the assessment
period and current trendsFirst
crisisIndicator 1: Developmentof ecosystems

SecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisis*1

Indicator 2: Direct use ofwild animals
Indicator 3: Eutrophicationof water areas*2

Indicator 4: Factors of
reduction in endangered
species (the first crisis)

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendDegree of impact
during assessment
periodWeak

MediumStrongVery strong

Long-term trendof impact andcurrent trends

Decreasing

Same

Increasing

Increasing rapidly

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from assessments of the degrees of overall effects and trends.
*1: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 1.
*2: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 3.

Indicator 1 Development of ecosystems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The development of ecosystems including forests and tidal flats in our country is an indicator representing a causeof loss relating to the first crisis. It is also a direct cause of reducing the scale of an ecosystem.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

26

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ The impact of development on ecosystems is substantial, and the overall long-term trend is one of increasing loss.
○ In particular, the scale of some ecosystems was significantly reduced as more development took place nationwide
during the period of high economic growth in the first half of the assessment period. In recent years, however,the pace of development has slowed down. Although smaller in scale than in the past, development affecting
ecosystems is still continuing in certain areas.
○ Given the nature of this cause, even after an ecosystem has been lost due to past development, the impact continues
to linger and does not stop. It is also concerned that we will only see an effect in some cases after a certain time
has elapsed.
*1 (See Table II-1.) One should pay particular attention to the fact that, although the degree of impact now observed on a nationwidebasis appears to be falling compared with the period of the bubble economy, the impact of ongoing development on a regional basis
may reveal a different trend.

Reason of the Assessment
Mainly during the period of high economic growth (from the second half of the 1950s to the first half ofthe 1970s) in the first half of the assessment period, Japan's GDP (gross domestic product) grew dramatically, its
population increased as a whole and was concentrated in urban areas, and industrialization rapidly progressed.
Accordingly, due to demands from the socio-economy and the need for land management, large development projects
took place throughout the country. There were also large developments of resorts and other facilities during the periodof bubble economy in the second half of the 1980s.
<General Situation of Land Use>With regard to the trends in land use during the assessment period, the total area consisting of forests̶
accounting for 67% of Japan's total land̶has been maintained, while that of natural forests (i.e., natural forests,
secondary forests), grasslands and agricultural land decreased, and urban areas expanded (Data 1- ① : Figure II-1).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

27

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1960s

1970s

41%

38%

21%

25%

Other forests
Grassland (Note 2)
Rice paddy fields

5%
3%
9%

4%
8%

Fields, orchards
Urban areas (Note 3)
Water surface (Note 4)
Others (Note 5)

7%
4%
3%
7%

6%
6%
3%
8%

1980s

1990s

2000s

36%

35%

35%

27%

27%

27%

4% 1%
7%

Natural forests/
secondary forests(Note 1)

Artificial forests

2%

6%

6%

4% 1%
7%
6%

7%
3%
7%

8%
3%
8%

8%
4%
8%

4%
8%

1%

Note 1: This refers to natural forests as defined in the following source by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Note 2: This refers to the total area of uncultivated land, meadows and pastureland, as classified in the following source by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism.
Note 3: This refers to the total area of roads and residential land as defined in the following source by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
Note 4: This includes land used for housing and industry, and other residential land as defined in the following source by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism.
Note 5: This refers to the total area of regular roads (excluding motorways), farm roads and woodland paths, as defined in the following source by the Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: White Paper on Land and Real Property; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Survey on
Forestry Resources; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Acreage; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries: Basic Research on Infrastructure of Land Use.

Figure II-1 Trends in land use (Data 1-①)

<Development of Forests>
Mainly during the period of high economic growth, natural forests (i.e., natural forests, secondary forests)
decreased, while artificial forests increased. From the 1960s to the 2000s, about 21,000 km2 (14% of the original areaof natural and secondary forests) have been lost, while about 24,000 km2 (31% of the original area of artificial forests)
have been added (Data 1- ① : Figure II-1、1- ② : Figure II-2). Forests with a higher degree of naturalness (such as
natural and secondary forests) were reduced or divided upon conversion into artificial forests of Japanese cedar andJapanese cypress, which offer economic advantages.1) The decrease in natural forests (excluding secondary forests) is
considered more significant than shown in these statistics. Conversion into artificial forests rapidly progressed during
the period of high economic growth, and was still ongoing after the 1980s (Data 1- ⑤ : Appendix 15- ② : Figure III2).
Forests on the plains were destroyed and converted into residential or industrial land, along with an expansion ofurban areas (Data 1- ⑤ : Appendix, 1- ⑦ : Appendix). According to data of the topographic map of the Geospatial
Information Authority of Japan, the conversion of land use is still being observed, where substantial areas of forests
were initially converted into urban or agricultural land (of about 20,000 km2) from 1950 to around 1980 (Data 1- ④ :Appendix). Forests were also converted into golf courses and resort facilities during the period of the bubble economy(Data 1- ⑦ : Appendix).
By now, vegetation not altered by human activity (i.e., degree of naturalness of 10 for natural green land or
9 for natural forests) accounts for less than 20% of Japan's total land (Data 1- ③ : Appendix). The mesh ratio of
natural green land and natural forests (having degrees of naturalness of 10 and 9) accounts for more than 40% of thetotal regional land in Hokkaido, where land development is believed to have begun after the Meiji era, and Okinawa

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

28

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Prefecture, where a significant amount of development is difficult to undertake given the many islets there. The sameratio records more than 20% in Yamagata Prefecture, where there are deep mountainous areas including Mt. Iide, Mt.
Asahi, Mt. Choukai and Mt. Gassan, in Toyama Prefecture, home of the Hida Mountains (also called the Northern
Alps), and in Kagoshima Prefecture, which includes such islands as Yakushima, Koshikijima, and the Amami
Archipelago, as well as Mt. Kirishima. Unaltered land accounts for less than 10% of the land in each prefecture
within the area stretching from Kita Kyushu to western Japan and up to the Kanto region, where high levels ofdevelopment have historically been undertaken. Thus, the areas inhabited by fragile living things, which are easily
affected by human activity, are now declining.

Index based on 100 in the 1960s
0

50

100

150

200

250

1960s

1980s

2000s

2,517

2,526

2,510

100

Natural forests, secondary forests (Note 1) 1,551

1,367

1,338

86

Artificial forests

793

1,022

1,035

Uncultivated land, meadows and pastureland

105

41

36

34

Agricultural land

600

537

471

79

Rice paddy fields

339

295

258

76

(Including irrigated rice paddy fields)

27

124

155

Fields, orchards

261

242

213

Urban areas (Note 2)

167

258

314

188

Residential land (Note 3)

85

151

183

215

Roads (Note 4)

82

107

131

160

Forests

Decrease
Increase131

82

Unit: 100 km2
Note 1: This refers to natural forests as defined in the following source by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Note 2: This refers to the total area of roads and residential land as classified in the following source by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
Note 3: This includes land for housing and industry, and other residential land as defined in the following source by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism.
Note 4: This refers to the total area of regular roads (excluding motorways), farm roads and woodland paths, as defined in the following source by the Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: White Paper on Land and Real Property; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Survey on Forestry
Resources; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Acreage; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:
Basic Research on Infrastructure of Land Use; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Statistical Research on Construction Work on Agricultural Land

Figure II-2 Scale of ecosystems in land areas (Data 1-②)

<Development of Grasslands and Agricultural Land>
Grasslands (i.e., uncultivated land, meadows, pastureland) as one component of Satochi-Satoyama areas havebeen substantially diminished both before and during the assessment period. The background behind this loss isthat, along with the conversion of land into artificial forests and agricultural land (Data 1- ④ : Appendix), less use of
secondary grasslands (the second crisis) during the period of high economic growth made a major contribution.
Similarly, agricultural land (including rice paddy fields) as another component of Satochi-Satoyama areas was
also diminished throughout the assessment period. Since the 1960s, about 13,000 km 2 (21% of the original areaof agricultural land) have been lost (Data 1- ① : Figure II-1, 1- ② : Figure II-2). In some areas such as Hokkaido,
agricultural land actually increased. However, a significant level of conversion from agricultural land into land forresidential and industrial use also occurred, particularly during the period of high economic growth, and agriculturalland also was targeted for development during the period of Japan's bubble economy (Data 1- ④ : Appendix, 1- ⑥ :Appendix). Moreover, infrastructural improvements to agricultural land, including rezoning or redividing the land,

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

29

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japanand the construction of irrigation and drainage canals have been undertaken since the 1960s in order to enhance
productivity of the land. To date, agricultural improvements have been made to more than 60% of the rice paddies
throughout Japan (Data 1- ② : Figure II-2, Appendix).
<Expansion of Urban Areas>
Urban areas rapidly expanded throughout the country during the first half of the assessment period, whereby
the area of densely populated districts doubled from about 3,900 km2 in the 1960s to about 8,200 km2 in the 1970s,
and continues to expand.2) According to data of a topographical map by the Geospatial Information Authority ofJapan, the conversion of land use indicates that (about 10,000 km2 of) plains, forests, agricultural land, and other land(e.g., grasslands, open land, gravel areas, wetlands) began being changed into urban areas from around the 1950s toaround the 1980s (Data 1- ④ : Appendix). Moreover, the conversion from forests and agricultural land into land forresidential and industrial use continued even during the second half of the assessment period (Data 1- ⑥ : Appendix,
1- ⑦ : Appendix).
<Development of Inland Water Areas>
Since the period of high economic growth, the alteration of rivers progressed nationwide due to social demands
for flood control and irrigation.3) About 20% of the about 11,000 km of the midstream and downstream areas of 113
first-class rivers were tampered with (such as the edge of a river brushing by buildings) (Data 25- ③ : Figures II-3,
III-16). Elements of the basic structure of rivers, such as rapids and abysses, are disappearing as the continuity withtransitional areas from water is being divided, as well as rivers being straightened.3) ,4) And since the period of higheconomic growth, more engineering structures used for crossing rivers, such as dams and sluices, were constructed(Data 25- ① : Figure III-14). By around 2000, there was less than 50% of the entire length of a river where fish could
not swim upstream in about 40% of the 113 first-class rivers mentioned above (Data 25- ② : Figures II-3, III-15).
The number of lakes and marshes has also declined due to traditional reclamation as well as reclamation bydrainage. Lakeshores continued being changed by human activity5) and, by around 2000, about 40% of the lakeshores(i.e., edges of lakes and surrounding areas) of the 480 major lakes and marshes of Japan had been altered (Data 25- ④ :Figures II-3, III-17). Although our available data predates the assessment period, significant portions of wetlands arealso being lost (Data 24- ① : Figure II-3, Appendix).
<Development of Coastal Areas>
Since coastal areas are desirable for residential and industrial-use land, related development has been
substantially pursued.6) Since 1945, not least during the period of high economic growth, about 40% of the total tidal
flat area disappeared due to such development as reclamation (Data 27- ⑤ : Figure II-3, Appendix). Kelp coasts andcoral reefs are also diminishing due to reclamation and dredging (Data 27- ⑦ : Appendix, 27- ⑧ : Appendix). And
since the period of high economic growth, society has demanded changes in seashores for such reasons as preventing
disasters, and the alteration of seashores subsequently progressed nationwide. At present, about 50% of the total
length of seashores has been altered from its original state (such as man-made structures being constructed along
shorelines) (Data 27- ④ : Figure II-3, Appendix), and the natural seashore has been diminished. Though stricter
regulations are being enforced, gravel was still being gathered from beaches, mainly along the Seto Island Sea.
Nationwide, about 30,000 total tons of gravel had been extracted annually during the second half of the assessment
period (Data 27- ② : Figure III-21).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

30

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Around1960s

Around1980s

Around2000s

Land area

Ratio of development around 2000 (%)
0Ratio of artificial riverbanks(Note 1)
Ratio of rivers having a low range of
upstream swimming (Note 2)
Ratio of artificial lakeshores(Note 3)
Ratio of disappeared wetlands(since around 1900) (Note 4)

20

40

60

80

19%

24%

41%

41%

41%

39%

43%

43%

61%

100

24%

61%

Coastal area
Ratio of disappeared tidal flats(since 1945) (Note 5)
Ratio of artificial seashores(Note 6)
Area of annual reclamation (km2)

26

34%

41%

41%

40%

46%

46%

19%

9%

Note 1: “Around the 1980s” refers to the survey data of FY 1978. “Around 2000” refers to the survey data of FY 1998. The ratio
represents a percentage of rivers (other than natural rivers) to the 113 first-class rivers in Japan, which are defined asimportant for national security and the economy, within a certain section of rivers for the purpose of the survey (inprinciple, the direct section of major rivers).
Note 2: “Around the 1980s” refers to the survey data of FY 1985. “Around 2000” refers to the survey data of FY 1998. The ratio
represents a percentage of rivers, where the section in which fish can swim upstream is less than 50% of the entire lengthof the aforementioned survey section.
Note 3: “Around the 1980s” refers to the survey data of FY 1979. “Around 2000” refers to the survey data of FY 1991. The ratio
represents a percentage of lakeshores other than natural lakeshores.
Note 4: “Around 1900” refers to the data based on topographic maps made around 1886 to 1924. “Around 2000” refers to thedata based on topographic maps made in 1975 to 1997.
Note 5: “Around the 1980s” refers to the survey data of FY 1978. “Around 2000” refers to the survey data obtained in FY 1995 to
1996.
Note 6: “Around the 1980s” refers to the survey data obtained in FY 1978 to 1979. “Around 2000” refers to the survey dataobtained in FY 1995 to 1996. The ratio represents a percentage of seashore other than natural seashore.
Source: Environment Agency: Basic survey on conservation of the natural environment and survey on rivers (2nd, 3rd and 5th),
Survey on lakes and marshes (2nd, 4th), Survey on tidal flats, kelp coasts and coral reefs (2nd), Survey on seashores andsurvey on environment of shallow waters (5th), Survey on coasts (2nd), Survey on seashores and survey on environment ofseashores (5th); Geospatial Information Authority of Japan: Survey on lakes, mashes and wetlands (FY 1996-1999),
Survey on land area

Figure II-3 Scale of ecosystems in inland water and coastal areas(Data 24-①, 25-②, 25-③, 25-④, 27-①, 27-④, 27-⑤)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

31

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 1 Assessment of river environment as measured by the extent of detachment from ecosystems not modified by human activity
This section presents a brief and comprehensive assessment of the river environment in termsof its physical environmental elements. The following shows an example of assessing any point
measured according to the extent of differences (extent of detachment) from “references” of minor
modifications by human activity.
The Shibetsu River area in Hokkaido is chosen as the subject of assessment, since it is possible toestablish references in the area, and we have selected 68 sites for this survey. An assessment isconducted from the perspectives of “artificial modification,” “diversity of habitat,” and “structureof rivers and floodplains.” Concrete phenomena representing each point of view are set as
indicators. We use the results of analyzing the major components based on each point of view inthe assessment, divide the subject section by classification type, and then set the type with the least
modification by human activity as the reference. Having calculated the extent of detachment at
each survey site, we found that those sites showing differences from the reference in terms of many
indicators including significant modification by human activity, less diversity of habitats along withfewer abysses and sandbanks, and a low degree of meandering have a large degree of detachment.
We also conducted a survey using biota indicators at the same time, thereby yielding results thatrevealed a certain extent of correspondence between the composition and structure of detachment,
and the biota concerned.
We therefore deduced that the extent of detachment generally reflects dif ferences from thereference environments and helps to elucidate the degradation of ecosystems by human impact.
This assessment method is not particularly tailored for the targeted section, and we believe it canbe more easily applied to assess a wider area than just using biota indicators. We also consider the
method to be effective for “a group checkup” of river environments.

<Current Trend of Development>
Compared with the period of high economic growth, there have been changes in the socioeconomic situation
whereby we are currently seeing slower economic growth, a higher dependence on biological resources from abroad,and less demand for industrial sites. As a result, the pace of development in each aforementioned ecosystem isapparently easing, although smaller-scale development is still continuing (Data 1- ② : Figure II-1, 1- ⑥ : Appendix, 1⑦ : Appendix, 24- ① : Appendix, 25- ③ : Figure III-16, 27- ① : Figure II-3, 27- ④ : Appendix, 27- ⑤ : Appendix).
Once development takes place, the ecosystems at these sites physically disappear and are difficult to restore. It also
remains concerned, as has been pointed out, about a time lag before the negative elements of development or watercontamination are actually observed as having adversely impacted the ecosystems.

Indicator 2

Direct use of wild animals

Explanation of the Indicator○ The excessive direct use of animals (through the capture of wild animals by hunting and fishing, and for decorative
purposes) reduces both the distributions and populations of many species. This indicator therefore qualifies asa factor of loss relative to the first crisis. The following examines the capture of wild animals in land areas (seeIndicator 29 for cases in marine areas).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

32

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ No data is available to indicate trends of the direct use of wild animals over long periods of time; however, prior to
the assessment period, the indiscriminate hunting of birds and animals in land areas had a substantial impact.
○ During the first half of the assessment period, hunting was a popular sport. Therefore, along with the impact ofdevelopment, it was concerned about declining numbers of wild birds and animals. During the second half of theassessment period, hunting had less impact, and the growing populations of some species due to lower capturepressure has become an issue for the conservation of biodiversity.
○ Recently, the attention have focused on the impact of wild birds and animals being captured for decorative
purposes.
Reason of the Assessment
The indiscriminate hunting of wild birds and animals for their fur and meat was mainly observed prior to theassessment period, rather than during the assessment period that began in the second half of the 1950s. Some species
became forcibly extinct or simply extinct in the wild (e.g., Crested ibis or Nipponia Nippon, Oriental stork or Ciconia
boyciana, Japanese wolf or anis Lupus Hodophilax), or were on the verge of extinction (e.g., Japanese river otter or
Lutra lutra Nippon, Short-tailed albatross or Diomedea albatrus).

8),9)

Since there was already less demand and hunting

controls were in place during the assessment period, indiscriminate hunting was no longer being observed. Still,some species were able to recover (e.g., Japanese serow or Capricornis crispus, Short-tailed albatross or Diomedea
8),9)albatrus), while others have not (e.g., Japanese river otter or Lutra lutra Nippon).

The first half of the assessment period saw more so-called “leisure hunters,” leading to the popularization of
hunting as a hobby and the development of new hunting techniques. Moreover, high economic growth encouraged
the modification of wildlife habitats, and declining numbers of wild animals (birds) became an issue of concern. The
second half of the assessment period saw less capture pressure. During the entire assessment period, the population of
hunters, which exceeded 500,000 in 1975, was reduced by half by 1995. The percentage of hunters aged 60 years andolder relative to the total hunter population was increasing, reflecting the aging of hunters (Data 2- ① : Figure II-4).
It was also pointed out that the populations of such medium-size and large mammals as deer and wild boars
became uncontrollable in the 1990s, given the ongoing low hunting pressure on these animals.10) Now that the direct
use of such mammals has subsided, a converse disadvantage has emerged whereby the growing population andexpanding distribution of deer have resulted in greater damage to vegetation.11),12),13)
The capture of certain reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish and insects for decorative purpose, however, remains
a problem.14),15),16)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

33

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Hunter population (number of people)

600,000

Age unknown
60 or more

500,000

Between 50 and 59
Between 40 and 49

400,000

Between 30 and 39
Between 20 and 29

300,000

200,000

100,000

01975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
(Fiscal year)
Source: Forestry Agency, Environment Agency, Ministry of the Environment, Statistics on wild birds and animals

Figure II-4 Trend of the hunter population (Data 2-①)

Indicator 3 Eutrophication of water areas
Explanation of the indicator○ Nitrogen and phosphorus emitted by human activity cause eutrophication in closed water areas, lakes andmarshlands. This causes an excessive growth of algae, subsequently leading to the formation of red or blue tides
and degraded water quality. This is one of the indicators that demonstrate the factors of loss as related to the firstcrisis.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Despite the lack of nationwide data available for the first half of the assessment period, eutrophication became asocial issue during that period. The situation improved throughout the country, however, during the second half of
the assessment period.
*2 (See Table II-1.): We must pay particular attention to the fact that some areas may have been strongly affected by eutrophication
during the assessment period.

Reason of the Assessment
Given the extent of available nationwide data, eutrophication caused by nitrogen and phosphorus improved inlakes and marshlands after the second half of the 1980s. Improvements were particularly seen in marine areas after
the second half of the 1990s. The density of total nitrogen in lakes and marshlands has remained at about 0.6 mg/l
since the 1980s, while that seen in marine areas improved from about 0.8 mg/l to about 0.3 mg/l in the second half ofthe 1990s. The density of total phosphorus in lakes and marshlands, which previously exceeded a level of 0.05 mg/l,
improved to less than 0.04 mg/l after the 1980s, while marine areas showed a similar improvement in the second halfof the 1990s (Data 3- ① : Figure II-5).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

34

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThe main reason for the accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in marine areas, lakes, marshlands andwetlands is believed to be the excessive discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter (usually found infoodstuffs, animal feed and fertilizers) into the environment in the form of household and industrial effluent. The
situation is believed to have initially deteriorated due to an increasing concentration of population in large cities
during the period of high economic growth, as well as an actual volume increase of nitrogen and phosphorus throughimported foodstuffs and animal feed. Other reasons for eutrophication include the loss of many tidal flats and reed
fields that would have otherwise helped to purify the water quality.17),18)
Organic matter discharged into the environment as well as natural organic matter in the case of dam lakes,
accumulated in the sediment of water areas. This accumulated organic matter decomposed and became a source ofadverse impact. The accumulation of organic matter in sediment is said to have triggered eutrophication, particularly
in closed sea areas, lakes and marshlands.19),20),21)
It is found that nitrogen affects ecosystems through the air. For example, nitrate levels in the mountain streams
that are not affected by anthropogenic impacts are higher than the levels in the mid- to downstream area around 50
years ago except Hokkaido and Tohoku reagions. There areconcerns about the impact of nitrogen load through theair (Data 3- ② :Appendix).

Density of total nitrogen (mg/l)

0.8

0.08

0.06

0.6
0.04
0.4
0.02

0.2

0

Density of total phosphorus (mg/l)

Total nitrogen(lakes and marshlands)
Total nitrogen(marine areas)
Total phosphorus(lakes and marshlands)
Total phosphorus(marine areas)

1

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

0

Source: Ministry of the Environment, Results of measuring water quality in public-use water areas

Figure II-5 Trends of density of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in lakes, marshlands and marine areas (Data 3-①)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

35

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 4 Factors of reduction in endangered species (as related to the first crisis)
Explanation of the Indicator○ The ratio of extinct or endangered wildlife species to the total species in Japan indicates that the loss and reductionof species was caused by all of the following factors: “the first crisis,” “the second crisis,” “the third crisis” and “theclimate change crisis.” Indicator 4 assesses these factors as related to the first crisis.
Assessment by the Indicator○ The first crisis, not least development, is the most serious factor behind the decrease of a number of species groups.
The situation is currently improving, however, compared with the first half of the assessment period.
Reason of the Assessment<Status of endangered species>
According to the latest Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment,22),23),24),25),26),27) 26% of mammals, 15%of birds, 32% of reptiles, 34% of amphibians, 37% of freshwater/brackish water fish, and 25% of vascular plants are
already extinct or endangered (Data 4- ① : Appendix).
With reference to the Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment as well as the Red Data Book, 26
species of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, freshwater/brackish water fish, and Coleopteras are confirmed ashaving become extinct (including extinct in the wild) from between the early 19th century to the present day, while
seven species are confirmed as having become extinct during the assessment period that began in the second half ofthe 1950s. Although the status of many species in terms of being extinct or not has yet to be confirmed, there are no
reliable records covering a few decades (Data 4- ② : Table II-2).
As for the number of extinct species of vascular plants by era, according to data in the Red List compiled by the
Ministry of the Environment, 40 species have became extinct or extinct in the wild since the 1920s, and 22 species
have become endangered. The data also shows that the average extinction rate over the past 50 years is 8.6 species per
decade. The number of species confirmed as being extinct or extinct in the wild has declined by era during the second
half of the assessment period, while such trend is not lowered when including “nearly extinct” species (Data 4- ③ :Figure II-6, Data 4- ④ : Table II-3).
The distribution data on vascular plants shows that many endangered species live in the prefectures of
Kagoshima, Okinawa and Hokkaido, where a number of endemic species also live (Data 4- ⑦ : Appendix).
No significant information is available regarding endangered species in coastal or oceanic areas, but the 1988
Data Book28) compiled by the Fisheries Agency listed 118 species of aquatic life as being endangered or vulnerable,of which six species are marine shellfish, 15 are marine fish, and eight are marine algae. The WWF-J report of 199629)
revealed that 389 species of invertebrate animals (shellfish and crustaceans) that use the tidal flat environment in Japanas their habitats were endangered species.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

36

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table II-2 Era and name of animals already extinct or extinct in the wild (Data 4-②)
PeriodJapanese endemic species orJapanese sub-endemic species

1801-1900

Pteropus pselaphon (mammal)
Pteropus loochoensis (mammal)
Cichlopasser terrestris (bird)
Columba versicolor (bird)
Chaunoproctus ferreorostris (bird)
Nycticorax caledonicus (bird)
Halcyon miyakoensis (bird)

1900s

Canis lupus hodophilax (mammal)

Species in wide
distributions (Note 1)

Canis lupus hattai (mammal)
Tadorna cristata (bird)

1910s
1920s

Cettia diphone restricta (bird)
Parus varius orii (bird)
Porzana cinereus (bird)

1930s

Troglodytes troglodytes orii (bird)
Apalopteron familiare familiar (bird)
Columba jouyi (bird)

1940s

Oncorhynchus nerka kawamurae (freshwater/brackish water fish)

1950s

Rakantrechus elegans (insect)

1960s

Macroplea mutica japana (insect)Gnathopogon elongatus suwae (freshwater/brackish water fish)Pungitius kaibarae (freshwater/brackish water fish)

1970s

Ishikawatrechus intermedius (insect)Dryocopus javensis (bird)

Nipponia Nippon (bird)
Compressalges nipponiae (arachnid)

1980s
1990s and later

The above lists the species already extinct or extinct in the wild, as extracted from the species groups of mammals, birds,
amphibians, reptiles, insects, freshwater/brackish water fish, crustaceans, and arachnids/myriapods in the Red List issued by the
Ministry of the Environment. These species were classified by era of extinction as described in the Red Data Book issued by the
Ministry of the Environment.
Note 1: The extinction era of Sturgeon (a freshwater/brackish water fish species of wide distribution) is unknown.
Source: Environment Agency and Ministry of the Environment, Endangered wild animals in Japan (revised), Ministry of theEnvironment, A list of species of endangered wild animals in Japan

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

37

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan14

No. of species

1210

Nearly extinct
Extinct orextinct in the wild

8
6
4
2
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Unknown (Period)

Some 40 species were already extinct or extinct in the wild, while 22 species are endangered. The average extinction ratio overthe past 50 years is 8.6 species per decade.
Source: Unpublished data provided by Fujita et al. (Data were collected with the assistance of 527 researchers throughout Japanand compiled as part of the second review of the Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment.)

Figure II-6 No. of extinct species by period (vascular plants) (Data 4-③)

Table II-3 Name and era of species already extinct or extinct in the wild (vascular plants) (Data 4-④)
Period1920s

Name of species extinct or extinct in the wild (Note 1)
Euphrasia insignis subsp. insignis var. omiensis

Euphrasia insignis subsp. insignis var. pubigera

Lespedeza hisauchii
Cirsium toyoshimae
Fimbristylis pauciflora

Cyperus diaphanus ssp. Setiformis
Zeuxine boninensis
Magnolia pseudokobus

Fimbristylis leptoclada var. takamineana

1950s

Liparis uchiyamae
Eriocaulon cauliferum
Burmannia coelestris

Lycopodium cunninghamiodes
Astragalus sikokianus

Flemingia strobilifera
Eriocaulon seticuspe

1960s

Ranunculus gmelinii
Carex disperma

Malus hupehensis
Kalanchoe integra

Saxiglossum angustissimum

1970s

Hypolepis tenuifolia
Thelypteris erubescens
Aletris makiyataroi

Glaziocharis tuberculata
Botrychium boreale

Renanthera labrosa
Pseudophegopteris aurita

1980s
1990s

Viola stoloniflora
Eriocaulon heleocharioides

Dryopteris shibipedis
Cyperus procerus

Evrardia poilanei

Unknown

Ophioglossum nudicaule
Acanthephippium striatum
Elatostema lineolatum var. majus

Tectaria dissecta
Asplenium austrochinense
Rubus hatsushimae

Euphrasia multifolia var. kirisimana

1930s
1940s

Note 1: This list excludes species whose growth has been confirmed in recent years, and may differ from those included in the
Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment.
Source: Unpublished data provided by Fujita et al. (Data were collected with the assistance of 527 researchers throughout Japanand compiled as part of the second review of the Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment.)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

38

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<The First Crisis as a Factor of Reducing Populations of Endangered Species>
According to the latest Red Data Book8),9),14),15),16) compiled by the Ministry of the Environment, there are manycases where the reduced populations of endangered species among mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater/brackish water fish, and vascular plants are attributed to the first crisis (Data 4- ⑤ : Figure II-7).
In all categories, “development” (including deforestation, the development of lakes, marshlands, rivers andgrasslands, and the construction of golf courses and other land development) significantly affected the environment
by destroying habitats. “Development” is considered a factor behind the reduced populations of endangered species
given its impact on about 90 to 100% of such species among mammals, reptiles, amphibians and freshwater/brackish
water fish, and on about 50% of vascular plants. For those species relying on inland waters, “water contamination”
is considered a factor behind reducing the populations of about 40% of endangered amphibian species and about
60% of endangered species of freshwater/brackish water fish. Also considered factors in reducing the populations ofreptiles and vascular plants are the “capture and collection” of wildlife for decorative, horticultural and pharmaceutical
purposes. For instance, Orchidaceae is the most endangered plant family. Among about 200 species now considered
endangered, 110 species (or 55% of the total) are endangered due to development and 120 species (or 60% of thetotal) are endangered due to collection, suggesting that collection for horticultural purposes has had a serious impact.
In contrast, Cyoeraceae includes 120 endangered species, among which 63 species (or 55% of the total) are also
considered to be endangered due to development, but no species are endangered due to collection. The degree ofcollection pressure thus depends on the category.
Among all factors behind the extinction to date of the aforementioned 26 species of mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, freshwater/brackish water fish, and Coleopteras, the first crisis (including development, capture/collection
and water contamination) is the main factor for all categories (Data 4- ⑥ : Appendix).
The WWF-J report of 1996 mentioned above listed a number of factors related to the first crisis, including
reclamation, artificial bank protection, eutrophication, pollution and red clay runoff, that have resulted in the extinctionof living things in tidal flats (Data 4- ⑧ : Appendix).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

39

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Mammals
0%

20%

40%

60%

Reptiles
80% 100%

88%

Development (Note 1)

0%

Water contamination (Note 2)

Capture/collection (Note 3)

8%

Capture/collection (Note 3)
Succession, etc. (Note 4)

19%

Alien species (Note 5)

20%

60%

100%
43%

Water contamination (Note 2)

Succession, etc. (Note 4)

67%

0%

20%

40%

Succession, etc. (Note 4)

58%
32%
3%

Alien species (Note 5)

21%

80% 100%

92%

Capture/collection (Note 3)

0%

60%

Development (Note 1)
Water contamination (Note 2)29%

Alien species (Note 5)56%

Freshwater/brackish water fish
80% 100%

Development (Note 1)

Capture/collection (Note 3)

6%

Alien species (Note 5)

40%

80% 100%

0%

Amphibians
0%

60%

94%

8%

2%

40%

Development (Note 1)

Water contamination (Note 2)

Succession, etc. (Note 4)

20%

25%

Vascular plants
0%20%

80% 100%

3%
24%

Capture/collection (Note 3)28%

Succession, etc. (Note 4)
Alien species (Note 5)

60%

53%

Development (Note 1)
Water contamination (Note 2)

40%

0%

We classified the factors of reducing the populations of endangered species as follows: “development,” “water contamination,”“collection/capture,” “natural succession,“ and “alien species (introduced species).” The percentages represent the ratios ofthese factors as sources of reducing the populations of endangered species (where the total may exceed 100% when multiple
factors are considered responsible).
Note 1: This includes deforestation, the development of lakes, marshlands, rivers, seashores, wetlands and grasslands, coalmining, the construction of golf courses, ski resorts, roads and dams, and the preparation of land.
Note 2: This includes water contamination and pollution caused by agricultural chemicals.
Note 3: This includes collection for horticultural purposes, capture for decorative purposes, collection for pharmaceutical
purposes, and other forms of illegal collection.
Note 4: This includes the abandonment of management, the progress of succession, and changes in vegetation.
Note 5: This includes the invasion of predators, competition with naturalization, cross-breeding, and release into the wild.
Source: Environment Agency and Ministry of the Environment, Red Data Book of endangered wildlife in Japan

Figure II-7 Causes of reduced populations of endangered species by biological classification (Data 4-⑤)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

40Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 2 Identification of areas where endangered vascular plants face a higher probability of extinction
From the standpoint of prioritizing conservation,
it is ef fective to identify those areas where alarger number of endangered species live or
the risk of extinction is higher. Such importantconservation areas are called “hot spots” (Myers,
1989, 1990, etc.). Various methods have beensuggested to identify such hot spots.
In Japan, for example, Yahara et al. suggested(in unpublished work) the C indicator (a shortterm conser vation indicator) and D indicator(a long-term conser vation indicator) by using
data on the distributions, populations andreduction rates of endangered plants in a 2nd
mesh compiled for the Red List of vascular

Figure a. Distribution of areas having a higher
probability of extinction by using the C indicator (ashort-term conservation indicator) ( ■ : Top 150
areas in the 2nd mesh)plants. The C indicator indicates how much therisk of extinction can be reduced nationwide incase all endangered species living in the meshare conserved for the next 10 years (Figure a).
The D indicator indicates how much the risk ofextinction is likely to increase nationwide in caseall endangered species living in the mesh arelost (Figure b). It has been suggested that thismethod has certain drawbacks, including a lackof available data, issues relating to assessment
using a 2nd mesh, and the assessment ofvalues for Japanese endemic species. However,

Figure b. Distribution of areas where vascularplants face a higher probability of extinction byusing the D indicator (a long-term conservation
indicator) ( ■ : Top 150 areas in the 2nd mesh)the development of such a method could be
expected from the standpoint of strategic
evaluation of the environment, as well as theselection of conservation areas (The Society for
the Studies of Species Biology, 2002).

(Source: Myers, N., 1989: Threatened biotas: “Hotspots” in tropical forests, Environmentalist, 8, 1-20.; Myers, N., 1990: The
biodiversity challenge: expanded hotspots analysis, Environmentalist, 10, 243-256.; The Society for the Studies of Species Biology(ed.), 2002: Biology of conservation and restoration, Bun-Ichi. Co., Ltd., 260pp)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

41

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

4．Measures for Loss
(1) Measures
With regard to biodiversity loss caused by the first crisis, the National Diversity Strategy of Japan prescribesthat “it is necessary to take the stance whereby an impact caused by human activity should be properly avoided or
reduced according to the characteristics and level of importance of the subjects. It is also important to strengthen theconservation of wilderness areas, as well as to thoroughly examine whether it is truly necessary to resort to excessive
exploitation of natural ecosystems.” It also states that “it is necessary to actively restore those ecosystems that havealready been lost or seriously degraded, based on scientific knowledge.”
The first crisis due to development and capture/collection has long been dealt with by designating conservation
areas or establishing regulations to prohibit the capture of species.
Measures against the first crisis were strengthened during the assessment period by establishing and enhancing
new regulatory frameworks related to conservation areas, controls against capturing species in the wild, restoring
nature, and paying attention to environmental impact whenever a development project is implemented. However, theoverall trend has yet to reach a stage where the current status of endangered species shows significant improvement.
<Conservation areas>
Conservation areas have been substantially expanded during the assessment period, as the government and local
authorities established various new systems for those areas, thereby creating new conservation areas. With regard
to conservation land areas designated by the Ministry of the Environment, the total area in national parks (under the
Natural Parks Act), quasi-national parks (under the Natural Parks Act), wildlife protection areas (under the Wildlife
Protection and Proper Hunting Act) amounted to about 32,000 km2 around 1960.

Since then, new conservation

areas were established in the form of prefectural nature parks (under the Natural Parks Act), wildness areas (under
the Nature Conservation Act), nature conservation areas (under the Nature Conservation Act), prefectural nature
conservation areas (under the Nature Conservation Act), and natural habitat conservation areas (under the Act onConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), thereby expanding the total area of land conservation
areas to about 91,000 km2 or more than 2.8 times the area in 2005.
Today, various types of land conservation areas that are mainly located in backbone mountain ranges accountfor about 20% of Japan's total land. Conversely, the equivalent for marine areas remains less than 10%, of which amajority is located within areas subject to less restrictive regulations. How marine protection areas should be from theperspective of conserving biodiversity or as a means of its sustainable use has been examined.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

42

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Control of Capture and Conservation/Population Growth>Controls on the capture of specific species of wildlife have been in place since the first half of the assessment
period, in order to conserve wildlife, protect natural treasures, make adjustments to fishery activities, and conserve
aquatic resources. For example, the use of mist nets̶a hunting device to catch wild birds̶has been banned since1947 (unless the users obtain specific permission). Since 1991 selling, distributing or even owning such a net for
hunting purposes has been prohibited. New regulations were established in the second half of the assessment period,
including the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which significantly expanded
the range of species prohibited to be captured throughout the country. For example, with the introduction of natural
treasures under the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (where such species are named and included with special
natural treasures), the protection of rare species of domestic wild animals and plants under the Act on Conservationof Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and regulations to protect aquatic resources, more animal species
are now protected by bans on their capture or collection. Around 1960, only 35 species were designated as natural
treasures; the number increased by about 3.7 times to reach 131 species in 2010. Based on the Act on Conservationof Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, it is intended not only to protect but also increase the populations ofsome species. More regulations and bylaws have also been enacted at the municipal level to impose similar controls
over the capture and conservation of wildlife.
Certain critically endangered species such as the Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis euptailurus) andOkinawa rail (Gallirallus okinawae) are apparently difficult to protect by simply trying to conserve those animals
within their original habitats. For those endangered species, more efforts are therefore being made to implement
systematic conservation measures outside the original habitats. For such species as the Crested ibis (Nipponia Nippon)and Oriental stork (Ciconia boyciana) that have become extinct within their original habitats, as well as the Leopard
cat, it is also progressively attempting to not only protect and restore their habitats, but also return these animals to thewild.
In recent years, various segments of society including the government, municipal authorities, NGOs and local
residents have also been cooperating and working together to promote projects for the restoration of nature and theenvironment.
BOX 3 Measures to prevent the roadkill of the Okinawa rail (Gallirallus okinawae)
The Okinawa rail (Gallirallus okinawae) is an endemic species in Okinawa and designated as oneof the rare species of domestic wild animals and plants by the Act on Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Predation by the Indian mongoose(Herpestes javanics) and feral cats was the main reason for thedisappearance of the Okinawa rail, but there has also been an
increasing number of Okinawa rail being road-killed in recent
years. In 2003, however, “a liaison conference to prevent roadkill
in the Yanbaru area” was organized by institutions related to nature
conservation and road management. In 2007, such roadkill totaled
23 animals, at which point a “state of emergency regarding roadkillof the Okinawa rail” was declared. The liaison conference consistsof 25 institutions and is now taking various measures to prevent suchroadkill. These measures include improving the road environment
by erecting box culverts, no-entr y fences and warning signs, andmaking efforts to raise awareness through a “Campaign to prevent
Okinawa rail against being road-killed.”

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

43

A sign showing a picture of
the Okinawa rail (Gallirallus
okinawae) as a motifReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Ecosystem Network>
There are cases where the succession of habitats cannot be maintained by simply designating conservation
areas. The importance of creating an ecosystem network that ensures succession and secures appropriate locations forhabitats is now being recognized. “The green corridor” of national forests and “the network of water and green” areexamples of how to deal with the issue.
<Restoration of Nature>
An active attempt has been made to restore certain wetlands and rivers altered by past development. A law
promoting nature restoration was enacted in 2002, and committees for nature restoration have been set up in various
parts of the country. Moreover, nature restoration projects have are now being implemented with the cooperation ofrelated government agencies, municipalities, NGOs, specialists and local residents.
<Projects with Environmental Considerations>
In recent years when the government and municipalities undertook development projects likely to change
ecosystems or wildlife habitats, environmental considerations have become a factor in choosing construction methods
and techniques. This is a concrete example of measures being taken to reduce such adverse impact on biodiversity.
Prior to launching a development project larger than a certain size, those responsible for the project must
examine, project and assess the likely impact on the environment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act,
based on which considerations are given to how best to protect the environment. Guidelines on introducing strategic
environmental assessments at the early stage of a project were compiled in 2007 for the purpose of avoiding andreducing adverse effects on the environment. This was followed by “The process guidelines for public works plans in
the planning stage” issued by of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in 2008, and “Guidelines
for the introduction of strategic environmental assessment at the final landfill site (plan)” issued by the Ministry of theEnvironment in 2009, as steps to introduce assessment into the process.
<Sustainable Use>
In order to make agriculture, forestry and fishery sustainable with more emphasis on biodiversity, efforts weremade to encourage a switch to environmentally-friendly farming making appropriate use of agricultural chemicals
and fertilisers, and prepare a production infrastructure with considerations given to biodiversity. In forestry, projects
have also been started so that artificial forests will have a longer life span before being felled, become multi-storied
forests, and consist of a mixed variety of coniferous and broadleaf trees, in order to contribute to conserving theenvironment and respond to future requirements. Moreover, such measures as the forest certification system and afishery certification scheme have also been introduced.
More corporations are also taking a stance to incorporate biodiversity in their activities by supportinginternational nature conservation projects at the source locations of raw materials, marketing products bearing ecolabels through their distribution channels, and indicating articles relating to biodiversity in their environmental reports.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

44

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Others>
From around the second half of the assessment period, more laws on controlling water pollution and other laws
concerning special measures have been enacted to control the volume of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged byfactories and offices into marine areas, lakes and marshlands. Although the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus
brought into Japan through the importation of foodstuffs and animal feed remains substantial, sewage treatment
facilities have been constructed in many areas, particularly in large cities where the infrastructure ratio to the
population exceeds 80%.
It have been also started that collecting and examining information to verify the effects of these measuresthrough basic research on conservation of the natural environment or projects promoting the monitoring of important
ecosystem surveillance areas (e.g., the Monitoring Site 1000 project).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

45

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(2) Related indicators
The following shows the indicators used to assess the measures for loss caused by the first crisis, and theassessment result by each indicator.

Table II-4 Indicators of measures for loss as related to the first crisis and their assessment results
Assessment
Long-term trendof measures
First half
Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent trend of measures

First
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 5:
Conservation areas
Indicator 6:
Capture/collection control,
conservation and population
growth projects

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendIncreasing

Same

Decreasing

Trend of measures

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.

Indicator 5 Conservation areas
Explanation of the Indicator○ The area of conservation areas or its coverage indicates measures against the first crisis.
○ Conservation areas in Japan are governed by many laws including those governing nature conservation and naturalparks as mainly pertaining to the control of development projects involving deforestation and land development.
The aim is to prevent ecosystems and habitats within such areas from being lost or reduced.
Assessment by the Indicator○ The total designated area of conservation areas has been increasing on a long-term basis, and has now reached alevel comparable with international standards. However, the coverage depends on the ecosystem concerned, andis particularly low in marine areas that lack many conservation areas subject to tighter restrictions, as compared toland areas.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

46

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan○ The rate of designating new conservation areas has recently slowed in land areas, compared with that during thefirst half of the assessment period.
Reason of the Assessment
The total area of national parks, quasi-national parks and wildlife conservation areas has rapidly expanded, andthe framework of conservation area locations as we now see it was formed during the period of high economic growth(around the 1960s) when there were a number of development projects in the pipeline (Data 5- ① : Figure II-8).
Later in the 1970s and 1990s, new systems for conservation areas were introduced with a specific aim to conserve thenatural environment, although only relatively small areas were covered (Data 5- ① ).
The area of natural parks currently accounts for slightly more than 10% of the total land area, while that ofwildlife conservation areas accounts for slightly less than 10%. Combining both with other conservation areas(including nature environment, habitat and forest ecosystem conservation areas) results in a land area of slightly lessthan 20% being designated as conservation areas (Data 5- ② : Figure II-9).
From the approximate area of 20% noted above, nearly half is designated by the government and local
prefectures, respectively (Data 5- ③ : Appendix). Conservation areas subject to tighter restrictions (including thosethat require permission from either the government or local public offices for development) account for about 10% of
the total land area (Data 5- ② ).
In land areas, about 30% of the area of natural forests, natural grasslands and secondary forests very close tonatural forests is designated as conservation areas, while the percentage ranges from 10% to 20% for secondary forests
and artificial forests, and less than 10% for agricultural land, with both being relatively low (Data 5- ② ).
In contrast, marine areas (generally within 12 nautical miles of the coast) are less protected (under 10%) ascompared to land areas, not least the conservation areas subject to tighter restrictions accounting for less than 1%.
Conservation areas subject to tighter restrictions within the ecosystems of tidal flats, kelp coasts and coral reefs
account for less than 10% of the total marine area (Data 5- ② ). One reason for the different protection levels between
land areas and marine areas may be that a majority of marine conservation areas, including national parks and quasinational parks, have up to now been designated as buffer zones within land conservation areas.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

47

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Conservation areas (km2)

40,000National parks andquasi-national parks
Prefectural natureparks

30,000Wildlife conservation
areas
Forest reserves

20,00010,000

0
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Conservation areas (km2)

1,2002005 (Fiscal year)
Prefectural natureenvironment
conservation areas

1,000

Nature environment
conservation areas(Note 1)

Area in2005(km2)

Ratio to thetotal land
space (%)

272

0.1

Prefectural natureenvironment
conservation areas
National parks andquasi-national parks

763

0.2

34,0979.0

Prefectural natureparks

19,590

5.2

Habitat conservation
districts
Wildlife conservation
areas

9

0.0

36,471

9.7

Forest reserves

6,580

1.7

Green conservation
areas (Note 2)

1,024

0.3

Green conservation
areas (Note 2)

800

Habitat conservation
districts

600

Nature environment
conservation areas (Note 1)

400
200
0
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2005 (Fiscal year)

Note 1: This refers to the total area of wilderness natural environment conservation areas and natural environment conservation areas.
Note 2: This refers to the total area of special green conservation districts, suburban special grass conservation districts, green
conservation areas, and suburban green conservation districts. The special green conservation districts and green
conservation districts were created after revision of the Urban Green Space Conservation Act in 2004. The data prior to 2004
represents the area of green conservation districts—the predecessor of today’s special green conservation districts.
Source: Materials of the Ministry of the Environment, Forestry Agency, and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Figure II-8 Trends of area in major conservation areas (Data 5-①)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

48

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

0%

20%

Natural forests, natural grasslands,
secondary forests close to natural forests(Degree of naturalness: 8, 9, 10) (Note 1)

6

8

Artificial forests(Degree of naturalness: 6) (Note 1)

69Secondary grasslands(Degree of naturalness: 4, 5) (Note 1)

9Agricultural land
(Degree of naturalness: 2, 3) (Note 1)

26

Urban land
(Degree of naturalness: 1) (Note 1)

2 9Open water areas(within the water surface) (Note 1)

9

Water areas (generally 12 nautical miles
off the coast) (Note 1)6
5 7

500 significant wetlands (Note 2)

18
6

Kelp coasts (Note 3)

6

Coral reefs (Note 3)

100%

7
8

Entire areas(including the water areas) (Note 1)

Tidal flats (Note 3)

80%

10

19

Entire land areas (Note 1)

60%

9

20

Secondary forests(Degree of naturalness: 7) (Note 1)

40%

16
19

3

47
42

Conservation areas with tight restrictions

Other conservation areas

Areas without restrictions

The graph shows how much percentage (i.e., the coverage ratio) of area in each ecosystem is designated as a conservation area.
The conservation areas are divided into two: conservation areas with tighter restrictions (requiring permission for a development
project) and conservation areas (requiring a site development plan to be submitted). Any redundancy is included in conservation
areas with tighter restrictions. The conservation areas in this context refer to the following: wilderness natural environment
conservation areas, nature environment conservation areas, prefectural nature environment conservation areas, national parks,
quasi-national parks, prefectural nature parks, national wildlife conservation districts, prefectural wildlife conservation districts,
habitat conservation districts, and forest ecosystem conservation areas.
Note 1: These numbers are an aggregate of the central points shown in a 3rd mesh of each conservation area and for eachecosystem. Other numbers result from the calculation of polygon data derived from materials of the Ministry of theEnvironment.
Note 2: The number is used as a reference, because the boundaries of the 500 major wetlands are not definite.
Note 3: The exact sites of tidal flats, kelp coasts and coral reefs (including coral communities in the coastal areas of Honshu)
correspond to those examined in the fourth and fifth basic surveys of natural environment conservation (including thesites already disappeared).
Source: Materials of the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and Digital National
Land Information

Figure II-9 Coverage ratio of conservation areas in each ecosystem (Data 5-②)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

49

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 6 Capture/collection control, conservation and population growth projects
Explanation of the Indicator○ In our country, the capture and collection control of species, and conservation and population growth projects are
implemented based on the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the status of
implementation mainly indicates measures against the first crisis.
○ The situation regarding species that showed dramatic decreases was improved in some cases through measurestaken for the protection or management of resources, but other cases have resulted in extinction or where increases
in targeted species populations have not been achieved.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Measures implemented for protecting species covered by the capture and collection control of species, andconservation and population growth projects are now being expanded on a long-term basis, and show a tendency
toward continued expansion in the future. Among the 3,155 endangered species currently listed in the Red List
issued by the Ministry of the Environment, 82 species are designated as “national endangered species of wild
fauna and flora” under the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Moreover, suchmeasures are also being expanded nationwide as evidenced by each prefectural government also preparing Red
Lists of their own.
Reason of the Assessment
The capture and collection control of species has been implemented since before the assessment period. During
the period of high economic growth (from the 1960s to 1970s), there was a sharp increase in the number of natural
treasures registered, and currently (as of 2010), 96 species of fauna have been registered, for which their capture andcollection are restricted (Data 6- ① : Figure II-10). For instance, the number of Japanese serows and their habitat are
increasing at present.
After that, the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora was enacted in 1993 toprevent extinction of species, and 48 species were designated as the national endangered species of wild fauna andflora at first. Up to now, 82 species of fauna and flora have thus been registered, for which their capture and collection
are restricted (Data 6- ① ). Any such species also designated as national endangered species of wild fauna and flora
may also be covered by conservation and population growth projects, and currently (as of 2010), such projects arebeing implemented for 47 of these species (Data 6- ① ). From now on, the effect of protective measures for national
endangered species of wild fauna and flora must be assessed, and where the effect proves inadequate, such effective
measures as analyzing the contributing factors must also be taken.
The prefectural versions of Red Lists and Red Data Books have already been completed by all prefectures (Data
6- ② : Figure II-11). Moreover, 29 prefectures (as of 2009) have established ordinances structured to designate
endangered species and provide for the capture and collection control of species, designate their habitats andprotection areas including habitats, and implement conservation and population growth projects, where considerable
effects have already been achieved through the capture and collection control of species (Data 6- ② ).

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

50

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

100

92

94

96

96

96

96

96

Number of classifications

90

82

80

73

70

61

60

55
48

50
40

96

35

47

41

38

30

Number of species
designated as national
endangered species ofwild fauna and flora
Number of species
subject to conservationand population growth
project plans

19

20

Number of natural
treasure classifications(Number of fauna
species designated)

8

10
0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 (Year)
Note 1: The reversion of Okinawa to Japan (in 1972) contributed to increasing the number of natural treasure classifications
during the 1970s.
Source: Data compiled by the Ministry of the Environment and Cultural Affairs Agency

Figure II-10 Transition in the numbers of natural treasures designated by
species and national endangered species of wild fauna and flora (Data 6-①)

Number of prefectures

40
30

Preparation of prefectural
versions of the Red List or
Red Data Book

47

Establishment of a rare
species ordinance

29
18

20

47

10

21

5

0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2009 (Year)

Source: Data published by prefectures

Figure II-11 Transition in the number of prefectures having prepared prefectural versions of the
Red List or Red Data Book, or established rare species ordinances (Data 6-②)

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

51

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Miyamoto A, and M, Sano, 2008: The influence of forest management on landscape structure in the cool-temperate
forest region of central Japan, Landscape and urban planning, 86, 248-256.
2) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, National Census.
3) Tamai N., 1999: Toward the natural restoration of rivers, Applied Ecological Engineering, 2, 29-36.
4) Kawaguchi Y., F. Nakamura, and Y. Kayaba, 2005: Changes in fish and their native habitats involved in theexperimental re-meandering of a river implemented in the downstream area of the Shibetsu River, Applied
Ecological Engineering, 7, 187-199.
5) Saito S., M. Mizuno, M. Tsuji, and Y. Kawashima 2005: On the measures to improve the aquatic terrestrial
transition zone of Lake Biwa, Riverfront Research Institute Report, 16, 74-81.
6) Yamashita H., 2000: Amateurism and conservation activities in coastal biodiversity study ̶ Taking rare shellfishes
as an example ̶, Applied Ecological Engineering, 3, 45-63.
7) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ed.) Yokohama National University, 21st Century COE Translation Committee,
2007: UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ̶ Ecosystem Services and the Future of Human Beings, Ohmsha,
241pp.
8) Ministry of the Environment, 2002: Revised National Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora ̶ Red Data Book - 2(Birds), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
9) Ministry of the Environment, 2002: Revised National Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora ̶ Red Data Book - 1(Mammals), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
10) Miura S., 2008: ABC of Wildlife Management ̶ How to face Wildlife, Iwanami Shoten, Publishers, 125pp.
11) Tsujino R, and T Yumoto, 2004: Effects of sika deer on tree seedlings in a warm temperate forest on YakushimaIsland, Japan., Ecological Research, 19, 291-300.
12) Takatsuki S, and T Gorai, 1994: Effects of Sika deer on the regeneration of a Fagus crenata forest on Kinkazan
Island, northern Japan., Ecological Research, 9, 115-120.
13) Takatsuki S., 1989, Influence of deer on plants and vegetation, Ecological Research ̶ Ecological Society ofJapan, 39, 67-80.
14) Ministry of the Environment (ed.), 2000: Revised National Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora ̶ Red Data Book 3 (Reptiles and Amphibia), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
15) Ministry of the Environment (ed.), 2003: Revised National Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora ̶ Red Data Book 4 (Freshwater and brackish water fish), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
16) Ministry of the Environment (ed.), 2000: Revised National Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora ̶ Red Data Book 8 (Plants-I (Vascular plants)), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
17) Tabata M., S. Kato, A. Kawamura, J. Suzuki, and S. Suzuki, 1996: Effects of eliminating nitrogen andphosphorous in river water in phragmites planting channels, Journal of the Japan Society on Water Environment,
19, 331-338.
18) Suzuki T., 2006: Material recycling and water purification functions of tidal flat areas, Global Environment, 11,
161-171.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

52

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan19) Kanematsu S., 1997: Generation of red tides and property of water quality in the Inland Sea and Lake Koji,
Journal of the Japan Society on Water Environment, 20, 486-490.
20) Shiga Prefectural Office, Agricultural and Fishery Administration Department, Agricultural Land Section and
Rural Development Section, 2008: Aiming at good water cycles in agricultural areas.
http://www.pref.shiga.jp/g/kochi/mizujyunkan/nohai_taisaku/siryo-syu/siryo-syu.html
21) Shimamura T., N. Tokuchi, K. Ozaka, M. Ito, N. Ohte, and Y. Takekado, 2009: Comprehension of spatial
distribution of water quality for water quality management of Mizorogaike Pond, Japanese Journal of Conservation
Ecology, 14, 153-163.
22) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of birds.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8929&hou_id=7849
23) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of reptiles.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8930&hou_id=7849
24) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of amphibia.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8931&hou_id=7849
25) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of mammals.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9941&hou_id=8648
26) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of freshwater and brackish water fish.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9944&hou_id=8648
27) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Plants-I Red List of Vascular Plants.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9947&hou_id=8648
28) Fisheries Agency (ed.), 1998: Data Book on National Endangered Wild Aquatic Life, Japan Fisheries Resource
Conservation Association.
29) World Wide Fund for Nature Japan, 1996: WWF Science Report, Vol. 3, Special Feature: Status quo of tidal flatcoasts in Japan and benthic organisms inhabiting there, World Wide Fund for Nature Japan.

Chapter II Section 1 Assessment of the First Crisis

53

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis
This section assesses the extent and trends of the impact of “the second crisis” as a factor causing biodiversity loss
during the assessment period (from the second half of 1950s to the present), as well as the tendency of implementing
related measures.

1. The Second Crisis○ Unlike the first crisis, the second crisis refers to the impact of human activity on nature resulting in the loss or
reduction of nature. In concrete terms, the declining use and management of forest and farmland biodiversity in
Satochi-Satoyama areas (i.e., farmland and neighboring mountainous areas forming part of a local community)
have caused the scale and quality of biodiversity to decline. Incidentally, “Satoumi areas” (i.e., marine and coastal
areas forming part of a local community)” are not addressed in this report.

2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Second Crisis○ The impact of the second crisis strongly affected forest and farmland biodiversity during the assessment period
from the second half of 1950s to the present, and shows a tendency toward getting stronger on a long-term basis.
○ In line with changes in the socioeconomic situation during the first half of the assessment period, the traditional use
of Satochi-Satoyama areas has declined. Although such declining use has lessened the scale of grasslands during
the first half of the assessment period, it has not significantly reduced the scale of all Satochi-Satoyama areas thatare part of forest and farmland biodiversity during the second half of the assessment period.
○ During and after the second half of the assessment period, our dependence on biomass from abroad has been
increasing, while human activity on domestic farmland and in forests has been declining.
○ Given the progress in the transition of vegetation due to such declining use, some mosaic patterns of farmland,secondary forests, secondary grasslands, and other land that form traditional Satochi-Satoyama areas are being lost.
○ As Satochi-Satoyama areas provide living and growth environments for fauna and flora that depend on natural
disturbances and floodplains relative to their habitats, it is concerned about that the possibly declining qualityof biodiversity and reductions in the populations and distributions of fauna and flora living and growing there,
although the specific impact that would be imposed by the progress of transitions is debatable.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

54

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Reason of the Assessment
The following lists the indicators used in the assessment that represent the causes of loss due to the second crisis,and describes the assessment by each indicator.

Table II-5 Indicators representing the factors of loss due to the second crisis and their assessment
Assessment
Long-term trendof impactFirst half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodDegree of impact during the assessment
period and current trendsFirst
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 7:
Use of Satochi-Satoyama areas
Indicator 4 (listed again):
Factors of reduction in endangered
species (the second crisis)

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendDegree of impact
during assessment
periodWeak

MediumStrongVery strong

Long-term trend of
impact andcurrent trends

Decreasing

Same

Increasing

Increasing rapidly

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 7 Use of Satochi-Satoyama areas
Explanation of the Indicator○ The use of Satochi-Satoyama areas is an indicator of the factors of loss as related to the second crisis.
○ The ecosystems in farmland and surrounding grasslands, secondary forests and other areas were originally the
habitats and growth environments of fauna and flora that depended on environmental disturbances, and have been
maintained in a stable condition through human activity to obtain firewood and charcoal, for mowing and grazing,and other purposes. Although the specific impact is debatable, it is concerned about that the possibly reduced scaleand declining quality of these ecosystems due to the reduced use of Satochi-Satoyama areas.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

55

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ Throughout the assessment period, grasslands and farmland that constitute Satochi-Satoyama areas decreased,with the impacts of the first crisis (development and renovation) and second crisis (declining use) forming thebackground.
○ The decreasing scale of all Satochi-Satoyama areas including secondary forests was not particularly significant
during the second half of the assessment period, but the declining use of secondary and artificial forests, and theabandonment of farming continued to occur. Although the specific impact is debatable, the transition of vegetation
has apparently had adverse effects on the diversity of specific groups of fauna and flora.
Basis of the Assessment<Satochi-Satoyama Areas>
Satochi-Satoyama areas are characterized by a unique natural environment formed through various humanactivities over a long history, thereby creating mosaic patterns of farmland surrounding villages, irrigation channels,
holding ponds, secondary forests, artificial forests, and grasslands. In this assessment, Satochi-Satoyama areas
partially coincide with forest and farmland biodiversity, and occupy parts of secondary forests totaling about 80,000
km2 and farmland of about 70,000 km2, accounting for about 40% of Japan's total land area.
<Decrease Use and Management of Secondary Forests such as fuelwood forests and agricultural forests>
During the period of high economic growth in the first half of the assessment period (from the second half of
1950s to the first half of 1970s), the socioeconomic situation changed drastically, such as greater dependence on fossil
fuels as the main energy source, rapid industrialization, the migration of population from rural areas to cities, andwidespread use of agricultural chemicals and chemical fertilizers. These changes reduced the value of firewood andcharcoal, compost, and green manure. After 1970, the production of firewood and charcoal thus saw a rapid decrease(Data 7- ① : Figure II-12), and the use and management of many secondary forests previously used as agriculturalforests and sources of firewood and charcoal probably declined. It has been pointed out that secondary forests were
neglected and consequently reverted to brush along with the wild growth of bamboo or sasa genus, or evolved into
evergreen broadleaf forests with dark forest floors, thereby diminishing flora and fauna that prefer a light-filled, open
environment.1) Along with the declining use and management of pine forests, deadwood was left to stand, resulting in
greater blight damage being caused by pinewood nematodes, and also possibly causing certain changes in the forest
floor environment. It is also concerned about that expanding bamboo forests due to the lack of use and management
attributed to less demand for bamboo as a material for constructing fences and other uses, as a factor in creating amonotonous environment where environmental quality declined as pertaining to habitats and growth environments forfauna and flora (see Box 4).

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

56

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

350,000

2,500,000

300,000

Charcoal (t)2,000,000

Firewood

1,500,000

Brushwood

250,000
200,000
150,000

1,000,000

100,000
500,000

50,00001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Firewood and brushwood(in units of 1,000 bundles)

Charcoal0Note 1: For charcoal, the figures are based on fiscal year surveys up to 1960, and on calendar year surveys from and after 1961.
For firewood, the figures are based on calendar year surveys from and after 1960, and on fiscal year surveys from 1950 to1959.
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Historical Statistics of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Historical Statistical Series of Japan

Figure II-12 Production of firewood and charcoal (Data 7-①)

<Decrease Use and Management of Secondary Grasslands such as “Kayaba” and Grazing Land>
The secondary grasslands including fields of Miscanthus sinensis or “kayaba” that were previously a main
constituent factor of Japanese vegetation and grazing land are considered to have declined due to changes in thesocial structure, agriculture and agricultural methods occurring in the period of high economic growth prior to theassessment period. For instance, secondary grasslands had been maintained as grazing land for cows used for plowing
farmland, and the declining number of those animals (Data 7- ② : Appendix) possibly expedited the transitionof secondary grasslands. This decrease of secondary grasslands and the introduction of exotic meadow grass are
considered factors in the dramatic reduction of certain grassland-dependent fauna such as birds like Latham's snipe(Gallinago hardwickii) and butterflies like Fabriciana nerippe and Shijimiaeoides divinus.2),3)<Decreased Management of Artificial Forests>
The total area of artificial forests was widely expanded through large-scale afforestation during the first half of
the assessment period to currently occupy 27% of Japan's total land area (Data 1- ① : Figure I-1). Artificial forests
provide habitats and growth environments for forest-dependent wild fauna and flora, though not at the high extent asthat of “more natural” forests (wildwood and secondary forests), but the management of expanded artificial forests
involving such tasks as thinning trees became neglected due to less profitability, and resulted in curtailed forestry
production activities. It has been pointed out that the planned tree thinning of artificial forests helps to increase theoverall number of species and the populations of fauna and flora that live and grow there, and also contributes to theconservation of biodiversity to some extent.3),4),5) Consequently, the reduced thinning of trees is considered to further
deteriorate the quality of artificial forests as habitats and growth environments for fauna and flowers.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

57

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Decreased Use of Agricultural Land, Holding Ponds, and Irrigation Channels>
It has been noted that rice paddies, irrigation channels, and holding ponds previously functioned as alternative
habitats and growth environments for fauna and flora that lived and grew on floodplains and in other areas subject
to natural disturbances.6) As more cultivated fields were abandoned mainly during the second half of the assessment
period, however the use of such agricultural irrigation facilities as irrigation channels and holding ponds also declined.
For instance, the area of abandoned farmland that totaled about 1,300 km2 in 1985 increased to about 4,000 km2
by 2005, marking about a threefold increase (Data 7- ③ : Figure II-13). Thus, the deteriorated quality of these

Area of abandoned farmland (Note 1) (km2)

environments as habitats and growth environments is pointed out.7)

4,500
3850

4,000
3430

3,500
3,000
2,500

2440

2170

2,000
1,500

1340

1,000
500
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

(Year)

Note 1: This refers to former farmland that has not been cultivated for at least one year in the past, and is clearly not to be cultivatedagain in several years to come.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Agricultural Census, Summary of successive-year agricultural census and paststatistics

Figure II-13 Transition of abandoned farmland (Data 7-③)

<Deteriorated Quality of Satochi-Satoyama Areas>
During the assessment period, the scale of farmland and grasslands (e.g., wild lands, mowing/grazing lands) as
a constituent factor in the composition of Satochi-Satoyama areas was dramatically reduced (Data 1- ① : Figure II1, 1- ② : Figure II-2, 19- ① : Figure III-6, Appendix, 19- ④ : Figure III-6, Appendix). In particular, the reductionof grasslands during the first half of the assessment period was believed to have been influenced by the conversion
of Satochi-Satoyama areas into artificial forests, as well as the declining use of Satochi-Satoyama areas. Conversely,
no significant changes were seen due to the second crisis such as the conversion of farmland (cultivated land) into
secondary forests, secondary forests into natural forests (Data 1- ⑤ : Appendix), or significant changes in SatochiSatoyama areas including those in secondary forests during the second half of the assessment period from the 1980s
to the 1990s (Data 7- ④ : Appendix). It is more concerned that the declining use of Satochi-Satoyama areas inrecent years has become a factor in deteriorating the quality of Satochi-Satoyama areas as ecosystems, than about thedecreasing scale of such areas.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

58

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanBox 4 Expanding bamboo forests
In recent years, the distributions of bamboo forests
have largely expanded in various regions of Japan,
thereby posing a serious problem in terms ofconserving biodiversity in Satochi-Satoyama areas.
For instance, the total area of bamboo forests in
Shizuoka Prefecture increased 1.3 times between
1988 and 2000. Bamboo has been a familiar
plant to the Japanese people since ancient times,
being cultivated and maintained as a source ofbamboo sprouts for consumption, as a material for
agricultural use, and as a material for fishing poles
and daily utensils. The use of domestic bamboo has

Bamboo forest without proper management inwhich trunks went off due to accumulation ofsnow during winterdramatically declined in recent years, however, due to increased imports of less expensive bamboo
sprouts and articles made of bamboo. At the same time, secondary and artificial forests have been
expanded, with more cultivated land lacking proper management in line with the modernizationof lifestyles and agricultural methods. Consequently, there is growing competition between
bamboo and other plants, resulting in the quick-growing bamboo expanding their distributions anddisplacing surrounding vegetation. Bamboo forests are thus expected to continue expanding theirdistributions unless such measures as cutting down bamboo forests are taken.

<Damage to Agriculture and Forestry, and Deteriorated Quality of Ecosystems due to Expanded
Distributions of Medium-size and Large Mammals>
After the 1980s during the second half of the assessment period, the populations and distributions of certain
medium-size and large mammals such as deer, monkeys, and wild boars have continued to expand. For instance,
between 1978 and 2003, the distribution of deer increased by about 70%, that of monkeys by about 50%, and that ofwild boars by about 30%. It has been pointed out that the background behind this expansion is less human activity
in Satochi-Satoyama areas due to the depopulation and aging of residents in rural areas, including the abandoned
management of environments that previously served as buffer zones between wildlife and humans resulting from moreabandoned farmland.8) Moreover, such complex causes as the declining death rates of such wild animals as deer andmany bird species due to unusually warm winters with less snowfall, and less capture pressure being exerted due tofewer and aging hunters are believed to have also affected the situation. Thus, there has been greater impact in recent
years on ecosystems, including damage to agriculture and forestry caused by the expanded distributions of mediumsize and large mammals, other conflicts between wildlife and humans, and more damage to vegetation in a situationthat continues today.9),10) In particular, vegetation has been seriously damaged by the feeding behavior of deer (Cervus
Nippon) in many forest zones.11),12) Wild boars have also significantly damaged vegetation in western Japan.

Indicator 4 (listed again) Indicator 4 (listed again) Factors of reduction in endangered species (as related to the second crisis)
Explanation of the Indicator○ The ratio of extinct or endangered wildlife species to the total species in Japan indicates that the loss and reductionof species was caused by all of the following factors: “the first crisis,” “the second crisis,” “the third crisis” and “theclimate change crisis.” Indicator 4 here assesses these factors as related to the second crisis.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

59

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ Although the first crisis has caused decreases in the populations of species in many taxonomical groups, the second
crisis has also had adverse impact as a factor of loss.
Basis of the Assessment<The Second Crisis as a Factor of Loss for Endangered Species>
Satochi-Satoyama areas have become the habits and growth environments for endangered species. For instance,
49% of the areas where endangered fauna species are concentrated (i.e., areas inhabited by five or more endangered
fauna species within the second mesh of 10 km2), and 55% of the areas where endangered flora species areconcentrated (i.e., areas where five or more endangered flora species grow within the mesh) are distributed within thescope of the second mesh in Satochi-Satoyama areas.
As previously mentioned, 26% of mammals, 15% of birds, 32% of reptiles, 34% of amphibia, 37% of freshwaterand brackish water fish, and 25% of vascular plants are considered extinct or are threatened with extinction according
to the latest Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment13),14),15),16),17),18) (Data 4- ① : Appendix).
The factor of loss for about 30% of the endangered species of vascular plants is “natural transition” (i.e.,
abandonment of management, progress of transition, changes in vegetation) (Data 4- ⑤ : Figure II-7). Those species
divided by family include many species of families familiar to us in daily life such as Gentianaceae, Apiaceae,
Lamiaceae, Brassiscaceae, Plygonaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Eriocaulaceae, Compositae, and Cyperaceae.

4. Measures for Loss
(1) Measures
With regard to biodiversity loss due to the second crisis, the National Biodiversity Strategy states that it is“necessary to promote the formation of a structure for more effective conservation and management in response to
the natural and social characteristics of target areas under the current socioeconomic situation.” Although certain
measures are now being taken in various regions, those measures apply to individual locations, and have yet to be
expanded to cover wide areas or afford coverage on a nationwide basis.
The socioeconomic requirements for using the so-called wide Satochi-Satoyama areas as used in the past havebeen reduced in recent years, and in line with the ongoing depopulation and aging of residents in rural areas, it isconsidered difficult to use and manage all Satochi-Satoyama areas by expending considerable manpower as was donein the past.
In terms of how the secondary forests constituting Satochi-Satoyama areas should be, the matter needs to be
fully deliberated, including making a comprehensive determination of how to promote management appropriate forsecondary forests, or how to facilitate the transition thereof to forests that can demonstrate the functions inherent
in forests, with natural transition as the underlying idea. In particular, it is considered appropriate to conserve andmanage Quercus crispula forests and Castanopsis cuspidata coppice woodlands based on a method of leaving suchareas to natural transition, depending on the local situation.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

60

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThus, in view of drastic changes in the socioeconomic situation including the shift to a less populated and aging
society as the most important factor, various measures have been taken to strengthen human approaches to nature,with certain results being achieved for conserving and managing birds and animals, and maintaining secondary nature.
Hereafter, it is deemed necessary to further enhance and strengthen such measures over a wide range, including theformation of a new structure to rebuild the practical relationship between humans and nature, given and based on suchdrastic changes in social structure as future decreases in population.
<Conservation and Management of Wildlife>
In recent years, the management of wildlife including the population control of species based on the specified
wildlife conservation and management plans formulated by prefectural governments, and measures based on the Act
on Special Measures for Prevention of Damage Related to Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Caused by Wildlife
have been implemented in order to prevent damage to agriculture and forestry. Moreover, measures have been taken
to disseminate methods of forming communities where the segmentation of habitats for man and wildlife is possible,
and with leaders being fostered to implement the conservation and management of wildlife. As for birds and animals
distributed over wide areas that encompass different prefectures, those prefectures must simultaneously implement
the same measures to achieve intended effects, including the management of medium-size and large mammals suchas deer and wild boars, and other animals and birds having high mobility, thereby requiring the promotion of broadbased conservation and management practices (see the column titled Present stage of specified wildlife conservationand management plans).
<Conservation, Population Growth and Nature Restoration>
With the endangered wildlife species in Satochi-Satoyama areas being targeted, conservation and population
growth measures with considerations given for conserving biodiversity are being promoted by those engaged inagriculture and forestry. Nature restoration measures are also being promoted in secondary nature, such as therestoration of grassland in Aso.
<Use and Management of Natural Resources from the Perspective of Biodiversity>
In addition to environment-friendly agriculture being promoted in recent years, the methods of using
and managing natural resources based on the conservation of biodiversity are also being discussed, as seen in
environmental education, eco-tourism and the use of biomass. Moreover, attempts are being made to effectively
use deer, wild boars, and other animals captured to control their populations. The formation of local networks ofthose engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, NGOs and others concerned, and the networking of local publicagencies, corporations, urban residents, and others are also being promoted for maintaining and managing SatochiSatoyama areas. In Satochi-Satoyama areas near the suburbs of cities, NGOs and urban residents are proceeding withsuch conservation activities as promoting conservation and management utilizing the suburban green conservation
scheme.
A proposal has also been presented under the title of the “SATOYAMA Initiative” to promote the sustainable use
and management of natural resources in secondary natural environments on a global scale, based on the experience
gained at many locations throughout the world, including Japan.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

61

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 5 SATOYAMA Initiative
There are many secondar y natural environments like Satochi-Satoyama areas that have been
formed and maintained through such sustainable and long-term human activities as agriculture,
forestry and fisheries in various part of the world. These environments are also endangered due
to such circumstances as urbanization, industrial development, and high increases or decreases inlocal populations. In order to conserve biodiversity while using and managing natural resourcesin a sustainable manner, an awareness of the importance of maintaining and conser ving suchsecondary natural environments must also be shared, as well as taking measures that suit such local
characteristics as climate, geography, culture, society, and the economy, and realizing a “society inharmony with nature.” Japan proposed the SATOYAMA Initiative and is taking various measures incooperation with United Nations University, along with the support of the Secretariat of the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP), other international organizations, and related countries.

<Promotion of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Revitalization of Agricultural Communities>
To cope with the lack of improvement and inadequate conservation efforts as seen in the declining use of
agricultural forests, more abandoned farmlands and insufficient tree thinning, measures are now being taken to
realize agriculture, forestry and fisheries based on the viewpoint of attaching more importance to the conservation of
biodiversity. These measures must be taken on an ongoing basis by using well-established methods in each locality,
and in collaboration with the many parties concerned, such as administrative agencies, local community residents,
those engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, NGOs, landowners, and corporations.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

62

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(2) Related indicators
The following shows the indicators used to assess the measures for loss caused by the second crisis, and theassessment result.

Table II-6 Indicators of measures for loss as related to the second crisis and their assessment results
Assessment
Long-term trendof measures
First half of Second half ofassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent trend of measures

First
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 8:
Scientific conservationand management of wildlife

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendIncreasing

Same

Decreasing

Trend of measures

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.

Indicator 8 Scientific conservation and management of wildlife
Explanation of the Indicator○ The implementation status of the scientific conservation and management of wildlife mainly indicates the measurestaken against the second crisis.
○ After 1980, certain conflicts between humans and wildlife have occurred as seen in the expanding distributions of
medium-size and large mammals, resulting in serious damage to agriculture and forestry in areas where humanactivities have declined or been abandoned altogether.

Such conflicts are expected to be resolved or mitigatedthrough the scientific protection and management of wildlife pursuant to the Wildlife Protection and Proper
Hunting Act.
Assessment of the Indicator○ Although there is no long-term time-line data relating to the scientific protection and management of wildlife, since
the scheme of specified wildlife conservation and management plans was established at the end of 1990s, there has
been a tendency to expand the measures necessary.
○ At present, the plans have been formulated by all prefectures except Okinawa.

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

63

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Reason of the Assessment
The Wildlife Protection and Proper Hunting Act and the scheme of specified wildlife protection project plans
were established in the 1960s. At that time, the populations of wild animals and birds were showing a decline withlimited conflicts with humans, but since the 1980s, the increasing damage caused by wildlife to agriculture andforestry plus vegetation became a social problem. It has been recently confirmed that the distributions of deer andcertain other medium-size and large mammals have expanded nationwide (Data 15- ④ : Appendix). Deer (Cervus
Nippon) have also caused browsing damage to some rare and alpine plants in certain regions. In view of suchcircumstances, the scheme of specified wildlife conservation and management plans was established in 1999 forcontrolling the local populations of wildlife species showing significant increases or decreases. The number of species
targeted by such plans including deer, wild boar and the Japanese monkey (Macaca fuscata) that have mainly caused
damage to agriculture and forestry has increased, and as of April 1, 2009, 104 plans have been formulated by 46
prefectures for six specific wildlife species (Data 8- ① : Figure II-14).

120

Common cormorant104

Japanese serow

100

Wild boar

87

Japanese monkey
Number of plans

80

91

79

Himalayan black bear
Deer

66
58

60

43
40

32
19

20

2
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Source: Data compiled by the Ministry of the Environment

Figure II-14 Transition in the numbers of occasions for formulating specified wildlife conservation and management plans (Data 8-①)

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

64

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Column: Present stage of specified wildlife conservation and management plans
The scheme of specified wildlife conservation andmanagement plans was established upon revisionof the Act on Conservation of Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora in 1999. This scheme wasa link in the measures to transfer control over mostconservation and management work previously
done by the government to local public agencies,and designed for implementing scientific andaforethought conservation and management ofcertain specified wildlife species such as deer thatare likely to cause conflict particularly with local
community residents. The number of occasions forformulating such plans has increased each year, andthus far, a total of 104 plans have been formulated
to deal with deer, wild boar, and other animals. Thisis obvious proof of the fact that the damage caused
by wildlife to agriculture and forestry has increased
nationwide, and remains impossible to restrain.

basis.
It should be noted that in response to sucha situation, some local public agencies havedeveloped new organizations and are tr ying
to enhance monitoring methods and assign or
foster more professionals. Therefore, scientificconser vation and management can only beconsidered to have taken root once the operational,
technical and human resource basis has beenenhanced in addition to formulating a specific plan.
Although this scheme is intended for eachprefecture to formulate its own plan, in manycases the targeted animal or bird species is
distributed over a wide area extending over multiple
prefectures. To cope with this issue, plans must be
formulated in an integrated manner, irrespective of
the principle of decentralized authority; however,the lack of a sufficiently developed common
forum or activity in which the government can also
positively participate remains a serious problem.
From now on, in line with the trend toward
depopulation and aging in rural communities,
more farmland will certainly be abandoned, andthere will be fewer hunters. The areas of wildlife
distributions and populations will expand, andthe damage caused by wildlife to agriculture andforestry will reach an unprecedented high level.
Under the circumstances, the scheme of specified
wildlife conservation and management plans willundoubtedly play an increasingly important role.
The government must also positively participate inand provide cooperation for related activities so that
this scheme will function effectively.

The points of such plans are to (1) set goals forconserving and managing targeted species, (2)take comprehensive measures to improve natural
habitats, prevent damage and control wildlife
populations, (3) verify and feedback results of a
specific plan by monitoring populations and damage,and (4) make the formulation of a plan transparent
and reach a consensus, with its essential feature ofbeing a scientific method applied in all stages fromsetting goals to implementation and evaluation. Thismethod marked a great advance in pursuing thescientific conservation and management of wildlife,
instead of the conventional method of simply
capturing damaging wildlife as previously practiced
in a manner akin to symptomatic treatment.
Although no examples of successfully controllingsuch wildlife populations or density in line with thegoals set for such plans have yet to be seen, there
are many areas where such plans have functioned
effectively, resulting in less damage caused bywildlife. Conversely, there are some areas where,
despite the formulation of a plan, it became a mere
façade without any monitoring or feedback being
implemented. As for the reasons, we can pointout a lack of budget and funding for expenses,
insufficient development and standardization ofsurvey techniques for measuring populations andeffects, and also an absolute lack of professionals
needed to proceed with such plans on an ongoing

Originally, the conservation and management of
wildlife was not intended to be implemented solely
based on such standards as whether any specificplans are formulated or the extent of achieving theset targets. Therefore, such measures as preventing
damage and controlling wildlife populations must be
undertaken on an ongoing basis. And this means
implementing wildlife management in the real
sense of the term.
(Shingo Miura, Committee member)

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

65

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Maefuji K. and H. Makihara, 1999: Changes in entomofauna involved in the secondary transition after a clear
cutting of a deciduous forest in a temperate zone, Japanese Journal of Entomology New Series, 2, 11-26.
2) Murata K., K. Nohara, and M. Abe, 1998: Impacts upon the development of Shijimiaeoides divinus caused by fieldburning, Japanese Journal of Entomology New Series, 1, 21-33.
3) Yui M., 2007: Aquila chrysetos and forestry in Kitakami Highland, Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 56, 1-8.
4) Hisatomo T, T Inoue, H Tanaka, H Makihara, M Sueyoshi, M Isonoe., and K Okabe, 2010: Responses ofcommunity structure, diversity, and abundance of understory plants and insect assemblages to thinning inplantations, Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 607-613.
5) Yamaura Y., 2007: Mitigation of impacts upon birds caused by the segmentalization of broadleaf forests ̶
proposing management by artificial forest matrix – Journal of Japanese Forestry Society, 89, 416-430.
6) Washitani I., Loss and restoration of floodplain swamps: Endeavor to utilize swamps as rice paddies, Global
Environment, 12, 3-6.
7) Mori J., S. Mizutani, and S. Matsuzawa, 2006: Material recycling in agricultural biodiversity from the viewpoint of
the food web, Electronic Monograph of the Terrestrial Environment Research Center, University of Tsukuba, 2, 3946.
8) Honda T., 2007: Factors affecting the occurrence of damage by wild boars: Analysis utilizing the agriculture andforestry census, Japanese Journal of Forestry Society, 89, 249-252.
9) Iwasaki N., E. Kurita, and T. Mineda, 2008: Conflicts arising in the border area between agricultural villages, cities
and mountain land, and nature restoration, Journal of the Association of Rural Planning, 271, 32-37.
10) Ueda H. and C. Jan, 2004: Utilization of wild boars in fruit orchards and abandoned fruit orchards, Mammalian
Science, 44, 25-33.
11) Takatsuki S. and T Gorai., 1994: Effects of Sika deer on the regeneration of aFagus crenata forest on Kinkazan
Island, northern Japan, Ecological Research, 9, 115-120.
12) Tsujino R. and T Yumoto., 2004: Effects of sika deer on tree seedlings in a warm temperate forest on YakushimaIsland, Japan., Ecological Research, 19, 291-300.
13) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of birds.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8929&hou_id=7849
14) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of reptiles.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8930&hou_id=7849
15) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of amphibia.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8931&hou_id=7849
16) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of mammals.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9941&hou_id=8648
17) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of freshwater and brackish water fish.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9944&hou_id=8648

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

66

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan18) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Plants-I Red List of Vascular Plants.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9947&hou_id=8648

Chapter II Section 2 Assessment of the Second Crisis

67

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis
This section assesses the extent and trends of the impact of the “the third crisis” as a factor causing biodiversity
loss during the assessment period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) using three indicators, as well as thetendency of implementing related measures.

1. The Third Crisis○ The third crisis refers to the impact of things that have been taken in as humans began living a modern life. Exotic
species and chemicals have become factors that cause a deteriorated quality of ecosystems, reduce the populations
or distributions of species living and growing in certain areas, and other effects.

2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Third Crisis○ The impact of the third crisis during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to the present has been
particularly strong due to invasive alien species that tend to intensify on a long-term basis.
○ It has been pointed out that some invasive alien species reduce the populations and distributions of native species
through predation and competition. More invasive alien species have been recorded throughout the assessment
period, and in recent years, certain alien species have settled and are rapidly expanding. Therefore, it is very
concerned about the impact of such invasive alien species.
○ As for the impact of chemicals, although highly residue-prone chemicals that do not easily dissolve in theenvironment and are apt to be accumulated in the bodies of fauna and flora may possibly have a long-term impact,
the actual impact remains unknown. Since regulations on chemicals have been introduced during and after the
1970s in the second half of the assessment period, such impact may have possibly been reduced.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

68Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Reason of the Assessment
The following lists the indicators used in the assessment that represent the causes of loss due to the third crisis,and describes the assessment by each indicator.

Table II-7 Indicators representing the factors of loss due to the third crisis and their assessment
Assessment
Long-term trendof impact

Degree of impact during theassessment period and current trends

First half of Second half ofassessment assessment
periodperiodFirst
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 9:
Invasion and settlingof alien species
Indicator 10:
Impact of chemicals
on fauna and flora
Indicator 4 (listed again): Factorsof reduction in endangered
species (the third crisis)

LegendSubject of assessment
Degree of impact duringassessment period

Long-term trend of impact
and current trends

LegendWeak

MediumStrongVery strong

Decreasing

Same

Increasing

Increasing rapidly

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 9 Invasion and settling of alien species
Explanation of the Indicator○ Any alien species brought into our country that subsequently escapes, invades an ecosystem, and then settles
there may reduce the populations or distributions of native species, and deteriorate the quality of that ecosystem.
Therefore, the numbers and distributions of invasive alien species in our country can be considered an indicatorshowing the factors of loss as relating to the third crisis.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

69

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ The numbers and distributions of invasive alien species showed a tendency toward expanding throughout the 20th
century.
○ At the start of the 21st century, the measures taken against new invasive species are progressing, but the expanded
distributions of certain invasive species already settled in our country have yet to be restrained.
Reason of the Assessment<Factors of Increasing Numbers of Invasive Alien Species>
Beginning around 1900, the numbers of exotic insect or exotic weed species have increased over the years, andthen rapidly increased particularly during and after the 1950s (Data 9- ① : Appendix). Some of those alien species
were intentionally introduced for use as food or as pets, or for appreciation, greening and agricultural use. However,some species were unintentionally brought in as being mixed in or clinging to imported cargo.1) Another unintentional
introductory route is the ballast water used for stabilizing vessels, and which is refilled when ships call at ports.2),3)
The background behind this increase of invasive alien species was a situation of wider exchanges of people and goods
across national borders that took place after the period of high economic growth.
<Expansion of Populations and Distributions of Alien Species>
Any live animal or plant brought into our county gives rise to the possibility of that animal or plant invading ourdomestic ecosystems. Although time-series data on the numbers of “live animals” imported during the full assessment
period is lacked, the quantities of fish for appreciation rapidly declined from the second half of the 1990s, while importof other “live animals” has increased in the 1990s. However, the import of fish for appreciation largely decreased in thesecond half of the 1990s, and import of other “live animals” has slowly declined since 2000 (Data 9- ② : Figure II-15).
Such measures as establishing the Invasive Alien Species Act in 2005 have been taken, and the importation of someclassification groups is now on the decline (Data 9- ③ : Figure II-16).
Exotic species invade and settle in ecosystems after having escaped into an open area and bred there. The
significantly expanded distributions of certain invasive alien species during the assessment period have had a heavy
impact on native species.1)
Largemouth bass impose a great impact on the ecosystems of lakes and holding ponds through the predation ofnative species.4) This species was originally introduced as a live aquatic resource and its inhabitation had already been
confirmed in five prefectures during the 1950s. During the 1970s, its habitats rapidly expanded through intentional
release, and in the 1990s its inhabitation was confirmed in all prefectures except Hokkaido. The inhabitation oflargemouth bass in Hokkaido was later confirmed in 2001, but its disinfestation was completed in 2007 (Data 9- ④ :Figure II-17).
Sicyos angulatus̶a species of vine̶reproduced dramatically in riverbeds and along the fringes of forests,
and imposes a heavy impact on river and other ecosystems.5),6) Its growth in an open area was confirmed in 1952 at
Shimizu Port in Shizuoka Prefecture. This species is believed to have entered Japan unintentionally upon being mixed
in soybeans or other food products and imported as part of feedstuff. Its growth was confirmed in 42 prefectures in
the 1990s, and then in 45 prefectures in the 2000s (Data 9- ④ ).
The common raccoon also imposes a heavy impact on the ecosystems of forests and farmland through its
predation of native species.7),8) This species had originally escaped from a feeding facility in Aichi Prefecture in 1962,
and then into open areas throughout the country, such as in Hokkaido Prefecture in 1979, and Kanagawa Prefecture
in 1988. The species then settled in these places and spread, and in the 2000s, its inhabitation was confirmed in 36
prefectures (Data 9- ④ ).

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

70

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In addition to the cases described above, many cases of impact caused by invasive alien species have beenreported, such as the competition between Bombus hypocrite (a bee imported for pollinating in greenhouses before
escaping and settling here) and Bombus ardens, a native species.1),9) Incidentally, similar problems occur whenintroducing fauna or flora from a different region of the same country. In addition to such cases as Martes Zibellina
brachyura in Hokkaido Prefecture and Martes malampus malampus brought in from the mainland, the impact on
lizards caused by Mustela itatsi introduced from the Nansei Islands and the Izu Islands is well known.10)
Although measures are taken to control species that adversely impact ecosystems or cause damage to agriculture
and forestry, it is no easy task to curtail the already expanded distributions of alien species, except for cases on small
islands. For instance, more common raccoons are being captured each year, reaching a total of 10,000 animals in2006 (Data 9- ④ Reference: Appendix).

Imported quantity (kg)

600,000
500,000

Carp, goldfish and otherfish for appreciation

400,000

Live animals

300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1976

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2009 (Year)Any cargo imported into or exported from Japan must be declared at customs pursuant to theCustoms Act, and thereby become cargo statistics. However, trade statistics do not include cargo of
low value (up to ¥200,000).
Note 1: Live animals (except for dogs, monkeys, and honey bees)
Source: Ministry of Finance -- Monthly return of Japan’s foreign trade

Figure II-15 Transition in the numbers of “live animals” imported from abroad (Data 9-②)

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

71

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1,000,000

Mammals

Birds

900,000

Insects(Note 1)

Amphibia

Number of individuals

800,000

Reptiles

700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 (Year)

Note 1: Insects are denoted in units of 1000.
Source: Ministry of Finance -- Monthly return of Japan’s foreign trade

Figure II-16 Transition in the numbers of “live animals” imported from abroad inrecent years (Data 9-③)

1950s

1990s

2000s

Largemouthbass (Note 1)

Sicyosangulatus

CommonraccoonInformation on inhabitation or growthCompletion of disinfestation

Note 1: In Hokkaido, the inhabitation of largemouth bass was confirmed in 2001, but its disinfestation was completed in 2007.
Source: Y. Kaneko and T. Wakabayashi, 1998: Anglers’ Novels, Ministry of the Environment, Basic Survey on the Natural Environment, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism,
National Census on River Environment; T. Yodo and K. Iguchi, 2004: History and background of the issue of largemouth bass, Bulletin of Fisheries Research Agency No. 12, 10-24

Figure II-17 Expanded distributions of invasive alien species (Data 9-④)

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

72

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 10 Impact of chemicals on fauna and flora
Explanation of the Indicator○ Many ecosystems are considered to be exposed to various chemicals for long periods, and some such chemicals arepointed out as having an adverse impact on ecosystems. Therefore, the impact of chemicals on fauna and flora canbe deemed an indicator of the third crisis as a factor of loss.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Although only limited data are available on the impact of chemicals on fauna and flora during the first half of theassessment period, the situation may have gradually showed some improvement from the 1970s.
Reason of the Assessment
Along with the evolution of science and technology, many new chemicals have been introduced and new
methods of applying existing chemicals devised, making chemicals indispensable in our daily lives. At the same time,
however, a situation has arisen where the risks imposed on the human body and wildlife by certain chemicals noteasily dissolved have been pointed out. After the 1960s, the manufacture and use of PCB, DDT, HCH, dieldrin, HCB,TBT (tributyltin compounds) and other chemicals used in agriculture and in coating materials were restricted from the1970s to 1990s by legislation including the “Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their
Manufacture, etc.” due to the characteristics of not being easily dissolved when released into the environment andbeing easily cumulated in living bodies. Although the level of major pollutants detected in fish has generally declined
since 1978, such pollutants are still being detected today (Data 10- ① : Figure II-18), with the long-term residue ofchemicals in the environment being widely recognized.11) Moreover, the inappropriate use of agricultural chemicals
and chemical fertilizers on farmland has adversely impacted both farmland and the wildlife living there. Althoughproduction of these chemicals has declined (Data 19- ③ : Figure III-7) since 1975, related impact is still being pointed
out even today.12) Much of the impact caused by chemicals remains unexplained. For instance, the relation between
the reproductive abnormalities of wildlife observed at various worldwide locations and the exposure to certain
chemicals has been pointed out, and the endocrine-disrupting influence of chemicals has come under closer scrutiny.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

73

10

150

120

TBT
(in fish)Total
quantityof PCB(in fish)90

60

HCB, etc. (ng/g-wet)

TBT(in shellfish)

HCB (in fish)
8

Dieldrin (in fish)p, p’-DDT (in fish)
α-HCH (in fish)

6

4

2

0

0
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006

30

1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006

Total quantity of TBT (Note 1) and PCB (ng/g-wet)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(Fiscal year)(Fiscal year)

The manufacture, import and use of PCB, DDT, HCH, dieldrin and HCB were restricted in principle by legislation enacted from the 1970s
through the first half of the 1980s. The manufacture and import of TBT (tributyltin compounds) were restricted by law in FY 1988.
Note 1: With regard to TBT (tributyltin compounds), the status of its detection in fish as well as in shellfish is indicated.
Source: Data compiled by the Ministry of the Environment (Survey on actual conditions of chemical substances and environment)

Figure II-18 Transition of the status of detecting major pollutants over the years (in fish and shellfish) (Data 10-①)

Indicator 4 (listed again) Factors of reduction in endangered species (as related to the third crisis)
Explanation of the Indicator○ The ratio of extinct or endangered wildlife species to the total species in Japan indicates that the loss and reductionof species was caused by all of the following factors: “the first crisis,” “the second crisis,” “the third crisis” and “theclimate change crisis.” Indicator 4 here assesses these factors as related to the third crisis.
Assessment by the Indicator○ In many classification groups, the first crisis acted as a major factor of loss, but the third crisis has also had impact
as a factor of loss.
Reason of the Assessment<Third crisis as factors of reduction in endangered species>
According to the latest Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment13),14),15),16),17),18), 26% of mammals,
15% of birds, 32% of reptiles, 34% of amphibians, 37% of freshwater/brackish water fish, and 25% of vascular plants
are already extinct or endangered (Data 4- ① : Appendix). The ratio of “introduced species” that indicates an alien
species corresponding to the third crisis among the factors of loss for each classification group of fauna and flora isparticularly high (at about 70%) for reptiles, and ranges from 20% to 30% for other classification groups (Data 4- ⑤ :Figure II-7). Some invasive alien species may cause ecological or hereditary disturbances through such interspecies
interaction as preying on native species and engaging in competition or hybridization with native species, spreading
infectious diseases, or destroying inhabitation environments, and consequently may reduce the populations native
species or cause them to become extinct.1) In particular, given the small-scale ecosystems of islands that include many

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

74

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

endemic species, it is highly feared that invasive species could adversely adverse impact those endemic species. In
fact, many actual cases have been reported.19),20),21) For instance, there are concerns about the impact of Herpestes
javanicus on Pentalagus furnessi and Gallirallus okinawae on the Nansei Islands.

4. Measures for Loss
(1) Measures
Measures matching various stages of an invasion by invasive alien species due to the third crisis must be taken,
including (1) the prevention of invasion, (2) the detection of and taking measures at the initial stage of an invasion, and(3) the disinfestation and management of invasive alien species that have settled in a given location.
In 2005, import restrictions and other measures to prevent the invasion of alien species designated as “invasive
alien species” or “undetermined alien species,” and the control of invasive alien species already settled in Japan were
promoted by establishing the “Invasive Alien Species Act,” thereby activating measures by local public agencies andprivate organizations. Thus, the measures to prevent any new entry of invasive alien species have been reinforced, andon some islands certain effects have been achieved, such as successful disinfestation and curtailing population growth.
However, more effective capturing techniques must be developed to deal with invasive alien species already settled inJapan that are expanding their distributions.
As for chemicals, measures are being taken, as seen in restrictions imposed by the Act on the Evaluationof Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc. that was introduced in the second half of theassessment period.
<Restrictions on the Import, Feeding, etc. of Alien Species>
The import of certain alien species has been restricted by the Invasive Alien Species Act enforced in 2005, andby the Plant Protection Act and the Act on Prevention of Infectious Diseases and Medical Care for Patients Suffering
Infectious Diseases enacted before 2005. Based on the model established under the Invasive Alien Species Act that
restricts the feeding, cultivating, keeping, transporting and releasing of invasive alien species, some local publicagencies have implemented related schemes by ordinance. And with regard to living modified organisms (LMOs) thatmay possibly affect biodiversity, such measures as requiring a prior risk assessment regarding the impact of LMOs
on biodiversity caused by the use thereof are mandated under the Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Biological Diversity through Regulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (the Cartagena Act).
<Control of Invasive Alien Species>
With regard to invasive alien species already settled in Japan that are causing an adverse impact, the Ministry of
the Environment is implementing control measures from the standpoint of eliminating problems related to the natural
restoration, conservation and population growth of endangered species in such areas as islands that are considered
important to protect. And as a link to river and road management, the related ministries and agencies are taking
measures for the disinfestation and other controls of alien greening plants. In addition, local public agencies, NPOs
and local community residents in various areas throughout Japan are taking measures for controlling such wildlife as
the common raccoon and largemouth bass.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

75

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Restrictions on Chemicals>
The Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc. established in1973 mandates the obligation to report new chemical substances and imposes restrictions on the manufacture, importand use of chemical substances not easily dissolved, mainly from the standpoint of chemical impact on humans.
Beginning in 2009, the impact of chemicals on fauna and flora has also been considered, and certain chemical
substances including those that easily dissolve became subject to restrictions. In addition to the Act on the Evaluationof Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc., the Agricultural Chemicals Control Act (establishedin 1948 and revised in 2003), the Act on Special Measures against Dioxins (established in 1999), and other legislations
also provide for such restrictions.
(2) Related indicators
The following shows the indicators used to assess the measures for loss caused by the third crisis, and theassessment result.

Table II-8 Indicators of measures for loss as related to the third crisis and their assessment results
Assessment
Long-term trendof measures
First half of Second half ofassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent trend of measures

First
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 11:
Restrictions of the import andcontrol of alien species

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendIncreasing

Same

Trend of measures

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

76

DecreasingReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 11 Restrictions of the import and control of alien species
Explanation of the Indicator○ Since the invasion or settlement of alien species in our country runs the risk of imposing a significant impact on
the biota and ecosystems inherent to respective areas, it is important to take import restrictive measures in orderto prevent entry at the water's edge and control those species already settled in Japan. Accordingly, the status ofimport restrictions and the control of alien species indicates measures against the third crisis.
Assessment by the Indicator○ There is a trend toward measures being expanded as evidenced by the Invasive Alien Species Act established in
2005, in addition to the measures previously taken.
Reason of the Assessment
The import of fauna and flora from abroad used to be restricted under the Plant Quarantine Act, the Protection
Against Infections Act and other legislation, but in 2005, the Invasive Alien Species Act was enforced to prescribe
measures against species designated as invasive alien species from the standpoint of preventing damage as pertaining
to ecosystems, agriculture and forestry. Under the Act, 97 invasive alien species have been designated, with thefeeding and import of such species prohibited, and the import of undetermined fauna and flora species restricted (Data
11- ① ; Table II-9). Moreover, any alien fauna or flora not designated as invasive alien species or undetermined alien
species that may adversely impact ecosystems are listed as suspicious invasive alien species, and 148 species in thiscategory from among each classification group have been publicized by 2009 (Data 11- ① ).
Regarding the control of alien species already settled in Japan, measures are now being taken mainly by local
public agencies and private-sector organizations (e.g., NGOs, fisheries cooperative associations). The Invasive
Alien Species Act provides for a system whereby the government confirms and certifies the control activities to be
implemented by local public agencies and private-sector organizations, and as of February 2010, more than 400
control activities have been confirmed and certified by the government (Data 11- ② : Appendix). The government isalso directly implementing control measures on some islands where certain endangered species inhabit or grow. There
have been examples of success on some islands having limited distributions of invasive alien species, in terms oferadicating or reducing the populations of those species, but measures to control alien species with already expanded
distributions must be continued by various parties into the future.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

77

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table II-9 Number of invasive alien species, undetermined alien species andsuspicious invasive alien species (Data 11-①)

Fish

Insects

Invertebrate
species(Note 1)

Plants

Total

11

13

8

15

12

97

5

10

14

1

10

2

54

9

2

21

7

16

84

148

Category

Mammals

Birds

Reptiles Amphibia

Invasive alien species

21

4

13

Undetermined invasive
alien species

111

Suspicious invasive
alien species (Note 2)

3

6Note 1: This refers to the total number of invertebrate species other than insects.
Note 2: Suspicious invasive alien species are not those prescribed under the Invasive Alien Species
Act, but are selected for the purpose of promoting public awareness.
Note 3: As of February 2009
Source: Data compiled by the Ministry of the Environment

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

78

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Yamada F., 1998: The 41st Symposium on “Verification from wild mammals of the 20th century ̶ onenvironmental impacts,” Status quo and issues of introduced mammals in our country, Mammalian Science, 38, 97105.
2) Iwasaki K., 2007: On the alien marine organisms introduced to Japan and damages caused by them to native
ecosystems and industries, Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 73, 1121-1124.
3) Otani M., 2004: On the marine organisms introduced to Japan and the process of introduction, Japanese Associationof Benthology, 59, 45-57.
4) Minobe H. and K. Kuwamura, 2001: Changes in fish fauna in the endorheic lakes around Lake Biwa and analysis
of native habitat ̶ toward the restoration of ecological functions of places for native fish to breed and inhabit,
Ecology and Civil Engineering, 4, 27-38.
5) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Hokuriku Regional Development Bureau, Chikumagawa
Office of River, 2003: Sicyos angulatus on the Chikuma River and the Sai River, Survey Section, Chikumagawa
Office of River, Hokuriku Regional Development Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
6) Miyawaki S. and I. Washitan, 2004: Invasive alien plant species in riparian areas of Japan: The contribution ofagricultural weeds, revegetation species and aquacultural species, Global Environmental Research, 10, 89-101.
7) Ikeda T., 2006: Issues in the measures against raccoons, Mammalian Science, 46, 95-97.
8) Agetsuma-Yanagihara Y., 2004: On the process of raccoons running wild in Aichi Prefecture and how the future
measures should be, Mammalian Science, 44, 147-160.
9) Washitani I., 1998: Issue of invasion of Bombus hypocrita from the viewpoint of conservation ecology, Journal of
the Ecological Society of Japan, 48, 73-78.
10) Hasegawa M., 1997: Invasion of organisms into islands and changes in biota, Inheritance, 9, 86-94.
11) Watanabe I., 2008: Ecological assessment of pollutant, Attempt to apply clarification of the impact on wildlife,
Mammalian Science, 48, 169-174.
12) Jinguji H., T. Ueda, and K. Goka, 2009: Impacts on larva and eclosion of Sympetrum frequens caused by
insecticide for seedling nursery box containing fipronil and imidacloprid, Collected Papers of the Japanese Societyof Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering, 77, 35-41.
13) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of birds.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8929&hou_id=7849
14) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of reptiles.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8930&hou_id=7849
15) Ministry of the Environment, 2006: Red List of amphibia.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=8931&hou_id=7849
16) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of mammals.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9941&hou_id=8648
17) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Red List of freshwater and brackish water fish.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9944&hou_id=8648

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

79

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan18) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Plants-I Red List of Vascular Plants.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/file_view.php?serial=9947&hou_id=8648
19) Tsuneda K., 2006: Successful experience in eliminating wild goats in Ogasawara and future issues, Mammalian
Science, 46, 93-94.
20) Yamada F., 2006: Issues in eradication of Herpestes edwardsi, Mammalian Science, 46, 99-102.
21) Abe T., K. Wada, and N. Nakagoshi, 2008: Extinction threats of a narrowly endemic shrub, Stachyurus
macrocarpus (Stachyuraceae) in the Ogasawara Islands, Plant Ecology, 198, 169-183.

Chapter II Section 3 Assessment of the Third Crisis

80

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis
This section assesses the extent and trends of the impact of “the climate change crisis” as a factor causing
biodiversity loss during the assessment period (from the 1950s to the present) by using two indicators, as well as thetrend of implementing related measures.

1. The Climate Change Crisis○ The climate change crisis refers to the impact on biodiversity caused by global warming. Global warming will
become a factor in reducing the scale and deteriorating the quality of ecosystems, as well as the populations anddistributions of organism species.

2. Assessment of Loss Factors of the Climate Change Crisis○ The climate change crisis has been suggested as being a factor of long-term loss during the assessment period fromthe second half of the 1950s to the present.
○ Although its causal relation with global warming is debatable, some case examples suggest that climate change has
caused certain changes in the distributions of fauna and flora, as well as adversely impacting ecosystems.
○ Climate change including rising temperature is expected to expand from now on, and its impact is now considered
to be intensifying.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

81

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Reason of the Assessment
The following lists the indicators used in the assessment that represent the causes of loss due to the climatechange crisis, and describes the assessment by each indicator.

Table II-10 Indicators representing the factors of loss due to the climate change crisis and their assessment
Assessment
Long-term trendof impactFirst half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodDegree of impact during theassessment period and current trendsFirst
crisisSecondcrisisThird
crisisClimatechangecrisisIndicator 12:
Impact on organisms caused
by global warming
Indicator 4 (listed again):
Factors of reduction in endangered species(the climate change crisis)

?

?

?

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendDegree of impact
during assessment
periodWeak

MediumStrongVery strong

Long-term trend of
impact and current
trendsDecreasing

Same

Increasing

Increasing rapidly

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 12 Impact on organisms caused by global warming
Explanation of the Indicator○ The impact of global warming on organisms includes changes in phenology and shows the climate change crisis asa factor of loss.
○ It is feared that as global warming intensifies, some fragile ecosystems that are vulnerable to climate changes suchas alpine flora and coral reefs will be damaged.
○ The environmental changes caused by global warming also cause changes in the phenology of organisms including
breeding and seasonal migration, and such changes may occur along the migration routes and in the distributions oforganisms having high migration ability.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

82

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment of the Indicator○ Given the limited data indicating the direct relation between global warming and the changes in ecosystems, it isoften difficult to clearly separate global warming as a direct impact. Although the transition during the assessment
period is unknown, judging from the long-term time-series data on multiple classification groups, changes in the
distributions and phenology of species are becoming apparent.
○ Some ecosystems are reportedly being affected by phenomena relating to global warming, and its impact suggests
a tendency toward expanding.
Reason of the Assessment
The 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the averageworld temperature has rapidly risen over the past 50 years, and very likely caused by increasing amounts ofgreenhouse gases being emitted through human activity.1)
The speed of ongoing rapid climate change due to the human-induced increase of greenhouse gases is exceeding
the speed at organism species and ecosystems can adapt, and the trend of an ongoing rise in temperature into the
future raises the risk of extinction for many organisms.1),2)
It is feared that the environment will be changed by global warming to an extent not favorable to the inhabitationand growth of native species of organisms. And since the reaction to temperature changes by organisms that inhabit
and grow in one ecosystem is known to differ depending on the species or classification group of organisms,3),4) it has
been pointed out that certain aberrations may be caused by global warming in the interspecies interactions of variousorganisms, such as the predator-prey relationship, pollination and seed dispersal by animals, and parasitism among
insect species.3),4)
Such changes in habitats and aberrations in interspecies interactions run the risk of causing changes inecosystems, including the widespread extinction of certain species and reduced populations of related species, as wellas the replacement of one species by another new one.4)
The rising average temperature in Japan has been observed nationwide, particularly during the second half of theassessment period, and research is now being conducted on the impact caused by global warming on biodiversity3),4).
And although the causal relation with global warming remains debatable, some case examples of the reduced scale anddeteriorated quality of certain alpine flora and coral reef ecosystems have been reported.5) As will be discussed later,
the northward movement of the distribution limits of certain insects, ocean fish and benthic organisms, the changes incertain bird populations, changes in the phenology of plants such as budding, flowering and defoliation, and changes
in the breeding periods of birds and amphibia in certain areas have been reported, mainly during the second half of theassessment period.
There may also be other cases where the impact on fauna and flora caused by global warming and other humaninduced impact interact, and thereby impose an even greater impact on ecosystems, such as changes in the distributionof deer (Cervus Nippon) due to less snow cover, and a growing deer population due to fewer hunters.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

83

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Reduction and Loss of Ecosystems>
As species constituting an ecosystem are affected by global warming, the entire structure or scale of that
ecosystem can be changed.
As a case example of the impact of a substance on the environment, it is suggested that the decreasing amount of
sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk initially observed in 1979 relates to surface temperature changes in the Far East region of
the Eurasian continent that have served as a weather gauge for the sea (Data 12- ① : Appendix). Rising temperature
has thus weakened vertical ocean circulation and thereby curtailed the production of photo plankton, raising concerns
about the impact on marine ecosystems. The impact of global warming on vertical circulation is also feared to haveoccurred in such lakes as Lake Ikeda and Lake Biwa.6),7)
As a case example that may relate to the extinction or decline of organisms, coral in the coral reef marine areasof the Nansei Islands has reportedly been bleached since the 1980s due to rising seawater temperature associated with
global warming. In the Sekisei Lagoon, which has the widest coral reef area in Okinawa Prefecture, serious bleaching
phenomena has occurred more frequently beginning in 1998, resulting in declining coral coverage (Data 12- ② :Figure II-19). Moreover, such changes as the northward movement of the distribution of certain corals have also beenreported.8)
As a case example of an ecosystem being reduced, it has been reported that the alpine meadows on Mt. Apoiin Hokkaido Prefecture has rapidly declined due to the invasion of woody plant flora after the 1970s, which is also
related to global warming (Data 12- ③ : Appendix). At the same time, it has been also pointed out that deer, wildboars and monkeys are invading the alpine belts in various regions, along with declining snow cover9), which is also

Accumulated bleaching temperature indices (Note 1)

considered to be one cause of the regression of alpine flora vegetation.10),11)30
Year during whichcoral bleachingoccurred

25

1998
2007

20

2003

15
1983 2001

10

1996
1989

5

1993
2009

1988
(Note 2)

1980
1991

2008

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Number of days of daily mean temperature at 30.0˚C or more
Note 1: “Bleaching temperature index” is defined as the total figure of values exceeding 30.0 , where 30 is set as the deduction temperature forthe occurrence of bleaching.
Note 2: The year 1988 is also within the risky range, but this year the predation by crown of thorns starfish has caused hardy any coral damage.
Source: Okamoto M, S Nojima and Y Furushima, 2007: Temperature environments during coral bleaching events in Sekisei Lagoon, Bulletin of
the Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography, 71 (2), 112-121., etc.

Figure II-19 Relation between coral bleaching and temperature in the Sekisei Lagoon (Data 12-②)

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

84

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Changes in the Distributions of Fauna and Flora>
The distribution of each species of organism is considered to be fixed in accordance with the ecologicalcharacteristics of that species, and therefore, changes in the distribution of a species due to global warming may
impact distributions overlapping those of related species or the interactions between organisms and existing species orothers.
During the period from the first half of the assessment period to the present, the distribution limits of somespecies including butterflies, dragonflies, and stink bugs were confirmed as having moved northward, and attributed to
global warming. For instance, the northern habitat limit of Papilio memnon was Yamaguchi Prefecture in the 1940s,
but the species was later observed in Hiroshima Prefecture and on Shikoku in 1950, and today its distribution has
expanded to include the Tokai and Kanto regions (Data 12- ④ : Appendix). Moreover, Ictinogomphus pertinax was
known to have come from Shikoku during the 1970s, passing over the Seto Inland Sea to Awaji Island, and reaching
the southern tip of Okayama Prefecture and the western tip of Kii Peninsula. In the 1990s, this species reached Lake
Biwa via the Osaka Plain (Data 12- ⑤ : Appendix). The distribution of Nezara viridula, which cannot settle where
the lowest monthly mean temperature is not high enough, was only limited to some prefectures in Kyushu, Shikoku
and the Kinki region at the beginning of the 1960s, but later expanded to include all of Kyushu and a wider range of
Shikoku and the Kinki region by the beginning of the 2000s. It was also confirmed to have extended to the Tokai
region. These expanded distributions of species are pointed out as having been changed in line with a rising mean
temperature (Data 12- ⑥ : Appendix).
In addition to insects, the distributions of some fish, crustaecea and shellfish in marine areas have reportedly
moved northward. For instance, a survey on fish fauna in the coastal areas of the Sea of Chikuzen revealed increases
since 1986 among certain species originating in southern waters. The seawater temperature in those coastal areas
during winter was found to be rising at an annual rate of about 0.1℃ since the 1980s, thereby suggesting a relation
between a rise in the lowest seawater temperature and the movement and settling of fish originating in southern waters(Data 12- ⑦ : Appendix).
<Changes in Populations>
The populations of organisms are limited by the environmental capacity of their habitats and growthenvironments. Any significant increase in the population of a given species may impose an excessively heavy load on
the local environment and adversely impact the inhabitation and growth of other species.
For instance, a nationwide survey on the inhabitation of geese and ducks revealed that the population of tundraswans sharply increased during and after the 1980s in the second half of the assessment period (Data 12- ⑧ :Appendix). One contributing factor for this increase has been pointed out to be the increased population of chicks andtheir enhanced survival rate due to rising temperature in the breeding areas, transit sites and wintering places.
<Changes in Phenology>
It is said that the life cycles of many organisms are related to temperature and the length of days; note thatflowering time is especially sensitive to temperature. With regard to the flowering time of a plant or breeding seasonof a bird, aberrations may arise between the phenology of that species and that of another species through interaction,
thereby causing some disorder in maintaining the related ecosystem.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

85

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

During the period from the second half of the assessment period to the present, certain changes such as flowering,budding and defoliation in the phenology of some plants have been confirmed, and the relation thereof with global
warming is pointed out. For instance, phenological observations conducted by the Meteorological Office revealed
that the flowering dates of cherry blossoms (Somei-Yoshino) at 31 out of the 81 sites throughout Japan are tending
to occur earlier than before during the period from the 1950s to the present (Data 12- ⑧ : Appendix). Similarly, it is
known that the flowering dates of ume during the same period have occurred earlier than before, and it is pointed outthat temperature rise during winter (January to March) rather than the amount of snowfall has influenced flowering ofume. Gingko also shows earlier budding and later defoliation than before, and all of those phenomena suggest a close
correlation with the chronological changes in temperature (Data 12- ⑨ : Figure II-20). And similar to the cases ofplants, changes have been noted in the breeding seasons of birds and reptiles in certain areas. For instance, the annual
egg-laying season of chestnut-cheeked starlings in the city of Niigata came 0.73 day earlier on average than in every

Annual rate of change in flowering date of cherry blossoms

preceding year (from 1978 to 1998), suggesting the impact of global warming (Data 12- ⑩ : Appendix).

Rate of change in temperature from February to March
The extent of rises in temperature and earlier flowering dates are shown as annual rates of change,
respectively. The annual rate of change is the sloping straight line when both temperature andflowering date process in line with the linear regression method against the year.
Source: Higuchi et al., 2009: Impacts cause by warming upon phenology, distributions populations, Global Environment, 14 (2), 189-198

Figure II-20 Relation between flowering dates of cherry blossoms (Somei-Yoshino) and temperature (Data 12-⑨)

Indicator 4 (listed again) Factors of reduction in endangered species (as related to the climate change crisis)
Explanation of the Indicator○ The ratio of extinct or endangered wildlife species to the total species in Japan indicates that the loss and reductionof species was caused by all of the following factors: “the first crisis,” “the second crisis,” “the third crisis” and “theclimate change crisis.” Indicator 4 here assesses these factors as related to the climate change crisis.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

86

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment of the Indicator○ Sufficient data have yet to be obtained for determining the scale and current trend of the impact of global warming
during the assessment period (see the column titled “Impact of global warming: May we wait until it becomesvisible?”).

4. Measures for Loss
(1) Measures
To cope with the climate change crisis, measures must be taken in terms of two aspects as follows: First,
measures must be taken to mitigate global warming (i.e., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), followed by measures
to adapt to global warming (i.e., responding to environmental and ecological changes caused by global warming).
As for measures to mitigate the impact of global warming, it is important to take measures that will help promote
both the conservation of ecosystems and the mitigation of warming effects. Such measures are being deliberated or
implemented as part of efforts to conserve ecosystems including forests, marshlands and grasslands that absorb andstore carbon dioxide, employ agriculture methods that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote the use of
grassy and woody biomass, and the use of lumber as a housing material.
As the measures for adaption, other human-induced impact that would accelerate the impact of global warming
must be curtailed. For instance, in order to enable the movement of fauna and flora as a natural process even underglobal warming, the formation of ecosystem networks is being deliberated and implemented. Moreover, related
data are being monitored and utilized on an ongoing basis. For example, fixed-point observations began in 2003
as part of the Monitoring Site 1000 project for coral reefs and then for alpine regions starting in 2009, in order toquickly comprehend the changes in ecosystems caused by global warming. The atmospheric data from the 1950s andphenological observation data collected by the Meteorological Office are being utilized by many researchers, thereby
helping to elucidate the impact of global warming on biodiversity.
(2) Related Indicator
No related indicator is established.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

87Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Column: Impact of global warming: May we wait until it becomes visible?
The earth has often experienced large-scale climatechanges in its long history. The present time is in
the midst of the ice age that began about 40 million
years ago. During the ice age, particularly cold
glacial periods and comparatively mild interglacial
periods are repeated in alternate cycles, and during
the past several million years, these periods havebeen repeated in 40,000- to 100,000-year cycles.
The latest glacial period (called the last glacial
period) ended about 10,000 years ago, and thepresent time is an interglacial period. Althoughtemperature differs depending on the location onearth, during the coldest time in the last glacial
period, the temperature is considered to have been
about several degrees (centigrade) lower than atpresent, and the sea level more than 100 meters
lower.

about whether global warming has an impact solely
from the flowering time in a given year would beinappropriate.
The distributions of organisms are conversely
subject to the accumulated impact of climatechange over a long term. Given the random changeof climate such as warm or cold weather each year,
however, it is not easy to detect a long-term trend
from short-term data. The scale of dispersions
from year to year exceeds the rate of temperaturechange in a year caused by expected warmer
climate by tens to hundreds of times. If climaticconditions are to determine the distribution limits oforganisms, the distributions may widely vary fromyear to year, and such slow-moving creatures assnails or even trees may be recovering from a state
to which they withdrew in search of a warmer place
during a particularly cold period in the past. In any
case, changes corresponding to the long-term trendof a warmer climate can hardly be clearly observed.

Such environmental changes have significantly
impacted organisms. In addition to physicalch a n g e s i n t h e i n h a b i t a t i o n a n d g r o w t henvironments of organisms, such as the expansion
or contraction of glaciers, and the transition froma seabed to dry land and vice versa, changes inclimate and precipitation have also had great impact.
An analysis of fossils and pollen has confirmedthat the distribution ranges of organisms moved inaccordance with climate change.

Even if we cannot immediately detect any impact
of global warming, it does not mean that there is
no impact or such impact can be ignored. If weconsider global warming on a time scale of several
tens to several hundreds of years, we would
never be able to conclude that there will be no
impact at all. In such a situation, it is necessary toassume that events unfavorable to mankind will
occur, such as deteriorated ecosystem services
and an irrevocable, irreversible change such as theextinction of a species, and then take whatevermeasures possible to prevent such events andchanges.

Due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted byhuman activities, rapid rises in temperature as highas several degrees per 100 years are projected tooccur from now on. This is global warming. Whenlooking back at past history, we know that global
warming always impacts organisms.
Incidentally, biological phenomena that occur eachseason are collectively known as phenology. For
instance, the flowering of cherry blossoms inspring and foliage turning red in autumn are easy
to understand. The timing of such phenomena is
directly affected by the climate of each year. The
flowering of cherry blossoms earlier in the year
than on average is likely to be attributable to global
warming, but more precisely, it merely reflects a
warmer spring of that year. If the climate tends tobecome warmer on a long-term basis, the flowering
time will naturally become earlier, but arguing(Akio Takenaka, Committee member)

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

88Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, 976pp.
2) Nakamura H., 2007: Lagopus mutus japoicus, Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 56: 93-114.
3) Primack R., I. Ibanez, H. Higuchi, S-D Lee, AJ Miller-Rushing, AM Wilson, and JA Silander, 2009: Spatial andinterspecific variability in phenological responses to warming temperatures, Biological Conservation, 142, 25692577.
4) Higuchi H., S. Koike, and M. Handa, 2009: Impacts of global warming on phenology, distributions and populationsof organism species, Global Environment, 14, 189-198.
5) Yasuda M., H. Daimaru, and S. Okitsu, 2007: Detecting the vegetation changes in mountain wetlands bychronological comparison of ortho aerial photographs, Geographical Review of Japan, 80, 842-856.
6) Kumagai M., K. Ishikawa, and J. Chunmeng, 2002: Dynamics and biogeochemical significance of the physicalenvironment in Lake Biwa, Lake and Reservoir, 7, 345-348.
7) Ohtaka A., M. Nishino, T. Kobayashi, 2006: Disappearance of deep profundal zoobenthos in Lake Ikeda, southern
Kyushu, Japan, with relation to recent environmental changes in the lake, Limnology, 7, 237-242.
8) Precht WF, and RB Aronson, 2004: Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals, Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment, 2, 307-314.
9) Nagaike T., and T. Kamitani, 1999: The influence of forest management on landscape structure in the cooltemperate forest region of central Japan, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 209-216.
10) Chubu Regional Forest Office, 2007: Fiscal 2006 Survey Report on damage by deer in the Southern Alps Forest
Reserve, 109pp.
11) Chubu Regional Forest Office, 2008: Fiscal 2007 Survey Report on damage by deer in the Southern Alps Forest
Reserve, 101pp.

Chapter II Section 4 Assessment of the Climate Change Crisis

89

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss
This section assesses the widespread recognition of biodiversity by the general public as a basis for taking
measures against biodiversity loss, transferring technology and providing funding to other countries in the area of
biodiversity.
In this section, the indicators used to show the basis of measures for loss and assessment by those indicators are
as follows:

Table II-11 Indicators and assessment showing the “basis of loss”
Assessment
Long-termtransition

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodIndicator 13:
Recognition of biodiversity

Present
situation
and
trend

?
*1

Indicator 14:
Transfer of technology and provisionof funding to other countries

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendIncreasing

Same

Trend of measures

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: “*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as
well as existing factors and data showing trends that differ from assessments of the overall trends.
*1: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 13.

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss90

DecreasingReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 13 Recognition of biodiversity
Explanation of the Indicator○ The degree of recognizing the term “biodiversity” in society does not indicate the measures against any specificfactors of loss, but does indicate the formation of a social basis to take measures for loss.
○ In order to take measures for loss, wide-ranging segments of the general public must recognize the importance ofconserving biodiversity, with the entire society addressing the issue.
Assessment of the Indicator○ There is no data on the recognition of biodiversity recorded in and before the 1990s. The recognition after 2004
when the target for 2010 was adopted has shown a slight increase, but still remains at a low level.
*1 (See Table II-11.): Given the slight increase in recognition, it is therefore necessary to pay special attention regarding whether it isreasonable to assess that the basis of measures has been reinforced.

Reason of the Assessment
The results of the 2002 questionnaire survey conducted by the Ministry of the Environment revealed that only
10% of respondents knew the meaning of “biodiversity,” while 30% knew the meaning of the term or had heard of it,
but did not know its meaning. The results of the 2009 questionnaire survey conducted by the Cabinet Office showedthat 13% of respondents knew the meaning of the term, and 36% knew its meaning or had heard of it, but did notknow its meaning (Data 13- ① : Figure II-21).

2002

9.8%

2009

12.8%

0%

20.4%

69.9%

23.6%

20%

Know the meaning of the term

61.5%

40%

60%

Do not know the meaning but have heard of the term

80%

100%
Have not heard of the term

Source: Results of reviewing the status of implementing the 2nd National Biodiversity Strategy (2nd), Public
Relations Office, Minister’s Secretariat, Cabinet Office, 2009: Opinion research on the environmental issue

Figure II-21 Recognition of biodiversity (Data 13-①)

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss91

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 14 Transfer of technology and provision of funding to other countries
Explanation of the Indicator○ The Convention on Biological Diversity mandates that technology be transferred and funding provided to othercountries in the area of biodiversity, which indirectly indicate our country's measures against biodiversity loss.
○ Our national life largely depends on the use of biomass supplied from outside Japan. This dependence can beconsidered to help mitigate the load of the first crisis on biodiversity in our country.
○ Animals that have a high migration ability such as migratory birds constitute part of our country's ecosystems, butthese animals cannot be conserved by simply taking measures within our country.
○ Global warming is predicted to affect the biodiversity in Japan, but simply taking measures within our country is
not sufficient.
Assessment by the Indicators○ The scale of technology transfers and the provision of funding were gradually being enhanced in the second half of
the assessment period.
○ With regard to providing funding to other countries, new actions have also been taken in recent years as seen
in higher ratios of contribution to the funding as relating to the conservation of biodiversity, in addition toenvironmental ODA.
○ Concerning the transfer of technology to other countries, the government's technology transfer project has been
expanded and is now being implemented in Latin America and Africa, in addition to the Asia-Pacific region. In
recent years, projects have also been launched by private corporations, non-profit organizations, and researchers.
Reason of the Assessment<Official Development Assistance Provided by the Government for Biodiversity>
The government has been expanding its official development assistance in the area of the environment (i.e.,environmental ODA), of which a certain portion accounts for assistance related to biodiversity. The amount ofenvironmental ODA tended to increase throughout the 1990s, and thereafter has amounted to 300 to 400 billion
yen per year. Its ratio to the total amount of ODA increased during and after the 1990s, marking about a 30 to 40%
increase in recent years (Data 14- ① : Figure II-22). Of the total amount (673 million dollars) of our country's
contribution in the form of environmental ODA from 2003 to 2005, 160 million dollars were provided for various
aspects of “biodiversity” and 77 million dollars for “protection of the biosphere.”
The activities made possible by environmental ODA include technical cooperation projects for providing
equipment and materials on a long-term basis, dispatching specialists and receiving trainees from counterpart countries
based on plans worked out after repeated consultations with those countries, development surveys for supporting theformulation of public utilities plans that will contribute to socioeconomic development of the counterpart countries,
and the implementation of other actions.

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss92

Amount of ODA in the area of the environment
Rate to the whole ODA

5000

40

4000

30

3000
20

2000

10

1000
0

Environmental
education/training:
4

50

Ratio to total ODA (%)

6000

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Amount of ODA in the area of the environment (in hundreds of millions of yen)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Environmental
survey:1Conservationof locations:65
Protection of thebiosphere:
77

Management andoperation ofenvironmental policy:
208

Total
673 million yen
on a promised
amount basis

Prevention andrestraint of floods:
158

0

Biodiversity:
160(Year)

Note 1: This refers to the total for 2003 to 2005 (on a promised amount basis).
This includes free financial aid, financial aid for value and technical cooperation.
Japan has been reporting the results of technical cooperation to DAC (OECD Development Assistance Committee) since 2003.
Total amounts may not conform due to rounding up or off.
In the general environmental area in DAC statistics, environmental subjects that can be included in the other areas are omitted.
Source: OECD/DAC data, OECD/DAC-CRS online database.

Figure II-22 Transition of ODA amounts in the area of the environment in Japanand the ratios of biodiversity-related amounts to the total (Data 14-①)<Ratios of Japan's Contributions to Major Funds>
The proportions of Japan's contributions paid to major funds related to the conservation of biodiversity are high.
With regard to the CEPF (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund) that subsidize private organizations implementing
conservation activities at biodiversity hot spots (i.e., areas having high biodiversity but many endangered species,
and which face a critical situation) in developing countries, the amount of Japan's contribution is equal to 38% of thetotal amount of contributions, representing the second largest contribution (total amount for 1999 to 2009) following
the Global Environment Facility (Data 14- ② : Figure II-23). As for the FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of
the World Bank) that promotes projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, our country's
contribution accounts for 9%, representing the fifth largest donor (in 2009) following Australia and other countries(Data 14- ② ). For the CIF (Climate Change Investment Fund) that supports developing countries by addressing
measures against climate change in line with development, Japan's contribution totals 19%, or the third largest
following the UK and the USA (Data 14- ② ). With regard to GEF (Global Environment Facility)̶a multilateralaid for supporting activities to conserve the global environment in developing countries̶our country has been
contributing ever since the pilot phase was inaugurated, and Japan's contribution in all phases from GEF 1 to 4 was thesecond largest after that of the United States.

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss

93

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

38

17
France

Japan

0%

43
Global Environment Facility(Note 2)Australia
2

20%
40%
60%
80%
Proportions of contributions to CEPF (%) (Note 1)

18
Australia

17
Finland

13
Spain

15
Swiss

100%

9 1
9
9
9
Japan Netherlands Norway France
U.S.A.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportions of contributions to FCPF (%) (Note 3)

31
U.S.A.

0%

20%

23
U.K.

40%

19
Japan

60%

14
8
Germany France

80%

100%

Proportions of contributions to CIF (%) (Note 4)
Note 1: CEPF: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (total for 1999 to 2009)This supports programs to conserve hot spots in developing countries.
Note 2: The Global Environment Facility is a funding mechanism utilizing existing organizations including the World Bank, UNDP,
and UNEP.
Note 3: FCPF: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2009)
The FCPF supports the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to the loss and degradation of forests in developing
countries.
Note 4: CIF: Climate Change Investment Fund (2009)This fund includes additional syndicated loans for developing countries to address measures against climate change
including the adaption to climate change, loss of forests, dissemination of clean technologies, and shifting to a low-carbon
economy.
The countries whose proportion of contribution ranks 6th place or lower are: Australia (2%), Sweden (1%), The Netherlands (1%), Norway (1%), and Switzerland (0.3%).
Source: Conservation International data, FCPF data, World Bank data

Figure II-23 Japan’s proportions of contributions to funding related to the conservation of biodiversity (Data: 14-②)

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss

94

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Technical Cooperation in the Area of Biodiversity>
Japan has enhanced its technical cooperation in the area of biodiversity. There were about 30 technicalcooperation projects conducted per year in the area of biodiversity by the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) during the first half of the 2000s, but this total increased from 70 to 80 in the second half of the decade (Data
14- ③ : Figure II-24). Many Southeast Asian countries were targeted during the first half of the 2000s and the
majority of projects were implemented in the Asia-Pacific region including East Asia, South Asia and Oceania, but inthe second half of the same period, more projects were implemented in Latin America and Africa.
As for the contents of these projects, wide-ranging activities were included, such as the development of policy
and research conducted on the conservation of biodiversity, conservation of endangered species, such conservationrelated activities as the protection and management of national parks, activities related to sustainable utilization suchas agro-forestry and agriculture oriented toward conserving the environment, measures taken against global warming
and invasive alien species, eco-tourism, seed banks, and the fostering of human resources. For instance, with regard
to the “Conservation Plan for Biodiversity in Indonesia” implemented in cooperation with the Indonesia Institute of
Science and Forest Department for 16 years from 1992 to 2008, such results as developing a sample preservation
system and database, conducting environmental surveys and preparing management plans for national parks,
promoting communities around national parks, and enhancing the capability of researchers and administrative officials
have been achieved.

80

80

75

73

77

Number of projects

61

60

51

Other regions
Middle East

40

34

36

Africa35

Latin America

28

OceaniaSouth Asia

20

East Asia
Southeast Asia

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (Year)
Note 1: (1) Protection of biodiversity, (2) Sustainable utilization of natural resources, (3) Mitigation of threats to biodiversity(including measures against global warming), (4) Maintenance of properties and services for residents, (5) Maintenance oftraditional knowledge and customs in local communities, (6) Equal sharing of benefits from genetic resources, (7)Technical cooperation projects that fall under the seven areas of enhanced personal, scientific and technical capabilities
for the conservation of biodiversity.
Note 2: Any projects for which even part of the year is included in the assessment period were counted in the total number.
Source: Japan Wildlife Research Center, 2010: Report on the analysis of example cases of cooperation in the area of biodiversity
and the deliberation of business deployment (project research) toward CBD COP10

Figure II-24 Number of technical cooperation projects for each region in the area of biodiversity
by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (Note 1, Note 2) (Data 14-③)

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss95

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter II Section 5 Basis of Measures for Loss96

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter III
Assessment of the Status of Biodiversity Loss
This chapter assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in each ecosystem during the assessment period(from the second half of 1950s to the present), as well as assessing the responses made to biodiversity loss in eachecosystem.

Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in forest and mountain systems during theassessment period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using four indicators, as well as assessing themeasures taken for biodiversity loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Forest and Mountain Systems○ Losses in forest and mountain systems that occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to
the present are likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ The overall size of a forest apparently does not make a large difference, but natural forests have diminished throughconversion into artificial forests. The connectivity of forests has also been decreasing. [First crisis]○ During the latter half of the assessment period, the rate of deterioration of natural forests slowed down, while thequality of ecosystems in secondary forests and artificial forests has declined. [Second crisis]○ Recently, as deer populations have increased and their distribution expanded, the damage to trees and underlying
vegetation has become evident. There are also reports of a negative influence on alpine plants probably due toglobal warming. [Second crisis and climate change crisis]○ Presently, the impact on forests by development has been reduced due to changes in the socioeconomic situation,but ongoing influence raises concerns.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

97

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in forest and mountain systems, and anassessment of each indicator:

Table III-1 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in forest and mountain systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent
loss
and
trend

Indicator 15: Scale and quality of forestand mountain systems*1
Indicators offorest andmountain systems

Indicator 16: Continuity of forestand mountain systems

Indicator 17: Populations and distributions ofspecies living in forest and mountain systems*2
Indicator 18: Use and maintenance ofartificial forests
Note: The assessment is based on a comparison with the status of ecosystems at the beginning of the assessment period (in thesecond half of 1950s).

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend of state

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects and trends of overall loss.
*1: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 15.
*2: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 17.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

98

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 15 Scale and quality of forest and mountain systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The scale and quality of forest and mountain systems are an indicator that mainly represents the status ofbiodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis," "the second crisis," "the third crisis," and "the climate change crisis."○ The development of forests reduce the total forest area, the area of highly natural forests, and the areas of different
types of forests that characterize the region (the first crisis).
○ The underuse and lack of management of secondary forests resulting from reduced human activities degrade thequality of secondary forests as ecosystems (the second crisis). Conversely, abandoned secondary forests sometimes
shift toward natural forests through vegetation succession.
○ The introduction of alien species (the third crisis) and the effects of global warming (the climate change crisis)
degrade the scale and quality of forest and mountain systems.
Assessment by the Indicator○ While the total area of forests is maintained, the area of highly natural forests (natural forests and secondary
forests) is on a downward trend.
○ As for "the first crisis," while nationwide development pressure is currently reduced, small-scale or local
development continues. In the long run, the declining quality of ecosystems in secondary forests and artificial
forests caused by "the second crisis" will raise concerns.
*1 (See Table III-1): Please note that the scale of natural forests during the first half of the assessment period may indicate different
trends from the overall assessment.

Reason of the Assessment<Alteration of Highly Natural Forests>
Forests in Japan account for an area of approximately 250,000 km2 or about 67% of Japan's total land area. The
forest area in 1966 (during the first half of the assessment period) increased from that in 1943 (before the assessment
period), and has been maintained through the rest of the assessment period, while the area of highly natural forests(natural forests and secondary forests) tended to decrease significantly from 1943 through the 1980s (Data 15- ① :Figure III-1). One reason for this decline is that the demand for timber increased immediately after World War II,
leading to large-scale deforestation, followed by expanded forestation of such single species as cedar and Japanesecypress (Data 15- ② : Figure III-2). In addition, during the high economic growth period of the 1960s and the bubble
economy of the second half of 1980s, forests decreased in area through conversion into farmland, housing areas,
factories, and leisure facilities. (Data 1- ⑦ : Appendix). In western Japan where forests have been largely alteredthroughout history, only small portions of natural forests (evergreen broadleaf forests) remain, and the effects of thesechanges on some rare species dependent on secondary forests in the plains are indicated. 1)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

99

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Area of forests (in hundreds of km2)

3,000
2,500 2394
239
2,000

561

2517 2522 2526 2528 2526 2521 2515 2512 2510
139 137 136
137 141 137
173
192 145
793

OthersArtificial
forests

886

938

990

1022 1033

1040 1036 1035

1,500

Highlynaturalforests(Note 1)

1,000

1594 1551 1444 1444
500

1399 1367 1352 1338 1335 1338

01943 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1990 1995 2002 2007 (Year)
Note 1: Highly natural forests exclude artificial forests and include natural/secondary forests.
Source: Forestry Agency, Forest Resource Monitoring Survey, and Forestry Agency, Annual Survey on Land Area of Forests

Figure III-1 Transition of forest area (highly natural forests/artificial forests) (Data 15-①)

Area of artificial forests (km2)

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
(Year)
Source: Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Summary of Japanese Long-term Statistics,
and Forestry Agency, Handbook of Forest and Forestry

Figure III-2 Transition of artificial forest area (Data 15-②)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

100Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Reduced Forest Management>
Since the 1960s, the production of firewood and charcoal has sharply decreased over the course of the energy
revolution that converted the primary energy source to fossil fuels (Data 7- ③ : Figure II-12), and as a result, many
secondary forests lost economic value and were left unattended.
Decreased human activities transformed many secondary forests previously used as firewood forests and which
had bright forest floors into dark areas with a dense growth of bamboo grass and littered with old trees and deadbamboo. It has been noted that the declining quality of secondary forests due to reduced proper management degradedthe quality of living environments for organisms that comprise forest and mountain systems.2)<Damage to Vegetation by Japanese Deer>
The 5-km meshes of Japanese deer distribution increased substantially from 4,220 meshes in 1978 to 7,344 in2003 (Data 15- ③ : Figure III-3). Lower deer hunting pressure due to fewer and aging hunters, and the declining indeath rates in winter attributed to less winter precipitation are cited as reasons for this increase.3) The rapid increases
in deer population and distribution have caused overpressure through deer feeding on understory vegetation and trees(bark) in natural forests,4) and the same kind of impact has been indicated on artificial forests and farmland, as wellas on moorland vegetation and alpine vegetation.5),6) Moreover, the expansion of deer distribution and their increased
concentrations are considered to be a factors in soil runoff and the destruction of slopes,7),8) thereby inhibitingreforestation and disturbing forest and mountain systems,9),10) and resulting in significant nationwide loss.

BOX 6 Effect of Japanese deer on vegetation, and related measures
Though there was once concern over the possible extinction of Japanese deer, the nationwide
population of Japanese deer has grown significantly in recent years. This population growth now
poses the problem of devastation by deer feeding on forest-floor vegetation in many areas.
For example, deer in the Tanzawa area of Kanagawa Prefecture began causing damage in the 1980s.
Since the 1990s, bamboo grass on the forest floor in high-elevation natural forest areas disappeared
and such plants as Culver's physic have become endangered species. Therefore, comprehensive
environment research was conducted in the 1990s and 2000s, along with such nature restoration
measures as controlled hunting to adjust deer populations and constructing fences in certain areas
to prevent the intrusion of deer. Thanks to such measures, endangered species such as the wheellily have been restored within the fences in some areas.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

101

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Habitat observed in 1978 and 2003
Habitat observed in 2003
Habitat observed in 1978

Number of deer captured (head)

250,000
200,000

Specified plan
Capture of harmful wildlife
Hunting

150,000
100,000
50,000

1923
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2006

0

(Fiscal year)
Note 1: The year indicates the fiscal year when research was conducted and does not necessarily reflect the actual situation ofthat year. "1978" refers to data from FY 1978 research; "2003" refers to data from FY 2000-2004 research.
Source: Environment Agency, 2nd Animal Distribution Survey of National Survey on the Natural Environment; Ministry of theEnvironment, Biodiversity Survey (Mammal Distribution Survey), 6th National Survey on the Natural Environment; Forestry
Agency, Environment Agency, and Ministry of the Environment, Statistics for Birds and Animals

Figure III-3 Changes in the distribution of Japanese deer, and transition in number of deer captured (Data 15-③)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

102

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Damage Caused by Forest Pests>
It has been shown that the aging of secondary forests and the neglect of deadwood resulting from reduced use
and management could expand the damage caused by oak wilt disease, which is induced by the fungus Raffaelea
quercivora spread by the Ambrosia beetle (Platypus quercivorus), and pine wilt disease, which is induced by theforest pest Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner & Buhrer) Nickle that was unintentionally introduced from North
America in the early 1900s.11) Damage caused by pine wilt disease sharply increased after 1950, especially around1980. Although less damage has occurred since the second half of 1980s, the level of damage remains higher thanthat before 1980 (Data 15- ④ : Appendix). It has also been indicated that global warming is influencing the growing
damage caused by forest pests, causing infected vector insects to invade already temperate areas, and expanding
potentially dangerous zones for pine wilt disease in cold regions.12) For example, about 70% of the damage caused by
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner & Buhrer) Nickle occurred in western Japan in 1980, but damage in the Tohoku
and Hokuriku regions has been increasing ever since 1985 (Data 15- ④ : Appendix).
<Global Warming>
The effects of global warming on forest and mountain systems in mountainous regions are raising concerns. The
expanded distribution of organisms from low-elevation areas to high mountain areas, the reduction and deteriorationof cool-temperate natural forests such as beech forests and of alpine vegetation in low-altitude mountainous regions
or at lower latitudes, and the impact on species characteristic of high mountainous regions are especially of great
concern.13),14)

Indicator 16 Continuity of forest and mountain systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ For both highly natural forests (natural forests/secondary forests) and artificial forests, the fragmentation of forests
caused by development prevents the migration and interaction of living organisms thriving in forests by reducing
continuity. Therefore, the continuity of forest and mountain systems is an indicator that mainly represents the statusof biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis."
Assessment by the Indicator○ Forests along the rim of mountainous backbones are currently fragmented by other uses of land.
○ Despite the lack of long-term data on trends of this indicator, said continuity is estimated to be on a downward
trend. Because development pressure has decreased nationwide, this downward trend may have been alleviated.
Reason of the Assessment
Because the reduced continuity of forests prevents the migration and interaction of living organisms, its effect on
biodiversity has been of great concern.
At present, there are relatively continuous forests along mountainous backbones that are surrounded by forests
fragmented by other land uses such as farmland, urban areas and roads. The degrees of fragmentation are low in the
Hokkaido, Tohoku and Chubu regions, and high in the Kansai, Chugoku and Kyushu regions (Data 16- ① : Figure III4).

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

103

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Although the fragmentation process has been considered slowed somewhat due to less development pressure,the progress of deforestation and large-scale replacement by rapidly growing artificial forests has fragmented highly
natural forests since the high economic growth period.1),17)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

104

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Ratio of forests in units of pixels
below 40%
40% - below 60%
60% - below 90%
90% - below 100%
100%

Distribution of forest percentage in 500 x 500 m pixels

Border between target areas

Ratio of forests in units of pixels
below 40%
40% - below 60%
60% - below 90%
90% - below 100%
100%
Border between target areas

Distribution of forest percentage in 4,000 x 4,000 m pixels
The figures above are created by dividing the total area of the country into square pieces called "pixels" and coloring each pixel
according to each area's percentage of forest cover. The lower the degree of forest fragmentation, the higher the forest
percentage per remaining pixel after pixel enlargement.
Source: Forestry Agency, 2009: Report on the Analysis of Dynamic Change with Forest Resource Assessment Data

Figure III-4 Status of forest fragmentation (Data 16-①)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

105

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 17 Populations and distributions of species living in forest and mountain systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The populations and distributions of species living in forest and mountain systems are an indicator representing
the status of biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis," "the second crisis," "the third crisis," and "the climatechange crisis."○ The reduction and fragmentation of forests caused by development (the first crisis), direct exploitation of wildlife
such as capturing and gathering (the first crisis, etc), the degradation of ecosystem quality resulting from reduced
human activities (the second crisis, etc), and the impact of alien species (the third crisis) reduce the population anddistribution range of wildlife species living in forests.
Assessment by the Indicator○ In some regions and for certain taxonomic groups, the populations or distributions of species living in forests are
declining.
*2 (See Table III-1.): Note that there are different trends depending on taxonomic groups and species, and different data from those of
the overall assessment on the degree of biodiversity loss and related trends.

Reason of the Assessment<Changes Resulting from the Reduction and Fragmentation of Forests>
The reduction, change in quality, and fragmentation of highly natural forests (natural forests and secondary
forests) are among the factors that influence the composition, distributions, and populations of species of fauna livingin the forest.18),19),20). For example, during the high economic growth period (in the first half of the assessment period),
the reduction of large-diameter trees and the simplification of tree species resulting from the deforestation of highly
natural forests (natural forests and secondary forests) have been shown to cause a decrease of forests species using
natural tree hollows,1),21) and plant species such as epiphytic plants and forest floor moss thriving in natural forests.22)
Brown bears and black bears, which need large habitats, have been expanding their distribution range in the Hokkaido
and Tohoku regions since the 1980s, while in some parts of the Kii Peninsula and in Shikoku where populations
are isolated by artificial forests, bear populations have become endangered (Data 17- ① : Appendix). Althoughdevelopment pressure had decreased by the second half of the assessment period, there are still concerns about theisolation and restricted migration,23) declining reproduction rates, and the loss of genetic diversity among forest
species due to the reduction and fragmentation of highly natural forests (natural forests and secondary forests), such asbroadleaf deciduous forests that are suitable habitats for these species.24)<Changes Caused by Infrequent Use of Forests>
It has been shown that environmental changes in secondary forests and artificial forests resulting from reduced
use and management influence the distribution of species living in those forests.25),26), 27) For example, the changing
distribution range of forest bird species from 1997 to 2002 relative to the figure in 1978 represented by the "Living
Planet Index" (LPI)28) suggests a marked decrease in the distribution range of species that live in an early succession
environment (Data 17- ② : Figure III-5). The distribution range of species that migrate from abroad (such as fromSoutheast Asia) also shows a downward trend (Data 17- ② ). Moreover, it has been shown that the discontinuation ofregular logging and replanting have influenced the reproduction of Golden eagles.29)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

106

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Living planet index

Increase

Decrease

150

109
100

94

89
83
73

50

Forest species

Long-distancemigratory birds

Short-distancemigratory birds/
resident birds

Species living in mature forests
103 species

25 species

49 species

Long-distancemigratory birds

Short-distancemigratory birds/
resident birds

Species living in early succession forests
11 species

18 species

The distribution in 1978 is indicated as a reference point in "index 100." LPI indicates the relative rate of change from thereference point. Modification by Yamamura et al. 2009
Source:Figure III-5 Living Planet Index (LPI)
Changes in the distribution range of bird species from 1997 to 2002 relative to 1978 (Data 17-②)<Effects of Overexploitation and Illegal Digging of Species for Ornamental Use>As the level of people's living has improved since the high economic growth period, the demands for pets andgardening have rapidly increased, resulting in the overexploitation and illegal digging of some forest species such as
rare species (insects and orchid species) for ornamental use.
<Effects on Mountainous Regions>
The progress of removing vegetation from along climbing trails on some mountains used for mountaineering, andthe effects of growing deer populations on alpine vegetation have been indicated,5), 6) while it is believed that alpine
vegetation could change into forests as a result of the complex effects of global warming, such as rising temperaturesand changes in rainfall levels.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

107

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 7 Measures for removing vegetation from mountain trails―Overhaul of mountain trails in Daisetsuzan
Given the boom to visit "Japan's 100 famous mountains"since the 1990s, mountaineers have rushed to selectedfamous mountains, leading to soil erosion on mountain
trails and the destruction or loss of surrounding
vegetation. Moreover, after mountain trails were
improved to deal with the concentration of mountaineersand prevent the trails from becoming ruined, some trails
were criticized as being overly improved and unsuited
to surrounding landscapes. In response to this situation,
the Ministry of the Environment established the "Review
Conference on the Well-being of Mountain Trails" fromFY 1999 to FY 2001, and considered ways to classify
the levels of maintaining and managing mountain trails,
as well as environmentally friendly measures for trail
maintenance. Consequently, in Daisetsuzan National
Park, for example, standards have been established for
mountain trail management by using ROS (Recreation

Maintenance of mountain trails using anature-oriented construction method

Oppor tunity Spectr um)* (a recreation managementtool) and mountain trails are now being maintained by using a nature-oriented construction method(traditional stone masonry).
*ROS: A framework for designing and managing recreational space in which areas are classified according to the quality of space,taking into account the visitors' recreational experience, and setting management goals for each area.30)

Indicator 18 Use and maintenance of artificial forests
Explanation of the Indicator○ The reduced use and lack of management for artificial forests brought about by reduced human activities lower
the quality of ecosystems and have negative impacts on the status of biological resources in forests (the second
crisis). Therefore, the status of the use and management of artificial forests can been regarded as an indicator that
represents the status of biodiversity loss as related to "the second crisis" in forest and mountain systems.
Assessment by the Indicator○ The reduced use and lack of management for forest resources in artificial forests following expanded forestation
might have led to the reduced quality of these ecosystems.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

108

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Reason of the Assessment<Stagnant Forestry Production Activities>
The forest wood biomass̶the volume of wood in forests̶doubled from about 1.89 billion m3 in the 1960s toabout 4.04 billion m3 today due to more artificial forests (Data 15- ② : Figure III-2, 18- ① : Appendix). The reason
for the increase in forest biomass through the second half of the assessment period is that while the growth rates oftrees in artificial forests are high, the consumption of wood produced in domestic secondary forests and artificial
forests began to decrease when wood imports were liberalized in 1960, and imports of wood from foreign countries
have subsequently met domestic demand.
At the beginning of the assessment period (in the second half of 1950s), the demand for building materials
increased along with high economic growth, leading to the large-scale deforestation of domestic coniferous forests andbroadleaf forests, and the self-sufficiency rate of industrial wood rose as high as about 90% (Data 18- ② : Appendix).
However, after the import liberalization in the 1960s, wood imports sharply increased, stabilizing between about 600
to 900 million m3 since the second half of 1980s (Data 18- ② : Appendix). Both the self-sufficiency rate of industrial
wood and the production of wood materials have dropped sharply since the 1960s to about 20% and about 50%,
respectively, after the second half of 1990s (Data 18- ② : Appendix). Conversely, the diminishing of forests among
Japan's wood import trading partners is indicated as a problem (Data 18- ③ : Appendix), as well as the negative
impacts of deforestation and distribution of materials logged illegally in the forest and mountain systems of wood
exporting nations.31)
With domestic forest biomass increasing, artificial forests in an age class requiring such maintenance tasks asthinning, planting and clearing underbrush have been increasing; however, forestry work such as thinning is consideredinsufficient.32) The abandoned management of artificial forests is believed to have resulted in deteriorated understory
vegetation and fewer habitats for plant-eating species and species adapted to open lands.32) The lower profitabilityof the forestry industry is cited as the reason for reduced management.32) In recent years, as part of forest protection
projects including the conservation of biodiversity, such projects as the "National Movement for Fostering Beautiful
Forests" aimed at thinning 33,000 km2 of forests in six years and creating diverse forests have been promoted since FY
2007, and an area of approximately 5,210 km2 was subjected to thinning in FY 2007.

3. Measures for Loss
In forests, the strengthening of conservation efforts by designating and managing conservation areas, taking
measures for establishing ecological networks to ensure the continuity of forests, conducting forestry operations, andfostering efforts focused on forests as wildlife habitats have been successful to some extent. However, it is apparently
necessary to further strengthen efforts to enhance measures for restoring the lower level of forest management.
<Conservation Areas in Forests>
For forest and mountain systems in Japan, some conservation efforts have been in progress since the 1960s,
particularly in forests with especially high naturalness, such as those distributed in mountainous backbones. In
addition, nature restoration projects in such forests as on the Moriyoshi submontane plateau in Akita Prefecture
and Odaigahara on the Kii Peninsula, and efforts to ensure the continuity of forests such as establishing ecologicalnetworks connecting fragmented forests, including "Green Corridors" in national forests, have been under way. On theother hand, such secondary forests as in Satochi-Satoyama areas and some highly natural forests that cover most of
the northern part of Okinawa's main island and the evergreen broadleaf forests on the island of Amami Oshima are notdesignated as conservation areas.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

109

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Conservation and Management of Organisms Living in Forests>
For some forest-living species whose living conditions are of concern, hunting is being regulated and efforts
are being fostered under the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law and the Law for the Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Moreover, to prevent damage to forests by overpopulated species, population control
is being implemented by capturing wildlife and protective facilities are being installed.
<Consideration of Biodiversity and Sustainable Use>In addition to establishing forest reserves and green corridors, operations considering the living environment forwild plants and animals are being promoted under the management of national forests. Moreover, forestry technology
and forest operations that give consideration to ecosystems and biodiversity are now being introduced. For example,
in order for forests to fulfill diverse functions that include conserving biodiversity, forestry technologies that consider
biodiversity, such as multi-tiered operations classified under the Basic Plan for Forest and Forestry, are being
introduced, along with efforts to diversify forests, such as promoting thinning work, conversion to broadleaf forests
and a longer rotation of forest management. In implementing these operations, such approaches as acquiring forest
certification for forests with appropriate forest management and sustainable forest management have been taken (seeBOX 8).

BOX 8 Forest certification system
The forest certification system is one in which independent third-party institutions standardize
forest management, and then assess and verify whether the standards are met. The system helps
forest environment conser vation, benefits local societies, and certifies wood produced in an
economically sustainable manner. Certified wood and wood products are labeled with the certifying
authority's logo mark, and by widely distributing those goods, both forest managers and consumers
who purchase goods with a cer tified logo mark indirectly contribute to forest conser vation.
According to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the leading forest certification institution, 991
areas encompassing 1,156,056 km2 in 82 countries worldwide have acquired forest management
certificates from the Council as of September 2009. In Japan, 32 forest areas encompassing 3,667
km2 have acquired forest management certificates as of March 2010.
(Source: Forest Stewardship Council, 2010: The State of FM Certification in Japan; Forest Stewardship Council, 2010: The State ofCertification Worldwide. http://www.forsta.or.jp/fsc/)

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

110

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Revitalizing Forestry and Mountain Villages>
In order to deal with lower management standards resulting from discontinued forestry production activities
by revitalizing forestry and mountain villages, efforts are being made to promote the use of domestic wood, secure
new workers, enhance interactions between cities and mountain villages, and promote new settlements. More local
governments have begun introducing water resource and forest environment taxes for promoting thinning work andother tasks related to artificial-forest management and ecosystem conservation.
<Surveys and Enhanced Information on Forest and Mountain Systems>
The National Survey on the Natural Environment and other surveys have supported research efforts and provided
sufficient information on forests and high mountain areas. The research sites dubbed "forest and grassland" and "alpine
regions" of the "Monitoring Site 1000" project, which conducts long-term monitoring of representative ecosystems inJapan, have begun gathering data on an ongoing basis.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

111

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Yasuda, M., 2007: Threatened arboreal squirrels in Kyushu, southwestern Japan: Mammalian Science, 47, 195-206.
2) Maeto, K. and H. Makihara, 1999: Changes in Insect Assemblages with Secondary Succession of Temperate
Deciduous Forests after Clear-cutting, Japanese Journal of Entomology New Series, 2, 11-26.
3) Li, Y., N. Maruyama, M. Koganezawa, and N. Kanzaki, 1996: Range expansion of Sika dear in Nikko in relation to
global warming, Wildlife Conservation Japan, 2, 23-35.
4) Nagata, K., 2005: Home Range Characteristic of Sika Deer in Fudakake of Tanzawa Mountains, Mammalian
Science, 45, 25-33.
5) Chubu Regional Forest Office, 2007: Survey Report on Deer Damage in Protected Forests of the Southern Alps (FY2006), 109pp.
6) Chubu Regional Forest Office, 2008: Survey Report on Deer Damage in Protected Forests of the Southern Alps (FY2007), 101pp.
7) Koizumi, T., T. Yabe, and S. Inoue, 2006: Effects of Deer Feeding on Changes of Sasamorpha borealis, Kyushu
Forest Studies, 59, 90-93.
8) Wakahara, T., Y. Ishikawa, K. Shiraki, H. Toda, T. Miya, F. Kataoka, M. Suzuki, and Y. Uchiyama, 2008: Seasonal
Changes in the Amount of Litter Layer and Soil Erosion on the Forest Floor ‐ An Impoverished Understory byDeer Impact at Doudaira, Tanzawa Mountains, Journal of the Japanese Forest Society, 90, 378-385.
9) Takatsuki, S. and T. Gorai, 1994: Effects of Sika deer on the regeneration of a Fagus crenata forest on Kinkazan
Island, northern Japan, Ecological Research, 9, 115-120.
10) Tsujino, R. and T. Yumoto, 2004: Effects of sika deer on tree seedlings in a warm temperate forest on YakushimaIsland, Japan, Ecological Research, 19, 291-300.
11) Fukuda, K., 2008: Frontiers of research and prevention of Japanese oak wilt, Forestry Technology, 790, 36-37.
12) Fujita, K., 2005: Effects of global warming on the prevalence of pine wilt disease, Forestry and Forest Products
Research Institute Research Information, 4, 1-6.
13) Nakamura, H., 2007: Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus japonicus. Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 56, 93-114.
14) Tanaka, N., T. Yagihashi, H. Sugita, K. Fujita, T. Hayashi, and H. Togeta, 2003: Effects on forest and mountainsystems and forest management, Heredity, 17, 109-118.
15) Miyamoto, A. and S. Makoto, 2008: The influence of forest management on landscape structure in the cooltemperate forest region of central Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 248-256.
16) Saion, T., S. Yoshida, and M. Imada, 2000: Changes in the Distribution of Fir and Hemlock Forests in the
Kirishima Mountains, Kyushu Branch of the Japanese Forest Society, 53, 17-19.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

112

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan17) Nagaike, T. and T. Kamitani, 1999: Factors affecting changes in landscape diversity in rural areas of the Fagus
crenata forest region of central Japan, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 209-216.
18) Yamaura, Y., S. Ikeno, M. Sano, K. Okabe, and K. Ozaki, 2009: Bird responses to broad-leaved forest patch area ina plantation landscape across seasons, Biological Conservation, 142, 2155-2165.
19) Iida, S. and T. Nakashizuka, 1995: Forest fragmentation and its effect on species diversity in suburban coppice
forests in Japan, Forest Ecology and Management, 73, 197-210.
20) Yamaura, Y., 2007: Mitigating effects of broadleaved forest fragmentation on birds: proposal of plantation matrix
management, Japanese Forest Society, 89, 416-430.
21) Yasui, S., T. Kamijo, M. Shigeta, and Y. Sato, 2000: Distribution of the Ikonnikov's Whiskered Bat, Myotis
ikonnikovi OGNEV and Its Relationship to the Habitat Type in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan, Mammalian Science,
40, 155-165.
22) Environment Agency, 2000: Revised List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan - Red Data Book-9 (Plants
II other than vascular plants), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
23) Ise, H. and H. Mitsuhashi, 2006: Habitat evaluation of the tree frog and its application for conservation planning
in Japan, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 8, 221-232.
24) Yamane, A,, 1999: Genetic process of extinction in mammals, Mammalian Science, 39, 45-53.
25) Okubo, S., A. Kamiyama, T. Kitagawa, and K. Takeuchi, 2003: Plant Species Composition of the Herbaceous
Layer of Secondary Woodlands and their Verges in Relation to Micro-scale Landform in the Tama Hills, journal of
the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 66, 537-542.
26) Yamaura, Y., K. Katoh, G. Fujita, and H. Higuchi, 2005: The effect of landscape contexts on wintering bird
communities in rural Japan, Forest Ecology and Management, 216,187-200.
27) Maeto, K. and H. Makihara, 1999: Changes in Insect Assemblages with Secondary Succession of Temperate
Deciduous Forests after Clear-cutting, Japanese Journal of Entomology, New Series, 2, 11-26.
28) Loh, J., R. E. Green, T. Ricketts, J. Lamoreux, M. Jenkins, V. Kapos, and J. Randers, 2005: The Living PlanetIndex: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 360, 289-295.
29) Yui, M., 2007: The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and forestry in the Kitakami Plateau, Japanese Journal ofOrnithology, 56, 1-8.
30) Yamaki, K., J. Hirota, S. Ono, Y. Shoji, T. Tsuchiya, and K. Yamaguchi, 2003: A method for classifying recreation
area in an alpine natural park using Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society,85, 55-62.
31) Hembery, R., A. Jenkins, G. White, and B. Richards, 2007: Illegal logging: Cut it Out, WWF-UK.
32) Committee on Promote Policy of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Forests, 2009: Promotion
Policy of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Forests, Forestry Agency.

Chapter III Section 1 Assessment of Forest and Mountain Systems

113

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in cultivated systems during the assessment
period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using three indicators, as well as assessing the measures forbiodiversity loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Cultivated systems○ Losses occurred in cultivated systems during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to the present
and are likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ The development of residential land mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well as changes inagriculture and agricultural methods, contributed to a smaller scale and lower quality of cultivated systems. [First
crisis]○ The reduced use of fields, mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well as less use of agricultural land,
mostly in the second half of the assessment period, contributed to a smaller scale and lower quality of cultivatedsystems. [Second crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact of development on cultivated systems, as well as changes in agriculture andagricultural methods due to changes in the socioeconomic situation, but an ongoing influence raises concerns. It isalso concerned about the increasing influence of the lower use and control of agricultural land.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

114

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in cultivated systems and the assessment ofeach indicator:

Table III-2 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in cultivated systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent
loss
and
trend

Indicator 19: Scale and quality ofcultivated systems*1
Indicators ofcultivated systems

Indicator 20: Populations and distributions ofspecies living in cultivated systems*2

Indicator 21: Diversity of agricultural products
and farm animals
Note: The assessment is based on a comparison with the status of ecosystems at the beginning of the assessment period (in thesecond half of 1950s).

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects, and trends of overall loss.
*1: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 19*2: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 20

Indicator 19 Scale and quality of cultivated systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The scale and quality of cultivated systems are an indicator that mainly represents the status of biodiversity loss as
related to "the first crisis," "the second crisis," and "the third crisis."

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

115

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan○ The development of farmland and grassland that comprise cultivated systems reduces the scale of cultivatedsystems. The deterioration of water quality in irrigation ponds and channels degrades the quality of cultivatedsystems (the first crisis).
○ Reduced human activities in cultivated systems decrease the scale and quality of ecosystem components, such as
farmland and grassland that make up the mosaic landscape (the second crisis).
Assessment by the Indicator○ Over the long term, this indicator has been on a downward trend due to the development of housing land, reduced
area of farmland and grassland caused by underuse, and changes in agriculture and farming methods. As for"the first crisis," while nationwide development pressure is currently reduced, small-scale or local development
continues. The declining quality of farmland and nearby secondary forests in Satochi-Satoyama areas due toreduced management is of concern, though such trend is not often applicable to Hokkaido, where the history ofland use by humans is relatively short.
*1 (See Table III-2.): Keep in mind that the loss of biodiversity in irrigation ponds and channels̶two components of cultivatedsystems̶may be greater than that in the overall assessment.

Reason of the Assessment<Reduced Agricultural Land>
During the assessment period, the area of agricultural land significantly decreased. (Data 19- ① : Figure III-6,
Appendix). The area of agricultural land totaled about 61,000 km2 around 1960. Except in Hokkaido, however, thearea of agricultural land, especially paddy fields, has continued to decrease and fell below 50,000 km2 in the 2000s.
Dry fields have also begun decreasing since the 1980s, and the area of farmland in Hokkaido has decreased sincethe 1990s. These decreases are attributed to the conversion of farmland into housing land and industrial sites during
the high economic growth period and bubble economy period, and recent declines in the number of farmers andagricultural laborers.
<Changes in Agriculture and Farming Methods>
Since the first half of the assessment period, farmland and irrigation channels have been overhauled for enhancing
the economic efficiency of agricultural production. The area of overhauled paddy fields sharply increased particularly
from the 1960s to the second half of 1970s, and the ratio of overhauled fields reached 60% in the 2000s. (Data 19② : Figure III-6, Appendix). More area has been overhauled in eastern Japan. It is indicated that said overhaul focusedon economic efficiency has, for example, prevented living things from migrating freely in rivers, channels, irrigation
ponds, and paddy fields,1),2),3),4),5) and the expansion of readjusted areas has reduced irrigation channels and damaged
the diversity of growth environments,1),3),6),7) leading to fewer food sources for species on higher trophic levels.8),9)Moreover, the improper use of agrochemicals and fertilizers has influenced living things thriving on farmland and insurrounding areas. Although the production of such chemicals has decreased especially since the 1990s (Data 19- ③ :Figure III-7), the effects are still of concern.10)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

116

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Grassland (Note 1)
Dry fields

Area of farmland/grassland (km2)

80,00070,000Paddy fields

60,000(Overhauled paddy fields)

50,00040,00030,00020,00010,000
0

1960

1970

1980

2000 (Year)

1990

Note 1: For grassland, the values of vegetated areas (wild grasslands) other than forests in the forestry census (2003) are used.
Wild grasslands other than forests (including permanent pastures, degenerated pastures and abandoned areas turned
into wild grassland) and bushes are included. Riverbeds, field ridges, banks, roadsides and golf courses are not included
even though vegetated.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Area, Forestry Census
Cumulative Statistics (1960-2000), Census of Agriculture and Forestry, Land Use and Infrastructure Survey, Statistical
Survey of Agricultural Land Construction Services

800

Amount of agriculturalchemicals produced

6700

Amount of nitrogen
fertilizers produced

5

Amount of phosphorus
fertilizers produced

4

Amount of compound
fertilizers produced

600
500
400

3

300

2

200

2005
2008

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

1950

1945

0

1940

0

1935

100

1930

1

Agricultural chemical year/Fertilizer year

Amount of agricultural chemicals produced (in thousands of tons)

7

1926

Amount of chemical fertilizers produced (in millions of tons)

Figure III-6 Changes in the area of farmland and grassland (Data 19-①, 19-②, 19-④)

Note 1: Data on the amount of nitrogen fertilizers produced in FY 1994 and FY 1995 are not continuous due to changes in statistics.
Source: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Productivity Conference, Japan Agricultural Statistics. Japan Plant Protection Association, Handbook of Agricultural chemicals. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Handbook of Fertilizers

Figure III-7 Transition in the production of agricultural chemicals and chemical fertilizers (Data 19-③)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

117

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Reduced Use of Agricultural Land Areas>
Throughout the assessment period, the loss of mosaic environments due to the degraded quality and smallerscale of cultivated systems caused by the reduced use of ecosystem components, such as paddy fields and dry fields,
channels and irrigation ponds, forests for agriculture, and pastures and grasslands, has been of great concern.11) (Referto the column "Mosaic Ecosystems in Satochi-Satoyama Areas.")It has been shown that secondary forests (used for agriculture) surrounding farmland, which had been previously
used for gathering manure, are longer being used due to the widespread use of chemical fertilizers since the first halfof the assessment period.12)
Though grasslands are estimated to have encompassed 25,000 to 45,000 km2 of area in the early 20th century,13)
it had dropped sharply to about 12,000 km2 by the 1960s (in the first half of the assessment period), and to about 4,000
km2 by the 1980s, (Data 19- ④ : Appendix).
It is indicated that grasslands decreased due to the use of secondary grasslands (Japanese silver grass, daylily,etc) for roofing, and grazing decreased mainly due to changes in agriculture and farming methods during the first halfof the assessment period. The use of oxen in agriculture significantly decreased from the 1950s through the 1960s (Data
7- ④ : Appendix).
By the second half of the assessment period, the use of farmland had decreased and abandoned arable land
increased (Data 7- ② : Figure II-13).
Irrigation ponds are relatively small and regularly churned by water reduction and drainage for agricultural use;
therefore, these ponds are important habitats for waterweeds and aquatic insects.11) The number of irrigation ponds
decreased by about 100,000 (about 25%) from the 1950s through the second half of 1980s (Data 19- ⑤ : Appendix).
The effects of eutrophication of water and at the bottom of irrigation ponds are also indicated.15)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

118

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Column: Mosaic Ecosystem in Satochi-Satoyama Areas
Before the development of modern civil engineering,
paddy fields were developed in river valleys andalluvial floodplains by taking advantage of natural
conditions. In Japan—a country blessed by a varietyof land features and abundant precipitation—many
large and small ponds, wetlands such as temporary
pools, and clear spaces were formed on floodplains,with diverse environments being maintained.
When paddy fields were created, fish, aquatic
insects, and aquatic plants expanded their habitats
to paddy fields, irrigation ponds, and channels. On
floodplains, there were lakeside forests and wet
grasslands along with stagnant water zones.
After rice farming became an important vocation,
irrigation ponds and channels for water as wellas brush and grasslands (yama), many of whichwere managed as common lands and used for
fertilizers, fuel and timber, were created aroundpaddy fields and dry fields (nora) where there werecomplex cultivated systems consisting of diverse
environments. In some cases, sets of environmental
components on floodplains were managed andused, while in other cases, forests on hillsides
and Japanese pampas grass fields were managed
and used as yama. As for the development of new
paddy fields on flat land, fields, grasslands, andforest areas were sometimes allocated for eachhousehold in geometrical plotting. Despite great
variations, the landscapes of Satochi-Satoyama
areas are characterized by mosaic land use, in which
there are forests, grasslands and irrigation ponds
near settlements, and farmland for securing plant
and water resources necessary for rice-farming
agriculture and daily life. Satochi-Satoyama areas arecomplex mosaic ecosystems of appropriate scale
for supplying necessary resources for humans, andare expected to offer great diversity among habitats.
Given the abundant environments where forests
are close to grasslands and wetlands, including
paddy fields, such dual dwellers as amphibians,
dragonflies (whose larvae live in water and thenlive in forests as adults), and birds of prey that nest
in forests and feed in grasslands and near paddy
fields could thrive. These cultivated systems are
significantly different from monoculture farmlands
and forests that expanded since the beginningof the modern era, and highly suggestive for thesustainability of future agriculture and biodiversity. It

has become increasingly apparent that monoculture
works against the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity, and in agricultural and environmental
policy implemented in Europe, such efforts aserecting live fences and protecting grasslands havebeen made to ensure heterogeneity in cultivatedsystems by securing land use other than farming.
For the development of plantations in tropical zones,
leaving some natural forests intact is encouraged.
In addition to Japanese Satochi-Satoyama areas,
most other traditional cultivated systems consistof highly natural land use other than farmland, suchas forests, wetlands, and grasslands, and havegreat space heterogeneity. The Satoyama index thattakes such space heterogeneity into account shows
relatively high ratings for East Asia including Japan,
the coastal areas and small islands of Southeast
Asia, the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula,
Scotland, Eastern Europe, and the eastern partof North America. In contrast, the central plainsof North America, India, and Australia have low
ratings, and are known to have large monoculture
farmlands. This index is shown to have a significant
positive correlation with the presence of Gray-faced
buzzards, the number of amphibian species, and thenumber of damselfly species. Washitani and Kadoya(unpublished)(Izumi Washitani, Committee member)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

119

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator 20 Populations and distributions of species living in cultivated systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ Changes in the populations and distributions of wildlife plant and fauna species living in cultivated systems are an
indicator representing the status of biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis," "the second crisis," and "the third
crisis" in cultivated systems.
○ The development of farmland and deterioration of water quality (the first crisis), reduced human activities (thesecond crisis), and the impact of alien species (the third crisis) reduce the populations and distributions of wildlife
species living on farmland, in surrounding secondary forests, secondary grasslands, irrigation channels and ponds,
and also degrade the biodiversity of species.
Assessment by the Indicator○ As farmland and grassland areas have decreased, and agricultural and farming methods been changed, thepopulations and distributions of species living on agricultural land are believed to be on a downward trend in thelong run. The situations for some species living in aquatic environments related to agriculture, such as paddy fields,
irrigation channels and ponds, are thought to be particularly aggravated.
*2 (See Table III-2.) : Note that there are different trends depending on taxonomic groups and species, as well as data differing fromthose in the overall assessment of the degree of biodiversity loss and the trends thereof.

Reason of the Assessment<Effects of Reduced Scale of Agricultural Land Areas and Changes in Agriculture and Farming Methods>
Following the reduced scale of agricultural land areas, changes in agriculture and farming methods, anddevelopment of artificial irrigation channels, the populations and distribution areas of species living on farmland andin surrounding areas have steadily decreased, and many species have become endangered in recent years.2),16) For
example, there are fewer aquatic animals such as the ayumodoki (Kissing loach) moving freely about in paddy fields,
channels and rivers, ,as well as fewer predators,17) amphibians such as the Daruma pond frog living at the water'sedge,18),19),20) fauna and flora living in secondary grasslands, such as okinagusa (Pulsatilla cernua),21),22) aquatic insects
living in irrigation ponds, such as the predaceous diving beetle,23) and aquatic plants such as hitsujigusa (Nymphaea
tetragona).24) The effects of alien species invading irrigation ponds have also been reported.7)
Among the bird species using paddy fields as habitats, the populations of snipes and plovers during the autumn
migration season have been decreasing from 1975 (in the second half of the assessment period) up to the present (Data20- ① : Figure III-8). Changes in farming methods, farmland and channel improvements, and more abandoned arable
lands are cited as reasons for these decreases. For example, fewer wet paddy fields where birds can feed during the
migration season are considered to have an impact.
It is indicated that if alien species (introduced as one of the farming methods) begin to settle in fields and expand,indigenous species might be adversely affected. For example, competition between the Buff-tailed bumblebee (imported
for the pollination of vegetables) and native species is believed to inhibit interaction between native species andplants.25),26)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

120

200

300

Estimated median for
species more dependent
on paddy fields (*The bluezone indicates the 95%
confidence interval.)

50 100Estimated median for
species less dependent
on paddy fields (*Theyellow zone indicates the
95% confidence interval.)

0

Population Index (1975 = 100)Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 (Year)

The trends of the population index (each year's relative index to the figure in 1975 as 100) of species both more and lessdependent on paddy fields, and species among snipes and plovers that come inland during the autumn migration. The index was
calculated from a survey on snipes and plovers conducted by the Ministry of the Environment (1975-2008). The taxonomy of thespecies is based on literature. The estimated rate of increase in the total index of species more dependent on paddy fields has
been significantly negative in the past 30 years.
Source: Amano T., K. Koyama, H. Amano, T. Székely, and W.J. Sutherland (unpublished)

Figure III-8 Trends of population of snipes and plovers that come inland during the autumn migration season (Data 20-①)

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

121

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 9 Are there fewer sparrows?
In many areas, it has been shown that the
number of sparrows (those familiar birds)
may be declining. Studying the decline of
the sparrow population based on quantitativeand quantitative information such as thatobtained from the "National Sur vey on the
Natural Environment" (i.e., 2nd survey from1974 to 1978, 6th survey from 1997 to 2002),
the transitions of harmful animal control
and bird hunting as studied by the Ministryof the Environment, and the transition of

A flock of sparrows on a tree (Photo by Osamu
Mikami)crop damage as studied by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries yielded estimatesof the sparrow population having dropped between 20% and 50% of that around 1990. It is also
estimated that the sparrow population has dropped to 10% of that around 1960, though sufficient
supporting data is lacking. Cited as possible reasons for this decline are changes in sparrow living
environments, including fewer tree hollows and wooden buildings where sparrows nest, fewer
empty lots and less grassland, the reduction and concentration of farmlands such as paddy fields,
the decrease of sun-drying rice plants caused by changes in farming methods, and fewer fallen
unhulled rice caused by the widespread use of combine harvesters. More studies are needed todetermine the actual reasons for this decline in population.
(Source: Osamu Mikami, 2009: The decline in population of the Tree Sparrow Passer montanus in Japan, Japanese Journal ofOrnithology, 58, 161-170)<Increase and Expansion of Medium-size and Large Mammals>
Since the 1980s, the populations and distribution areas of medium-size and large mammals such as monkeys,
deer and wild boars have increased due to decreased human activities in Satochi-Satoyama areas resulting fromdepopulation and the aging of farming and mountain village residents, the expansion of suitable habitats stemmingfrom more abandoned cultivated areas, and lower hunting pressure because of fewer and aging hunters. The increaseand expansion of medium-size and large mammals, along with the settlement and expansion of invading alien species
such as raccoons, have not only influenced natural vegetation but also caused conflicts with humans, including
agricultural damage.27),28),29)

Indicator 21 Diversity of agricultural products and farm animals
Explanation of the Indicator○ Though it doesn't fall under "the first crisis," "the second crisis," "the third crisis" or "the climate change crisis,"the diversity of agricultural products and farm animals is an indicator that represents the status of biodiversity incultivated systems.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

122

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan○ The reduction of local species that have long been cultivated in line with regional environmental characteristics
impairs the diversity of species and genes as biological resources.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Despite the lack of data that would directly indicate the disappearance of any native local species, some local cereal
and vegetable species that had been customarily cultivated are no longer being cultivated and certain farm animals
no longer being raised.
Reason of the Assessment
As productivity is improved and the variation of species declines, the numbers of native species of agricultural
products, farm animals and poultry that have long been cultivated or bred have also declined. For example, thecultivation of such cereals as foxtail millets and Japanese millets using the traditional farming method of fieldburning has sharply declined due to fewer burnt fields from before the assessment period through the first half of theassessment period. In the 1950s when about 100 km2 of burnt fields remained nationwide,30) the cultivation area offoxtail millets and Japanese millets once totaled hundreds of square kilometers, but sharply decreased by around 1970,
and the cultivation area of buckwheat temporarily declined by the 1970s (Data 21- ① : Figure III-9).
Horses are believed to have been introduced to Japan from the Eurasian continent during the Tumulus period,
and until the Edo period had been utilized as draft animals for cultivation, transport, the production of manure, andas cavalry horses without significant selective breeding.31) During the Meiji period, native breeds of Japanese horses
were cross-bred with Western horses, and about 50 native breeds named after their local areas decreased and many
disappeared. After World War II, fewer horses were used as draft animals due to the development of automobiles andthe mechanization of farming. 31) It is believed that there were fewer than 100,000 domesticated horses in 2004, andabout 86,000 in 2006. Among these horses, there are only eight native Japanese breeds̶the Yonaguni horse, Miyako
horse, Tokara horse, Misaki horse, Taishu horse, Noma horse, Kiso horse, and Hokkaido horse̶with a total of only
about 2,000 head remaining today.31)
Cattle are believed to have been introduced from the Korean Peninsula around the sixth century for use as draft
animals for cultivation and transport. From the Meiji period to the Taisho period, native breeds of cattle were crossbred with European cattle, thereby establishing the current "Wagyu" breed (e.g., Japanese Black cattle), which has
since been bred throughout Japan.32) Today, about 4.4 million head of cattle are raised as dairy cows or for beef.
Among these cattle, there are only two native Japanese breeds̶Mishima cattle and Kuchinoshima cattle̶and fewer
than 100 head of each breed now remain.32)
In recent years, efforts have been made to conserve these breeds with the assistance of some zoos.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

123

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Crop acreage (km2)

800

Foxtail millet

700

Japanese millet

600

Buckwheat

500
400
300
200
100
0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
(Year)

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Statistics on Crops. Agriculture Promotion Foundation, 2006: Cereal
Property Table, Revised Edition

Figure III-9 Transition of crop acreage of foxtail millet, Japanese millet, and buckwheat (cereals) (Data 21-①)

3. Measures for Loss
Though efforts to propagate farming methods that help conserve biodiversity on agricultural land and a steadyincrease in certified eco-farmers, it is expected to take more time for such efforts to prevail and significantly improvethe biodiversity of all agricultural lands in the country. Therefore, measures to address the problems of fewer laborers
due to depopulation and measures for previously altered agricultural lands must be improved.
<Securing the Scale of Habitats in Agricultural Land Areas>
While agricultural lands are not suited to conservation through the designation of protected areas, resulting in few
agricultural lands thus being designated, regulations such as those prescribed by the Agricultural Land Act prohibit theconversion of agricultural land for other uses.
Moreover, much progress has been made in the conservation, restoration and maintenance of farming village
landscapes under the Law for Protection of Cultural Properties and the Landscape Act, and in the conservationand propagation of endangered species living on agricultural land and in surrounding areas under the Law for theConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In recent years, such efforts as restoring the grasslands
in Aso to secure wildlife habitats and related networks in cultivated systems have been initiated.
<Biodiversity-conscious Projects on Agricultural Lands and Sustainable Agriculture>
The efforts to conserve biodiversity have been partially successful. The Land Improvement Act of 2001 mandates
coordination between natural environments and field development projects, while the toxicity of agricultural chemicals
has been examined and standards established for the amounts of agricultural chemicals.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

124

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In farming operations, "eco-farmer" certification has been promoted for conservation-oriented agriculture as
environmentally friendly as possible without using chemical or agricultural chemicals, and more than 190,000 ecofarmers have already been certified. In addition, more biodiversity-conscious approaches to agricultural production
such as flooding rice paddies in winter have been taken (see BOX 10). While these efforts in farming operations
are expected to spread nationwide, it is necessary to monitor the effects of these approaches on the conservation of
biodiversity.

BOX 10 Eco-friendly agriculture - Conservation-oriented agriculture
Environmentally friendly agriculture is called "conservation-oriented agriculture." More precisely,
it is "sustainable agriculture” that makes use of the material cycle function of agriculture, considers
coordination with productivity, and attempts to reduce the environmental impact of fertilizers andagricultural chemicals through soil improvement. As one such effort, the winter flooding of ricepaddies has been recently practiced in many areas, where paddy fields are filled with water during
the winter season when there is no crop, thereby inhibiting the growth of weeds and hopefully
reducing the use of herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
Winter flooding is also called fuyumizu tambo. By maintaining their function as wetlands, paddy
fields are expected to be wintering sites for geese, ducks, swans and cranes, as well as feeding sites
for ibises and storks, whose feral populations are expected to return.
According to research conducted on the use of dry fields and wet fields by birds in the coastal
paddy field area of Lake Kasumigaura, many ground birds as well as water birds use the flooded
paddy fields as feeding sites, while no water birds were seen in the dry fields. The difference in theuse of such fields by birds is attributed to a greater availability of sludgeworms, insects and leecheson the surface and in the soil of paddy fields as a result of flooding. The effect of winter flooding
on enhancing the function of paddy fields as wintering environments for birds is thus now being
revealed.
(Source: Taku Maeda, Hoshiko Yoshida, 2009: Responses of birds in rice fields to winter flooding, Japanese Journal ofOrnithology, 58, 55-64)<Maintenance of Human Activities in Agricultural Land Areas>
In cultivated systems, the appropriate and ongoing disturbance of the natural environment through human use isnecessary, and promotes more biodiversity-conscious, sustainable agricultural production, as well as the conservationand management of wild animals. In order to prevent agricultural damage caused by wild animals, the managementof animal habitats, population control, and protection against damage have holistically been promoted in light ofthe compartmentalization between humans and animals. Moreover, in order to revitalize agriculture and agriculturalvillages, and brace for the lack of management as pertaining to agricultural lands and irrigation channels, thesubsidization of local community activities and efforts to prevent the abandonment of cultivated lands, as well as thesubsidization of NPOs that contribute to the conservation and restoration of agricultural village landscapes and naturalenvironments have been initiated. Because it may be impractical to maintain a previous level of management in all
cultivated systems, leaving some secondary forests to natural succession has been considered.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

125

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Monitoring Cultivated Systems>
The National Biodiversity Strategy devised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (in July 2007)
mandates the development of indicators based on scientific evidence for grasping both the positive and negative
impacts of agriculture, forestry and fisheries on biodiversity, as well as indicators of biodiversity for efficiently
promoting relevant measures and policies to be investigated, with related studies already being conducted.
In order to promote research and gathering information on cultivated systems (e.g., Satochi), the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of the Environment are conducting such surveys as the Survey
on Lives in Paddy Fields and Surrounding Environments, and the National Survey on the Natural Environment. The
ongoing gathering of data has also been initiated at Satochi monitoring sites of the "Monitoring Site 1000" project.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

126

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Mizutani, M., 2000: Upstream migration of weatherfish to paddy fields (Advice Center for Rural Environment
Support (ed.), Rural environment 16), 70-76.
2) Negishi, J., Y. Kayaba, K. Tsukahara, and Y. Miwa, 2008: Unionoid mussels as imperiled indicator organisms:
habitat degradation processes and restoration approaches, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 11, 195-211.
3) Saito, K., O. Katano, and A. Koizumi, 1998: Incursion and spawning by freshwater fish into temporary waters
around rice paddies. Ecological Society of Japan 38, 35-47.
4) Jinguji, H., T. Kondo, A. Sawata, and S. Mori, 1999: Habitat conditions and preservation of the Ninespine
Stickleback, Pungitius pungitius in small springs. Ecology and Civil Engineering 2, 191-198.
5) Suzuki, M., M. Mizutani, and A. Goto, 2001: Trial Manufactures and experiments of small-scale fishways to ensureboth upward and downward migration of freshwater fishes in the aquatic area with paddy fields. Ecology and Civil
Engineering, 4, 163-177.
6) Matsui, A. and M. Sato, 2004: Distribution of aquatic animals in the drainage systems created by paddy farmland
consolidation in Shimodate City, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan, Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 9, 15-163.
7) Yonekura, R., M. Kita, and M. Yuma, 2004: Species diversity in native fish community in Japan: comparison
between non-invaded and invaded ponds by exotic fish, Ichthyological Research 51, 176-179.
8) Fujioka, M., 1998: Herons warn the crisis of rice fields (Y. Ezaki and T. Tanaka (eds.), Conservation of waterfront
environments - from a viewpoint of biocenosis - Asakura Publishing), 35-51.
9) Yamamoto, H., K. Ohata, and K. Kuwahara, 2002: Feeding ground of Mallards wintering at Katano-kamoike̶A
preliminary study for maintaining a stable wintering duck population at Katano-kamoike II, Strix, 20, 13-22.
10) Jinguji, H., T. Ueda, and K. Goka, 2009: Effects of imidacroprid and fipronil insecticide application on the larvae
and adults of Sympetrum frequens (Libellulidae: Odonata). Transactions of the Japanese Society of Irrigation,
Drainage and Rural Engineering, 77, 35-41.
11) Washitani, I., Loss and restoration of floodplain wetlands: efforts to utilize paddy fields as wetlands, Global
environmental research, 12, 3-6.
12) Ide, M., H. Moriyama, and N. Harada, 1992: Ecological studies on the rural landscape pattern and its effects onplant species flow, journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 56, 28-38.
13) Yabu, S., 2009: Satochi-Satoyama culture, vol.1, Foundation and formation of recycling society, Rural Culture
Association Japan, 215pp.
14) Mineta, T. and K. Ishida, 2006: A Role of Small Irrigation Pond from Viewpoint of Endangered Submerged Plants
Conservation, journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 69, 577-580.
15) Nakasone, H., I. Yamashita, H. Kuroda, and R. Kato, 2000: The effect of nitrogen fertilizer use at tea yards onwater quality of an irrigation pond, Journal of Japan Society on Water Environment, 23, 374-377.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

127

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

16) Ueta, M., R. Kurosawa, and H. Matsuno, 2006: Habitat Loss and the Decline of Grey-faced Buzzards（Butastur
indicus）in Tokyo, Japan, Journal of Raptor Research, 40, 52-56.
17) Ministry of the Environment, 2003: Revised List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan - Red Data
Book- 4 (brackish and freshwater fish), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
18) Hasegawa, M., 1998: Frog population dependent on paddy cultivation (Y. Ezaki and T. Tanaka (eds.), Conservationof waterfront environments, Asakura Publishing), 53-66.
19) Fujioka, M., and S.J. Lane, 1997: The impact of changing irrigation practices in rice fields on frog populations of
the Kanto Plain, central Japan, Ecological Research, 12, 101-108.
20) Lane, S.J., and M. Fujioka, 1998: The impact of changes in irrigation practices on the distribution of foraging
egrets and herons (Ardeidae) in the rice fields of central Japan, Biological Conservation, 83, 221-230.
21) Environment Agency, 2000: Revised List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan - Red Data Book-8 (plants
I: vascular plants), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
22) Yui, M., 2007: The Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and forestry in the Kitakami Plateau, Japanese Journal ofOrnithology, 56, 1-8.
23) Nishihara, S., N. Karube, and I. Washitani, 2006: Status and conservation of diving beetles inhabiting rice paddies,Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 11, 143-157.
24) Kadono, Y., 2007: Change in macrophytic flora of Lake Takkobu, Kushiro, Japan, in past 30 years, Japanese
Journal of Limnology, 68, 105-108.
25) Washitani, I., 1998: Conservation-ecological issues of the recent invasion of Bombus terrestris into Japan.
Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 48, 73-78.
26) Muranaka, T., and I. Washitani, 2006: Status of invasive alien species problems in Japan: current status andecological effects of aggressive invasion of an alien grass, Eragrostis curvula, Mammalian Science, 46, 75-80.
27) Ikeda, T., 2006: Problems controlling the invasive raccoon in Japan, Mammalian Science, 46, 95-97.
28) Iwasaki, N., Kurita E., and Mineta T., 2008: The conflict that occurred in boundary zone between rural area andurban or mountain area, and nature restoration, Journal of Rural Planning, 271, 32-37.
29) Kurashima, O., and N. Niwase, 1998: Spacing pattern of feral raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Eniwa, Hokkaido,
Mammalian Science, 38, 9-22.
30) Sasaki, K., 1972: Shifting Cultivation in Japan, Kokin Shoin, 425pp.
31) Akishinonomiya, F., and T. Komiya, 2009: Horses (Japanese domestic animals, Gakken Marketing), Chapter 1,
8-57.
32) Akishinonomiya, F., and T. Komiya, 2009: Cattle (Japanese domestic animals, Gakken Marketing), Chapter 2, 5893.

Chapter III Section 2 Assessment of Cultivated Systems

128

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in urban systems during the assessment
period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using two indicators, as well as assessing the measures forbiodiversity loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Urban systems○ Losses in urban systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to the present andare likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ A reduction of green tracts of land in cities, such as agricultural land and woods, as well as a deteriorated quality ofriver water during the period of high economic growth in the first half of the assessment period contributed to fewer
habitats for living creatures and a lower quality thereof. [First crisis]○ The preparation of new green lands in urban areas as well as improvements in the quality of river water progressedin the second half of the assessment period, resulting in expanded distributions of some living creatures inhabiting
such an environment.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

129

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in urban systems and the assessment of eachindicator:

Table III-3 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in urban systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent
loss
and
trend

Indicator 22: Scale of urban green space

Indicators ofurban systems
Indicator 23: Populations and distributions ofspecies living in urban systems
Note: The assessment is based on a comparison with the status of ecosystems at the beginning of the assessment period (in thesecond half of 1950s).

*1

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates that there are multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors anddata showing trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects, and trends of overall loss.
*1: Refer to the assessment of Indicator 23.

Indicator 22 Scale of urban green space
Explanation of the Indicator○ Urban green spaces that are connected with surrounding forest and mountain systems, cultivated systems and inland
water systems support urban biota, and the reduction and fragmentation of urban green spaces via conversion into
building sites degrade the quality of urban systems. Therefore, the scale of urban green space is considered to be anindicator that represents the status of biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis" in urban systems.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

130

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Assessment by the Indicator○ Urban green spaces, including forests and agricultural lands, have decreased over the long term, but in recent years,
the rate of decrease has been alleviated by the development of more urban parks and other green spaces.
Reason of the Assessment<Reduction and Fragmentation of Urban Green Spaces>
Although the scale of mountain forests and agricultural lands in cities has decreased through the assessment
period, the rate of decrease has been relatively moderate after the high economic growth period. For example, the areaof mountain forests in the special wards of Tokyo decreased about 3.4 km2 from 1965 to 2008, with about 1.9 km2
being lost during the 10 years from 1965 to 1975 and the remaining 1.5 km2 being lost during the 30 or so years since1975 (Data 22- ①： Figure III-10). The reason for this trend is that both forest areas and agricultural lands decreased
through conversion into residential sites and industrial or transportation lots, whereas additional urban green spaces
such as urban parks increased. For example, though the ratio of open green space coverage (i.e., percentage of area
covered with greenery, including woods, grasslands, agricultural lands, greenery within building sites and green
roofs, greenery in parks, and roadside trees) remained at about 20% from the 1970s to the 1990s, the composition
has changed. Relative to 1974, 1998 marked a decrease in grassland and farmland area, and an increase in residential
green spaces and parks (Data 22- ② : Appendix). As for the special districts of Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, which are
the centers of metropolitan areas, many urban parks had already been developed by the first half of the assessment
period, and more have been steadily added since then (Data 22- ③ : Figure III-10, Appendix).

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

131

45

350

40

Paddy
fields300

Dry fields

250

Mountain
forests

25

200

Urban
parks

20

150

35
30

15

100

10
50

5
0

Buildingsites
Building sites (km2)

Paddy fields, dry fields, mountain forests, urban parks (km2)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan01965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 (Year)

The Urban Parks Act was promulgated and enacted in 1956.
Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo Statistical Yearbook, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Theannual survey on the statistics of parks and open space in Japan

Figure III-10 Transition of land use in the special districts of Tokyo (Data 22-①, 22-③)<Alteration of Waterfront Environments>
It is thought that many natural rivers and waterfront environments have disappeared during the assessment period
due to worsening air pollution, deteriorated water quality in rivers caused by domestic and industrial wastewater, thespraying of chemicals to control hygiene pests, the conversion of rivers into underdrains for flood control, and theartificial alteration of waterfront environments by constructing bank protection.1)

Indicator 23 Populations and distributions of species living in urban systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The populations and distributions of species living in urban systems are an indicator that mainly represents thestatus of biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis" in urban systems.
○ The reduced scale and fragmentation of urban green area areas decrease the populations and distribution areas ofwildlife species living in urban systems.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Despite the lack of long-term data indicating changes in the populations and distributions of species living in urban
areas, the directions of change have varied as species related to agricultural lands have declined since the 1970s,
whereas the distribution areas of species as related to more urban parks and the growth of planted vegetation or
those adapted to urban environments have grown.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

132

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan*1 (See Table III-3.): Keep in mind that there are different trends depending on taxonomic groups and species, as well as data differingfrom those in the overall assessment of the degree of biodiversity loss and the trends thereof.

Reason of the Assessment<Effects of Changes in the Scale of Urban Green Spaces>
The reduction of green spaces such as forests and agricultural land through conversion into building sites,
including the reduction of woodland on private property and near temples and shrines in urban areas during the higheconomic growth period (in the first half of the assessment period) resulted in decreased species not being able toadapt to those changes.2) For example, the distribution area of larks living on farmland and grassland in the special
districts of Tokyo in the 1990s shows a downward trend compared with that in the 1970s (Data 23- ① : Figure III-11).
Meanwhile, the distribution areas of species that adapted to new urban environments increased,3),4); for example, thedistribution area of white-eyes (birds) in the special districts of Tokyo was greater in the 1990s than in the 1970s (Data23- ② : Figure III-12). One reason for this increase is believed to be the creation of more woods resulting from thedevelopment of urban parks.
The simplification of biota caused by the remarkable expansion of particular species, however, raises concerns.
For instance, the distribution area of omnivorous jungle crows, which nest even in artificial structures and feed on
kitchen refuse, was significantly larger in the special districts of Tokyo in the 1990s than in the 1970s (Data 23- ③ :Appendix). The Tokyo metropolitan government has begun to take measures to control crows since 2001, and thenumber of crows in the special districts is currently decreasing.5)

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

133

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Surveyed mesh (1 square km)
Recorded mesh (1 square km)

1970s

1990s
Special districtsof Tokyo
Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 1998: Survey Report on the State of Breeding of Bird Species in Tokyo (1993-1997),
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 1980: Survey Report on the State of Breeding of Bird Species in Tokyo (1973-1978)

Figure III-11 Changes in the distribution of larks in Tokyo (Data 23-①)

Surveyed mesh (1 square km)
Recorded mesh (1 square km)

1970s

1990s
Special districtsof Tokyo
Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 1998: Survey Report on the State of Breeding of Bird Species in Tokyo (1993-1997),
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 1980: Survey Report on the State of Breeding of Bird Species in Tokyo (1973-1978)

Figure III-12 Changes in the distribution of white-eyes in Tokyo (Data 23-②)

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

134

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Effects of Artificial Light and Photochemical Smog>
There have been concerns about the disturbance affecting the behavior of living things and ecosystems causedby excessive amounts of artificial light and the heat-island effect.6) With increased urbanization, land use has
become increasingly intensive in order to brace for the influx of population and secure building sites, industrial andcommercial sites, and transportation lines. For example, large amounts of artificial light emitted from street lights andstores could delay the leaves of roadside trees from turning red and falling, and impede the mating and laying eggs bynocturnal insects. In addition, exhaust emissions from buildings and automobiles, increased exhaust heat such as warm
drainage from factories, and less green space have caused the heat island phenomenon, whereby urban centers havehigher temperatures than in nearby areas. The heat island phenomenon is believed to contribute to higher temperaturesin winter,7) enable species of southern origins to survive the winter season, and disturb ecosystems by allowing thesettlement of invasive species.8)
When nitrogen oxides (NOx)̶the components of smoke from factories and car exhaust emissions̶and volatileorganic compounds (VOC) are exposed to ultraviolet rays in the atmosphere, chemical reactions called "photochemical
reactions" occur, whereby particles and other various forms of oxidizing substances are generated. Those oxidizing
substances (called "photochemical oxidants") irritate human mucous membranes and cause illnesses.9) Like humans,
living things in urban areas are exposed to these chemical substances, the effects of which are indicated.10)

3. Measures for Loss
In urban areas where privately owned green spaces are decreasing with development, such efforts as establishinggreen spaces in urban parks, conserving green spaces under the Regional Designation System, and securing rooftop
and wall greening have been promoted. Approaches such as improving the quality of ecosystems and networking
habitats have been taken, with further efforts expected to enhance those measures.
<Conservation and Maintenance of Urban Green Spaces and Waterfronts, and Promotion of Tree Planting>In order to conserve urban green spaces with scenic beauty or with suitable habitats for fauna and flora, suchconservation areas as special landscape conservation areas (formerly landscape conservation areas) were initiallydesignated in the latter half of the high economic growth period (from the second half of 1960s to the first half of1970s), and have been promoted mainly since the second half of 1970s.
Green spaces have been developed in such public facilities as city parks and national parks, and on privately
owned properties, rooftop and wall greening have been promoted under the green space conservation system and therecognition system of greening facilities planning, along with rooftop gardening being initiated in the private sector.
Under the Basic Green Plan or other projects, efforts are being made to conserve major green spaces, along withthe large-scale development and improvement of urban parks, and the “water and green network" is being formed
through the conservation of road systems and urban parks used as corridor regions, as well as privately owned green
spaces used as buffer zones.
Through the conservation of such waterfronts as dry beaches and wetlands as spaces where people in urban
areas can closely interact with the natural environment, the creation of eco-friendly forests and waterfronts has
been initiated. For example, under the Nature Restoration Green Zone Development Program, the development of
infrastructure for natural environments suitable for securing biodiversity has been promoted.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

135

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 11 Afforestation of Meiji Shrine
Compared with land use in the major cities of other countries, land use in Tokyo is marked by ahigh ratio of building sites (about 60%) and a low ratio of open areas (about 15%). Urban green
spaces are important for ensuring rich biodiversity as places to interact with nature and alleviate
heat island effects; therefore, in creating urban green spaces, it is important to plan based on thetime necessary for restoring the ecosystems involved. For example, the forest on the premises of
Meiji Shrine was mostly wasteland about 100 years ago, and accounted for no more than one-fifthof the total area. Forestry and landscaping experts who participated in the construction project
attempted to create a forest that could thrive
and renew naturally, and devised a long-termplan to use evergreen broadleaf trees—a native
species of the area—for occupying most of theforest, with competition among tree species
and the alternation of generations being taken
into account. Today the type of evolved forest
confirms the precision of the original intent,
and explains why the forest on the premises of
Meiji Shrine is considered an artificial forest
masterpiece.

The forest at Meiji Shrine as viewed from the
Shinjuku Center Building<Improvement of Air and Water Quality>
In urban areas efforts have been made to improve the quality of air and water by regulating exhaust emissions andeffluents, with water quality actually being improved. Moreover, such measures as the greening of rooftops and walls,
and developing green spaces have been taken to address the recently prominent heat island phenomena.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

136

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Hanamura, C., H. Kaga, Y. Shimomura, and N. Masuda, 2003: A study of the transition of Osaka canals based onhuman activities after the Meiji Period, Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 6, 669-674.
2) Ueta, M., R. Kurosawa, and H. Matsuno, 2006: Habitat Loss and the Decline of Grey-faced Buzzards（Butastur
indicus）in Tokyo, Japan, Journal of Raptor Research, 40, 52-56.
3) Kurosawa, R., 1994: Avifauna in Tokyo and the pavement ratio as an environmental factor, Strix, 13, 155-164.
4) Uchida, Y., H. Shimazu, and K. Sekimoto, 2003: The relationship between the avifauna and environmental changes
at Jiyu-Gakuen in Tokyo: a statistical analysis of bird-census data for 35 years, Strix 21, 53-70.
5) Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2009: Press release (May). http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/OSHIRASE/2009/05/20j51400.htm
6) Ministry of the Environment, 2007: Guide for Reducing the Light Pollution, Ministry of the Environment.
http://www.env.go.jp/air/life/hikari_g_h18/
7) Saito, I., R. Kubo, K. Sakai, and O. Ishihara, 2007: Long-term fixed point observations of air temperature andhumidity distributions in Kumamoto: Part 1 A study on the heat-island phenomenon of a middle-scale city, Journalof Environmental Engineering, 611, 59-66.
8) Ohashi, K., Y. Kotsubo, and A. Takafuji, 2003: Distribution and overwintering ecology of Tetranychus takafujii(Acari: Tetranychidae), a species found from the Kinki region, Japan, Journal of the Acarological Society of Japan,
12, 107-113.
9) Itano, Y., 2006: New aspects of photochemical oxidant problem in urban atmosphere, Journal of Urban Living and
Health Association, 50, 115-122.
10) Hisano, H., and K. Arai, 2000: Physiological characteristics of trees under ambient air in Tokyo suburbs (I):
Effects of photochemical oxidants on gas exchange rates of four species of broad-leaved trees, Journal of theJapanese Society of Revegetation Technology, 25, 208-220.

Chapter III Section 3 Assessment of Urban Systems

137

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in inland water systems during the assessment
period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using three indicators, as well as assessing the measures forbiodiversity loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Inland Water Systems○ Significant losses in inland water systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to
the present and are likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ A gathering of pebbles and gravel, the creation of artificial rivers, and reclamation of lakes, marshes and wetlands
since the first half of the assessment period contributed to a smaller scale of inland water systems, as well as lower
quality and continuity throughout Japan. [First crisis]○ Conversely, the quality of lake water and marshes, likely to have deteriorated in the first half of the evaluation
period, improved in the second half. [First crisis]○ Presently, the impact of development on inland water systems has been reduced due to changes in thesocioeconomic situation, but an ongoing influence raises concerns. It is also concerned that living creatures may
be captured and gathered for ornamental purposes, as well as a greater influence of alien species. [First crisis andthird crisis]

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

138

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in inland water systems and the assessmentof each indicator:

Table III-4 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in inland water systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent
loss
and
trend

Indicator 24: Scale and quality ofinland water systems

Indicators of
the inland
water systems

Indicator 25: Continuity of rivers and lakes

Indicator 26: Populations and distributions ofspecies living in inland water systems
Note: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 24 Scale and quality of inland water systems
Explanation of the indicator○ The scale and quality of inland water systems are an indicator that mainly represents the status of biodiversity loss
as related to "the first crisis".
○ The development of lakes and wetlands such as reclamation reduces the scale of inland water systems, and thedeteriorated water quality in rivers and lakes degrades the quality of ecosystems there.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

139

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan○ The development of manmade riverbanks, dams and weirs reduces the frequency of disruptions caused by floods
and deteriorates habitats, leading to a degraded quality of ecosystems. The gathering of gravel from rivers could
cause the same kind of biodiversity loss.
○ The reduced use of reed beds along riversides and lakesides (the second crisis), invasion of alien species (the third
crisis), and effects of global warming (the climate change crisis) could cause the same kind of biodiversity loss inthe future.
Assessment by the Indicator○ During the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period, wetlands and lakes were largely
altered by reclamation for the development of agricultural land and building sites.
○ Since the first half of the assessment period, the gathering of gravel and development of dams and weirs havelowered riverbeds and degraded the quality of ecosystems in rivers, due to such complex factors as the disrupting
effects of floods being inhibited.
○ The reduced use and management of reed beds along riversides and lakesides have degraded the quality of
ecosystems there.
○ Development pressure is currently alleviated, but there are concerns about persisting effects.
Reason of the Assessment<Reclamation of Wetlands and Lakes>
Through the assessment period, the area of wetlands nationwide is thought to have decreased. From around 1900
(before the assessment period) to the 1990s (in the latter half of the assessment period), more than 60% of wetland
areas have disappeared due to the development of agricultural land and building sites (Data 24- ① : Appendix). In
particular, the area of wetlands in Hokkaido significantly decreased from 1,772 km2 around 1900 to 709 km2 in the
1990s.1),2),3) The area of the Kushiro Wetland, the largest wetland in Japan, has decreased to 70% of that between 1947
(before the assessment period) and the 2000s (Data 24- ② : Appendix). In addition to reduced area, also indicatedare fewer native species due to more tourists stomping around some wetlands3) and hydrarch succession caused bychanges in underground water due to the alteration of surrounding environments and drainage construction.4), 5)
Like those of wetlands, the number and area of lakes significantly decreased between the first half of theassessment period and the beginning of the second half. From 1945 through the 1980s, 15% (or more than 0.01 km2 inarea) of the major natural lakes in Japan were reclaimed (Data 24- ③ : Appendix). Such pollution loads as domestic
wastewater and industrial/agricultural effluents have reportedly been discharged into rivers, lakes and wetlands,
leading to deteriorated water quality, and more nutrient salts have caused eutrophication.6),7),8),9),10) In Lake Biwa, forexample, sources of pollution load represented by COD (an indicator of inflow organic pollution) are estimated as
37% from homes and urban districts, 12% from agricultural land, 10% from factories and workplaces.9)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

140

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Lowered Riverbeds and Decreased Frequency of Disruptions>
Especially during the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period, the large-scale
gathering of gravel in rivers nationwide took place (Data 27- ② : Figure III-21). According to data recorded since 1945
about the gathering of soil, sand and gravel in Class A rivers, the total amount of soil and sand removed from river
channels was about 1,130 million m3 11) (Data 24- ④ : Figure III-13). Gathering gravel and dredging river channels
have lowered riverbeds and water routes, creating compound cross-sections of the banks by making height differences
between the floodplains and flow channels more prominent (Data 24- ④ : Figure III-13). The highly compound crosssections of riverbanks reduced the frequency of flooding in riverside areas, fixed the watercourse, and inhibited theflow of sand gravel. Meanwhile, since the first half of the assessment period, social demand for preventing frequent
flooding and for utilizing water has prompted the dredging of river channels and the development of dams and weirs,
thereby stabilizing the flow regime, controlling the quantity of flow,12),13) and reducing the frequency and intensity of
disruptions by floods.14),15),16) Moreover, the blocking of sand and gravel by dams and weirs is believed to have reduced
the supply of sand and gravel to downstream areas. For example, the total amount of sand and gravel accumulated bydams in Class A rivers nationwide was about 1,180 million m3 during the second half of the assessment period (during
the past 30 years).11) Due to the compound effects of these various factors, fine sand accumulated along riversides
and on floodplains, along with vegetation succession and tree growth on dry riverbeds rising high above the water
channel. In addition, the original sand and gravel areas of rivers have apparently decreased,14),15),17),18) degrading thequality of habitats in rivers and floodplains (see the column titled "Lowering of Riverbeds and Vigorous Tree Growthin Floodplains").
It is also indicated that the artificial modification of rivers (e.g., improving bank protection, straightening rivers)
has decreased the diversity of living environments for fish, such as in deep and shallow waters.19),20),21)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

141

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

LegendChanges in riverbeds
Accumulated over 1 m
No significant change
Decreasingover over1m 2m

Total amount of soil
and sand removed
from river channels
100 million m2
10 million m2
1 million m2

Note 1: Changes in riverbeds indicate the lowering and accumulation of low-water average riverbeds over the past 30 years.
Note 2: The total amount of soil and sand removed from river channels indicates the total amount of soil, sand and gravel
gathered as recorded since 1945.
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2002: Map of the modified sediment transport system

Figure III-13 Lowering of riverbeds and removal of soil and sand from river channels (Data 24-④)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

142

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Column: Lowering of Riverbeds and Vigorous Tree Growth in Floodplains
Riverbeds are becoming lower in many rivers
nationwide. This trend is evident from data collectedby the National Institute for Land and InfrastructureManagement. 11) The most common cause ofthis lowering of riverbeds should have been thegathering of river gravel during the high economic
growth period. However, not as much river gravel
is being gathered these days as in the past, and in
the future, the blocking of soil and sand by dams(e.g., storage dams, sand-control/soil-conservationdams) located in river basins is thought to havean influence. These dams can supply fine sand todownstream areas but tend to capture a particulargrain diameter of soil and sand that form the landfeatures of rivers and floodplains. The flood control
function of storage dams also equalizes the stream
regime in addition to controlling soil and sand.
Therefore, the frequency and intensity of flood
disturbances in downstream areas of flood control
dams are clearly decreased.
The lower riverbeds and flow control fix waterroutes (low water channels) as well as inhibit the
movement of sandbanks; as a result, floodplains
are rarely disturbed. For example, riverbeds
that originally maintained net-like flow channels
have become one water route, thereby making
the relative elevation of floodplains to the river
greater, lowering the water level of the floodplain(flood channel) during a flood, and facilitating theaccumulation of fine sand. Consequently, plants
begin to grow and settle there, and plants withrhizomes actually thrive. Trees grow vigorously
along riverside sand reefs. The locust tree—an alien
species causing problems throughout the country—
is a tree species not originating along riversides,
but is now expanding its distribution range toriverside areas, with a characteristic bud flush
from roots. On the other hand, native Japanese
species that include kawara (meaning "riverside" inJapanese) in their names, such as kawara-nogiku(Aster kantoensis), kawara-hahako (Anaphalis
margaritacea) and kawara-batta (Eusphingonotus
japonicus), are disappearing from Japanese rivers.
Such vigorous tree growth is also seen along
rivers in Hokkaido. Chosenia arbutifolia is a tree
species distributed disjunctly in Kamikochi, Nagano
and in the eastern part of Hokkaido. This species
grows along net-like flow channels with frequentdisturbances, and is widely distributed along
mountain streams with a sand gravel valley floor andin alluvial fans. Frequent flow channel changes inlateral directions play an important function in thoseareas. Sand gravel ground frequently disturbed
by flowing water is suitable for the germinationof Chosenia arbutifolia. On rare occasions, stablegeomorphic surfaces are created by major changes
in flow channels and enable Chosenia arbutifolia
to become a mother tree. That is, the dynamismof rivers provides growth environments necessaryfor each stage of Chosenia arbutifolia's life cycle.
Salicaceae species including Chosenia arbutifolia
disseminate seeds from May to July when snow
runoffs subside. In this way, the seeds can quickly
penetrate bare grounds formed by runoff and growthere.
If these changes in low channels and snow runoffs
are suppressed by the flow control of reservoirs
or other river developments, it can be easily
imagined that Chosenia arbutifolia would disappear
from the waterfront and other tree species wouldgrow vigorously on sand reefs and floodplains. In
fact, disturbances by floods sharply decreased in
Hokkaido's Satsunai River because of dams. As aresult, fine sand accumulates on sand reefs, and not
only Salicaceae species but also young Japanese
ash and Japanese elm trees (that appear in the laterstage of succession) have begun to settle there.
Young trees of Chosenia arbutifolia (adapted to sandgravel ground) can no longer settle, but other tree
species are showing rapid and vigorous growth onfloodplains.
(Futoshi Nakamura, Committee member)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

143

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Reduced Management of Riverside/Lakeside Vegetation>
Reeds thriving along riversides and lakesides were used for thatched roofs, and disturbances from humanactivities such as controlled burning and reaping on reed beds are thought to have contributed to the survival of species
living on wet grasslands (including reed beds), and many species depend on those disturbances. Reduced humanactivities on reed beds due to the modernization of people's lives and socioeconomic changes have been shown todegrade the quality of reed beds and decrease the frequency of disturbances, leading to a loss of living environments
for many wetland plants.22)

Indicator 25 Continuity of rivers and lakes
Explanation of the Indicator○ The continuity of rivers and lakes is an indicator that mainly represents the status of biodiversity loss as related to"the first crisis" in inland water systems.
○ The artificial modification of riverbanks, construction of dams and weirs, and reclamation of lakes reduce thelongitudinal continuity of rivers, the continuity of ecotones (waterfront transitional zones) along riversides andlakesides, or the continuity of rivers with lakes, wetlands and agricultural waterways in a river basin.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Since the first half of the assessment period, dams and weirs have been developed for flood control and water
utilization, thereby reducing the vertical continuity of rivers. The artificial modification of riverbanks and lakesides
has degraded the continuity of ecotones along riversides and the lateral continuity in river basins.
Reason of the Assessment<Development of Dams and Weirs>
Through the assessment period, dams and weirs have been developed for flood control and water utilization,
leading to the fragmentation of rivers and reduced continuity between upstream and downstream areas, or between
rivers and the sea.3),21),23),24),25),26) For example, since the first half of the assessment period, dams and weirs have beendeveloped for flood control and water utilization. Since the 1950s when the high economic growth period began,more dams have been completed, along with growing storage capacity, and such development is still continuing (Data25- ① : Figure III-14). It is indicated that the reduced continuity of rivers could impede the upstream migration ofanimals,23),24),26),27) and also impede the transport of soil and sand from upstream to downstream areas.18),28) For example,
in the 1980s during the second half of the assessment period, there were 14 rivers (12%) among the country's 113
major rivers (such as Class A rivers) in which migratory fish such as cherry salmon and Japanese trout with highupstream swimming capability could swim upstream less than 25% of the river length, and 46 rivers (41%) recorded
less than 50%. By the 1990s, among those same 113 rivers, 17 rivers (15%) showed less than 25% upstream capacityand 46 rivers (41%) less than 50% (Data 25- ② : Figure III-15). The effect of the reduced ascendable range is believed
to be more serious for fish such as goby with low upstream swimming capability.28)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

144

30,000
25,000

Cumulative total water storage
since 1900

45
40
35

Number of dams completed30

20,00025

15,00020
15

10,000

10

5,000

5

0

0

Number of dams completed (per year)

Cumulative total water storage (1,000 m3)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 (Year)

Dams represented in this table are used for flood control, disaster prevention for agricultural land, irrigation, and the generation ofelectricity.
Note 1: There are overlaps due to redevelopment.
The development of Lake Kasumigaura and Lake Biwa is excluded from the number of completions and total water storage.
Dams whose year of completion is unknown are excluded from the number of completions and total water storage.
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Digital National Land Information, Dam Data

Figure III-14 Transition in the number of dams completed and cumulative total water storage since 1900 (Note 1) (Data 25-①)

Percentage of ascendable range for fish (%)

Ishigaki Island
Iriomote Island

Note 1: The research targets are 112 Class A rivers throughout the country and the Urauchi River (on Iriomote Island, Okinawa).
The researched segments are, in principle, the segments of major rivers under direct government control.
Note 2: The ascendable range for fish refers to the range from the river mouth to the researched segment where river-crossing
structures first prevent fish from swimming upstream.
Note 3: The data are from a survey conducted in FY 1998, but may not precisely represent the conditions in that year.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, River Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (5th)Figure III-15 Ascendable range for fish in Class A rivers in the 1990s (Data 25-②)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

145

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Effects of Artificial Modification of Rivers and Lakes>
Based on such perspectives of flood control as preventing damage, the artificial modification of waterfront linesof rivers and lakes began in the first half of the assessment period.24) For example, by the 1990s during the second
half of the assessment period, more than 20% of the waterfront lines along the country's major rivers (such as ClassA rivers) had been developed as artificial waterfront lines (Data 25- ③ : Figure III-16), and in the country's major
natural lakes, about 30% of waterfront lines had been artificially modified by the 1980s (Data 25- ④ : Figure III-17).
In Lake Biwa, the largest lake in Japan, the area of coastal reed beds significantly decreased from the 1960s throughthe 1970s,29) and the area of reed beds in the second half of 1990s was about 50% of that in the first half of 1950s (Data25- ⑤ : Appendix). The artificial modification of waterfront lines along rivers and lakes causes the loss of ecotones(waterfront transitional zones) such as floral zones along riversides and lakesides, 24),29) and degrades the quality ofhabitats for amphibians and fish. The reduced continuity of rivers with backwater areas, paddy fields and channels is
also indicated.3)

12,000
2,192

2,442

2,677

Length of riverbanks (km)90

Natural riverbanks

80
70

8,000

60
50

6,000
4,000

Artificial riverbanks

9,233

8,971

8,710

40
30
20

2,000

10
0

0
1979

1985

1998

Ratio of natural riverbanks
Ratio of natural riverbanks (%)

10,000100

Fiscal year

Note 1: The research targets are 112 Class A rivers throughout the country and the Urauchi River (on Iriomote Island, Okinawa).
The researched segments are, in principle, the segments of major rivers under direct government control.
Note 2: Artificial riverbanks refer to artificial structures that reach waterfront lines.
Note 3: The fiscal years in the figure indicate the surveyed years, and may not precisely represent the conditions in those years.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, River Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (2nd, 3rd, and 5th)

Figure III-16 Transitions in status of the river waterfront line (Data 25-③)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

146

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Water surface
1%

Artificial lakeshore
29%(Note 3)Natural lakeshore
57%(Note 1)Semi-naturallakeshore
12%(Note 2)The calculation and analysis targets are the 478 major lakes among natural lakes that have, in principle, an area of over 0.01 km2(1 ha).
Note 1: A lakeshore that has no artificial structure on the waterfront line or in the bordering land area (within 20 m from thewaterline).
Note 2: A lakeshore that has a natural state on the waterfront line, but the land area bordering the waterfront line (within 20 mfrom the waterline) has artificial structures.
Note 3: A lakeshore that has artificial structures on the waterfront line.
Note 4: The data are from a survey conducted in FY 1991, but may not precisely represent the conditions in that year.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, Lake Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (4th)Figure III-17 Alteration of the lakeshores of major lakes around 1990 (Data 25-④)

Indicator 26 Populations and distributions of species living in inland water systems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The populations and distributions of species living in inland water systems are an indicator representing the statusof biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis", and "the third crisis".
○ The development of rivers, lakes and wetlands, deteriorated water quality caused by domestic and industrial
effluents, and invasion of alien species reduce the area of and degrade the quality of habitats.
Assessment by the Indicator○ In addition to development since the first half of the assessment period, alien species such as largemouth bass
and bluegills have caused a significant loss of biodiversity. The reduced number of native freshwater fish due tocapturing for ornamental use is of concern.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

147

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Reason of the Assessment< Current State of Species Living in Inland Water Systems>
Over the long term, the populations and distributions of species living in inland water areas have decreased,
and the number of endangered species has increased. Of the 1,002 animals listed as endangered species in the latest
version of the Red List of Threatened Species released by the Ministry of the Environment, more than 50% dependon freshwater areas for some or all of their life cycle. Some 34% of amphibians and 36% of freshwater fish areendangered; these rates are relatively higher than other taxonomical groups (Data 4- ① : Appendix). Of the aquaticplants that live in water for at least some parts of their life cycle, 43% are endangered.30) Development is considered
the cause of the decrease for all endangered amphibians and about 90% of endangered freshwater fish, and degradedwater quality for about 40% of amphibians and about 60% of freshwater fish. In addition to these conventional factors,
the capture of freshwater fish for ornamental use and the invasion of aggressive alien species such as largemouth bass,
bluegills and American bull frogs have reportedly caused great biodiversity loss in conventional ecosystems in recent
years (see BOX 12). According to the Red Data Book published in 2000 and 2003, capturing and gathering were citedas causes of the 20 to 30% decrease of endangered amphibians and freshwater fish, as well as the introduction of alien
species (Data 4- ⑤ : Figure II-7). In recent years, the demand for breeding and cultivation for ornamental use has led
to the capturing and gathering of aquatic/wetland plants and freshwater fish, raising concerns about the adverse effects
on some rare species.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

148

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 12 Invasion of largemouth bass in Lake Izunuma and long-term changes in fish catches by species
In Lake Izunuma, largemouth bass was first sighted in the 1990s and is now the dominant fish
species there. In the past, a large number of Japanese bitterling such as Acheilognathus typus
and gobies such as Rhinogobius and Gymnogobius lived in Lake Izunuma. However, the growing
largemouth bass population since 1996 has caused a sharp decline in catches of small Cyprinidae
species such as Japanese bitterling and stone moroko. Lake Izunuma was once the largest habitat
for Acheilognathus typus, which have disappeared in recent years, and the numbers of killifish
and Gymnogobius have been on downward trends. Since 1996 when largemouth bass increased in
population, the total fish catch has dropped from 30 to 40 tons to about 10 tons, seriously affecting
the fishing industry at Lake Izunuma.
(Source: Kiyotaka Takahashi, Takeshi Onodera, and Akira Kumagai, 2001: Appearance of largemouth bass [Micropterus
salmoides] and changes in species composition of fish caught by set net at Izunuma and Uchinuma, Miyagi Prefectural Report ofFisheries Science, 1, 11-18)

40,000Other
CatfishLoach

Catches (kg)30,000Eel
Snakehead

20,000Lake smelt
Largemouth bass
Carp

10,000

Crucian carp
Sarcocheilichthys variegatus
Acheilognathus melanogaster

0
1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000 (Year)

Figure: Long-term changes in fish catches by species<Degraded Quality and Continuity of Rivers as Habitats>
The fragmentation and changes of environments in inland water systems have been shown responsible
for significant changes in the populations and distributions of animal and plant species living in ecosystems
there. 18),21),31),32),33) For example, the upstream and downstream migration of such fish as salmon may be obstructed.
Also indicated are growing populations of stone moroko and crucian carp that are adapted to stagnant water zones,
and changes in aquatic species composition caused by the decrease of Japanese dace that originally inhabited thearea.34) The disappearance of coves and ecotones (waterfront transitional zones) in rivers is said to have decreased
various species such as Japanese water shrews living in those areas 35) and deepbody bitterling, which relied on thoseareas for spawning sites. It is indicated that the flow control by dams and the gathering of gravel have reduced gravelsites as habitats for species characteristic to rivers,15) thus affecting the original biota of rivers, such as terns, snipes
and plovers.14), 36)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

149

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Effects of Wetland and Lake Development and Water Pollution such as Eutrophication>
The effects of developing wetlands and lakes, and water pollution such as eutrophication are said to be serious.37)
The populations and distributions of numerous species, including freshwater fish such as Japanese bitterling in lakes,
aquatic plants such as bladderworts, and hydrarch plants such as dew plants and primroses in wetlands have decreased
and become endangered.38) The degraded water quality in rivers and lakes caused by eutrophication leads to, forexample, large outbreaks of blue-green algae, harming the habitats of aquatic organisms and fish. Degraded water
quality has also been shown to decrease fauna and flora adapted to oligotrophic environments such as high moors
and mountain streams.6),7),39) For example, among charophytes, which grow in highly transparent lakes, a total of 31
species were observed in 46 lakes nationwide in the 1960s during the first half of the assessment period. In the 1990s,
however, a survey of the 39 lakes where charophytes were once observed revealed that only six species were observedin 12 lakes (Data 26- ① : Figure III-18).

lake Ohnuma(3→0)

No change
5 lakes
Decrease
7 lakes

Lake Abashiri Lake Tofutsu
(1→0)
(1→0)
Lake Akan(3→3)

Lake Tsugaru-juni Lake Tsuta-numa
(2→1)
(1→0)
Lake Tsugaru-jusan
(2→0)

Total
Surveyed
39 lakes

Lake Toro(2→0)
Lake Sakyo (1→1)
Lake Takahoko (2→0)

Lake Hachiro-gata(5→0)

Lake Ichiyanagi (4→1)
Lake Tamogi (1→0)

Lake Oze
Lake Kizaki Lake Nakaami (1→1)
(1→0)
(3→0)
Lake Nojirilake Kahokugata(8→0)
Lake Imaegata
(1→0)
(1→0)
Lake Kibagata(5→0)
Lake Shinji
Lake Xxxxx
(2→0)
(X→X)
Lake Jinzai(2→0)

No observation
27 lakes

Lake Towada (2→2)
Lake Inawashiro (3→0)
Lake Yunoko (2→2)
Lake Chuzenji (4→3)
Lake Kasumigaura (4→0)
Lake Imba (7→0)
Lake Tega (10→0)
Lake Tatara (10→0)
Lake Ashinoko (9→3)
Lake Yamanaka (5→3)

Lake Biwa(3→2)

Lake Suwa(2→0)

Lake Kawaguchi (5→3)
Lake Matsubara (1→0)

Lake Imuta(3→0)
Lake Ikeda(7→0)

Chara is a common name for underwater plants belonging to the order Charales in the class Charophyceae of the kingdom
Viridiplantae that grow in highly transparent lakes. In the Red List of the Ministry of the Environment, chara is cited as anendangered species as follows: four species as extinct (EX), one species as extinct in the wild (EW), 52 species as criticallyendangered (CR+EN), and one species as vulnerable (VU).
Note 1: Fumie Kasai, 2006 modified. Parenthesized figures indicate the number of species in 1964 and from 1992 to 1998.
Source: Fumie Kasai, 2006: National Institute for Environmental Studies News 25-5, National Institute for Environmental Studies,
Booklet "Shajikumo" (http://mcc.nies.go.jp/Chara2006/chara-pdf.pdf), Ministry of the Environment, 2007: List ofEndangered Wildlife Species in Japan (Algae)

Figure III-18 Observed number of charophyte species in lakes nationwide (Data 26-①)

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

150

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Effects of Alien Species>
While the numbers of many species in inland water systems show downward trends, there have been upward
trends in the numbers of alien species of fish and benthic animals and plants observed in Class A rivers nationwide
since 1990 (Data 26- ② : Figure III-19), and some species have settled and expanded.14),40) In particular, largemouthbass and bluegills, known as aggressive alien species, have been observed settled in rivers and lakes nationwide (Data
9- ④ : Figure II-17), and the effects of their predation of native species on ecosystems and damage to fisheries havebeen of concern.41) Moreover, fish released for fishing and fish mixed with those fish are said to disturb the associatedstructures of native species in many areas. As for native species, the population of great cormorants has sharply
increased, with more conflicts with humans such as fishery damage being reported.
As for plants, the distribution areas of burr cucumbers and Eragrostis curvula have been expanded7),41),42),44) (Data
9- ④ ). The invasion and expansion of alien plant species are believed to change the environments of round-stone
riversides and degrade the quality of habitats of Eusphingonotus japonicus and Aster kantoensis. 6)

Number of observed species

In some inland water areas, the effects of residual chemicals on fish have raised concerns.14)

25

30

600

20

25

500

20

400

15

300

10

200

5

100

15
10
5
0

Fish

0

1990-1995
1996-2000
2001-2005

0
Benthic animal

Plant

Note 1: In the National Census on River Environment, much of the data in the early period (1990-1995) were not computerized
and lists of species not sufficiently prepared; therefore, there were fewer data and fewer targeted rivers in the early period
than after 1996.
Note 2: Domestic alien species are not included.
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2008: National Census on River Environment, Summary Report of
the Results of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Surveys (on Rivers)

Figure III-19 Number of alien species observed in Class A rivers (Note 1, Note 2) (Data 26-②)

3. Measures for Loss
In inland water areas, various approaches to deal with many problems have been taken, such as designating
protected areas, conserving and propagating rare species, conserving water quality, restoring nature, and controllingalien species. However, the status of endangered species nationwide attributed to past alteration or alien species has
not improved, and further efforts are considered necessary.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

151

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Protected Areas in Inland Water Areas>
Particularly during the second half of the assessment period, efforts were made to promote the designationsof protected areas for wetlands and lakes considered important for conserving biodiversity, with regulations being
tightened on the capture of certain endangered species living in rivers. For example, such wetland waterfowl habitats
as lakes and moors that are important for the conservation of biodiversity have been designated as game reserves or
natural parks, and inscribed as registered wetlands under the Ramsar Convention. However, few entire basins or water
systems have been designated, even though upstream areas near headwaters with a higher degree of nature have been
designated as conservation areas.
<Conservation of Species Living in Inland Water Areas>
Regulations on capturing, conserving and propagating some endangered species such as Acheilognathus
longipinnis that live in inland water systems including rivers have been promoted under the Law for the Conservationof Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
<Measures for Water Quality>
Mainly since the second half of the assessment period, the development of sewage treatment facilities andregulations on industrial effluents have been promoted, along with efforts to achieve environmental standards fornitrogen and phosphorus.
<Nature Restoration in Inland Water Areas and Environmentally Friendly Projects for Rivers>
Since the 1990s, goals have been set for environmental conservation in river management under the revised River
Law. Technological developments such as eco-friendly construction methods and improved construction, planning anddesign and river management technology have been promoted, and in order to conserve and create living environments
originally possessed by rivers, "Nature-oriented River Works" that cover such wide-ranging river management projects
as research, planning, design, construction and maintenance have been initiated. For example, the promotion of"Model Projects for the Promotion of River Works to Facilitate Fish Migration" from 1991 has resulted in almost all
19 model-project rivers nationwide increasing the ascendable range for fish, with a total increase from 1,249 km to
2,048 km.
In 2002, the Act for the Promotion of Nature Restoration was enacted, and efforts to form ecosystem networks
and restore nature in rivers have been initiated. In the Kushiro Wetland (of the Kushiro River) and other areas, nature
restoration projects at rivers, lakes and wetlands have been promoted in cooperation with local residents and otherwide-ranging activity groups. Such projects aim at restoring wetland environments, reconstructing meandering rivers,
and restoring lakefront environments and gravel riverfronts (see BOXES 13 and 14). As for aggressive alien species
such as largemouth bass and bluegills, control efforts by the public and private sectors have been promoted in areas
where those alien species have impacted ecosystems and industries.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

152

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 13 Nature restoration in rivers of Shiretoko
Valued for its unique ecosystems formed by the interaction between coastal and land areas,
Shiretoko was designated a World Natural Heritage site. However, upon said designation, theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) requested the development of fishways
where salmon fish species can migrate freely through all river structures within the nominatedareas. Working groups involved in river structures under the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site
Scientific Council have been focused on restoring nature in rivers. Of the 44 rivers within the World
Natural Heritage site, 14 rivers had a total of 123 river structures (mostly erosion control dams)
installed, and based on an assessment of effects on fish, it was determined that 31 structures infive rivers needed to be improved. Structural designs
most suitable for the conditions of rivers in each area
were chosen after carefully examining the migrationof salmon fish species, negative effects of structuresand fishing sites on upstream and downstream
environments, str uctural capabilities, and ease ofmanagement after improvements were made. As aresult, some erosion control dams have been observed
as having restored the migration of salmon fish
species and expanding upstream spawning beds, while
maintaining their damage prevention functions.

Natural river flowing through forests inShiretoko (Photo by Futoshi Nakamura)BOX 14 Efforts for Nature-oriented river works
In 1990, the River Bureau of the Ministry of Construction issued "Operating Procedures of Natureoriented River Works" and instructions to all national government agencies and local governments.
There were about 28,000 cases of nature-oriented river works between FY 1991 and FY 2002, mainly
involving improvements to individual sites for the conservation and restoration of waterfront areas.
In some of these cases, river environments were possibly aggravated by planning with uniform
standardized cross-sections in mind, or by monotonizing riverbeds and waterfronts. To inspect
the current state of nature-oriented river works and consider the future direction based on new
information, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism established the "Natureoriented River Works Review Committee" in 2005, and announced the "Basic Policy for Natureoriented River Works" in 2006 based on recommendations of the committee. Thus, efforts are
now being made with broader perspectives as pertaining to securing reproduction environments,
considering such river space components as shallow and deep waters and riverside forests, planningwith the entire river in mind, restoring nature, and river works taking into account the watershedareas and life history.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

153

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Ecosystem Networks in Rivers>
Securing the longitudinal continuity of rivers remains a problem, and therefore, such river-crossing facilities
as weirs, dams and sediment control dams are being reconstructed. Accordingly, efforts are being made to manage
sediments holistically from mountain areas to the ocean and develop technology on sediment migration in rivers.
How to secure ecosystem networks that connect rivers and their basins (via tributaries, channels, lakes and ponds, andpaddy fields) is also being considered.
<Surveys and Enhanced Information on Inland Water Systems>
Through long-term monitoring research, surveys and enhanced information on inland water systems have beenpromoted. Research on geese and ducks began in 1970, and ongoing data gathering has been conducted for snipes
and plovers. The census on riverfront areas since 1995 has done research on the living status of a broad range ofother taxonomic groups including fish and shellfish, and in the River Ecology Research Group (established in 1996),
ecology and engineering researchers have been cooperating in comprehensive studies on historical changes of rivers,
the structures and functions of river ecosystems, the effects of flood disturbances, and the restoration of ecosystems.
Moreover, the National Survey on the Natural Environment has been conducted regularly and at inland-water-areamonitoring sites of the "Monitoring Site 1000" project, with continuous data gathering having been initiated in 2003.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

154

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Fujimoto, M., S. Maeda, Y. Nagamori, and H. Arakawa, 2005: Conservation of winter habitats of birds, particularly
geese, along the lower reaches of the Kitakami River, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 16, 51-57.
2) Takeuchi, K., N. Maruoka, and S. Daimon, 2007: Nature restoration plan for the lower reaches of the Ishikari River,
Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 18, 33-40.
3) Takahira, K., S. Maeda, Y. Yamamoto, S. Watanabe, and F. Tezuka, 2005: Restoring a fish-centered ecologicalnetwork in the lower reaches of the Shinano River, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 16, 43-50.
4) Nakamura, T., H. Yamada, Y. Nakagawa, Y. Kasai, F. Nakamura, and T. Watanabe, 2004: Ecological aspectsof Hirosato restoration area in the Kushiro Mire: Impacts of artificial disturbances on the relationship between
distribution of vegetation and hydrochemical environments, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 7, 53-64.
5) Yamada, H., T. Nakamura, Y. Nakagawa, Y. Kamiya, F. Nakamura, and T. Watanabe, 2004: Ecological aspectsof Hirosato restoration area in the Kushiro Mire: Effect of pasture developments and river improvements onhydrochemical environments of groundwater, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 7, 37-51.
6) Nakamura, F., T. Sudo, S. Kameyama, and M. Jitsu, 1997: Influences of channelization on discharge of suspended
sediment and wetland vegetation in Kushiro Marsh, northern Japan, Geomorphology,18, 279-289.
7) Kameyama, S., Y. Yamagata, F. Nakamura, and M. Kaneko, 2001: Development of WTI and turbidity estimation
model using SMA Application to Kushiro Mire, eastern Hokkaido, Japan, Remote Sensing of Environment, 77, 1-9.
8) Kanematsu, S., 1997: Occurrences of red tide and water qualities in Seto Inland Sea and Lake Kojima, Journal ofJapan Society on Water Environment, 20, 486-490.
9) Agricultural Land Division/Rural Development Promotion Division, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries,
Shiga Prefecture, 2008: Aiming for Sound Water Cycle in Rural Agricultural Land.
http://www.pref.shiga.jp/g/kochi/mizujyunkan/nohai_taisaku/siryo-syu/siryo-syu.html
10) Shimamura, T., N. Tokuchi, K. Osaka, M. Itoh, N. Ohte, and Y. Takemon, 2009: Assessments of spatial distributionof water quality in Lake Mizoro-ga-ike for water quality management, Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology,
2009, 14, 153-163.
11) Fujita, K., Y. Tomita, K. Ohnuma, T. Oro, K. Ito, and Y. Yamahara, 2008: Facts and introductory knowledge
about downstream effects of dams on the physical environment̶For building a common and scientific basis fordiscussion on dams and the river environment̶, Technical Note of National Institute for Land and InfrastructureManagement, No.445.
12) Takahashi, H., N. Maruoka, K. Takeuchi, and K. Watanabe, 2007: Experimental research on restoration of thegravel bed of the Makomanai River, Sapporo Hokkaido: interim report, Report of Riverfront Research Institute,18, 1-6.
13) Tamai, N., 1999: Principles for restoration of rivers, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 2, 29-36.
14) Masuko, T., Y. Maemura, T. Mishina, and S. Uchida, 2007: Restoration of gravel beds in the middle reaches of theKinu River, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 18, 25-32.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

155

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

15) Masuko, T., Y. Maemura, and T. Sudo, 2009: Appropriate management of river basin forests in the Kanna River,
Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 20, 51-59.
16) Tsujimoto, T., 1999: Effects of dams on physical environment of rivers: from the aspects of river engineering andhydraulics, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 2, 103-112.
17) Fujimoto, M., H. Godo, and S. Uchida, 2006: Restoration of gravel beds in the Tama River, Report of Riverfront
Research Institute, 17, 25-31.
18) Nakamura, F., 1999: Influences of dam structure on dynamics of riparian forests, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 2,
125-139.
19) Inoue, M., and S. Nakamura, 1994: Physical environment structure of a small stream with special reference to fish
microhabitat, Japanese Journal of Ecology, 44, 151-160.
20) Kayaba, Y., 2003: Activities in Aqua Research Restoration Center for the restoration of habitats in streams andrivers in Japan, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 5, 257 -263.
21) Watanabe, K., F. Nakamura, K. Kamura, H. Yamada, Y. Watanabe, and S. Tsuchiya, 2001: Influence of streamalteration on the abundance and distribution of benthic fish, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 4, 133-146.
22) Washitani, I., Loss and restoration of floodplain wetlands: efforts to utilize paddy fields as wetlands, Global
Environmental Research, 12, 3-6.
23) Hayashi, Y., and K. Tanida, 2008: Impact of a reservoir on the genetic population structure of Stenopsyche
marmorata (Trichoptera: Stenopsychidae): an example in the Sakawa River (Kanagawa Prefecture), Ecology andCivil Engineering, 11, 153-159.
24) Tsuzuki, T., Y. Mori, Y. Kodama, J. Sago, and N. Nakamura, 2009: Nature restoration of the Ina River of the Yodo
River system, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 20, 16-26.
25) Kagawa, N., 1999: Changes in river water quality by impoundment as the cause of discontinuity in the rivercontinuum, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 2, 141-151.
26) Mori, S., 1999: Dam and fish life-history-ecological perspectives in environmental conservation, Ecology andCivil Engineering, 2, 165-177.
27) Tsuzuki, T., M. Mizuno, S. Sakamoto, M. Tsuji, and A. Ikemura, 2005: Creating a symbiotic river for white storks
and humans, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 16, 25-34.
28) Han, M., M. Fukushima, S. Kameyama, T. Fukushima, and B. Matsushita, 2008: How do dams affect freshwater
fish distributions in Japan? Statistical analysis of native and nonnative species with various life histories,
Ecological Research, 23, 735-734.
29) Saito, S., M. Mizuno, M. Tsuji, and Y. Kawashima, 2005: Measures to improve the land-water transition zone ofLake Biwa, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 16, 74-81.
30) Kadono, Y., 2009: Conservation of biodiversity of land-water aquatic plants (Hydrosphere Photosynthetic
Organism Study Group (ed.), Water environments, now and future: What algae and plants can, Seibutsu
Kenkyusha, 141pp).
31) Takeuchi, K., N. Maruoka, S. Okado, and Y. Watanabe, 2006: A study on the Ishikari riverbanks as Lethenteronjaponicum habitat, Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 17, 1-8.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

156

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan32) Taki, K., H. Watanabe, K. Sakanoi, F. Tooi, H. Seki, and N. Sugino, 2007: River improvement to restore Thorea
okadae habitats: Yasumuro River experience (The 4th report), Report of Riverfront Research Institute, 18, 7-14.
33) Yamauchi, K., 2002: Effects of the Nagara River Mouth Barrage on the river-bed sediment and bivalves in thelower reaches of the Nagara River, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 5, 53-71.
34) Kawaguchi, Y., F. Nakamura, and Y. Kayaba, 2005: Effects of a re-meandering project on the physical habitats andfish in the Shibetsu River, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 7, 187-199.
35) Abe, H., 2003: Trapping, habitat, and activity of the Japanese water shrew, Chimarrogale platycephala,
Mammalian Science, 43, 51-65.
36) Toba, E., 1994: Decrease of the nests of the Little Tern Stema albifrons along the Sai and Chikuma Rivers in the
Nagano Basin，and the protection of colonies, Strix, 13, 93-101.
37) Oka, N., 1988: Effects of development of the lake and its surrounding area on waterfowls in Lake Teganuma, The
1990's theme of Lake Teganuma: Symbiosis of birds and humans, 71-98.
38) Nanjo, Y., Y. Hosoi, Y. Kido, O. Yagi, and K. Inaba, 2000: Limiting substances of algal growth in Lake Koyamaike,
Journal of Japan Society on Water Environment, 23, 690-696.
40) Muranaka, T., and I. Washitani, 2001: Alien plant invasions and gravelly floodplain vegetation of the Kinu River,
Ecology and Civil Engineering, 4, 121-132.
41) Minobe, H., and K. Kuwamura, 2001: Analysis of the change in fish fauna and ecological environment in "naiko"around Lake Biwa, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 4, 27-38.
42) Chikumagawa River Office, Hokuriku Regional Development Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism, 2003: Sicyos angulatus in the Chikuma and Sai River, Research Division, Chikumagawa River
Office, Hokuriku Regional Development Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
43) Miyawaki, S., and I. Washitani, 1996: A population dynamics model for soil seedbank plant and its application
to the prediction of the effects of weeding on a population of Ambrosia trifida L. invading into a nature reserve,
Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 1, 25-47.
44) Miyawaki, S., and I. Washitani, 2004: Management of invasive alien plants in riparian habitats of Japan forbiodiversity conservation, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 6, 195-209.

Chapter III Section 4 Assessment of Inland Water Systems

157

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in marine and coastal systems during theassessment period (from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using three indicators, as well as assessing themeasures for biodiversity loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Marine and Coastal systems○ Significant losses in marine and coastal systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of
1950s to the present and are likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ In particular, development in the first half of the assessment period contributed to a significant reduction in thenationwide scale of some parts of marine and coastal systems, such as tidal flats and natural coastlines. [First crisis]○ Presently, the impact of development on marine and coastal systems, such as the reclamation of coastal areas, hasbeen lowered due to changes in the socioeconomic situation, but an ongoing influence raises concerns. Also newconcerns about erosion deteriorating the coastline, an invasion of alien species, and the effects of global warming
are emerging. [Third crisis and climate change crisis]

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

158

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in marine and coastal systems and theassessment of each indicator:

Table III-5 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in marine and coastal systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodCurrent
loss
and
trend

Indicator 27: Scale and quality of coastal
ecosystems

Indicators ofmarine andcoastal systems

Indicator 28: Populations and distributions ofspecies utilizing neritic areas

Indicator 29: Status of valuable fish resources?

Note: The assessment is based on a comparison with the status of ecosystems at the beginning of the assessment period (in thesecond half of 1950s).

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 27 Scale and quality of coastal ecosystems
Explanation of the Indicator○ The scale and quality of coastal ecosystems are an indicator that mainly represents the status of biodiversity loss as
related to "the first crisis" in marine and coastal systems.
○ The development of coastal ecosystem components, such as tidelands and underwater plant beds, reduce the scaleof coastal ecosystems.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

159

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan○ The degraded water quality in coastal sea areas caused by domestic wastewater and industrial effluents degrades
the quality of ecosystems.
○ The invasion of alien species (the third crisis) and global warming (the climate change crisis) could cause the same
degree of biodiversity loss as mentioned above in the future.
Assessment by the Indicator○ During the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period, neritic areas nationwide
were largely developed and altered by reclamation, significantly reducing neritic ecosystems, such as tidelands,
underwater plant beds, coral reefs, sandy beaches, rock reefs, and sandbanks.
○ Due to changes in socioeconomic circumstances, development pressure on coastal ecosystems has currently been
alleviated, but there are concerns about persisting effects. Moreover, accelerated coastal erosion and the effects ofglobal warming are also concerns.
Reason of the Assessment<Development such as Reclamation>
During the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period, development such asreclamation and dredging, the gathering of sea gravel (sea sand), and installation of manmade structures greatly
reduced the scale of components of such neritic ecosystems as tidelands, underwater plant beds, coral reefs, andnatural sandy beaches (Data 27- ④ : Table III-6, Appendix, 27- ⑤ : Appendix, 27- ⑥ : Table III-6, Appendix, 27⑦ : Table III-6, Appendix, 27- ⑧ : Table III-6, Appendix). In Japan, both population and industry are concentrated onlevel ground in coastal areas, and therefore environmental load tends to be higher on coastal ecosystems;1) about 40
km2 of neritic lands were reclaimed each year from the second half of 1950s during the high economic growth period,
to around 1980 (Data 27- ① : Figure III-20). The reclamation area has gradually decreased and since 1990, annual
reclamation area has totaled about 10 km2. Though there are still ongoing effects, such effects may be relatively
alleviated as a cause of additional loss. Meanwhile, the gathering of sea gravel (sea sand) increased in 1960, and fromthe 1970s to the second half of 1990s, about 70 to 90 million tons were gathered every year. Since then, with tightened
regulations in the Seto Inland Sea, the nationwide total amount has stabilized below 40 million tons, but in othermarine areas, gathering is still continuing (Data 27- ② : Figure III-21).

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

160

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1,200

120
Reclamation area (km2)100

Cumulative total (km2)

800

80

600

60

400

40

200

20

Reclamation area (km2)

Cumulative total (km2)

1,000

0
0
1956-65 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 (Year)
Note 1: Reclamation area was calculated based on prefectural publications (on newly formed land) under the Local Autonomy Act.
Source: Geographical Survey Institute, Land Area Survey

Figure III-20 Transitions of reclamation area in neritic areas (Data 27-①)

Sea

Land

MountainRiver

Crushed stone

Other
3,000

900
2,500

800
700

2,000

600
500

1,500

400
1,000

300
200

Amount (in millions of tons)

Amount (in millions of tons)

1,000

500

100
0
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

0
Fiscal year

Note 1: ”Gravel” includes sand and round stone.
Note 2: The amount of gathering refers to that gathered under license based on the Sand and Gravel Gathering Act and the
Quarrying Right Act.
Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Aggregate Supply and Demand Table

Figure III-21 Transitions in the amount of gravel gathered (Data 27-②)

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

161

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Artificial Coasts>
Mainly during the first half of the assessment period, the artificial modification of coasts (e.g., installation ofmanmade structures on the shoreline and around nearby land and sea) to prevent damage from tidal waves and tsunami
progressed, leading to a smaller scale of natural coast and reduced continuity between land and sea, such as coastshore-inshore areas.2) Given the development of artificial coasts, the length of shorelines with banks and revetments
rapidly increased, especially from the 1960s to the 1970s, and currently those shorelines are as long as about 10,000
km, accounting for about 30% of Japan's total shoreline length (Data 27- ③ : Appendix). The length of natural coasts
having no manmade structures around the shoreline had already decreased to about 60% of the total shoreline lengthby 1978̶the middle of the assessment period̶and dropped to about 50% by 1998. The length of natural coasts has
decreased particularly along sandy beaches rather than rocky shores (Data 27- ④ : Table III-6, Appendix). The Seto
Inland Sea (on the Chugoku side), Osaka Bay, Toyama Bay, Ise Bay, and Tokyo Bay are areas with few natural coasts,
while the Sea of Japan (along San-in) and Sanriku are areas with many natural coasts. It is said that today there areeven fewer coasts with natural shoreline areas and natural hinterland areas.
<Reduced Tidelands>
Given their typical location in inner bays and the ease of development, tidelands greatly decreased mainly
during the high economic growth period in the first half of the assessment period through reclamation.3) Like coasts,
many tidelands tend to be isolated from the land through the alteration of surrounding backland areas.4),5),6) The areaof tidelands in Japan decreased by 35% in about 30 years from 1945 (before the assessment period) to the second
half of 1970s, and over the next 20 years decreased by 6% compared with the area in 1945 (Data 27- ⑤ : Table III6, Appendix). For example, in about 50 years from 1945 to around 1990, the area of tidelands in the Seto Inland Sea
was halved from about 210 km2 to about 120 km2, and that in Tokyo Bay decreased about 80% from about 100 km2 toabout 20 km2 during the same period (Data 27- ⑥ : Appendix).
<Reduced Underwater Plant Beds>
Formed by sea grass and seaweeds under subtidal zones, underwater plant beds are spawning sites and habitats
for fry and young fish as used by inner-bay organisms, as well as by organisms living in the open sea, and even thosefrom the outer sea. As for the nationwide distribution of underwater plant beds, the five prefectures of Hokkaido,
Aomori, Ishikawa, Shizuoka and Nagasaki account for over 50%, with about 30% of sea grass beds being distributedin Hokkaido. Throughout the country, sea grass beds have greatly decreased due to water pollution and such alterations
as reclamation; moreover, seaweed beds have significantly decreased due to rocky shore denudation.7),8) In the first halfof 1970s during the middle of the assessment period, the area of underwater plant beds in the country totaled about
2,100 km2, then decreased by about 4% to about 2,010 km2 around 1990 during the second half of the assessment
period (Data 27- ⑦ : Table III-6, Appendix). From the 1990s to the 2000s, the area is estimated to have further
decreased.9) Cited as one reason for the decrease is that subtropical plant-eating fish began staying in winter becauseof rising seawater temperatures.10) In some marine regions, the species composition of Sargassum beds changed fromtemperate Sargassum to subtropical Sargassum, thereby reflecting the effects of global warming.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

162

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Reduced Coral Reefs>
The area of coral communities in coral reefs located in the Nansei Islands and other areas deceased 4% in about
15 years from the second half of 1970s to around 1990, and in Okinawa, the area decreased by 15% (Data 27- ⑧ :Table III-6, Appendix). It is said that though the rate of coral cover in the Nansei Islands and other areas was almost
100% in the 1970s, about 60% of coral communities around 1990 had coral cover rates of less than 5%, and about
90% had coral cover rates of less than 50%. Therefore, coral cover is generally shown to be at low levels (Data 27- ⑧ :Appendix).
Cited as reasons for the reduced scale and quality of coral are such developments as reclamation,3),11) the inflow of
red soil,12),13) feeding by crown-of-thorns starfish, coral bleaching, and acidification of the ocean. In the Nansei Islands,
large outbreaks of coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish were recorded from the beginning of the assessment period,and large outbreaks from the 1970s to 1980s caused significant damage.14) In the 2000s, large outbreaks occurred andcaused damage (Data 27- ⑨ : Appendix). Though the causal association is still controversial, global warming hasreportedly led to such phenomena as coral bleaching since the 1980s due to abnormal rises in water temperature15) (Data
12- ② : Figure II-19) and the recent distributional shift of coral toward the north.16) The acidification of the ocean (Data27- ⑩ : Appendix) is said to affect the survival of biological communities of shellfish, coral and coccolithophore,
which have shells and bones composed of calcium carbonate.17)<Reduced Sandy Beaches and Sandbanks>
In many parts of the country, the reduction of sandy beaches due to coastal erosion has progressed and evenaccelerated. Coastal erosion has been caused by the gathering of sea gravel (sea sand) and river gravel, a reduction ofsoil and sand supply due to such river developments as dams,18),19) and the effects of changes in the drift sand system
resulting from coastal structures that protrude from land into the sea.19),20),21),22),23) For example, the rate of erosion alongsand gravel coasts in the country was about 0.7 km2 annually from the beginning of the 20th century (in the middleof the Meiji Era) to the second half of 1970s, whereas the rate was about 1.6 km2 annually from the second half of1970s to the first half of 1990; therefore, the effects on sandy beaches may have increased significantly (Data 27- ⑪ :Appendix). In the Seto Inland Sea, the Ariake Sea and the Yatsushiro Sea, the repeated gathering of sea gravel (seasand) is believed to have reduced sandbanks that were formed by tidal currents in shallow waters. The gathering of sea
gravel (sea sand) is also thought to have reduced sea grass beds, followed by a simultaneous improvement of water
quality and the recovery of sea-grass bed areas. Moreover, the deep pits formed by gathering sea gravel (sea sand)have been shown to cause dysoxic water mass and deteriorate living environments for benthic organisms.24) In recent
years, the effects of rapid rises in sea level due to global warming on tidelands and sandy beaches are raising concerns. 20)

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

163

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table III-6 Changes in the scale of coastal ecosystems (Data 27-④, 27-⑤, 27-⑥, 27-⑦, 27-⑧).

Year (Note 1)
Ecosystems
Area of tidelands (km2) (Note 6)

1945(Note 2)

1973
(Note 2)

841

Around1978(Note 2)

1984
(Note 3)

553

514

(100)

Area of underwater plantbeds (km2)

Around Around
1990
1995
(Note 4) (Note 5)
496

(61)
2,097

2,076

2,012

(100)

1,455

(96)

Area of sea grass beds (km2)

478

469

316

264

Area of seaweed beds (km2)

1,587

1,578

1,561

655

357

342

(100)

(96)

Area of coral communities
within reefs (km2)
Length of natural coasts (km)(Note 7)

18,717

18,155

Length of beaches (km)

9,817

9,326

9,089

8,722

Length of rocky shores (km)

8,901

8,829

8,770

8,692

(100)

17,85917,414(96)Note 1: "Year" indicates the year when the survey was conducted, and may not precisely represent the conditions of that year.
Note 2: The areas of tidelands, underwater plant beds and coral communities around 1978 were calculated by adding the areas
lost between 1978 and around 1990 to the areas that existed around 1990. The area of tidelands in 1945 was calculated
by further adding the area around 1978 to the area lost between 1945 and around 1978. This also applies to the area of
underwater plant beds in 1973. As for the length of natural coasts around 1978, the data from FY 1978 to FY1979 areused.
Note 3: Data from FY 1984.
Note 4: Data from FY 1989 to FY 1992 were used for the areas of tidelands, underwater plant beds and coral communities, anddata from FY 1993 for the length of natural coasts.
Note 5: Data from FY 1995 to FY 1996. As for the areas of tidelands and underwater plant beds, the prefectures of Tokushima
and Hyogo were not surveyed, but supplemented with data from FY 1989 to FY 1992. As for the area of underwater plantbeds, whereas the previous two surveys included areas up to 20-m deep, this survey included areas up to 10-m deep
and therefore cannot be directly compared.
Note 6: Tidelands refer to existing ones that meet the following requirements: ① The maximum width of drained area between thehigh-water line and low-water line is at least 100 m. ② The area of continuously drained area during the spring tide is atleast 0.1 km2. ③ The bottom has mobile qualities (of gravel, sand, sandy mud, or mud).
Note 7: Natural coasts refer to "coasts without artificial alteration (along shorelines) and which maintain natural conditions (with nomanmade structures along shorelines)." Whether there are artificial structures in hinterland areas does not matter.
Note 8: Parenthesized values are index numbers that indicate the rate of change from the standard year as 100.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, Coast Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (2nd, 3rd, and 4th), Marine
Environment Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (5th), Tideland, Underwater Plant Beds, and Coral Reef
Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (2nd), Marine Habitat Environment Survey, National Survey on the
Natural Environment (4th), Neritic Environment Survey, National Survey on the Natural Environment (5th)

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

164

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Changes of Water Quality in Closed Marine Areas>
The water quality of closed marine areas such as inner bays slightly improved during the second half of theassessment period. In Tokyo Bay, Ise Bay and the Seto Inland Sea, fewer red tides and blue tides were caused by
the eutrophication of seawater during the second half of the assessment period (Data 27- ⑫ : Appendix). However,the degree of achieving environmental standards (BOD, COD) in closed marine areas has been shifting toward
a downward trend in recent years, though it improved from the middle of the 1970s to the 1990s (Data 27- ⑬ :Appendix). It is indicated that while domestic wastewater is causing eutrophication, 25) ecosystems with a self-cleaning
function such as tideland in urban river mouth areas are decreasing.26) An extraordinary proliferation of Ulva pertusa
Kjellman has also been observed in some regions. It is believed that the reduced transparency caused by waterpollution, increases in bottom hypoxic water mass, and deoxidization at the seabed kill fish, and reduce the primary
production of benthic micro algae and biomass.27) Warm wastewater and contaminated effluents from coastal facilities
have also been shown to affect organisms living in the area.28),29) The bleaching of lavers observed in some marine
areas such as the Seto Inland Sea and the Ariake Sea also pose problems.

Indicator 28 Populations and distributions of species utilizing neritic areas
Explanation of the Indicator○ The populations and distributions of species utilizing neritic areas are an indicator that mainly represents the statusof biodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis" in marine and coastal systems.
○ The development of neritic ecosystems and the degraded water quality caused by domestic and industrial
wastewater reduce the population and distribution areas of wildlife species that utilize neritic areas.
○ The invasion of alien species and the effects of chemicals (the third crisis) and global warming (the climate change
crisis) could cause the same degree of biodiversity loss as those mentioned above in the future.
Assessment by the Indicator○ In addition to the biodiversity loss caused by development, alteration and degraded water quality since the first halfof the assessment period, the effects of coastal erosion and global warming have become greater concerns in recent
years.
Reason of the Assessment<Effects of the Development of Neritic Areas>
The development of coastal areas has reduced the scale of ecosystems and affected the populations anddistributions of snipes and plovers,30) clams (Japanese littleneck and common orient clams), horseshoe crabs, seaside
plants, spawning sea turtles,31),32) and fish that have relied on these marine areas in parts of their life cycles33),34) (seeBOX 15). For example, from the second half of 1970s to the present (the second half of the assessment period),the populations of snipes and plovers that utilize tidelands and sandy beaches during autumn migration have been
decreasing. This has been attributed to the reduction of tidelands and sandy beaches in our country, as well as thedeterioration of East Asian environments as breeding sites and stopover points (Data 28- ① : Figure III-22). The
deterioration of environments in tidelands and on sandy beaches may have affected clams living in these areas asimportant resources of fisheries. The catches of clams peaked in the 1960s and have declined ever since, dropping toabout 3% of its peak in recent years. Among all clam species, those living in tidelands are especially endangered inmany areas (Data 28- ② : Figure III-23). It is also indicated that the declining catches of Japanese littleneck clams
since the 1980s have been influenced by deteriorated environments through the reclamation of sandy beaches andChapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

165

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

tidelands.35) Moreover, decreased sandbanks caused by the gathering of sea gravel (sea sand) have also reduced sandlance resources (see column titled "The Sandbank Ecosystem"), leading to a reduction of loons. Sandy beaches inJapan are important as the only egg-laying sites for the North Pacific population of loggerhead sea turtles. The main
egg-laying sites are in the southern part of Kyushu, and the most concentrated area is the northeastern part of Yaku
Island (Data 28- ③ : Appendix).

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

166

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 15 Changes in the number of shoreline fauna species (in the case of Kure on the Seto Inland Sea)
At six coastal sites near the city of Kure in Hiroshima Prefecture, surveys were conducted on thenumber of shoreline fauna species over about 40 years from 1960 to 1999; the survey results at
many sites showed sharp decreases in the number of species during the high economic growth
period, from the first half of 1960s to the first half of 1970s. Later, the number of species showeda recovery trend after the Act on Special Measures concerning Conservation of the Environmentof the Seto Inland Sea took effect in 1973, yet soon again reverted to a downward trend as thenumber of species continued to decrease until the mid-1990s. From the mid-1990s to 1999, thenumber of species gradually increased, but remained far below the 1960s standard. It is believedthat the decrease in species is mainly caused by eutrophication, an inflow of soil and sand caused by
upstream area development, water pollution, and an inflow of harmful chemicals.
(Source: Yoshitaka Fujioka, 2000: Transitions of ecosystems in the Hiroshima coastal area, The Seto Inland Sea as observed byresidents, Give Us Back the Sea, Technology and Human Beings, 81-92, pp209)

Number of species (species)

100

Ten-oh80
Not surveyed
in 199360

KarugaMouth of theKurose River

40

Nagahama/
Kotsubo20
Tohama01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
(Year)

Kashima

Act on Special Measures concerning Conservation of theEnvironment of the Seto Inland Sea made effective

Figure: Changes in the number of shoreline species near the city of Kure

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

167

150

200

Estimated median for
species utilizing mainly
tidelands and coasts(*The blue zone indicatesthe 95% confidence
interval.)

50

100

Estimated median for
species utilizing mainly
inland areas(*The yellow zone
indicates the 95%
confidence interval.)

0

Population Index (1975 = 100)

250

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 (Year)

The trends of the Population Index (for each year compared with 1975 as 100) for species that mainly use coastal areas and thosethat mainly use inland areas, among snipes and plovers that pass through Japan during migration. The index was calculated using
the Snipes and Plovers Survey (1975-2008) conducted by the Ministry of the Environment.
Source: Amano T, K Koyama, H Amano, T Szekely and WJ. Sutherland (unpublished)

Catches of clam species (Note 1) (in tons)

Figure III-22 Population trends of snipes and plovers passing through Japan during autumn migration (Data 28-①)

35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000
01955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 (Year)

Note 1: Clam species include common orient clams (Meretrix lusoria), Korean clams (Meretrix lamarckii), and Chinese clams(Meretrix petechialis).
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Annual Report of Catch Statistics on Fishery and Aquaculture

Figure III-23 Transitions of clam species catches (Data 28-②)

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

168

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Column: The Sandbank Ecosystem
Although most of the seabed consists of a muddy
bottom, specific neritic areas have places where
sand is accumulated, and those sand sediments
are called sandbanks. In the Seto Inland Sea where
open sea and shallow waters are not separated,
big tidal flows filter sand that is deposited aroundthe tide-flowing shallows, thus forming sandbanks.
Sandbanks are habitats for sand lance and lancelets,
which tend to hide in sand. Sand lance, a cold-water
fish, plays a particularly key role in the food chain in
the Seto Inland Sea. The abundance of sand lanceis believed to have supported the abundant fisheryresources of the Seto Inland Sea, such as sea
bream.
In the Seto Inland Sea, the habitats of three species
closely related to sandbanks were designated as
natural treasures—the habitats of lancelets around
Uryu Island and the town of Saizaki in the city ofMihara, the sea surface where groups of loons
come and stay near the town of Toyohama in thecity of Kure, and the sea surface where finless
porpoises migrate near the town of Takasaki in thecity of Takehara. Uryu Island itself is a sandbank,and traditional fishing methods of catching sandlance and sea bream along with loons and finless
porpoises (fishing with birds and with finless
porpoises) are employed in marine regions whereloons and finless porpoises follow sand lance forfeeding, These facts demonstrate how sandbanks
and the related food chain characterize the nature of
the Seto Inland Sea.
Large amounts of sea sand were gathered for theaggregate of concrete or for landfills, however,during the high economic growth period. Thus,
many sandbanks disappeared from the 1970s to
the 1990s. At Bisanseto in Okayama Prefecture,
there had been numerous sandbanks, butmany disappeared during the same period, andsimultaneously the catches of sand lance sharply
decreased. Conversely, there was a sandbank called
Shikanose in the offshore area of Akashi in Hyogo
Prefecture. Because the Fisheries Cooperative
Association of Akashi did not allow sand to begathered in Shikanose, this sandbank and sandlance fishing in this marine area fortunately continue
to thrive, and in early spring, boiled sand lancecalled kugini are distributed throughout the Kansai
region.

Because sand is slowly replenished from rivers
to the Seto Inland Sea, the sea sand resources
depleted by excessive gathering are not likely to be
recovered in the short term. Prefectures bordering
the Seto Inland Sea belatedly decided to prohibit
sea sand gathering by around 2000, and the practice
was discontinued. However, the demand for sandaggregate did not decline, and today the sites forgathering sea sand have been shifted to Kyushu
and the Nansei Islands. Sandbanks in these marine
areas are located on sandy beaches and in offshore
coral reefs rather than the inland sea. The effectsof gathering sea sand vary. Gathering sea sandnot only directly destroys nature and biodiversity
in sandbanks but also decreases the rich biota
such as sand lance in sandbanks and influences
entire ecosystems of the inland sea through thefood chain. Moreover, the contamination that
occurs during sand gathering greatly reduces thetransparency of marine regions, covers the seabedwith sludge, and may seriously affect underwater
plant beds and coral reefs. The backfilling fromsurrounding areas also occurs in dredged areas after
sea sand is gathered, resulting in a chain reactionthat leads to a receding coastline.
Though sufficient surveys have not been conducted
on neritic sandbanks in the Nansei Islands, it iscertain that these sandbanks have a high degree of
biodiversity. It cannot be overemphasized that sea
sand is never a limitless resource, and that thosesandbanks and sand itself support high degrees of
biodiversity and abundant food chains.
(Makoto Kato, Committee member)

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

169

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Effects of Alien Species>
The growing populations and expanded distributions of alien species in coastal regions are indicated. 36),37)
Some alien species have been intentionally introduced for food, such as Corbicula fluminea, while others such as
Mediterranean mussels and Euspira fortunei 37) have been unintentionally introduced via ballast water or by clinging
to the hulls of ships entering Japanese waters. And for some aggressive alien species, their expanded distribution andeffects on existing ecosystems are of great concern.36),37)<Effects of Chemicals>
The effects of non-biodegradable chemicals on marine and coastal organisms are indicated. For example, such
harmful chemicals as PCB are known to remain in the body of higher-order consumers through the food chain,38),39),40)
and affect wild animals and humans. Moreover, such chemicals as TBT (tributyltin compound) painted on the hulls of
ships have reportedly affected the reproductive ability of shellfish.41),42)<Effects of Global Warming>
The effects of global warming on marine and coastal species are of great concern. Though the association iscontroversial, changes in the composition of species have been reported, such as increases of southern fish caused byrising seawater temperatures in some regions, and changes in the northern and southern limits of seaweed distribution
in others. In addition, the acidification of seawater caused by increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is thought
to affect such marine species as shellfish and coral reefs that have calcareous bone frames.

Indicator 29 Status of valuable fish resources
Explanation of the Indicator○ The status of valuable fish resources is an indicator that mainly represents the status of biodiversity loss as related
to "the first crisis" in marine and coastal systems.
○ If the direct alteration of neritic areas reduces underwater plant beds and tidelands̶the habitats of fish thatare valuable as biological resources̶or if overfishing exceeds the resilience of nature, the populations of such
resources may decline.
Assessment by the Indicator○ About 40% of fishery resources currently being assessed are at low levels. In recent years, while some species are
increasing due to successful resource management, more species are generally decreasing.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

170

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Reason of the Assessment<Assessment of Resources>
While the marine ecosystems around Japan are utilized by the fishing industry, about 40% of fishery resources
currently being assessed in marine regions around Japan are at low levels.43) Specifically, 13 groups including saury
have high levels, 34 groups including saurel have medium levels, and 37 groups including common mackerel have lowlevels (Data 29- ① : Appendix). The effects of various factors are indicated, including changes in ocean environments
such as rising seawater temperatures, reduced underwater plant beds and tidelands as habitats caused by coastal
development, and overfishing beyond the resilience of some resources.9)<Marine Trophic Index>
The Marine Trophic Index (MTI) 44) indicates average trophic levels based on fish catch data, and represents
both the completeness of ecosystems and the sustainability of biological resources. Japan's MTI is at a high levelcompared with the world average of 3.3. The index temporarily dropped in the 1980s when there was a bountiful catchof pilchard, but is now at the same trophic level as 50 years ago (Data 29- ② : Figure III-24, Appendix). However, theMTI as an indicator must be carefully used: for example, fish at low trophic levels have been customarily utilized inJapan.
<Long-term Trends of Fish Catches>
For about 80 species of fish, the geometric average of fish catches after 1977 (when 200-mile fishing zones were
established) was calculated and those higher than the average were classified as A, below half as C, and the rest as B,
and along with the number of species caught each year, long-term trends of fish catches were examined (Data 29- ③ :Figure III-24). As for fish species on a downward trend (C), there were many unused resources until the 1970s, andin 1987 there were almost no unused resources, later resulting in an upward trend (Data 29- ③ ). Salmon, anchovies,
yellowtails, Atka mackerel, cero, sandfish, sea bass, spiny lobsters, scallops, and Sakhalin surf clams fall under ClassA, and are recently increasing in number, partly due to successful resource management and the production of seeds
and seedlings. In contrast, recently declining species include pilchards, walleye pollack, ocean perch, broadbanded
thornyhead, pike conger, Japanese tiger prawns, red king crabs, common orient clams, Japanese littleneck, kelp, andCeylon moss.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

171

100%

4.0

80%

3.8

60%

3.6
Marine Trophic Index

40%

20%

3.4

Percentage of resourceson downward trends (C)Percentage of resources withno significant change (B)3.2

Marine Trophic Index (MTI)

Percentage (%)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Percentage of resources on
upward trends (A)

0%

3.0

1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 (Year)For the northern Atlantic where high-level consumable fish are mainly caught, the MTI is regarded as an indicator of overfishing;
however, in Japan where low-trophic-level fish are customarily used, this indicator may not necessarily represent sustainability.
Species other than fish, such as squid, are not included in FishBase or calculated in this assessment. Past fisheries include ocean
fishing differ from current fisheries in terms of operation areas; ideally, fish catches only within exclusive economic zones should
be compared.
Source: Fisheries Agency, Annual Statistics on Fish Catches by Species in Marine Fishery (National)

Figure III-24 Marine Trophic Index (Data 29-②) and long-term trends of fish
catches (Data 29-③)

3. Measures for Loss
Such measures as designating protected areas, constructing frameworks for resource recovery, restoring nature,and conserving water quality are being taken mainly in coastal areas. However, the designation of marine and coastal
protected areas such as tidelands (an important neritic area) remains inadequate, and efforts to recover declining
fishing resources are still necessary.
< Protected Areas in Marine and Coastal Areas>
In marine and coastal areas, the most important marine areas have been designated as protected areas (e.g.,natural parks, game reserves) and registered wetlands under the Ramsar Convention, yet the coverage ratios in marine
areas such as tidelands, underwater plant beds and coral reefs are relatively lower than those in land areas. To improvethe coverage ratio of protected areas, efforts have been made to enhance conservation systems for marine biodiversity
in natural parks and natural environment conservation areas, and examine how to manage marine protected areas asmeasures for conserving biodiversity and its sustainable use based on the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy (see BOX 16).

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

172

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 16 Multiple Use Integrated Marine Management Plan for the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage site.

Marine areas within the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage site are secured as ordinary areas inShiretoko National Park, while for fisheries, in addition to laws and regulations, the conservationand management of fishery resources are promoted through the autonomous efforts of fisheryoperators. After registration of the Heritage site in July 2005, the Multiple Use Integrated Marine
Management Plan for the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage site was established with the aim ofmaintaining a balance between conserving marine ecosystems and the sustainable use of fisheryresources in December 2007. The basic policies of this plan include the principle of autonomous
regulation by fishery operators. In coastal areas located in marine areas within the Heritage siteon the Rausu side of the Shiretoko Peninsula, local fishery operators have autonomously set up nofishing areas since 1995 based on their own knowledge gained from experience, in order to protect
walleye pollack resources. Moreover, by voluntarily reducing the number of ships, suspending
fishing, and increasing the mesh size of gill nets, fishery operators have aimed at the sustainable
use of walleye pollack resources. As autonomous approaches to resource management by fisheryoperators, these efforts have been officially placed in the Marine Management Plan under theConvention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

<Protection of Species Living in Marine and Coastal Areas>
As for some endangered species living in marine and coastal areas (such as marine mammals, sea birds, and sea
turtles), capturing is regulated under the Cultural Assets Preservation Act, the Act for the Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Act on the Protection of Fisheries Resources.
<Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Resources>
As for species utilized as biological resources, capturing and fishing have been specifically regulated either
nationally or locally, along with autonomous regulation imposed by fishery operators, under fishing laws andregulations aimed at controlling fishing and conserving fishery resources since before the assessment period. Since the1990s, additional measures focused on resource management such as sustainable use have been taken. For example,
the total allowable catch (TAC) has been set for each species of major fish since 1997, and via establishment of the
Resources Recovery Plan since 2002, fishing efforts have been curtailed regarding fish species for which resource
recovery is urgent, along with the promotion of other resource management efforts. As for fishery resources from
offshore areas through the open sea, the appropriate conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources based on
scientific evidence are being promoted through the framework of local fishery management institutions. In the private
sector, efforts have been made to establish fishery certification systems that identify to consumers those fisheryproducts that were caught in considering the ecosystem and sustainability of resources (see BOX 17).

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

173

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 17 Promotion of fishery certification systems
The fisher y certification system is an approach to promote a sustainable fishing industr y andfishery products by certifying sustainable and environmentally friendly fisheries, whereby "marine
eco-labels" are attached to fishery products caught by certified fisheries, thus affording consumers
the option of selecting those labeled products. The logo mark of the MSC (Marine StewardshipCouncil) is one of the representative eco-labels. Fishery certification was not only originally aimed
at securing environmental benefits but also commercial and economic benefits, such as higher
brand value, the improved traceability of food from where to where, and enhanced perception
among corporations regarding social responsibilities. Therefore, such certification is an approach inwhich fishery operators, companies that process and market fishery products, retailing companies,and consumers can cooperate.
As of May 2008, there were 1,554 products with MSC "marine eco-labels" being sold in 35 countries
in the world. In Japan, products with the MSC logo mark were first sold in July 2006, and by April
2008, 100 products carried the logo mark. The Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery, carrying snow crab
and flathead flounder, was certified in September 2008 for the first time in Asia, and products with"marine eco-labels" are steadily taking hold in Japan.
(Source: Kozo Ishii, 2008: MSC Certification System - Overview of the System and Its Expansion, Japanese Society of Fisheries
Science, 74, 1133-1138)<Nature Restoration in Coastal Areas>
In coastal areas, nature restoration has been in progress, and such maintenance and management activities asconserving and creating underwater plant beds and tidelands, which are important environments for fishing, and thecontrol of predator species by fishery operators have been promoted. Numerous projects are underway, including therestoration of tidelands such as the Gamo Tideland and Mikawa Bay in Sendai, coral communities in Sekiseishoko in
Okinawa Prefecture, Tatsukushi in Kochi Prefecture, and Takegashima in Tokushima Prefecture, as well as the Bay
Renaissance Project in Tokyo Bay, Osaka Bay, Ise Bay, Hiroshima Bay and other areas.
<Biodiversity-conscious Projects in Coastal Areas>
The amended Coast Act in 1999 included the improvement and conservation of coastal environments, as well as
the protection of coasts. Based on these concept for coastal management, eco-coast projects suited to ecosystems andnatural landscapes have been promoted.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

174

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Measures for Water Quality in Coastal Areas>
In closed marine areas, measures for the accumulation of nitrogen, dredging of bottom mud, measures fordeteriorated bottom environments covered by sand, and measures for the accumulation of chemicals have beenpromoted.
<Monitoring in Marine and Coastal Areas>
Research and the gathering of information on coastal ecosystems have been promoted, including the National
Survey on the Natural Environment aimed at grasping the conditions of living things and ecosystems in the country.
In the "Monitoring Site 1000" project, the ongoing gathering of data has been initiated at underwater plant beds,
tidelands, seashores, coral reefs, egg-laying beach sites for sea turtles, and group nesting sites for sea birds. As
measures for alien species, debates have been promoted over effectuation of the International Convention for theControl and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

175

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Yamashita, H., 2000: Amateurism and conservation activities for the seashore ecosystem: a case of endangered
mollusks, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 3, 45-63.
2) Shikida, A., 1999: Macro level monitoring of artificial modification of the coastline in the Seto Inland Sea area,
Journal of Japanese Association for Coastal Zone Studies, 11, 65-72.
3) Environment Agency, 1981: The 2nd National Survey on the Natural Environment, Report of marine area survey,
coastal survey, marine environment survey, tideland/underwater plant beds/coral reef distribution survey (1981/
national).
4) Hanawa, S., 2007: Tideland in Japan, now and future, Global Environmental Research, 11, 235-244.
5) Kokubu, H., H. Okumura, and O. Matsuda, 2008: Historical changes in the tidal flat and its effects on benthos andsediment quality in Ago Bay, Journal of Japan Society on Water Environment, 31, 305-311.
6) Takegaki, T., T. Wada, Y. Kanemori, and Y. Natsukari, 2005: Distribution and population density of Boleophthalmus
pectinirostris in estuaries in Ariake and Yatsushiro Bays, western Kyushu, Japan, Japanese Journal of Ichthyology,
52, 9-16.
7) Environment Agency, 1994: The 4th National Survey on the Natural Environment, Report of neritic area ecosystemsurvey (underwater plant beds survey), (1994).
8) Environment Agency, 2008: The 6th and 7th National Survey on the Natural Environment, Report of neritic area
ecosystem survey (underwater plant beds survey), (2008).
9) Fisheries Agency, 2008: White Paper on Fisheries for FY 2008.
http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/index.html
10) Fujita, D., 2006: How Herbivorous Fishes Have Interacted with Seaweeds and Their Beds, Fisheries Engineering,
43, 53-58.
11) Environment Agency, 1994: The 4th National Survey on the Natural Environment, Report of neritic area
ecosystem survey, Vol.3, coral reefs (1994).
12) Tsuchiya, M., and Y. Fujita, 2009: Anguish of coral reefs, Tokai University Press, 203pp.
13) Omija, T., 2004: Inflow of polluted effluent loads from land areas (Ministry of the Environment and the JapaneseCoral Reef Society (eds.), Coral Reefs in Japan, Ministry of the Environment), 67-70.
14) Yokochi, H., 2004: Coral-eating species (Ministry of the Environment and the Japanese Coral Reef Society (eds.),
Coral Reefs in Japan, Ministry of the Environment), 51-57.
15) Nakano, Y., 2004: Global environmental change and coral bleaching (Ministry of the Environment and theJapanese Coral Reef Society (eds.), Coral Reefs in Japan, Ministry of the Environment), 44-50.
16) Precht, W.F., and R.B. Aronson, 2004: Climate flickers and range shifts of reef corals, Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment, 2, 307-314.
17) Tadokoro, K., T. Sugimoto, and M. Kishi, 2008: The effects of anthropogenic global warming on the marine
ecosystem, Oceanography in Japan, 17, 404-420.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

176

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

18) Unoki, S., 2007: Effects of dam construction on coastal environments and fisheries, Bulletin of the JapaneseSociety of Scientific Fisheries, 73, 85-88.
19) Martin, D., F. Bertasi, M.A. Colangelo, Mindert de Vries, M. Frost, S.J. Hawkins, E. Macpherson, P.S. Moschella,
M.P. Satta, R.C. Thompson, and V.U. Ceccherelli, 2005: Ecological impact of coastal defense structures on
sediment and mobile fauna: Evaluating and forecasting consequences of unavoidable modifications of native
habitats, Coastal Engineering, 52, 1027-1051.
20) Kato, M., 2006: The inland sea ecosystem supported by tidelands and banks, Global environmental research, 11,
149-160.
21) Jiang, Q., M. Fukuhama, and F. Kato, 2006: Basic Study on Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Shore
Protection Facilities on the Ecosystem, Annual Journal of Coastal Engineering, 53, 1111-1115.
22) Suda, Y., 2002: Biology and conservation of sandy beaches (Y. Hayakawa and S. Yasuda, (eds.), Science of fishingenvironments, Seizando Publishing), 108-129.
23) Torii, K., F. Kato, and T. Uda, 2000: Some issues of coastal works from the aspects of ecosystem conservation andtheir future perspective, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 3, 29-36.
24) National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 2003: Annual Report of Institute of Marine
Resources and Environment for FY 2003, Report No.7 of Institute of Marine Resources and Environment
http://unit.aist.go.jp/shikoku/kaiyou/mre/l_jp/u/group/rg08out.html
25) Seiki, T., Y. Komai, T. Koyama, O. Nagafuchi, Y. Hino, and K. Murakami, 1998: Shift of the circumstancesin effluent pollutant loads and water pollution in the Seto Inland Sea, Journal of Japan Society on Water
Environment, 21, 780-788.
26) Suzuki, T., 2006: Material recycling and water clarification functions of tideland areas, Global environmental
research, 11, 161-171
27) Azuma, M., 2003: The Isahaya land reclamation project and the "Ariake Sea Disaster" -a proposal for sustainableecosystem management of the Ariake Sea-, Japanese Journal of Limnology, 64, 209-217.
28) Teixeiraa, T.P., L.M. Nevesa, and F.G. Araújo, 2009: Effects of a nuclear power plant thermal discharge on habitat
complexity and fish community structure in Ilha Grande Bay, Brazil, Marine Environmental Research, 68, 188195.
29) Lardicci, C., F. Rossi, and F. Maltaglitati,1999: Detection of Thermal Pollution: Variability of Benthic
Communities at Two Different Spatial Scales in an Area Influenced by a Coastal Power Station, Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 38, 296-303.
30) Amano H., 2006: Current state of migratory birds using tideland, Global environmental research, 11, 215-226.
31) Kishida, H., 2000: Start of a new coastal management system, Ecology and Civil Engineering, 3, 65-75.
32) Pizzolon, M., E. Cenci, and C. Mazzoldi, 2008: The onset of fish colonization in a coastal defense structure（Chioggia, Northern Adriatic Sea）Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 78, 166-178.
33) Sasaki, Y., S. Shibata, and Y. Morimoto, 2006: The prediction and healthiness of plant species structure ofcoastal vegetation on semi-natural and artificial coasts of the Seto Inland Sea, Journal of the Japanese Society ofRevegetation Technology, 31, 364-372.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

177

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan34) Stoh, Aya, 2008: The current status and conservation of coastal tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), Japanese
Journal of Conservation Ecology, 13, 103-110.
35) Sekiguchi, H., and R. Ishii, 2003: Drastic decreasing of annual catch yields of Manila clam ruditapes hilippinarumin Ariake Sound, southern Japan, Oceanography in Japan, 12, 21-36.
36) Iwasaki, K., 2007: Non-indigenous organisms introduced into Japanese waters and their impacts on native
ecosystems and industries, Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries, 73, 1121-1124.
37) Otani, M., 2004: Introduced marine organisms in Japanese coastal waters, and the processes involved in theirentry, Japanese Journal of Benthology, 59, 45-57.
38) Tsuno, H., T. Shinkai, T. Nakano, H. Eirei, S. Matsumura, T. Koreeda, 2007: PCBs distribution andbioconcentration to mussel in the Seto Inland Sea, Journals of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (G), 63, 149158.
39) Tsuno, H., T. Nakano, H. Nagare, C. Matsumura, M. Tsurukawa, T. Koreeda, and Y. Takabe, 2007: Accumulation
characteristics of POPs from water to bivalves, Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (G), 63, 179-185.
40) Watanabe, I., 2008: Trial studies applying experimental analysis to evaluate the ecology of pollutants and their
toxic effects on wild mammals, Mammalian Science, 48, 169-174.
41) Horiguchi, T., 2000: Organotin pollution and reproductive abnormalities in marine snails, Biomedical research on
trace elements, 11, 225-234.
42) Nakata, H., S. Kobayashi, Y. Hitayama, and Y. Sakai, 2004: Contamination of organochlorines, polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons and organotin in coastal shellfish from the Ariake Sea and the effects of tributyltin on
imposex induction in rock shell, Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries, 70, 555-566.
43) Fisheries Agency, 2009: FY 2009 Assessment of resources by fish species and by species group (52 fish species
and 84 species groups)
http://abchan.job.affrc.go.jp/
44) Pauly, D., and R. Watson, 2005: Background and interpretation of the ʻMarine Trophic Index' as a measure of
biodiversity, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 360, 415-423.

Chapter III Section 5 Assessment of Marine and Coastal systems

178

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems
This section assesses the degrees and trends of biodiversity loss in island systems during the assessment period(from the second half of 1950s to the present) by using one indicator, as well as assessing the measures for biodiversity
loss.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss in Island systems○ Significant losses are currently observed in island systems. While there is not sufficient data to assess conditions in
the first half of the assessment period, the situation deteriorated in the second half of the assessment period (since
the second half of 1970s) and is likely to deteriorate on a long-term basis.
○ Due to the development and invasion/settlement of alien species, the habitats of some domestic species, including
indigenous ones, are deteriorating. [First crisis and third crisis]○ It is concerned about the effects of global warming on the coral reefs ecosystem. [Climate change crisis]

2. Reason of the Assessment
The table below lists the indicators of the status of biodiversity loss in island systems and the assessment of eachindicator:

Table III-7 Indicators and assessments representing the status of biodiversity loss in island systems
Assessment
Long-term trend

Indicator

Indicators ofisland systems

First half Second halfof theof theassessment assessment
periodperiodIndicator 30: Populations and distributions ofspecies endemic to islands

Current
loss
and
trend

?

Note: The assessment is based on a comparison with the status of ecosystems at the beginning of the assessment period (in thesecond half of 1950s).

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

179

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

LegendSubject of assessment

LegendNot Lost

Not significantly lost

Lost

Significantly lost

Recovering

Same

Being lost

Being rapidly lost

Degree of loss

Trend

Note: Some elements are ignored when visual signs are indicated.
Note: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of loss indicate insufficient data.

Indicator 30 Populations and distributions of species endemic to islands
Explanation of the Indicator○ The populations and distributions of species endemic to islands are an indicator that mainly represents the status ofbiodiversity loss as related to "the first crisis" and "the third crisis" in island systems.
○ On some islands in Japan, many species can only be found there (endemic species). Development reduces the
habitats of endemic species, and predation and competition by aggressive alien species reduces the populations ofendemic species.
Assessment by the Indicator○ Though there is no long-term chronological data about changes in the populations and distributions of endemic
species on islands, many endemic species living on islands have become endangered due to development and theinvasion/expansion of aggressive alien species during the second half of the assessment period.
Reason of the Assessment<Ratio of Endemic Species on Major Islands>
In island systems, the differentiation of species evolves in isolation from other areas and therefore, there aremany endemic species. 1),2) In the Nansei Islands that have been repeatedly connected to and separated from theEurasian continent in geological history, and in the Ogasawara Islands that have been long isolated as oceanic islands
in geological history, there are particularly high ratios of endemic species in the biota of each area. In fact, 74% of the
mammals, 65% of reptiles, and 77% of amphibians (including subspecies) living on the Nansei Islands are endemic
species (Data 30- ① : Figure III-25), and 94% of land snails, 28% of insects, and 37% of plants (including subspecies)
are endemic species (Data 30- ② : Figure III-26).

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

180

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Endangered endemic species
Other endemic species
5 species
20%

Endemic species
Other species

9 species
26%

9 species 8 species
53%
47%

28 species 22 species
56%
44%

20 species
80%
27 species
35%

5 species
23%

Mammals
34 species

Reptiles77 species

Amphibians
22 species

25 species
74%

50 species
65%

17 species
77%

The ratios of mammals, reptiles and amphibians that are endemic to the Nansei Islands (Note 1) and the ratios of endangered
species (Note 2) among endemic species were calculated. The ratios of endangered species in Japan are 23% of mammals, 32%
of reptiles, and 34% of amphibians.
Note 1: The Nansei Islands include the Tokara Archipelago, the Amami Islands, Okinawa Islands, Kerama Archipelago, Yaeyama
Archipelago, Daito Islands, and Senkaku Islands.
Note 2: The ratios of endangered species are ratios of extinct (EX), extinct in the wild (EW), and endangered (CR+EN+VU) species
among all species (subspecies) living on the Nansei Islands.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, 2006: FY 2005 Outsourced report on important areas of the Ryukyu Islands nominated as a
World Natural Heritage site, Ministry of the Environment, List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan, Ministry of
the Environment, 1989: Survey for Selection of animal and plant species that need urgent protection

Figure III-25 Ratios of endemic species and endangered endemic species on the Nansei Islands (Data 30-①)

Endangered endemic species
Other endemic species
Endemic species
Other species
6 species
6%

57 species 43 species
74%
57%

54 species
(34%)

379
species28%

54 species
34%
107 species
66%

107 species(66%)(Note 3)

Land snails
106 species

Insects
1380 species

161
Vascular species
37%
plants
441 species

100 species
94%

1001 species
72%

28 species
63%

The ratios of land snails, insects and vascular plants that are endemic to the Ogasawara Islands (Note 1) and the ratios ofendangered species (Note 2) among endemic species were calculated.
Note 1: The Ogasawara Islands include the Mukojima Archipelago, Chichijima Archipelago, Hahajima Archipelago, island of
Nishinoshima, and Iwo Archipelago.
Note 2: The ratios of endangered species are ratios of extinct (EX), extinct in the wild (EW), and endangered (CR+EN+VU) species
among all species (subspecies) living on the Ogasawara Islands.
Note 3: The ratio of endangered insects is the total of Buprestidae, Lucanidae, Mordellidae, Cerambycidae, Libellulidae, and bees.
Source: Government of Japan, 2010: Recommendation for the World Heritage List, The Ogasawara Islands, Ministry of theEnvironment, List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species in Japan

Figure III-26 Ratios of endemic species and endangered endemic species on the Ogasawara Islands (Data 30-②)

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

181

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 18 Continental relict endemic species - Eublepharidae on the Nansei Islands
The Nansei Islands were formed by repeated separation from and connection to the Eurasiancontinent that resulted from crustal movements after the Miocene Epoch of the Tertiary period andchanges in sea level after the Quaternary period. During the process, living things were isolated on
the islands and uniquely evolved. This resulted in the formation of biota with many relict endemic
species. Species differentiation among islands is still continuing, and there are abundant newendemic species and many varieties among islands. The Ryukyu ground gecko, a primitive gecko,
is a relict endemic species whose most closely related species are endemic to Vietnam and thesoutheastern part of China, and has differentiated into five species on the island of Tokunoshima
and specific islands of Okinawa, reflecting the speciation process on continental islands. On
the other hand, deteriorated living environments and poaching are threatening the sur vival of
populations.

.
<Effects of Direct Use and Development on the Islands>
During the assessment period, direct uses such as capture and development are thought to have continuously
reduced the ecosystems in forests, rivers and neritic areas, and degraded the quality of ecosystems on certain islands,
thereby still raising concerns about the effects.
On some islands, several endemic species such as the Daito Varied Tit and Japanese wood pigeon native to the
Ogasawara Islands had already been extinct before the assessment period,3) but the causes of their extinction are notknown. Mainly during the first half of the 20th century before the assessment period, marine mammals and birds
including the Japanese Sea Lion and short-tailed albatross were excessively captured on some islands in harmful
animal control and for such commercial use as the gathering of feathers.3),4) These rapidly diminished populations have
yet to recover.4)
Whereas the nature of the islands had been utilized before the assessment period by local societies, a rapid
conversion of forests into agricultural land, land for transportation, and for building sites, and the development ofartificial rivers and coasts have been promoted since the second half of the assessment period. On some islands, thenumbers of tourists and other visitors have significantly increased. And on the Nansei Islands, the runoff of red soil
from such land areas as farmland into neritic areas is seriously affecting such ecosystems as coral reefs and underwater
plant beds.5),6),7)
The invasion and expansion of aggressive alien species are also having a significant adverse impact on endemic
species living on the islands.8)<Causes of Decreasing Endemic Species on the Islands>
The Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment indicates that among endemic species (including
subspecies) living on the Nansei Islands, 80% of mammal endemic species, 44% of reptile endemic species, and
47% of amphibian endemic species are endangered (Data 30- ① : Figure III-25). On the Ogasawara Islands, 74%of endemic land snails, 66% of endemic insects (Buprestidae, Lucanidae, Mordellidae, Cerambycidae, Libellulidae,
and bees), and 66% of endemic plant species are endangered (Data 30- ② : Figure III-26). These ratios are higher
than those for other endangered species in the country (Data 4- ① : Appendix). Among the causes of this decrease,"development" is the most common (41 species) for endangered mammals, reptiles and amphibians living on the
Nansei Islands (45 species), followed by "introduced alien species" (19 species) and "capturing and gathering" (11Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

182

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

species) (Data 30- ③ ; number of species including subspecies: Appendix). In the originally fragile island systems,
aggressive alien species have great adverse impact, with particularly significant effects on endemic species.9),10),11) On
islands such as the Nansei Islands and the Ogasawara Islands that have unique ecosystems due to their geologicalhistory with many endemic species including the Amami rabbit, Okinawa rail, Amami woodcock, Ishikawa's frog,
Bonin Island honeyeater, and Rhododendron boninense, the effects of aggressive alien species have been extremely
serious.10),11),12),13),14),15) Escaped or abandoned pets and domesticated animals are also reportedly to have serious impacts
such as the predation of endemic species and destruction of vegetation on some islands, particularly the predation ofrare species by feral cats on the Nansei Islands,14),16),17) the destruction of vegetation by wild goats on the Ogasawara
Islands,18) and the predation of sea birds by black rats.19)<Effects of Global Warming>
In the coral reef ecosystem of the Nansei Islands, the effects of coral bleaching have been significant in recent
years, and its association with global warming is arguably indicated.20)

3. Measures for Loss
Though the populations of some rare species have thus far been recovering and certain alien species eradicatedas means of protection vigorously promoted through designation of the Country's Rare Wild Species by conservationand propagation projects, and the control of specific alien species, effective measures for conserving all island systems
and continuing to enhance existing measures are considered necessary, taking into account the vulnerability of island
systems.
<Conservation and Propagation of Rare Species>
On some islands, protected areas have been designated, and for some species, designation of the Country's Rare
Wild Species and conservation/propagation projects have been promoted. For example, the short-tailed albatross wasonce considered to be endangered, but since it was observed on Tori Island in the Izu Archipelago, vigorous protection
efforts such as conserving existing nesting sites and luring the birds to new nesting sites have been promoted, and the
population is currently recovering (see BOX 19).

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

183

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 19 Conservation and propagation of the short-tailed albatross
The short-tailed albatross once thrived in abundance on Tori Island in the Izu Archipelago, andits population was estimated to have been at least 5
million. However, its population sharply decreased due
to development for gathering feathers since the Meiji
period, and around 1950, the species reportedly became
extinct. Through the protection efforts and conservation/
propagation projects undertaken by scientists since the1980s, its population has now been recovered to over
2,000 birds. In addition to existing breeding sites, newbreeding sites for the shor t-tailed albatross are now
being created on Muko Island in the Ogasawara Islands,
and activities to lure the birds are in progress.

A young short-tailed albatross broughtto Ogasawara (Muko Island) from Tori
Island for breeding<Measures for Alien Species>
The island systems are small in scale and sometimes have no higher-level predators to inhibit the invasion andsettlement of alien species, thereby making such systems especially vulnerable to environmental loads.11) On islands
where many endemic species are distributed, efforts have been promoted to control such alien species as the Javanmongoose, green anole and American bullfrog that seriously affect both endemic species and their ecosystems (seeBOX 20).

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

184

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

BOX 20 Eradication of the American bullfrog on the Ogasawara Islands
The American bullfrog, an aggressive alien species, had settled nowhere in the Ogasawara Islands
except on Ototo Island in the Chichi-jima Archipelago. On Ototo Island, there are five dragonfly
species endemic to the Ogasawara Islands, thereby making it ver y necessar y to eliminate theAmerican bullfrog, and as part of a project of the Ministry of the Environment, control has been
carried out since 2004. So far, 64 mature and young adults, and numerous eggs and tadpoles
have been eliminated. On Shikanohama, a major habitat, there has been no record of breeding
for four years and seven months since June 2005.
In nighttime monitoring, no frog calls have beenrecorded since July 2006. For this species, the period
from metamorphosis to maturity is said to be two to
three years, and immature individuals are unlikely
to live far from the pond; therefore, the Americanbullfrog has been considered eradicated on Ototo
Island. This represents an almost unprecedentedcase of eradicating a species in the countr y, and is
An American bullfrog caught by a basket
trap

also believed to be the first case of the complete
elimination of the American bullfrog in an archipelago.

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

185

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Fujita, T., K. Takayama, T. Shumiya, and H. Kato, 2008: Vascular flora of Minami-iwo-to Island, Ogasawara
research, 33, 49-62.
2) Takagi, M., 2009: Avifauna of Nansei Shoto (southwest islands), Japan, in relation to distances among islands,
Japanese Journal of Ornithology, 58: 1-17.
3) Environment Agency, 2002: Revised List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan - Red Data Book-2 (birds),
Japan Wildlife Research Center.
4) Environment Agency, 2002: Revised List of Endangered and Threatened Species in Japan - Red Data Book-1(mammals), Japan Wildlife Research Center.
5) Ohgaki, S., and M. Noike, 1992: Land development activity and the coral reef in Shiraho, Ishigaki Island, Okinawa,
Japanese Journal of Ecology, 42, 9-20.
6) Tsuchiya, M., and Y. Fujita, 2009: Anguish of coral reefs, Tokai University Press, 203pp.
7) Yasumura, S., S. Maekawa, and T. Sato, 2004: Spatio-temporal distribution of red soil sedimentation in a coral reef
at Shiraho, Ishigaki Island, Okinawa, Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 9, 117-126.
8) Ogura, G., T. Sasaki, M. Toyama, K. Takehara, M. Nakachi, O. Ishibashi, Y. Kawashima, and S. Oda, 2002: Food
habits of the feral small Asian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) and impacts on native species in the northern partof Okinawa Island, Mammalian science, 42: 53-62.
9) Abe, T., K. Wada, and N. Nakagoshi, 2008: Extinction threats of a narrowly endemic shrub, Stachyurus
macrocarpus（Stachyuraceae）in the Ogasawara Islands, Plant Ecology, 198, 169-183.
10) Yamada, F., 1998: The 41st Symposium “Verification from wild mammals in the 20th century: Thinking ofenvironmental impact,” Status of alien mammals and problems caused by them in Japan, Mammalian Science, 38,
97-105.
11) Yamada, F., 2006: Challenges in eradicating the invasive mongoose in Japan, Mammalian Science, 46, 99-102.
12) Kotaka N., M. Kudaka, K. Takehara, and D. Sato, 2009: Ground use pattern by forest animals and vulnerability
toward invasion by Herpestes javanicus into Yambaru, northern Okinawa Island, southern Japan, Japanese Journalof Ornithology, 58, 28-45．
13) Makihara, H., H. Kitajima, H. Goto, T. Kato, and S. Makino, 2004: An evaluation of predation impact of theintroduced lizard Anolis carolinensis on the endemic insect fauna of the Ogasawara Islands based on insect
collection records and feeding experiments, with special reference to longicorn beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae), Bulletin of the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 3, 165–183.
14) Jogahara, T., G. Ogura, T. Sasaki, K. Takehara, and Y. Kawashima, 2003: Food habits of cats (Felis catus) inforests and villages and their impacts on native animals in the Yamabaru area, northern part of Okinawa Island,
Japan, Mammalian Science, 43, 29-37.
15) Watari, Y., S. Takatsuki, and T. Miyashita, 2008: Effects of exotic mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) on the native
fauna of Amami-Oshima Island, southern Japan, estimated by distribution patterns along the historical gradient ofmongoose invasion, Biological Invasions, 10, 7-17.

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

186

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan16) Kawakami, K., and H. Higuchi, 2002: Bird Predation by domestic cats on Hahajima Island, Bonin Islands, Japan.,
Ornithological Science 1, 143-144.
17) Kawakami, K., and M. Fujita, 2004: Feral cat predation on sea birds on Hahajima, the Bonin Islands, Southern
Japan. Ornithological Science 3, 155-158.
18) Tokida, K., 2006: A Report on the Public Symposium at IMC9: Part 4: the feral goat eradication program on the
Ogasawara Islands, Mammalian Science, 46, 93-94.
19) Horikoshi, K., H. Suzuki, and T. Sasaki, 2009: The impact assessment of invasive alien mammals on sea birdcolonies, Global environmental research, 14, 103-105.
20) Okamoto, M., S. Nojima, and Y. Furushima, 2007: Temperature environments during coral bleaching events in
Sekisei Lagoon, Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography, 71, 112-12.

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

187

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter III Section 6 Assessment of Island Systems

188

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter IV
General Overview of the Assessment
This chapter generalizes the assessment conducted up to now, and presents an overall picture of biodiversity loss
in Japan as observed by 2010. Based on these facts, this chapter also discusses the expected biodiversity loss after
2010 and describes the direction of long-term measures.

Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010
This section generalizes the assessment presented in each section in Chapters II and III, comprehensively assesses
the loss of biodiversity observed from the second half of 1950s to 2010, and discusses the relationship between theselosses and biodiversity services.

1. Assessment of Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010 (Generalization)(1) Overview
The following describes the assessment of the status of biodiversity loss in 2010 and the factors of losses fromthe second half of 1950s to 2010 (Table IV-1).
◯ Loss of biodiversity as a result of human activities in Japan has affected all ecosystems, and the loss is continuingon the whole.
◯ The degree of biodiversity loss has been especially large in inland water systems, marine and coastal systems, andisland systems. The trend towards biodiversity loss is continuing at present.
◯ As for the drivers of the loss, the “First Crisis ((brought about by development, direct use, and water pollution),”particularly development, has had the greatest impact, but the speed at which loss attributable to this crisis has
slightly abated. The “Second Crisis (reduced use and management of Satochi-Satoyama areas)” continues tointensify. Furthermore, among all factors falling under the “Third Crisis (invasive alien species and chemicals),”
the effects of invasive alien species are particularly prominent. The “Climate Change Crisis (the impact of climatechange on living organisms)” poses serious concerns for certain ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable. Various
responses have been taken to address these crises, and these responses have been effective to a certain degree,
but given the major socioeconomic changes that indirectly drive biodiversity loss, these responses have not been
sufficiently effective.
◯ The Japanese people currently enjoy lifestyles characterized by material wealth and convenience, but for the past
50 years those lifestyles have meant the domestic loss of biodiversity and dependence on the supply of ecosystemservices overseas. From 2010 onwards, the lingering effects of past development (First Crisis), the increasing
seriousness of the problem of reduced use and management of Satochi-Satoyama areas (Second Crisis), settlement
and further encroachment by invasive alien species (Third Crisis), rising temperatures (Climate Change Crisis), andother related factors are expected to result in further loss. Thorough responses, including those that address indirectdrivers, are necessary. For that purpose, it is important to build consensus at the local level.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

189

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-1 Biodiversity Loss up to 2010
Current state of loss
and trends

Drivers of loss (degree of impact) and current trends

Degree ofSecondThird
Firstloss fromcrisiscrisiscrisisDegree ofstate asloss fromof theDevelopment,
Invasive alien
Reduction inoriginal second half
direct use
species andof
1950s
use andstatechemicaland current and water
management
pollution
compounds
trendsClimatechangecrisisForest andmountainsystems*1

Cultivatedsystems−Urban
systems−Other• Decrease inlocal varietiesof crops andlivestock−

Inlandwater
systems*2

Marine andcoastalsystems−

Island andisletsecosystem−• Outbreaks ofcoral predators• Coralline flat

*3

LegendState
SubjectofTrend of current loss
Degree of current loss
assessment

LegendDrivers
Degree of impact duringassessment period

Current trendof impact

Not Lost

Recovering

Weak

Decreasing

Not significantly
lost

Same

MediumSame

Lost

Being lost

StrongIncreasing

Significantly
lost

Being rapidly
lost

Very strong

Increasing
rapidlyNote: The dashed lines for assessing the degree of impact indicate insufficient data.
Note: ”*” indicates multiple factors and data related to the indicator in question, as well as existing factors and data that show
trends that differ from current assessments of the degrees, effects, and trends of overall loss.
* 1: The degree of impact on alpine systems has been and continues to be serious.
* 2, * 3: While the problem of chemical compounds has been mitigated to some extent, the problem of invasive alien
species is serious.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

190

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(2) Factors of the loss
“The first crisis” (development, direct use, and water pollution), “the second crisis” (a reduction in the use/management of ecosystems), “the third crisis” (alien species and chemical substances), and “the climate change crisis”(rising temperatures) are all wielding strong impacts as direct factors of loss.
<The First Crisis and Its Indirect Factors>
Since the second half of 1950s, “the first crisis,” especially the influence of development, has caused the largest
loss of biodiversity in Japan.
As the background of “the first crisis,” socioeconomic changes during the period of high economic growth fromthe second half of 1950s to the first half of 1970s, and social demand accompanied by other changes are consideredindirect factors (see Table VI-3 on later page). During this period, the national population rapidly grew by 1 to 2%
annually. Japan began to rely on fossil fuels from overseas as its main energy source, industry was dramaticallydeveloped, and population became concentrated in cities. In response to such phenomena, forest and mountainsystems must provide a large quantity of timber; cultivated systems and marine and coastal ecosystem need to provide
food efficiently; inland water systems must contain frequently occurring floods and secure enough water for power
generation, industry and daily life; marine and coastal systems and urban systems need to secure land for housing andindustry, and prevent such disasters as tidal waves.
The development of various ecosystems was promoted nationwide due to these indirect factors. The factors
caused a huge impact, especially on inland water systems, marine and coastal systems, and island systems.
These social demands are now being satisfied somewhat by economic growth and rising income levels, hugevolumes of energy, food and timber supplied from abroad, improved housing and facilities for industry, and thedevelopment of social capital. This is why the pace of “the first crisis” causing damage to biodiversity tends to slow
down (see Table VI-3 on later page). However, relatively small-scale development and regional development are still
underway. It is also difficult to restore the interaction among living organisms or between living organisms and theenvironment in ecosystems damaged by past development. There are concerns that such impact will continue or beobserved in the future.
As for measures against “the first crisis,” the “protected area system” has been improved during the assessment
period, and designated areas also expanded. Regulation of water discharge has been promoted to conserve water
quality. Considerations have recently been given for improving social capital and efforts initiated for sustainableagriculture, forestry and fishery industries. These measures are considered to have had certain effects. However, allthese measures are not necessarily effective enough to counter major socioeconomic changes that have functioned as
indirect factors in Japan. Therefore, improving important areas in terms of conserving biodiversity and restoring thehuge damage caused in the past are still considered to be our tasks.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

191

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<The Second Crisis and Its Indirect Factors>“The second crisis” is causing damage to forest and mountain systems and some cultivated systems. The
socioeconomic changes that began during the period of high economic growth from the second half of 1950s to thefirst half of 1970s functioned not only as “the first crisis” but also as “the second crisis” (see Table VI-3 on later page).
The dependence on fossil fuels from overseas during the period of high economic growth resulted in much less useof fuelwood taken from secondary forests. It also consequently caused changes in agricultural methods that reduced
the use of secondary forests and secondary grasslands in terms of grazing land and mowing. After that, as food andtimber began to be imported from abroad, the trend toward depopulation and aging residents in farming villages
continued. During the decade from 1980 to 1990, more fields were abandoned due to a shortage of workers engaged
in agriculture, forestry and fishery operations. Insufficient management in terms of thinning or weeding became
problematic in artificial forests. At the same time, fewer hunters and less hunting pressure due to aging also became
apparent.
“The second crisis” is caused by reduced or discontinued human approaches to “Satochi-Satoyama” areas orsecondary forests, artificial forests, farmland, channels, ponds, and grasslands that surround settlements due to suchsocioeconomic changes as indirect factors. In Japanese Satochi-Satoyama areas, the biota that once thrived in somenatural forests and floodplains depended on disturbances caused by the use and management of traditional farmland,secondary forests and secondary grasslands, and thus helped interactions among living organisms and between
organisms and the environment. Upon losing their economic value, secondary forests and secondary grasslands will be
proactively used for other purposes. Such reduction of use may be shifted to “the first crisis.” However, in “the second
crisis,” such reduction of use and management also reduces the disturbances that had long been maintained, and thetransition of vegetation will gradually degrade the quality of ecosystems in a relatively longer time frame. The impactof the reduced use and management on biodiversity is complicated, and further study is needed for specific solutions.
Not all impacts of “the second crisis” progress gradually, but some may cause loss in a very short period. For example,
the growing population and distribution of deer due to less hunting pressure is affecting natural vegetation.
These indirect factors of decreased human interaction with nature are still functioning on an ongoing basis.
Therefore, said impact is gradually increasing today (see Table IV-3 on later page).
As for measures regarding “the second crisis,” the population control of birds and medium-size to large mammals
is in progress. However, such measures regarding indirect factors as promoting the use of natural resources andcreating a framework in which local entities can cooperate are still being discussed.
<”The Third Crisis” and Its Indirect Factors>
The huge impact of ”the third crisis,” especially the impact of alien species, has been alarming in recent years.
The issue of alien species was partly caused by the drastic increase of international trade and exchange over the past
50 years (see Table VI-3 on later page). During the assessment period, alien species were intentionally imported aspets or materials for industry, or unintentionally introduced as they clung to cargo or were mixed in ballast water, andthen intruded and settled in domestic ecosystems. Some species demonstrated rapid expansion. Among alien species,
the impact of invasive ones that cause serious damage to ecosystems is particularly huge in isolated ecosystems suchas inland water systems and island systems, and this impact on virtually all ecosystems is growing.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

192

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Measures taken against invasive alien species achieved great progress in the 2000s from the standpoint ofpreventing further damage to biodiversity, through the introduction of import regulations and other regulations on
feeding, planting, storage, carrying and release in terms of preventing invasion. Problems are pointed out regarding
the control of settled species (e.g., capture, collection, eradication, measures to prevent damage). As for chemical
substances, regulations on production, importation and use have been enacted since the 1970s in considering theimpact on humans, and the situation has generally improved.
<The Climate Change Crisis and Its Indirect Factors>
The indirect factor of “the climate change crisis” is the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The
volume of such emissions increased dramatically over the past 50 years and continues to rise. “The climate change
crisis” is of course caused by greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and not only from Japan. In the 1990s and later,
the total volume of carbon dioxide emissions continued to increase despite international efforts. The domestic volumeof emissions is much greater now than that in 1990. The increased emissions from households are of particularconcern.
The causes and effects of biodiversity loss due to global warming remain controversial, but global warming has
had a profound impact on forest and mountain systems (alpine zones), marine and coastal systems (e.g., coral reefs),
and island systems.
Such mitigation measures as curtailing greenhouse gas emissions shall be promoted based on an internationalframework. Japan must also discuss measures for adapting to the impact of global warming on biodiversity.
<For Mainstreaming of Biodiversity>
Greater social awareness of biodiversity is important as the basis of measures against damage. Social awarenessand “nature conservation” activities were observed in the early stages of the assessment period. In the later stages of
the assessment period, a trend toward familiarizing oneself with nature began to be widely recognized in society. The
notion of biodiversity has been institutionalized since the 1990s, but is still not considered widely accepted in society.
(3) Loss of biodiversity in individual ecosystems
The loss of biodiversity has affected all ecosystems in Japan, and continues even now as a whole. The factors
behind the losses caused by the “first crisis,” “second crisis,” “third crisis,” and “the climate change crisis” do notdemonstrate their individual impact, but intricately function with one another to cause losses in ecosystems (see Table
IV-2).

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

193

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-2 Assessment of Loss in Each Ecosystem (Chapter III)
Ecosystem

Assessment of loss in each ecosystem

Forest andmountainsystems

Loss in forest and mountain systems occurred during the assessment period from the second halfof 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ The overall size of a forest apparently does not make a large difference, but pristine naturalforests have diminished through conversion into artificial forests. The connectivity of forests has
also been decreasing. [First crisis]○ During the latter half of the assessment period, the rate of deterioration of pristine natural forests
slowed down, while the quality of ecosystems in secondary forests and artificial forests has been
declining. [Second crisis]○ Recently, as deer populations have increased along with an expanded distribution, the damage to trees
and underlying vegetation has become evident. There are also reports about a negative influence on
alpine plants probably due to global warming. [Second crisis and climate change crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on forests by development due to changes in the socioeconomic
situation, but ongoing influence raises concern.

Cultivatedsystems

Loss in cultivated systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to
the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ The development of residential land mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well aschanges in agriculture and agricultural methods, contributed to smaller-scale cultivated systems
and lower quality. [First crisis]○ The reduced use of fields, mostly in the first half of the assessment period, as well as less use of
agricultural land, mostly in the second half of the assessment period, contributed to smallerscale cultivated systems and lower quality. [Second crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on cultivated systems resulting from development and direct use,
as well as changes in agriculture and agricultural methods, due to changes in the socioeconomic
situation, but ongoing influence raises concern. It is also concerned about the growing influenceof the reduced use and control of agricultural land.

Urban
systems

Loss in urban systems occurred during the assessment period from the second half of 1950s to thepresent to some extent, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ A reduction of green tracts of land in cities, such as agricultural land and woods, as well as the deteriorating quality of river water, during a period of high economic growth in the first half of the assessment period
contributed to a reduction and lower quality of habitats for living creatures. [First crisis]○ The preparation of new green lands in urban areas as well as the improved quality of river water
progressed in the second half of the assessment period; as a result, the distribution of someliving creatures inhabiting such environments is expanding.

Inland water
systems

Significant loss in inland water systems occurred during the assessment period from the second
half of 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ A gathering of pebbles and gravel, the creation of artificial rivers, and the reclamation of lakes,
marshes and wetlands since the first half of the assessment period contributed to smaller-scaleinland water systems, as well as lower quality and more fragmentation, throughout Japan. [First
crisis]○ Conversely, the quality of lake water and marshes, likely to have deteriorated in the first half ofthe evaluation period, improved in the second half. [First crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on inland water systems from development due to changes in thesocioeconomic situation, but ongoing influence raises concern. It is also concerned that living
creatures may be captured and gathered for ornamental purposes, as well as a greater influenceof alien species. [First crisis and third crisis]

Marine andcoastalsystems

Significant loss in marine and coastal systems occurred during the assessment period from thesecond half of 1950s to the present, and is likely to worsen on a long-term basis.
○ In particular, development in the first half of the assessment period contributed to a significant
reduction in the nationwide scale of some marine and coastal systems, such as tidal flats andnatural coastlines. [First crisis]○ Presently, there is less impact on marine and coastal systems by development, such as reclamationin coastal areas, due to changes in the socioeconomic situation, but ongoing influence raises
concern. We also face new concerns over deteriorating erosion of the coastline, an invasion of alien
species, and the effects of global warming. [Third crisis and climate change crisis]

Islandsystems

Significant loss is currently observed in island systems. While there is lack sufficient data to assess
conditions in the first half of the assessment period, the situation deteriorated in the second half of
the assessment period (since the second half of the 1970s) and is likely to worsen on a long-termbasis.
○ Due to the development and invasion/settlement of alien species, the habitats of some domestic
species, including endemic ones, are deteriorating. [First crisis and third crisis]○ It is concerned about the effects of global warming on the coral reef ecosystem. [Climate change
crisis]

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

194

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Ecosystems Suffering Particularly Huge Loss as Observed during Assessment Period>
The loss of biodiversity is serious in inland water systems, marine and coastal systems, and island systems.
The loss now tends to be exacerbating. In these ecosystems, the current impact manifested by the “third crisis (alien
species)” is intricately functioning in connection with the strong impact of the conventional “first crisis.”
In inland water systems, such development over the past 50 years as reclamation in wetlands and lakes, thegathering of gravel in rivers, increasing numbers of artificial river banks and lake shores, and the construction of dams
and floodgates has damaged the intrinsic scale, quality and continuity of ecosystems to a great extent. For example,
the reduction of gravel riversides due to lowered riverbeds and decreased vertical continuity within the rivers between
inland water areas and floodplains are pointed out. In particular, inland water systems consist of a water system
network along with paddy fields, channels and reservoirs that comprise some cultivated systems, and have contributed
to the maintenance of biota observed in floodplains. There are concerns that this deteriorated continuity might impact
the entire water system network that includes cultivated systems. The major cause of loss was considered to be waterpollution (eutrophication) due to water discharge from industries, agriculture as well as households. The situation is
now improving thanks to countermeasures. Conversely, invasive alien species such as largemouth bass have had ahuge impact on water areas and the waterside environment in recent years. The influence of chemical substances has
not been fully clarified, but there are still some concerns.
In marine and coastal ecosystems, such development in coastal areas as reclamation of coastal lines over the past
50 years, the gathering of sea gravels (beach sand, etc.), and artificial seashores had a huge impact. In some enclosed
coastal seas, water pollution (eutrophication) is still underway and exacerbated by accelerated coastal erosion, theexpansion of invasive alien species, and impact associated with global warming, thus causing a serious decrease in thesize and degraded quality of ecosystems that include tidal flats, kelp coasts and coral reefs. The status of useful fish
resources in the ocean is also not very reassuring.
The island systems are small in size, highly fragile, and susceptible to the factors of loss. In addition to theimpact of development, such invasive alien species as the small Indian mongoose in the Nansei Islands and Carolina
anoles (Anolis carolinenses) in the Ogasawara Islands have had a serious impact on endemic species in recent years.
Measures to eliminate some of these species have already been initiated on these islands. Moreover, the successful
eradication of invasive alien species has been reported from very small islands.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

195

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Ecosystems Suffering Huge Loss as Observed during Assessment Period>
The forest and mountain systems and cultivated systems are also damaged. These ecosystems are characterized
by the impact of “the second crisis” along with the “first crisis.”
In the past 50 years, the conversion to artificial forests has been promoted in forest and mountain systems, andforests with high naturalness have decreased. Judging from the intrinsic forest and mountain systems, the entire loss of
those before the assessment period is serious. The conversion of cultivated systems for housing development reduced
the area of farmland, and the development of farmland and channels degraded the quality of cultivated systems.
At the same time, the ecosystems in “Satochi-Satoyama” areas where intricate mosaic patterns are formed withsurrounding farmland, channels, reservoirs, secondary forests, artificial forests and grasslands have been reduced inscale or degraded in quality due to less traditional use that maintained those ecosystems for generations. The degraded
continuity in the water system network formed when linking paddy fields, channels and reservoirs (that comprisesome cultivated systems) to inland water systems is also a concern.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

196

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-3 Major topics concerning factors and assessment of biodiversity loss
First half of theassessment period

1960s

1950s
Forest andmountainsystems

Second half of theassessment period

1970s

Cutting down of natural andsecondary forests
Expansion of
artificial forests

1980s

2000s

Damage due to pests
in forests
Increased distribution of deer
Vegetation changes infuelwood forests
Insufficient managementof artificial forests

Decreased fuelwood use

Cultivatedsystems

1990s

Decreased grasslands
Decreased farmlandMore abandoned farmland
Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers
Improvement offarmlandUrban
systems

Increased residential and industrial areas
Decreased green
spacesInlandwater
systems

Decreased moors
Extraction of river gravel

Influence of alien species

Artificial river banks and improved dams and floodgates
Water pollution of lakes, etc.
Influence of alien species

Marine andcoastalsystems

Decreased tidal wetlands
Landfill on coasts
Extraction of sea gravels (sand, etc.)
Artificial alterationof waterfront
Coastal erosion
Water pollution inside bays
Decreased marine
forests
Influence of species consuming corals
Coral bleaching
Influence of alien species
Trend of decreasing aquatic resources
Development,
etc.

Islandsystems
Socialbackground

Influence of alien species
Population growth andurbanization
Energy dependence on foreign countries

Depopulation

Exchange and trade with overseas
Comprehensive
National Land
Development Law

Comprehensive
national
development plan

National
Development
Planning

Income-doubling plan

National Land Use
Planning Law

Basic Law on Forestry
Land Improvement Law

Basic Law on
Agriculture

Law on Rivers

Urban Green SpaceConservation Act

Law forDevelopment ofComprehensive
Resort Areas

National Strategy
for the Conservationand Sustainable
Use of Biological
Diversity

Fisheries Law
Law Concerning
the Protection of
Wildlife and Game

Forest andForestry Basic Act
Revised Law on Rivers
Revised Seacoast Law

Seacoast Law

Natural Parks Law

National Spatial
Strategies

Law for the
Preservation ofEndangered Speciesof Wild Fauna andFlora

NatureConservation
Law

High-level increases andContinuation ofInsufficient data
continuation of influence, etc.
influence, etc.
Source: Prepared based on descriptions and data concerning indicators in Chapters II and III.
LegendFood, Agriculture
and Rural Areas
Basic Act
Basic Act on
Ocean Policy
Fisheries
Basic Act
Basic Act on
Biodiversity
Alien Species Act
Law for the
Promotion of
Nature Restoration

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

197

Related major
indicators

1,4,15,16,17
1,4,15,16,17
15
15
4,7,15,17
18
1,4,19,20
1,4,19,20
7
4,19,20
19,20
4,9,2022
22,23
1,4,24,26
1,4,24,25,26
1,4,24,25,26
3,4,24,26
4,9,26
1,27,28
1,27,28
27,28
27,28
27
3,27
27,28
27,28
27,28
9,28
29
30
30

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Services in Japan(1) Summary
Generally speaking, the loss of biodiversity degrades ecosystem services. However, some degradation was caused
during the assessment period only when focusing on certain ecosystem services. It is also noted that the dependence
on ecosystem services from abroad was promoted to a large extent during the period.
(2) What are ecosystem services?
The ecosystem services refer to the benefits and convenience that human beings receive from ecosystems. Our
daily lives are supported by various ecosystem services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) classifies
ecosystem services into four categories: the service that provides food, water and timber (provision service), theservice that regulates climate, flood and water quality (regulation service), the cultural service that offers recreationand mental satisfaction (cultural service), and the service that functions as the basis of other ecosystem services suchas soil formation and pollination (basis service).
Biodiversity is the foundation on which to provide ecosystem services. Various ecosystems have provided
services, which support our lives.
Regarding the provision service, for example, forest and mountain systems provide us with such timber as cedar
and Japanese cypress to be used as construction materials; cultivated systems provide us with food that includes
such agricultural products as rice, vegetables and fruits, and livestock products; inland water systems and marine andcoastal ecosystems provide us with such food as fish and shellfish. The forest and mountain systems and inland water
systems also provide water for household and industry. As for the regulation service, forest and mountain systems
regulate the atmosphere, climate and water, inhibit soil erosion, and prevent mountain disasters. Cultivated systems
control diseases and harmful insects by employing natural enemy organisms and offer pollination through bees andother insects. All ecosystems involve the cultural service. Diversified climate in Japan has resulted in the creation of
festivals and food culture unique to individual regions. Educational value appreciated through children's play such as
hunting for insects and such recreation as mountain climbing, sea bathing and diving are also offered by ecosystems.
Excellent natural landscapes designated as national parks have offered aesthetic values that have been used as artistic
themes since the olden days. Ecosystems also provide the basis service regarding soil formation and photosynthesis.
The ecosystem services shall be provided in response to socioeconomic demand. Changes in the form and content
of these services are observed in order to meet the needs of the times. For example, forest and mountain systems used
to provide animal furs to be used for protection against the cold through hunting in the olden days. The provision ofsuch services is now decreasing.
Comprehensive assessment has yet to be achieved, however, regarding the volume of ecosystem services provided
by the ecosystems in Japan or the transition of the contents and kinds of services as illustrated here.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

198

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-4 Classification of ecosystem services in millennium ecosystem assessment and examples in Japan1)
Services listed in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment

Examples of services in Japan

Major ecosystems
that provide services

Agricultural products Cultivation of rice, vegetables and fruits
Cultivated systems
Livestock
Raising of beef cattle, dairy cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. Cultivated systems

A Provision service

Fishing for fish and shellfish in rivers,
lakes and sea

Inland water systems,
marine and coastal ecosystems

Aquaculture

Cultivation of fish and shellfish inlakes and sea

Inland water systems,
marine and coastal ecosystems

Products from wildlife

Gathering of mountain vegetables and mushrooms(hunting of wild animals and birds)

Forest and mountain systems, etc.

Construction materials such as cedar and Japanese cypress(Cultivation of cotton plants, silk cultivation)(Fuelwood)(endemic species of grains, vegetables and livestock)

Forest and mountain systems
Cultivated systems
Forest and mountain systems

Materials forornamentation

Japanese lacquer and other paints,
plant dye, gardening

Forest and mountain systems,
cultivated systems, etc.

Fresh water

Water intake from rivers for industrial andInland water systems, forest andhousehold use, hydraulic power generation mountain systems, cultivated systems

Food

Fishery

FibersTimber
Cotton, linen, and silk
Firewood
Genetic resources

Cultivated systems, etc.

Biochemical substances,
natural medicine

B Regulation
service

Regulation of atmosphere
Forest and mountain systems, etc.
Regulation of climate
Absorption of greenhouse gases by forests Forest and mountain systems
Regulation of water

Flooded irrigation by forests,
wetlands, and paddy fields

Forest and mountain systems, inland water systems,
cultivated systems, Inland water systems,
marine and coastal ecosystems, etc.

Inhibition of soil erosion Inhibition of soil erosion by forests

Forest and mountain systems, etc.

Water purification andwaste disposal

Forest and mountain systems, inland water systems,
cultivated systems, Inland water systems,
marine and coastal ecosystems, etc.

Water purification function of
tidal flats

Disease prevention
Control over diseases and harmful insects Control of harmful insects by natural enemy insects and farm animals Cultivated systems, etc.
Pollination
Pollination of farm produced by bees Cultivated systems, etc.

C Cultural service

D Basis service

Protection against
natural disasters

Prevention of mountain disasters by forests,
breakwaters by sandy beaches and coral reefs

Forest and mountain systems,
marine and coastal ecosystems

Cultural diversity
Mental/religious values
Knowledge system (traditions/customs)
Educational value
Inspiration
Aesthetic value
Social relationshipFeelings toward the place
Value as cultural assets

Festivals and food culture characterized by individual regions
Local religions represented by sacred shrine forest
Agricultural calendar
Insect hunting by children
Seasonal words for haiku poems
Visiting national parks
National character/Prefectural character
Prefectural bird/flower
Natural treasure, scenic beauty

All ecosystems

Recreation andecotourism

Mountain climbing, sea bathing,shellfish hunting, diving, eco-tours

Soil formation
Photosynthesis

Soil formation by interaction of organisms All ecosystems
Oxygen production by plants

Primary production

Assimilation/accumulation of energy
and nutritive salts by organisms

Circulation of nutritive salts Circulation of nutritive salts necessary for life
Water circulation
Water circulation necessary for life
Source: The table was created based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Note: Parenthesized items are provision services that no longer have economic significance.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

199

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(3) Biodiversity loss and deteriorated ecosystem services
The loss of biodiversity in Japan as mentioned before is associated with the provision of ecosystem services.
Ecosystems function as supported by organisms. If the work of organisms is damaged, ecosystem services will also be
deteriorated. There are some ecosystem services such as the food chain and decomposition that cannot be obtained if
the interaction of organisms in the intrinsic ecosystem is not maintained.
There are also cases where the factors that damage biodiversity also deteriorate ecosystem services.
For example, the coral reef ecosystem in the Nansei islands provides several ecosystem services that include
such sightseeing/recreation activities as diving and snorkeling, the provision of fish habitats for commercial marine
products, and protection against high waves and erosion as a natural breakwater. According to calculations madeby the Ministry of Environment with limited subjects based on some hypotheses, the annual economic value of thedomestic coral reef ecosystem service accounts for 239.9 billion yen in the field of sightseeing/recreation, 10.7 billion
yen for providing commercial marine products, and 7.5 to 83.9 billion yen for protection against water and erosion
damage.2) At present, coral reef ecosystems in Japan have been seriously damaged by bleaching caused by abnormallyhigh seawater temperatures, an abnormal growth of such coral predators as acanthasters, and an inflow of soil fromland areas. As a result, services from these coral reef ecosystems might not be sufficiently provided in the future.
Invasive alien species cause biodiversity loss in various ecosystems as stated before. These species also damage
such ecosystem services as agriculture, forestry and fishery. For example, raccoons (Procyon)̶designated aninvasive alien species by the Invasive Alien Species Act̶consume native organisms that include rare species, thereby
damaging those species, livestock feed, melons, watermelons, strawberries, and aquacultured fish. Largemouth bass,
also designated an invasive alien species, compete with other fish in consuming fish, shrimp, and land/water insects
that include rare species, thereby having an adverse impact. It is also pointed out that largemouth bass damage thefishery in rivers and lakes by consuming sweetfish, Hypomesus olidus and other fish.
The purpose of hunting for shellfish is not only gathering asari or hamaguri clams. It also offers the educational
value of contacting, appreciating and nurturing various organisms in tidal flats. Thus, the loss of biodiversity will
eventually deteriorate such ecosystem services.
(4) Tradeoff between biodiversity and ecosystem services
The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services is not simple. Damaged biodiversity may notdirectly result in deteriorated ecosystem services. For example, the extinction of a particular species definitely meansa loss of biodiversity. However, if the species was not used for industry, the impact on ecosystem services may beoverlooked.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010200

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanThe modification of or an approach to ecosystems is often required in order to obtain ecosystem services or theprovision of a particular service. However, this process may cause a certain degree of biodiversity loss. In other words,
there is a tradeoff between biodiversity and ecosystem services.
During the assessment period in Japan, there was too much focus on certain ecosystem services that caused
biodiversity loss, At the beginning of the high economic growth period starting in the 1950s, various ecosystemservices, particularly the efficient, large-volume provision service, were necessitated by socioeconomic demand.
Forest and mountain systems were needed to provide a large volume of timber in response to growing housing demand
promoted by urbanization. Forests with high naturalness were converted into artificial forests. In cultivated systems,
the use of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers began in response to the need for efficient food supply, and farmland
and canals were improved.
These measures improved the performance to provide part of the provision service. However, as mentioned
in Section 1, modifications and approaches accompanied by these efforts functioned as “the first crisis” against
biodiversity and caused loss in some cases.
A situation of low diversity would otherwise be created where only one type of plant or tree was grown. Such asituation is known to reduce natural enemies against harmful insects for crops, and heighten the risk of disease andharmful insects.3) It is pointed out that land features where farmland and forests form intricate mosaic patterns willsecure pollination service for crops.
(5) Dependence on ecosystem services from abroad
Ecosystem services may not necessarily be provided by domestic ecosystems. In Japan, the forest, agricultural,inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems have historically provided food, timber, and fuel. Before the Meiji
era and under a national closed-door policy, trading with foreign counties was limited, and thus most of the provision
service was procured within domestic ecosystems. However, due to socioeconomic changes after the period of higheconomic growth, Japan began to rely on many ecosystem services from abroad.
For example, since the 1950s, in line with the introduction of free trade involving timber, a large volume ofcheap timber has been provided from abroad.5) Japan currently relies on imports for about 80% of its domestic timberdemand.5) Conversely, the volume of domestic forests (mainly artificial forests) accumulated has increased over the
past 50 years.
Since the 1960s, the volume of food imports has also been rising. Japan now depends on foreign agriculture andfishery6) for about 60% of its calorie supply. In contrast, domestic farmland is on the decline. The abandonment of
more cultivated land area has also been a serious issue since the 1980s.
As for energy, during the 1950s when the period of high economic growth began, imports of foreign oil rapidly
increased (in the energy revolution). Since the 1970s Japan has imported approximately 80 to 90% of its energy supply
from abroad.7) The supply of fuelwood provided by domestic secondary forests was already less than the energy
supplied from coal and hydraulic power plants in the 1950s, and the production volume of fuelwood rapidly decreased
during this period.5),8)

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010

201

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanAs already mentioned, Japan depends on overseas ecosystems for most of its ecosystem services. As seen in thegreater volume of domestic forests accumulated, even if the potential of domestic ecosystems to provide ecosystemservices increases or is maintained, it may not be fully utilized for actual provision. This is explained by the reduced
use of ecosystems (the second crisis). It also means that Japan is damaging biodiversity overseas.
The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services may not be fully explained regarding its scientificresolution or economic assessment. It is important to set up indicators or conduct monitoring based on the progress of
research conducted in the future.

1300

Volume of energy imports (Note 1)

1200

Index that sets 1960 as 100

1100
1000
900

Volume of timber imports (Note 2)

800
Volume of food imports (Note 3)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100

Domestic food production (Note 4)
Domestic timber production (Note 5)
Domestic fuelwood production (Note 6)01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year/FY (Note 7)
Note 1: Volume of imports against domestic supply of the primary energy (Unit: PJ)
Note 2: Combined total of the volume of timber imports in the timber supply/demand table
Note 3: Combined total of the weight of each imported item in the food supply/demand table
Note 4: Combined total of the weight of domestic production of each item in the food supply/demand table
Note 5: Combined total of the volume of domestically produced timber supply in the timber supply/demand table
Note 6: Combined total of the volume of fuelwood supply in the timber supply/demand table.
Note 7: The volume of timber imports, the volume of domestic timber production, and the volume of domestic fuelwood
production are based on the calendar year. All others are based on the fiscal year.
Source: The food supply and demand sheets, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery; the timber supply and demand
sheets, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry; General Energy Statistics, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy

Figure IV-1 Change of volume of food, timber, and energy imports in Japan(Index that sets 1960 as 100)

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010202

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (compilation), 2007: United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
Ecosystem services and the future of mankind, Ohmsha, Ltd., 68-74.
2) Ministry of Environment (compilation), 2009: Annual Report on the Environment, the Sound Material-Cycle
Society and the Biodiversity in Japan, NIKKEI PRINTING Inc., 47.
3) Balvanera, P., A.B. Pfisterer, N. Buchmann, J.S. He, T. Nakashizuka, D. Raffaelli, and B. Schmidt, 2006:
Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services, Ecology Letters, 9, 1 −11, doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00963.
4) Ricketts, T.H., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, and C.D. Michener, 2004: Economic value of tropical forests to coffee
production, PNAS, 101, 34, 12579 − 12582.
5) The timber supply and demand sheets, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
6) The food supply and demand sheets, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery
7) General Energy Statistics, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy8) Umemura, M., Compiled by Toyo Keizai Inc., 1982: Long-term Economic Statistics (9) Agriculture and Forestry,
Toyo Keizai Inc.

Chapter IV Section 1 Biodiversity Loss Observed by 2010203

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target
1. What is the 2010 Target?
The 2010 Target is an international target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate ofbiodiversity loss” as agreed upon at the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity (Resolution VI/26) was adopted at the 6th
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002). In this strategic plan, it was reconfirmedthat biodiversity is inevitable for sustainable development, and being lost at an accelerating rate. As a result, the2010 Target was adopted. The target was approved by the participating governments and leaders at the Johannesburg
Summit held two months after the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention. At the 7th Conference of theParties to the Convention in 2004, seven focal areas were agreed upon in order to assess the progress toward achieving
this goal (Resolution VII/30). For individual seven areas, 11 goals and 21 targets were established as subordinate
targets for the 2010 Target regarding biodiversity in general.
Indicators to assess the status and transition of biodiversity were suggested internationally for each target. The
progress made toward the 2010 Target was already assessed. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO3) was preparedby the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat and released in 2010. GBO3 revealed that none of the 21 targets
were achieved on a global scale, and that nine out of the 15 indicators showed negative transition for biodiversity. Thisrevealed recognition of greater pressure on biodiversity and ongoing biodiversity loss, and that the 2010 Target has notbeen achieved at the global level.
Based on these global level assessments, this section describes the progress made by Japan toward achieving the2010 Target as assessed by applying the indicators to the 21 goals.
The concept of assessment of the progress toward achieving the 2010 Target◯ The progress toward the goal (“a significant deceleration of biodiversity loss by 2010”) shall be assessed bycomprehensively judging the progress toward the 21 targets.
◯ One or several indicators shall be set to evaluate the targets among the 21 targets considered to have significancein terms of biodiversity and socioeconomic status in Japan.
◯ The targets and indicators do not directly show the speed of deterioration. Assessment is presented by the degreeof progress made toward achieving the targets ( ◯ for ʻachieved'; △ for ʻinsufficiently achieved'; × for ʻnotachieved') and trend ( ↗ a plus for biodiversity; ↘ a minus for biodiversity; ⇅ no specific trend).
◯ The assessment of the degree of progress toward achieving each goal in 2010 shall be the assessment of the
2000s that includes the progress in 2002 when the goals were set and progress in the target year of 2010.
◯ The degree of progress toward achieving each goal shall be assessed as “achieved” when all factors in theinterpretation of the goal are satisfied; “insufficiently achieved” when most factors are satisfied; “not achieved”
when most factors are not satisfied.
◯ The assessment shall be described in a simple manner using the internationally established indicators basedon the Strategy Plans of the Convention on Biodiversity, and adopting appropriate indicators and data used in
Chapters II and III.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

204

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Assessment of Progress Toward Achieving the 2010 Target in Japan(1) Progress toward achieving the 2010 Target
In order to assess the progress toward achieving the 2010 Target, assessment was conducted based on theindicators for individual targets presented in the framework of goals and targets (Table IV-5).
Assessment was conducted for 15 of the 21 targets. As for the degree of progress, two targets were achieved, ten
were insufficiently achieved, and three not achieved. As for trends in the 2000s, six targets were assessed as a plus forbiodiversity, seven had “no specific tendencies,” and one target was assessed as a minus for biodiversity.
As for the overall progress in such areas as "Efforts to Confront the Threat to Biodiversity" and the " Protectionof the Constituent Elements of Biodiversity," measures have been progressed and are functioning to reduce the speedof biodiversity loss as compared with the status in 2002 when the targets were established in some areas. Conversely,
for such targets as Target 7-1 (“Maintain and strengthen the resilience of the constituent elements of biodiversity foradaption to climate change”) in the goal and "Promote the conservation of genetic diversity" in the field of "promoting
sustainable use," some measures have been taken. However, the trend of biodiversity loss is not considered to havestopped judging from the indicators. By judging all these issues comprehensively, it is concluded that the overall trendof biodiversity loss is not stopped even though the status of biodiversity in Japan have seen partial improvement.
Based on the above, it is necessary to further promote continuous recognition and assessment of the situation andmeasures against biodiversity loss in order to conserve biodiversity and its sustainable use after 2010.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

205

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-5 Progress toward achieving the 2010 target in Japan
Goal
Focal
Area

Target1

Protectionof theConstituent
Elements ofBiodiversity

3

4

Sustainableuse

5

Efforts toConfront theThreat to
Biodiversity

6

Indicator

Assessment
in Japan
Degree of progress Tendency
toward the target in the 2000s

To promote biodiversity conservation in ecosystems, habitats, and in biomes
Effectively conserve at least
Total area of protected areas
1 - 1 10% of each eco-region in the
Efficient management of protected areas
world.
1

2

Content stated in the2010 target-

2

Protect the areas particularly
important for biodiversity.

The overlap between protectedareas and biodiversity

To promote conservation of species biodiversity
Living Planet Index (LPI)
Recover, maintain or mitigate
for forest birds
any decrease in the popula2 - 1 tions of species in a specific
Population of shorebirds
Distribution
and population
taxon.
of other taxons
Past frequencies of extinctionof vascular plants (Note 1)
The status of endangered
2 - 2 species has been improved.
Factors in the decrease ofendangered species (Note 1)
To promote conservation of genetic diversity
Conserve the genetic diversity of farm
produce, livestock, plants, fish and wildorganisms that human beings gather or Genetic diversity of land
3 - 1 hunt, and other valuable species. Also
livestock species
maintain the knowledge of indigenous
peoples and their local knowledge.
To promote sustainable use and consumption
Sustainably controlled supply
sources shall produce products
The area of a forest certified for
4 - 1 based on biodiversity, and beits sustainable maintenancemaintained in methods consistent
with conserving biodiversity.
Biologically permissible fishing
Reduce the unsustainableconsumption of living resources or quantity and associated concepts
4 - 2
consumption that impacts
Ecological footprints andbiodiversity.
associated concepts
There shall be no wild animals
None (Note 2)
4 - 3 and plants endangered byinternational trade.
Mitigate the pressure caused by loss of habitat, change or deterioration ofland use, and unsustainable water use.
Change in the area of forests
Change in the area of tidal flats (Note 1)
Reduce the speed of natural
5 - 1
habitat loss or deterioration.
Change in the area and cover degree of coral community
Change in the area of underwater forests
To control over the threat of invasive alien species
Control the entry pathways forInvasive alien species
6 - 1 major species highly likely to
become invasive alien species.
Formulate plans to control
Prevention of invasive alien
major invasive alien species
6 - 2 that could threaten ecosysspecies (Note 1)
tems, habitats and species.

Degree of progress toward the targets: ○ for ‘achieved’; △ for ‘insufficiently achieved’; × for ‘not achieved’Tendency: ↗ a plus for biodiversity; ↘ a minus for biodiversity; ⇅ no specific tendency
Note 1: Indicators that have replaced the indicators presented in the 2010 Target or added to the 2010 Target based on the status ofbiodiversity, its conservation and use, or accumulation of related data in Japan.
Note 2: Indicators not treated this time will be future tasks due to the need for sufficient analysis from a socioeconomic perspective or a lackof necessary data for assessment.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

206

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table IV-5 Progress toward achieving the 2010 target in Japan (continued)
Goal
Focal
Area

Content stated in the2010 target

Target7

Efforts toConfront theThreat to
Biodiversity

Indicator

Assessment
in Japan
Degree of progress Tendency
toward the target in the 2000s

To make efforts to address the problems of biodiversity caused by climate change and contamination
To maintain/strengthen resilience of the
7 - 1 Constituent Elements of Biodiversity forNone (Note 2)
adaption to climate change
7-

2

To mitigate contamination andits impact on biodiversity

Ratio of detection of majorcontaminants (fish, etc.) (Note 1)

Nitrogen accumulation
To maintain the performance of biodiversity that provides assets and services, and supports our life
MaintenanceMarine food chain index
of the assets
Water quality
The performance of biodiverand services
8 - 1 sity that provides assets shallFragmentation of rivers
be maintained.
provided by
Fragmentation of forests
biodiversity
Forest accumulation volume (Note 1)
that supports
Biodiversity that supports
sustainable life, local foodthe welfare
None (Note 2)
8 - 2
security, and medicine especiallyof mankind
for the poor shall be maintained.
Protection of 9 To maintain socio-cultural biodiversity of indigenous peoples and local communities
To protect traditional knowltraditional
9 - 1
None (Note 2)edge, ingenuity and practices
knowledge,
To protect the right of indigenous peoples
ingenuityand local communities over traditional
9 - 2 knowledge, ingenuity and practices, including None (Note 2)
andpractices
the right to receive allocated benefits
Securing of 10 To secure fair, balanced allocation of benefits generated by the use of genetic resources
All access to genetic resources shallfair, balanced
conform to the Convention on Biological None (Note 2)
101
allocation ofDiversity and related regulations.
8benefits
generated by
the use ofgenetic
resources

Securing of
sufficient
supply ofresources

Benefits generated by commercial use of genetic
resources shall be shared with the countries that
10 - 2 provide the resources in a fair, balanced manner None (Note 2)
in accordance with the Convention on Biological
Diversity and related regulations.
The member nations shall improve their human, scientific, technological and11
engineering capabilities in order to conform to the Convention.

11

11

-

New or additional financial resources
shall be transferred in accordance with
1 Article 20, in order for member
developing countries to effectively fulfill
their promises based on the Convention.

-

Technologies shall be transferred inaccordance with Article 20, in order Technological support
2 for member developing countries to in the field of biodiversity
effectively fulfill their promises
based on the Convention.

Official Development
Assistance (ODA) in thefield of biodiversity

Degree of progress toward the targets: ○ for ‘achieved’; △ for ‘insufficiently achieved’; × for ‘not achieved’Tendency: ↗ a plus for biodiversity; ↘ a minus for biodiversity; ⇅ no specific tendency
Note 1: Indicators that have replaced the indicators presented in the 2010 Target or added to the 2010 Target based on the status ofbiodiversity, its conservation and use, or accumulation of related data in Japan.
Note 2: Indicators not treated this time will be future tasks due to the need for sufficient analysis from a socioeconomic perspective or a lackof necessary data for assessment.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

207

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(2) Target field: Protection of the constituent elements of biodiversity
Goal 1: To promote biodiversity conservation in ecosystems, habitats, and biomes
Target1-1: Effectively conserve at least 10% of each eco-region in the world.
Assessment:
At this point, the target will be considered achieved when approximately 10% of individual eco-regions (by the
degree of vegetation naturalness as mentioned here) are effectively conserved. The tendency will be assessed as a plus
if efforts toward achieving the target are promoted during the 2000s.
At present, the area covered as a protected region has reached 10% in major land ecosystems, but has not reached
10% in marine and coastal ecosystems. The degree of protection is not sufficient in marine and coastal ecosystems.
Plans for maintenance have been formulated with the participation of local people involved in 28 national parks in 71
regions. However, national parks only cover 6% of the national land, meaning that the target of effectively conserving
at least 10% of each eco-region has not been achieved. The tendency in the 2000s is assessed as a plus, but further
efforts are required especially in marine regions.
Indicator: The total area of protected areas
Presently, major protected areas (nature conservation areas, nature parks, habitat protection areas, wildlife
protection areas, forest reserves, green space conservation areas, etc.) cover 17% of the national land. However, it
is only 9% when limited to protected areas with strict restrictions on activities (areas where permission from thecentral or local government is required for development). Practically, special areas and special sea areas in wilderness
conservation, nature conservation and prefectural nature conservation areas, and those in natural parks, management
area in habitat protection areas, special protection areas in wildlife protection and forest/mountain system protection
areas are mentioned (see Data 5- ② ).
These protected areas cover 10% or more of the major land ecosystems. As for forests and grasslands, naturalforests, natural grasslands and secondary forests with high naturalness account for 29%, secondary forests 14%,
artificial forests 15%, and secondary grasslands 19% (see Data 5- ② ).
As for the overall marine area (territorial waters), the protected area covers only 6%. And it drops further to lessthan 1% for protected areas with strict restrictions on activities (see Data 5- ② ).
From 2002 up to now, among these protected areas, natural parks wildlife protection areas, forest reserves, green
space conservation areas, etc. have been additionally designated or expanded, some of which include sea areas.
Indicator: Efficient management of protected areas
Even if protected areas are designated or expanded, the environment must be efficiently managed in order to beeffectively protected.
For efficient management, it is useful to set a management plan with the participation of local people involved
in individual protected areas. Such management plans have been formulated for only a few major protected areas.
However, as for national parks that cover 6% of the national land, all 28 national parks in 71 regions have establishedmanagement plans with the participation of local governments and related organizations.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

208

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Target 1-2: Protect the areas that are especially important for biodiversity.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when most of the areas that are especially important for biodiversity areprotected at a higher level than other areas. And the tendency will be assessed as a plus if such areas are expanded in
the 2000s.
Although the protection ratio of important areas selected by the nation and local bodies is higher than for otherareas, there are still quite a few important areas beyond the reach of protection. At present, it is assessed as insufficientachievement. In the 2000s additional protected areas were designated, and thus the tendency indicates somewhat of aplus.
Indicator: Overlap between protected areas and biodiversity
In land areas, among the ecosystems with less alteration (natural forests and natural grasslands), 31% of naturalforests and 47% of natural grasslands are covered by major protected areas (nature conservation areas, nature parks,
habitat protection areas, wildlife protection areas, forest reserves, green space conservation areas, etc.). Moreover,
22% and 36%, respectively, are covered by protected areas with strict restrictions on activities (see Data 5- ② ).
These major protected areas cover 30% of second meshes (where the total kinds are ranked among the top 150)
in which endangered vascular plants are concentrated, and protected areas with strict restrictions on activities accountfor 17%. They also cover 70% of specific plant communities (1978, 1988, 2000 by the Ministry of the Environment),
and protected areas with strict restrictions on activities account for 56%.
These major protected areas cover 52% of “important areas” chosen as areas where biodiversity as the coreof maintaining biological characteristics of the national land has been established (2001 by the Ministry of theEnvironment), and protected areas with strict restrictions on activities account for 40%. (see Data 5- ② ).These major
protected areas cover 29% of “500 important Japanese wetlands” chosen as basic data of wetland conservation basedon scientific information and expertise (2001 by the Ministry of the Environment), and protected areas with strict
restrictions on activities account for 20% (see Data 5- ② ).
As for the major coastal ecosystems (tidal flats, underwater forests, and coral reefs), these major protectedareas cover more than 10%, but protected areas with strict restrictions on activities account for 6% of tidal flats andunderwater forests, and only 3% of coral reefs (see Data 5- ② ).
Additionally designated protected areas from 2002 up to now include some of these important areas.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

209

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Goal 2: To promote the conservation of species diversity
Target 2-1: Recover, maintain or mitigate decreases in species populations in a specific taxon.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when the populations and distributions of all taxons for which available
national data are listed, and where a population has clearly increased or its distribution expanded, remained
unchanged, or where most showed no tendency to decrease or contract. The tendency will be assessed as a plus if such
efforts are apparently observed during the 2000s.
As for the taxons for which national data are available, populations have tended to be maintained or restored
since the 1970s, although a slight decrease in population is observed in many taxons. Significant deterioration was notobserved from the beginning, but there is still no evidence of restoration, maintenance or mitigation. Thus the target
has not been achieved. Data after the 2000s are not available in many cases. Individual indicators are also inconsistent,
making it difficult to consider whether there are any specific tendencies.
Indicator: Living Planet Index (LPI) for forest birds
As for forest birds (103 kinds of birds dependent on domestic forest and mountain systems), the Living PlanetIndex (LPI) that indicates the range of distribution from 1997 to 2002 against 1978 slightly decreased (with an averagevalue of 94). The species that migrate long distances or those that use early successional forests have significantly
declined, while species that migrate short distances or resident birds have slightly increased. The tendency after 2002
is not known (see Data 17- ② ).
Indicator: Population of shorebirds
Shorebirds depend on marine and coastal, inland water, and cultivated systems. The population index of major
shorebirds that pass over Japan during spring migration has not showed specific tendencies from 1975 to 2008.
The population index of major shorebirds that pass over Japan during autumn migration, however, shows atendency of slight decrease among species that mainly use tidal flats and beaches in marine and coastal systems. Thatof inland species does not show any tendency of decreasing, but the populations of species that are highly dependent
on paddy fields in cultivated systems are decreasing. The same tendency was reported as for the 2000s (see Data 20- ① ,28- ① ).
Indicator: Distributions and populations of other species
In forest and mountain systems, the previously mentioned LPI of forest birds shows a slight decrease. The
distributions of brown bears (Ursus arctos) and Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus)̶the higher species in forestand mountain systems̶expanded greatly from 1978 to 2003. However, their distributions shrank in parts of westernJapan, thereby raising concern about the possible extinction of those populations (see Data 17- ① ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

210

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In urban systems, such as in the special wards of Tokyo, the distribution of white-eyes that apparently adapted
to park green spaces expanded from the 1970s to the 1990s, and that of skylarks (which depend on farmland andgrassland) contracted (see Data 23- ① and 23- ② ).
In inland water systems, the distribution of charophyte that grows in lakes of good water quality decreased to agreat extent from 1964, and particularly from 1992 to 1998 (see Data 26- ① ).
In coastal systems, the harvested quantities of clams that grow in tidal flats and on sandy beaches were drasticallyreduced from the second half of 1950s to the 1960s, and have been gradually declined thereafter in the 2000s (SeeData28- ② ).
As for marine systems, among approximately 80 kinds of fish caught by Japan, the ratio of those whose catches
tend to be decreasing has been rising since the 1980s (see Data29- ③ ).
Target 2-2: Improve the status of endangered species.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when the following tendencies are obvious in data for the mostendangered species in a certain period: a lower threat of extinction, a mitigated speed of extinction or weakened
factors of decrease. The tendency will be assessed as a plus if such changes are observed in the 2000s.
The frequency of assessing vascular plants as “Extinct/ Extinct in the Wild” is decreasing each year. However,no decrease is considered when including “nearly extinct.” In the 2000s (compared with the high economic growth
period), the speed of development̶the greatest factor causing the decrease of endangered species̶slowed down.
Still, past development continues to have an impact. And there are concerns about the impact of such factors as
natural succession and alien species becoming stronger. In the 2000s, there was no evidence showing an apparent
improvement in the status of endangered species; thus, the target has been insufficiently achieved. No specifictendency has been observed.
Indicator: Past frequency of extinction of vascular plants
Based on the number of endangered vascular plant species by period in the latest Red List issued by the Ministryof the Environment, 40 kinds were assessed as "extinct/extinct in the Wild," and 22 were “nearly extinct” after the
1920s. The average ratio of extinction was 8.6 kinds every 10 years over the past 50 years. The species confirmed
to be "extinct/ extinct in the Wild" were declining each year after the 1970s. No decrease is considered at least up to
1990s when including “nearly extinct” (see Data 4- ③ ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

211

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator: Factors of decrease of endangered species
Approximately one-fourth of the vertebrate animal species (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, brackish/freshwater fish) assessed for the Red List issued by the Ministry of the Environment, and about one-fourth of vascularplant species have already gone extinct or are threatened with extinction (see Data 4- ① ).
Development was the largest factor causing such loss. Moreover, development is considered to have caused theloss of approximately 90% of vertebrate species and 50% of vascular plant species. Most of these factors have recently
declined when compared to the high economic growth period (from the second half of 1950s to the 1970s) and otherperiods. The economic growth and population migration as its background is also decelerating. However, it is not easy
to restore habitats once modified (see Data 4- ⑤ , and Data 1- ⑥ , 1- ⑦ , 15- ② , 18- ① , 19- ② , 22- ① , 25- ① , 27- ① ,27- ② , 27- ③ ).
Water pollution, which is considered the cause of reducing about 40% of amphibians and 60% of brackish/freshwater fish, has been alleviated in recent years (see Data 4- ⑤ , or Data 3- ① ).
As for the capture and gathering for gardening and ornamental use, which are considered causes of reducing
about 60% of reptiles, 30% of brackish/freshwater fish and amphibians, and 20% of vascular plants, there is noevidence showing any reduction in recent years. Natural succession, which is regarded as a factor in reducing
approximately 30% of vascular plants, tends to be rising as a factor due to the ongoing tendency of grasslands,
farmlands and secondary forests being used less (see Data 4- ⑤ or Data 7- ① , 7- ② , 7- ③ , 19- ④ , 19- ⑤ ).
Alien species are considered the cause of reducing about 70% of reptiles, 30% of brackish/freshwater fish, and
20% of amphibians and mammals, and tend to be rising as a factor, because the invasion and settlement by additional
species or the expanded distributions of some invasive alien species have not been prevented (see Data 4- ⑤ or Data
9- ① , 9- ② , 9- ③ , 9- ④ ).
Goal 3: To promote the conservation of genetic diversity
Target 3-1: Conserve the genetic diversity of farm produce, livestock, plants, fish and wild organismsthat human beings gather or hunt, and other valuable species. Also maintain the knowledge ofindigenous peoples and their local knowledge.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when the kinds or populations of native species in farm produce andlivestock are maintained in a certain period in the data, thereby maintaining genetic diversity. The tendency will beassessed as a plus if the circumstances surrounding native species are improved or population growth is apparent in
the 2000s.
There are small populations of native species among livestock that lack genetic diversity since being diminished;thus, the target has not been achieved. Native species in livestock have declined since the Meiji Era (late 19th century
to early 20th century), resulting in only very small existing populations. Conservation efforts have just begun regarding
most species, though no apparent restoration has been confirmed and no specific tendency observed.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

212

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator: Genetic diversity of land livestock species
Most of the approximately 50 species of native Japanese horses cross-bred with Western horses in the Meiji era
and identified by names of the breeding locations have died out. The number of domestic horses was reportedly about
86,000 in 2006, among which only 2,000 were from eight Japanese native species (see Chapter III, Section 2). Native
cattle were also bred with European species in the Meiji and Taisho eras. About 4.4 million cattle are now being raised
mainly for beef and dairy purposes, among which no more than 100 head of only two native species (Mishima cattle
and Kuchinoshima cattle) are maintained (see Chapter III, Section 2). Recent efforts to conserve these species were
initiated in cooperation of zoos.
(3) Target field: Sustainable use
Goal 4: To promote sustainable use and consumption
Target 4-1: Ensure that sustainably controlled supply sources produce products based on biodiversity,and be maintained using methods consistent with biodiversity conservation.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when most production areas are sustainably managed using a method
consistent with biodiversity conservation. And the tendency will be assessed as a plus if such ratio increases in the
2000s.
The total area of forests certified in Japan remains small compared to that of all Japanese forests. Not all
sustainably managed forests will be certified, but the indicator stipulated in the 2010 target focuses on sustainable
forest management through forest certification, meaning that the target is not considered achieved. However, since theintroduction of such certification, the certified area increased during the 2000s, and thus the tendency is considered aplus.
Indicator: The area of forests certified for sustainable maintenance
The area of forests in Japan with forest management certification (FM certification) issued by the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) totaled about 100 square kilometers in 2003, and then rose to 3,700 square kilometers in
2010.1) And the area of forests certified by the “Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council (SGEC),” the domestic forest
recognition system, expanded from about 1,800 square kilometers at initial recognition in 2005 to approximately 8,200
square kilometers in 2010.2)
The area of such certified land tends to be rising, however, the FSC certified area accounts for 1%, 3% and 3%,
and the SGEC certified area accounts for 3%, 7% and 8%, respectively, in the total area of forests (about 0.251 million
square kilometers in 2007), the area of forests managed by planting, mowing and thinning (about 0.113 million square
kilometers in 2007), and the area of artificial forests (about 0.104 million square kilometers in 2007).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

213

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Target 4-2: Reduce the unsustainable consumption of living resources or consumption that impacts
biodiversity.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when an apparent decrease is observed in the unsustainable consumptionof biological resources or consumption that impacts biodiversity in a certain period in the data. If such change wasobserved in the 2000s, the tendency will be assessed as a plus.
The target will be considered insufficiently achieved when there is no apparent decrease in the unsustainableconsumption of biological resources or consumption that impacts biodiversity. The tendency will be assessed as aminus.
Indicator: Biologically permissible fishing quantity and related concepts
As for major 13 species of Japanese fish (saury, red sea bream, Pleurogrammus azonus, cod, anchovy, Etrumeus
teres, queen crabs, walleye pollack, sagittated calamary, Scomberomorus niphonius, chub mackerel, jack mackerel,
and true sardine), biologically permissible fishing quantity remained within the range of 2 to 2.5 million tons in the
2000s.3) The current fishing quantity including other fish species for all of Japan is approximately 3.5 million tons.
Resource assessment is underway for 82 biomes of 52 kinds that include 17 biomes of seven fish species
controlled as resources by the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in Japan. At present, the volume of resources is assessed
as being low for 8 biomes among the 17 biomes of 7 fish species under the control of TAC, and 37 biomes among the84 biomes of 52 fish species subject to resource assessment (see Data 29- ① ).
As for the tendency of fishing quantity regarding approximately 80 fish species above, the ratio of species thatshow a decreasing trend such as true sardine, walleye pollack and prawns against all fish species is rising (see Data
29- ③ ).
Indicator: Ecological footprints and related concepts
Ecological footprints refer to the following: “The global demand of mankind as expressed in the form of areas ofland and ocean that provide biological productivity necessary for supplying resources and adsorbing waste.” This is anindicator to show the dependence of human beings on the natural environment.
According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the ecological footprint (per person) in Japan rapidly
increased from the 1960s (about 2 gha) to the 1970s (about 4 gha).The cycles of increase and decrease were
subsequently repeated up to the 2000s, showing a tendency of a slight increase.4)
The ecological footprint (per person) in Japan was 4.9 gha in 2005. It is 1.8 times as much as 2.7 gha, the world
average of biological productivity (per person), and reaches 2.3 times as much as 2.1 gha, the sustainable level (perperson) in considering the intrinsic productivity and waste collectability of the earth.4)

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

214

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Target 4-3: Ensure that no wild animals or plants are endangered by international trade.
As for indicators to properly assess the progress of achieving the target, thorough discussions are considerednecessary based on socioeconomic analyses of the current status. We therefore decided to pass on the selection of an
indicator and assessment, leaving both as future tasks. In consideration of the current status where Japan is importinga large quantity of fauna and flora from abroad for ornamental use and other purposes (see Data 9- ② , 9- ③ ), future
discussions are expected to focus on the importation of animals and the living/growth status of such fauna and flora intheir homeland, in addition to the exportation of domestic animals and plants.
(4) Target field: Efforts to confront the threat to biodiversity
Goal 5: To mitigate pressure caused by loss of habitat, change or deterioration of land use, andunsustainable water use.
Target 5-1: Assess that the speed of loss or deterioration of natural habitats is reduced.
The target will be considered achieved when the speed of loss or deterioration of natural habitats is apparently
reduced in a certain period in the data. If such change was observed in the 2000s, the tendency will be assessed as aplus.
Compared with the period of high economic growth (in the second half of 1950s to the first half of 1970s),
development pressure causing loss or deteriorated habitats has been weakened. Partly because the loss anddeterioration of ecosystems has already progressed significantly, the speed of loss or deterioration has apparently
decreased. As for the 2000s, the pressure remained relatively weak, but the speed of loss or deterioration was notconsidered to have decreased. Ongoing caution is thus required. The target was achieved, but with no specific tendency
observed at present.
Indicator: Change in the area of forests
Forests account for about 70% of Japan's national land. The area of forests is relatively stable and has remained atabout 0.25 million square kilometers since the 1960s to this day. However, during the same period, natural forests andsecondary forests decreased by 14%, and artificial forests increased by 31%. Most of this change occurred from the
1960s to the 1980s, followed by moderate change after the 1980s. Forests showed no apparent tendencies in the 2000s
and have remained stable (see Data 15- ① ).
Indicator: Change in the area of tidal flats
The area of tidal flats in Japan was approximately 840 square kilometers in 1945, and then decreased to 550
square kilometers in 1978, and then 500 square kilometers in the 1990s, thereby losing 40% of such area (see Data
27- ⑤ ). The area of tidal flats in Tokyo Bay decreased from 100 square kilometers to 20 square kilometers during
the period of high economic growth (in the second half of 1950s to first half of 1970s) when coastal areas were
proactively modified, thereby losing about 80% of such area (see Data 27- ⑥ ). The tendency in the 2000s is unknown
though, and based on the transition of reclamation area, a tendency of decreasing is likely to be shown instead of a
rapid decrease (see Data 27- ① ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

215

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator: Change in the area/cover degree of coral communities
The area of coral communities in coral ponds within coral reef areas in Japan decreased from approximately 360
square kilometers in 1978 to 340 square kilometers in the 1990s. The cover degree of most coral communities in coral
ponds remained less than 50% in 1992 (see Data 27- ⑧ ).
In the Sekisei Lagoon, damage caused by large-scale bleaching and coral predators has increased since thesecond half of 1990s. The cover degree of coral communities has remained within the range of 30 to 40% with somefluctuation (see Data 27- ⑨ ).
Among the 1000 monitoring sites (used in a coral reef survey), most coral communities at 24 sites mostly had acover degree ranging from 20 to 30%. Most sites maintained the same level or showed a tendency of decreasing from2004 to 2008.3)
Indicator: Change in the area of underwater forests
The area of underwater forests (consisting of marine algae and sea grass) in Japan decreased from about 2,100
square kilometers in 1973 to 2,010 square kilometers around the 1990s (see Data 27- ⑦ ). It is estimated that the area
decreased even further from the 1990s to the 2000s.5)
Goal 6: To control the threat of invasive alien species
Target 6-1: Control the entry pathways for major species that are highly likely to become invasive alien
species.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when major species that are highly likely to become invasive alien species
are identified, and intentional/unintentional entry pathways are practically controlled in a certain period in the data. Ifsuch change was observed in the 2000s, the tendency will be assessed as a plus.
The Invasive Alien Species Act (enacted in 2004) and other regulations have controlled the intentional entry
pathways of invasive alien species to a considerable extent. However, the pressure imposed by the entry of invasive
alien species is considered to be rising. There is also a lack of measures being taken against unintentional entry. The
progress toward achieving the target is insufficient. In the 2000s, efforts by the central and local governments wereexpanded and considered to have improved the control. The tendency is therefore assessed as a plus.
Indicator: Invasive alien species
The number of alien insect species and spermatophyte that have settled in Japan continued to increase in the 20th
century, and such settlement is gradually increasing (see Data 9- ① ). Some invasive alien species have expanded theirdistributions throughout Japan since the 1950s (see Data 9- ④ ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

216

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

In addition to the Plant Protection Act (enacted in 1950) and the Act on Prevention of Infectious Diseases (enacted
in 1998), the Invasive Alien Species Act was enacted in 2004 to prohibit the import, growth, storage, transport, transfer
or outdoor release of designated alien species that damage or may damage ecosystems, human life or health, or the
agriculture, forestry and fishery industries. Currently 97 species from taxons consisting mainly of species alreadyregarded as problematic in Japan and those that have caused problems overseas have been designated as such alien
species. This has enabled the control of intentional entry pathways for additional species that are highly likely to
become invasive alien species (see Data 11- ① ).
The quantity of live animals and fish imported for ornamental use has increased or remained the same since the1990s. That of some taxons such as mammals and reptiles has showed a tendency of decreasing in the 2000s.
From the 1990s, local governments introduced regulations on the entry of largemouth bass that causes damage
to inland water fisheries. In the 2000s, more local governments began preparing lists of alien species and introduced
regulations on the outdoor release of alien species. However, effective measures for unintentional entry as extraneousmaterial among cargo or in ballast water from ships have yet to be prepared.
Target 6-2: Formulate plans to control major invasive alien species that could threaten ecosystems,
habitats or species.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when effective plans have been formulated in order to control major
invasive alien species from the standpoint of preventing threats to ecosystems, habitats and species, and such measures
have demonstrated effectiveness in such control in a certain period in the data. If such change was observed in the
2000s, the tendency will be assessed as a plus.
In the 2000s, prevention plans were formulated for some invasive alien species, and prevention is underway.
However, in terms of containing the expanding distributions of invasive alien species, notable results have yet to be
except for island areas. The target was “insufficiently achieved,” but the tendency was assessed as a plus.
Indicator: Prevention of invasive alien species
In the 2000s, the Plant Protection Act and some ordinances (on hunting, gathering, eradication, measures toprevent damage, etc.) issued by local governments stipulated the prevention of invasive alien species that havealready settled. As for some invasive alien species such as raccoons and small Indian mongooses, the central and local
governments are promoting the formulation of prevention plans, preparation of manuals on preventive techniques,
implementation of preventive measures, and other efforts (see Data 11- ② ).
As for largemouth bass, local governments and private organizations are promoting efforts for its control. In
island areas where some endangered species live and grow, the national government is promoting efforts for control.
For example, on Okinawa Island in the Nansei Islands and the island of Amami Oshima, the populations of small
Indian mongooses were largely reduced in the 2000s, and bullfrogs were successfully eradicated on the Ogasawara
islands.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

217

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanAs stated above, species that live on an island or have limited distribution can be successfully eradicated orcontrolled in terms of population. However, controlling the expanding distributions of invasive alien species that havealready settled on the mainland is difficult. Various entities must therefore make ongoing efforts.
Goal 7: To make efforts to address problems of biodiversity caused by climate change andcontamination
Target 7-1: Maintain and strengthen the resilience of the constituent elements of biodiversity foradapting to climate change.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when measures are formulated and enacted to address the impact ofclimate change on biodiversity, and demonstrate effectiveness in a certain period in the data. Japan is currently
engaged in discussions on measures to adapt to climate change. Thus, the target has not been achieved.
Indicator (none):The central government shall prepare guidelines for adapting to climate change. There are currently only a few
cases of measures being implemented for adaptation. Given this situation, selecting an indicator for this target shall bea task to be discussed in the future. The target has been assessed based on efforts observed thus far.
Target 7-2: Mitigate contamination and its impact on biodiversity.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when apparent reduction is confirmed regarding the impact of waterpollution and contamination caused by persistent chemical substances on living organisms in a certain period in thedata. If such change was observed in the 2000s, the tendency will be assessed as a plus.
There still are concerns and further questions about pollution and its impact on biodiversity. However, pollution
and its impact have apparently been reduced. The target has been achieved. The overall tendency in the 2000s
remained the same.
Indicator: Nitrogen accumulation
Nitrogen causes eutrophication in water areas. The total nitrogen concentration in lakes in Japan has been about 0.6
mg/L since the mid-1980s (see Data 3- ① ). The total nitrogen concentration in marine areas rapidly decreased since
the mid-1990s to a range of 0.03 to 0.05 mg/L, and now remains stable within a range of 0.01 to 0.02 mg/L (see Data
3- ① ).
Indicator: Ratio of detection of major contaminants (fish, etc.)
The production and use of major contaminants (PCB, DDT, HCH, dieldrin, HCB, and TBT) were regulated
by such legislation as the Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc.
from the 1970s to the 1990s. Controls on such production and use have been improved to this day. The ratio of thesechemical substances being detected in fish and other organisms tended to decrease since the second half of 1970s or
after the mid-1980s. It tended to remain the same or decrease in the 2000s (see Data 10- ① ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

218

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(5) Target field: Maintenance of the assets and services provided by biodiversity that supports thewelfare of mankind
Goal 8: To maintain the performance of biodiversity that provides assets and services, and supports
our life
Target 8-1: The performance of biodiversity that provides assets and services is maintained.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when major ecosystems that provide ecosystem services apparently
maintain the capabilities (including potential) of providing ecosystem services in a certain period in the data. The
tendency will be assessed as a plus if those capabilities are maintained or restored in the 2000s.
The indicator of the 2010 Target is the capability of proving ecosystem services, and quite similar to indicatorsthat show the general soundness of an ecosystem. As for marine and coastal systems, effectiveness is somewhat
limited and the marine trophic index remains a relatively high standard. The water quality of inland water systems andmarine and coastal systems is considered to have been improved compared to the period of high economic growth.
The tendency remained the same in the 2000s. The fragmentation of rivers is ongoing. As for forest and mountainsystems, fragmentation progressed before but now has become moderate. Based on these indicators in the 2010 Target,
the tendency of deterioration seems to have become relatively moderate. However, the assessment is apparently
affected by some factors unique to Japan. Also, the assessment indicated some inconsistency among the kinds of
ecosystem services. Therefore, it is questionable whether these indicators fully demonstrate the capability of providing
ecosystem services. If forest accumulation volume is selected as an indicator separate from the indicators shown in
the 2010 Target, a consistent increase is confirmed. With all these indicators are comprehensively taken into account,ecosystem are not considered to maintain the capability of providing assets and services in the 2000s. Thus, the target
is not sufficiently achieved. There is no apparent tendency because individual indicators show different tendencies in
the 2000s.
Indicator: Marine Trophic index
The Marine Trophic index (MTI) shows the average trophic level by fish based on fishing quantity. Japan's MTI
is higher than the international average of 3.3. It has remained at the same level in the 2000s (see Data 29- ② ).
As previously stated, the effectiveness of this index is limited when applied to Japan. As the index dropped
due to the impact of fluctuations in the true sardine resource in the 1980s, we utilize fish at low trophic levels. And
maintaining the level of this index does not necessarily indicate the capability of providing ecosystem services. As asource of information, FishBase lacks information about squid and other marine life utilized in Japan.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target219

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Indicator: Water quality
The total nitrogen concentration in rivers has remained the same since 1980s as stated before. The total phosphateconcentration tends to gradually decrease (see Data 3- ① ).
The total nitrogen concentration in marine areas has been improved since mid-1990s as stated above, andremained the same in the 2000s. The total phosphate concentration thus shows the same tendency (see Data 3- ① ).
The degree of achieving environmental criteria in enclosed coastal sea areas such as inner bays and inland seas waspartly improved from the1970s to the 1980s, but tends to worsened after the 1990s and in the 2000s (see Data 27- ⑬ ).
Indicator: Fragmentation of rivers
In the second half of 1990s, research was conducted over the research zones (middle and down streams in rivers)in the major 113 rivers in Japan. There were 17 rivers (15%) that allow fish to swim up to the range of less than 25%
from the river mouth, and 46 rivers (41%) that allow up to 50% (See Data 25- ② ).
Since the 1950s, more dams have been continuously constructed on rivers, thereby expanding the total water
storage. This tendency continued during the 2000s (see Data 25- ① ).
Indicator: Fragmentation of forests
Forests mainly in western Japan are currently fragmented by land use for other purposes. Relatively tall forests
are concentrated along mountainous backbones. These forests are surrounded by forests fragmented by farmland andurban districts. No data are available regarding the tendencies of this indicator in the 2000s. However, the pressure ofdevelopment that fragments forests is decreasing (see Data 16- ① ).
Indicator: Forest accumulation volume
Forest accumulation volume has consistently increased since the 1960s when data mainly on artificial forests
were first recorded. It totaled about 1.89 billion m3 in 1966, about 4.04 billion m3 in 2002, and increased to about 4.43
billion m3 in 2007. This tendency is continuing in the 2000s (see Data 18- ① ).
Target 8-2: Maintain biological resources that support sustainable life, local food security andmedicine, especially for the poor.
This target was selected in consideration of developing nations. However, our economic activities might affectit indirectly. For that reason, thorough discussions are considered necessary based on socioeconomic analyses of thecurrent status for selecting an indicator to properly assess our progress toward achievement. We therefore decided topass on selection of an indicator and assessment, leaving both as future tasks.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

220

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(6) Target field: Protection of traditional knowledge, ingenuity and practices
Goal 9: To maintain the socio-cultural biodiversity of indigenous peoples and local communities
Target 9-1: Protect traditional knowledge, ingenuity and practices.
This target was selected mainly by focusing on developing nations that possess biological resources. However, italso involves important domestic issues. However, we could not develop satisfactory indicators in our discussions thistime. We decided to pass on selection of an indicator and assessment, leaving both as future tasks.
Target 9-2: Protect the right of indigenous peoples and local communities over traditional knowledge,
ingenuity and practices, including the right to receive allocated benefits.
This target was selected in consideration of developing nations that possess biological resources. However, oureconomic activities might affect it indirectly. For that reason, thorough discussions are considered necessary basedon socioeconomic analyses of the current status for selecting an indicator to properly assess our progress towardachievement. We therefore decided to pass on selection of an indicator and assessment, leaving both as future tasks.
(7) Target field: Securing of fair, balanced allocation of benefits generated by the use of genetic
resources
Goal 10: To secure fair, balanced allocation of benefits generated by the use of genetic resources
Target 10-1: Ensure that all access to genetic resources conforms to the Convention on Biological
Diversity and related regulations.
This target was selected to focus on the economic activities of developing nations with rich genetic resources andthose of advanced nations. Japanese companies have already been engaged in activities in accordance with agreementson the use of genetic resources in tropical nations, but data on these activities remain limited. We therefore decided topass on selection of an indicator to properly assess the progress of achievement and assessment, leaving both as futuretasks.
Target 10-2: Ensure the sharing of benefits generated by the commercial use of genetic resources, etc.
with countries that provide the resources in a fair, balanced manner.
This target was selected to focus on the economic activities of developing nations with rich genetic resources
and those advanced nations. Japanese companies have already been engaged in commercial use of genetic resourcesin tropical nations, but data on efforts to secure a fair, balanced allocation remain limited. We therefore decided topass on selection of an indicator to properly assess the progress of achievement and assessment, leaving both as futuretasks.

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

221

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan(8) Target field: Securing of sufficient supply of resources
Goal 11: To ensure that member nations improve their financial, human, scientific, technological andengineering capabilities in order to conform to the Convention
Target 11-1: Transfer new or additional financial resources in accordance with Article 20 to member
developing countries, in order to effectively fulfill their promises based on the Convention.
Assessment:
As stipulated in Article 20 of the Convention, the target will not be considered achieved unless new or additional
financial resources are transferred by Official Development Assistance and other sources.
The aid for the field of biodiversity accounts for about one-third of Official Development Assistance in theenvironmental field, and remained roughly the same in the 2000s. New or additional financial resources were notconsidered transferred. Thus the target was insufficiently achieved.
Indicator: Official Development Assistance (ODA) in the field of biodiversity
The amount of aid provided by ODA in the environmental field showed a tendency of increasing during
1990s, and thereafter remained within the range of 300 to 400 billion yen per year. Among Environmental ODA from2003 to 2005, biodiversity-related fields accounted for 160 million dollars (24%), and biosphere protection-related
fields for 77 million dollars (11%) (see Data 14- ① ).
Target 11-2: Ensure that technologies are transferred in accordance with Article 20 to member
developing countries, in order to effectively fulfill their promises based on the Convention.
Assessment:
The target will be considered achieved when technologies are transferred to the extent where developing member
countries can effectively fulfill their promises. If technology transfer increases in the 2000s, the tendency will beassessed as a plus.
In recent years, Japan has annually conducted 70 to 80 projects involving technological cooperation in various
areas of the world. However, the target is considered not sufficiently achieved because our efforts have yet to reach thelevel where developing member countries can effectively fulfill their promises. The tendency was assessed as a plus
because Japan has extended its technological cooperation in the field of biodiversity in the 2000s.
Indicator: Projects of technological cooperation in the field of biodiversity
Japan has extended its technological cooperation in the field of biodiversity. The Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) conducted about 30 projects for technological cooperation in the field of biodiversity in the first halfof 2000s, and then shifted to a range of 70 to 80 projects per year in the second half of 2000s. The projects involving
technological cooperation targeted 79 nations in Southeast Asia, Central and South America, and Africa (see Data 14③ ).

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

222

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

References
1) Forest Stewardship Council Japan, 2010: The status of FM recognition in Japan
http://www.forsta.or.jp/fsc/
2) “Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council” Convention for recognition, 2010: The List of SGEC recognized forestsand certified entities.
http://www.sgec-eco.org/
3) Hiroyuki Matsuda, Hirotaka Ijima, 2010: Ecological Footprint and the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, co-authored by Kiichiro Hayashi, "Basic knowledge on Biodiversity/Ecosystem and Economy,"
Chuohoki Publishing Co., Ltd., 124-146.
4) WWF, 2005: ASIA-PACIFIC，The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth.
5) Ministry of Environment, 2009: Monitoring Site 1000 Research on Coral Reefs, 2008, Quick Estimation.
http://www.biodic.go.jp/moni1000/
6) Fisheries Agency, 2008: FY 2008 Fisheries White Paper.
http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/index.html

Chapter IV Section 2 Assessment of Progress toward Achieving the 2010 Target

223

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010
1. Biodiversity Loss Observed after 2010
The 10th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) to be held in October 2010is expected to select post-2010 targets. Earlier, Japanese ideas and proposals for post-2010 targets to be discussed
by COP10 were submitted in January 2010. Based on these ideas and proposals, medium and long-term targets to beachieved by 2050 and short-term targets to be achieved by 2020 were decided for the National Biodiversity Strategy
2010.
< Medium and Long-term Targets (2050)>◯ Enhance the harmony between human beings and nature at national and local levels, improve the status ofbiodiversity in Japan from the current level, and sustainably increase the benefits of ecosystem services.
<Short-term Targets (2020)>◯ To stop biodiversity loss by 2020, Japan will:(1) Conduct full observations and analyses of the status of biodiversity in Japan based on scientific evaluation.
Expand activities for biodiversity conservation, conserve indigenous species of fauna and flora and ecosystems,
and build ecological networks that can maintain and restore biodiversity at the national level.
In particular, stabilize and restore populations of species currently threatened with extinction, and take proper
measures to prevent new species from becoming endangered.
(2) Establish mechanisms for reducing the adverse effects of human activities on biodiversity, and promote practicalmethods for the sustainable use of national land and natural resources across generations.
(3) Have ecosystem services respected in every aspect of human society. Make the conservation of biodiversity andits sustainable use mainstream in socioeconomic activities of the general public, by ensuring new steps taken byvarious stakeholders.
In order to achieve these targets, it is necessary to predict future trends of the social and natural environments inJapan, in order to comprehensively promote various measures to solve problems, and focus internally on conserving
biodiversity and its sustainable use in socioeconomic activities.
Japan is heavily dependent on other countries for such biological resources as timber, agricultural and aquatic
products, and natural resources such as fossil fuels and mineral resources. The consumption of goods and economic
activities in general in Japan have a major impact on global biodiversity. Based on this understanding, in order forJapan as well as all nations around the world to make the status of biodiversity richer than it is now by 2050, it
is important to promote efforts within and outside Japan by recognizing global linkages and a wide-area view incooperation with other nations regarding their sustainable use of resources in consideration of biodiversity, and bypromoting further utilization of domestic resources.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

224

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Future Changes Now Expected>
We need to expect that our social conditions as well as natural conditions will change to a certain extent in the
future when considering such a time scale.
According to the medium variant provided by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research,
Japan's future population is expected to decline by 4% by 2020 from that in 2005, with the rate of people aged 75
and older expected to increase significantly by 1.6 times. In comparing 2005 with 2050, rapid depopulation andan increasingly aging society are expected. Modern society has never experienced such a situation where the total
population declines to three-fourths or less of the current level, and the rate of people aged 75 and older has now morethan doubled.
As for temperature as shown in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report, assuming a society where both environmental conservation and economic growth are achieved at a global
level, the best expectation will be a 1.8°
C rise in the world average by 2100. The temperature is expected to rise by 0.2°
C every 10 years starting about 20 years from now.
Huge changes in energy costs and other factors through changes in energy demand and technological innovation
regarding energy sources are also expected.
<Discussion on Biodiversity Loss After 2010>
As stated in Section 1, the biodiversity loss by 2010 covers all ecosystems. The loss is still continuing as awhole. Losses are caused by such direct factors as “the first crisis” and indirect factors behind the “the first crisis,”such as socioeconomic changes. As described in Section 2, assessment of the 2010 Target indicates that the status ofbiodiversity loss in Japan has slightly improved, but the tendency of biodiversity loss as a whole cannot be considered
to have stopped.
Based on these facts, with various entities taking actions in order to mitigate the loss of biodiversity, it is need to
discuss that the expected biodiversity loss by assuming a transition in future social and natural conditions as currently
expected, and take necessary measures to counter such losses until around 2050 as the target year for the medium andlong-term target in the National Biodiversity Strategy 2010.
The following summarizes the discussions in this section.
◯ As for the “the first crisis,” the speed of development will further decrease based on declining population, lower
economic growth, sufficient housing facilities, and social capital. However, the impact caused by past development
is expected to continue. It will thus be an important task to restore past loss by forming national/local ecosystem
networks by restoring nature.
◯ As for the “the second crisis,” Satochi-Satoyama areas are expected to increase the seriousness of inadequate
management/use as depopulation and the aging of residents in farming villages advances. It is important to promote
the sustainable use of biological resources based on a local consensus. Moreover, the populations and distributionsof medium-size and large mammals are expected to rapidly expand.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

225

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan◯ As for the “the third crisis,” the intentional and unintentional invasion, settlement and expansion of alien species are
expected to continue. Therefore, preventing such invasion, strictly controlling settled alien species, and pursuing
technological development for such efforts will be important tasks.
◯ As for “the climate change crisis,” it is highly likely for such fragile ecosystems as alpine zones and coral reefs will
be subject to irreversible impact. Thus, our task is to set and implement practical measures to adapt to the impact of
global warming on biodiversity as soon as possible.
◯ One key issue to be noted in setting and implementing practical measures is that some ecosystem changes may
be irreversible. There are some regions where such a situation is already apparent (see each section for specificexamples).
◯ In order to mitigate the loss of biodiversity, “mainstreaming biodiversity” is important and shall be promoted not
only through measures by the national and local governments but also through the actions of all social entities. For
example, local communities are expected to form a consensus on the ideal status of biodiversity in their own areas.

2. Loss and Measures Regarding the First Crisis<Mitigation of the Speed of Development and Restoration of Past Loss>
This assessment has reconfirmed that land development for housing and industrial use, reclamation,and improvement of social capital over the past 50 years have caused a huge impact on biodiversity in Japan.
Socioeconomic demands were also found in response to the dependence on foreign energy sources, rapid
industrialization, and population concentrated in cities since the period of high economic growth as the background.
These socioeconomic demands have been currently been met to a certain degree. And the speed of development
has become somewhat moderate. Assuming the current level of low economic growth at less than 3% annually,
and ongoing dependence on foreign sources of food, timber and energy due to rapid depopulation, it is unlikelythat these indirect factors will have greater impact again toward 2050.Thus the speed of development will largely
decrease compared to the peak periods such as the high economic growth period. Land development for housing andindustrial use, reclamation, and improvement of social capital will decrease and change direction to focus more on
reorganization of existing infrastructure, such as recreating the relationship between cities and farming villages basedon demographic structure and industrial location. It is less likely that areas with high naturalness such as naturalforests and natural coasts will be newly altered. However, there are concerns about the impact on ecosystems alreadylost by past development being continued, and that specific impacts such as a decrease of species will be observed
after a certain period passes after conversion.
In response to changes in these indirect factors, it will be our major tasks to control new development in important
areas for conserving biodiversity by establishing protected areas, and seek measures for restoring biodiversity lost by
past development. Technical review is needed in consideration of restoring nature and other projects, and based on a
grand design with national and regional perspectives, it is important to construct a network of ecosystems of various
scales by making use of decreasing social capital.
If the supply of foreign food, timber and energy decreases, the use of domestic biological resources will bepromoted. And it will be a new task to discuss a new form of their sustainable use.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

226

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Gathering Resources for Maintenance/Renewal of Existing Housing/Industrial Facilities, Social Capitaland Assessment of Impact>
The impact accompanied by procuring raw materials and disposing of waste as needed for the maintenance andrenewal of existing housing, industrial facilities and social capital will continue, however. In particular, the gatheringof sand and gravel from sandbanks in coastal areas is ongoing on a certain scale. If such gathering continues at thecurrent scale for decades, it might cause irreversible impact on marine life that uses these ecosystems.
The impact on ecosystems accompanied by the discarding and gathering of resources, for example, could
continue in the future, and may damage the resilience of ecosystems. If socioeconomic activities possibly have suchimpact, intensive research shall be conducted on the status and assessment of that impact on an ongoing basis. If the
impact is assessed as being huge, alternative methods and technological development must be promptly discussed andimplemented to avoid such impact.
<Existing Measures for Ecosystems that must be Improved>
As for marine and coastal systems, the Basic Act on Ocean Policy was recently enacted. The conservationof biodiversity and its sustainable use must also be improved. As for neritic areas including inland seas such as
underwater forests, tidal flats, coral reefs and natural beaches, it should be noted that invasive alien species, coastal
erosion, and global warming in addition to development could interact in a complex manner and cause irreversible
change. Preventative measures such as monitoring and holding technological discussions about restoring nature are
required. As coastal areas in Japan have been utilized by fishers cooperatives for a long time, discussions on marine
protected areas also available for fisheries use will be important. As for natural coasts, there are only a few locations inJapan where the sea and land maintain natural continuity. These areas must be carefully monitored because the natureof high-water and intertidal zones in such areas could be lost, even due to small-scale development or water pollution.
As for inland water systems, the deteriorated continuity in rivers and lowered riverbeds could be changed
irreversibly. Consequently, improved monitoring, technological discussions on restoring nature, and other preventative
measures are needed. Some inland water systems include small-scale habitats such as springs, hot springs,
groundwater, caves and limestone areas where specific biodiversity exists, though extensive study has yet to be
conducted. Attention is therefore necessary to prevent loss caused by development.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

227

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Others>
The direct use of wild animals will further decrease due to fewer hunters in land areas. In sea areas, resource
management must be further improved. Water pollution has been improved to this day, but further attention is neededon the huge amounts of nitrogen being accumulated as accompanied by food and feed imported from abroad.

3. Loss and Measures Regarding the Second Crisis<Depopulation, Aging Society, and Promoting the Use and Management of Biodiversity>
Given the rapid pace of decreases in population, depopulation and our aging society are progressing, and energy
costs in such socioeconomic activities as changes in long-distance movement, the reorganization of infrastructure,and reconstruction of the relationship between cities and rural areas will be unavoidable tasks. When focus is placedon such indirect factors, even less use of biological resources can be expected in cultivated systems such as SatochiSatoyama areas and some forest and mountain systems such as farmland, secondary grasslands, secondary forests andartificial forests. Future research on the impact shall be awaited, though there are concerns that “the second crisis” will
become even more serious.
As for secondary forests, it is even more difficult to implement management for maintaining bright forest
floors in all areas. The habitats and living environments of such species as Cephalanthera falcate and luehdorfias
that are dependent on exploited environments in Satochi-Satoyama areas will be lost. As for secondary grasslands,
if their economic value as meadows and for grazing is lost, relict plants of the glacial age that depend on secondary
grasslands, and such animals as golden eagles that use grasslands as feeding grounds might further decrease. Thereare concerns that if unmanageable areas are expanded in artificial forests, such forest functions as preventing sediment
discharge and slope disruption could deteriorate, thereby leading to rapid and irreversible change.
In order to deal with the factors of loss in the first place, the use of biological resources must be promoted insuch places as Satochi-Satoyama areas based on a social consensus. Promoting the use of biological resource islimited when based on legal procedures. It is important to deal with this matter based on forming a local consensus inconsideration of an autonomous framework for resource management as traditionally nurtured in local communities.
With such ideas presented in the SATOYAMA Initiative, and in order to secure social incentives, such practicalmeasures as promoting new types of use such as utilizing Satoyama biomass as an energy source, the participation ofvarious entities such as urban residents and companies, and accumulating and providing technological know-how for
local activities are expected.
It is also important to focus on restructuring the relationship between cities and rural areas, and constructecosystem networks of various scales based on a grand design from the perspective of national and local lands byusing social capital of lowered necessity. For these efforts, it will also be necessary to discuss the proactive conversionof secondary forests into natural forests needing no manpower for management. There may be a need to conserve
fauna and flora dependent on disturbed environments in secondary forests and secondary grasslands. To meet suchneed, using the cost for limited locations enabling intensive management in view of distributed populations, etc. must
be considered.
New forms of sustainable use shall be discussed in cases of a reduced supply of foreign food, timber and energy,
while promoting the use of domestic biological resources.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

228

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan<Population Growth and Expanded Distribution among Medium-size and Large Mammals, and Broadbased Population Control>
If decreasing hunting pressure cannot be stopped, the populations of medium-size and large mammals will
increase, and their distributions will further expand. These animals will consequently cause more damage to
agriculture and forestry industries, escalate friction with humans, and deteriorate the quality of forest and mountainsystems. In particular, the population growth and expanded distribution of deer could worsen the destruction offorest vegetation. There are concerns that such a situation could cause rapid, irreversible change in Japan's forest andmountain systems.
From a broad-based perspective that extends beyond prefectural boarders, the populations of birds and otheranimals must be controlled in terms of long-term trends of regional populations including the sizes of core habitats,
inhabitation conditions, fertility, and whether seasonal migration is involved. It is also necessary to nurture humanresources to protect and control wild birds and animals, including such persons as hunters to capture animals andbirds.

4. Loss and Measures Regarding the Third Crisis
Assuming an active international movement of humans and other matters as is currently the case, the intentional
and unintentional entry of alien species, and their settlement and expansion remain serious concerns. The invasive
alien species that have already entered and settled in Japan could further expand their distribution and cause major
impact on ecosystems. In particular, there would be a higher risk of alien species settling and expanding if theirhabitats expand due to rising temperatures. Above all, rapid and irreversible change could be caused by invasive alien
species in such isolated ecosystems such as inland water systems and island systems.
The costs of preventing invasive alien species, particularly the cost of containing or eradicating species that havealready settled and expanded their distributions, are very high. Therefore, vulnerable systems should preferably be
improved to prevent new settlement by strengthening the monitoring system. As for alien species that have alreadysettled, impact assessment to implement intensive prevention over species with a high priority of prevention, andfurther technological development on effective and efficient prevention are expected to be promoted.

5. Loss and Measures Regarding the Climate Change Crisis
As temperatures continue to rise as predicted, the distributions, populations and phenology of organisms will
also change to a large extent, some of which has already been confirmed. There are concerns that such changes mightcause changes in the interaction between organisms in various ecosystems and in that between organisms and theirenvironments. Moreover, fragile ecosystems such as alpine zones and coral reefs are highly likely to experience rapid
and irreversible impact.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010229

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

To counter these changes, measures for adapting to the impact of global warming on biodiversity shall bepromptly realized and implemented. In order to find environmental changes caused by global warming as early as
possible and promptly take practical measures, the monitoring system in an ecosystem particularly susceptible toglobal warming must be improved and strengthened. It is also important to construct a system to intensively monitor
environmental changes and set such monitoring sites as promoted by the Monitoring Site 1000 project, and implementmonitoring with the participation of the various persons involved such as private citizens, and hold discussions on the
sharing of information.

6. Impact of Irreversible Change
The loss of biodiversity is usually considered to progress slowly, leaving enough time to take measures in hopesof strengthening the resilience of ecosystems. However, if such loss exceeds a certain threshold, ecosystems could
undergo rapid or even irreversible change.
Such changes that are debated as “tipping points” could cause irretrievable loss of biodiversity in Japan. Grasping
those changes at an early stage is important in order to take measures against future loss. Such tipping points arealmost certainly expected to occur, though it is difficult to predict the exact timing of such occurrence given existingscientific levels.
As stated before, among the ongoing losses over the past 50 years, the cases that might possibly cause such
irreversible changes are listed in the table below (Table IV-6). These losses require especially careful monitoring andadaptive management to deal with uncertainty.

Table IV-6 Examples of losses that might cause irreversible changes
Ecosystem classification
Forest and mountainsystems
Inland water systems

Examples of loss
Impact of global warming on alpine zones; Impact of slope disruption caused byinsufficient management on artificial forests; Impact of destruction of forest
vegetation caused by population growth and expanded distribution of deer
Impact of deteriorated continuity on rivers and lowered riverbeds; Impact ofinvasive alien species on rivers and lakes; Impact of global warming on lakes

Marine and coastal
systems

Combined impact of development on marine and coastal systems (including thegathering of sand and gravel); Impact of global warming on coral reefs

Island systems

Impact of invasive alien species on islands

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010

230

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

7. Mainstreaming of Biodiversity
Nowadays, the recognition of biodiversity is increasing somewhat, but the recognition of biodiversity loss is notwidely accepted. There is an undeniable possibility that such recognition is not shared in society and greater loss may
occur in the future.
It is important to promote the “mainstreaming of biodiversity” on both a mid-term and long-term basis. This does
not simply mean to disseminate the importance of biodiversity. This is a project where not only the national and local
governments but also all entities in society (including the private sector) shall take practical measures and actions to
mitigate the losses, and secure the provision of human and physical resources for that purpose.
Forming a local consensus is also important for the “mainstreaming of biodiversity.” Biodiversity is unique toindividual areas, where measures promoted by local communities may be more appropriate. Prefectural and ordinancedesignated city governments have now begun formulating local biodiversity strategies. To promote this effort evenfurther, it is important for local societies such as municipalities and settlements close to nature to form a consensus on
the ideal status of biodiversity in their own areas.
One approach for the “mainstreaming of biodiversity” is being able to recognize the economic value of
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Through this effort, not only governments and local societies, but also various
entities, such as consumers and those companies that produce products and services using biodiversity, will be able totake action for conserving biodiversity and its sustainable use. More advanced efforts have recently been announced in
the form of biodiversity offset and biodiversity banking, where biodiversity and ecosystem services are taken into themarket mechanism for trading in order to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010231

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Biodiversity loss
concerned
Loss caused by the first crisis
The speed of development willfurther decrease, but impact
caused by past development willcontinue.

Depopulation
Low economic growth
Dependence on foreign food,timber and energy
Sufficiency of land for housing/industrial use and social capital, etc.

Such development as procuring raw
materials to maintain and renew
existing houses and industrial facilities,
and social capital will continue.
Fear of irreversible change (examples)○ Impact of deteriorated continuity inrivers○ Impact of lowered riverbeds○ Combined impact of development,
etc. on marine and coastal
systems
Loss caused by the second crisis
Exacerbation of impact associatedwith reduced management/use of
Satochi-Satoyama areas

Further exacerbation of
depopulation and aging offarming village residents
Less hunting pressure

Acceleration of population growthand expanded distribution of
medium-sized and large mammals
Fear of irreversible change (examples)○ Impact of slope disruption caused
by insufficient management ofartificial forests○ Impact of natural vegetation
destroyed by deer

Loss caused by the third crisis
Continuation of the statusof active international
movement of humans andother matters.

The tendency of greater opportunities (including
unintentional ones) for invasion by alien species
and expanded distribution of species alreadysettled is continuing to a certain extent.

○ To promote the inhibition of new
development by protected areas
and restore past large-scalelosses・Technological discussions
regarding considerations forrestoring nature andimplementing projects
・Construction of national/local
ecosystem networks of various
scales○ Development of impact
assessment andmethods/technology to avoid
impact and for restoration○ Conservation of coasts and theocean, and conservation ofsmall-scale but important
habitats, etc.
○ Promotion of sustainable
use/management based on local
consensus
・Search for new uses such as
Satoyama biomass
・Promotion of the participationof various entities such asurban residents and companies○ Proactive conversion of somesecondary forests into naturalforests○ Use of the cost for limited
locations enabling intensive
management○ Control of bird and animal
populations from a broad-based
perspective○ Ongoing limitation on movement○ Prioritization of preventing newinvasion and eradicating species
already settled○ Technological development foreradication

Fear of irreversible change (example)○ Impact of invasive alien species onlakes and islands
Loss caused by global warming

Ongoing tendency ofrising temperatures

Direction of
long-term measures

Fear of irreversible impact onfragile ecosystems○ Strengthening of monitoring
system and assessment offragility○ Embodiment and implementationof adaptation measures

Fear of irreversible change (examples)○ Impact on coral reefs and alpine
vegetation

Figure IV-2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Chapter IV Section 3 Measures to Deal with Biodiversity Loss after 2010232

○ Continuation and improvement of monitoring, and improvement of preventive measures to deal with irreversible change

Future changes
now expectedReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Chapter V
Problems in the Future
The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity functions as a mediator between observing the loss of
biodiversity and formulating targets and practical actions to mitigate the loss, thereby promoting specific actions to
mitigate and restore biodiversity loss (see Figure V-1).
In other words, it comprehensively analyzes the results of observing biodiversity by governmental agencies,
researchers and NGOs nationwide, and assesses the factors and status of loss from scientific viewpoints. It alsopresents its own assessment results to point out what to focus on when the central and local governments formulate
targets, and various entities take specific actions (such as governmental measures and activities conducted bycompanies and NGOs.
The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity conducted this time was the first of its kind at the national level.
Although this assessment may still fall short of being sufficient, it is widely expected to play an important role in the
future.
This chapter confirms the tasks in which individual entities are engaged.

Observation(by researchers,
NGOs, andcentral/local
public authorities)

Input(Section 1)

Comprehensive
Assessment of
Biodiversity(by researchers)

Output(Section 2)

Setting targets(by central/local
governments)

Output(Section 3)

Specific actions(by such various entities as central/
local governments, companies, researchers, NGOs,
and citizens)

Mitigation and restoration of biodiversity loss in Japan

Figure V-1 Role of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity

Chapter V Problems in the Future233

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 1 Problems Regarding Input from Observation
The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity is conducted through a process of collecting and summarizing
existing data and expertise in fields related to organisms and the changes thereof. It is important to smoothly reflect
the scientific basis̶data and expertise possessed by researchers, NGOs and central/local public authorities in chargeof observation̶in the assessment. Moreover, the quality and quantity of data and expertise to be reflected in theassessment as observation results must also be improved.

1. Improvement of observation regarding biodiversity
Japan is blessed with information and human resources in the field of biology. Extensive study results regarding
biodiversity have been accumulated. Statistical information has also been organized in the areas of national land
management and agriculture, forestry and fishery. Moreover, research is being conducted in terms of the naturalenvironment through National Surveys on the Natural Environment initiated in the 1970s and a recently establishednationwide monitoring system. Many results have thus been accumulated.
Longitudinal data of good quality and data covering broad areas are easy to use for determining indicators, andare particularly indispensible for the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in the future. However, such data
may not necessarily directly relate to organisms or even be available for assessment due to a lack of accuracy.
The volume of data regarding species (in lists covering distributions, populations, etc.) also remains insufficient.
Under such circumstances, the assessment conducted this time mainly dealt with data regarding ecosystems. Moredata directly related to individual species should be gathered in order to conserve the biodiversity of species.
With the above situation in mind, researchers and NGOs in the field of biology are expected to continue observing
biodiversity. It is important that the central and local governments support such efforts to promote the collectionof data from broader areas. In addition, the governmental offices involved in other fields and those responsible forindustrial statistics are also expected to collect information from the perspective of biodiversity.

2. Improvement of the openness and usability of data
Even though data on the status of biodiversity have been accumulated through observation, some kinds of data
were not available for the assessment because of not being open to the public or due to poor usability. Of course,
necessary restrictions (regarding information about endangered species, etc.) must be maintained. Should the cost
necessary to use such data be too high, using the data as determinants of the indicators may prove too difficult. The
central and local governments must therefore publicize the data under their control in a usable form, among otherthings.

Chapter V Section 1 Problems Regarding Input from Observation

234

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Presentation of data including factors and measures
Even though data on the status of biodiversity have been accumulated through observation, some kinds of data
revealed nothing more than that status, making it difficult to interpret such data when conducting assessment from theperspective of biodiversity loss. It will thus become easier to indicate specific measures and actions when using datathat not only shows the status of biodiversity but also information that includes the factors of change and necessary
measures.

4. Improvement of knowledge regarding ecosystem services and “tipping points”
It is important to show assessment regarding ecosystem services and the “tipping points” of ecosystems whenvarious entities make decisions and form a consensus for implementing specific efforts. Despite the high demand
for such assessment, the knowledge regarding the status of ecosystem services and the “tipping points” in certain
ecosystems remains inadequate. Studies in these fields are currently in progress. Therefore, the knowledge in thesefields is expected to be further improved.

5. Prioritized observation of ecosystems with severe loss
The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity is a general assessment using the best existing data currently
available in order to urge individual entities to take specific actions. Accordingly, additional data that will form thebasis of formulating measures must be prioritized for ecosystems assessed as having a huge loss and those assessed
as facing greater loss in the future. For example, the affluence of marine and coastal systems is one characteristicof Japan's natural environment, but data related to marine and coastal biodiversity remains inadequate. Ongoing
research must therefore be conducted to better understand the status of change in such ecosystems as alpine zones that
predominantly and clearly show deterioration caused by the impact of global warming.

Chapter V Section 1 Problems Regarding Input from Observation

235

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 2 Problems Regarding Output for Setting Targets
The national and local governments are expected to be the driving forces behind formulating plans and setting
targets for actions to mitigate the loss of biodiversity. The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity will contributeto setting and achieving such targets. The task at hand is to strengthen the following points.

1. Association with the Post-2010 Targets
At the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) to be held in October
2010, “post-2010 targets” will be formulated as the international goals for action. Japan proposed the idea behindsetting these targets in January 2010. The newly formulated post-2010 targets may therefore become the targets foraction to mitigate biodiversity loss in Japan through the Basic Act on Biodiversity and National Biodiversity Strategy.
The comprehensive assessment of biodiversity shall be improved so as to urge various entities to take more
specific actions by strengthening its relationship with the post-2010 targets and improving the current indicators byenhancing scientific knowledge and clarifying the correspondence between each indicator and target.

2. Multilayered spacial scale of assessment
The loss of biodiversity is caused by numerous direct and indirect multilayered factors, ranging from those of aninternational scale such as global warming to individual local development and production activities. Entities that caneffectively work on those factors are also multilayered as part of international society, national and local governments,
such groups such as NGOs and companies, and local societies. Measures for these factors must also be implemented
on various spacial scales. Likewise, it is also important to assess biodiversity in multiple layers and on various scales.
Indicators suitable for each scale are thus expected to be formulated for use in assessment operation.
From now on, the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity is expected to share information with, andcontribute to implementing local-scale assessments that will help formulate and implement local biodiversity strategies
as stipulated by the Basic Act on Biodiversity, and assessments at the international level such as the Asia-Pacificregion.

Chapter V Section 2 Problems Regarding Output for Setting Targets

236

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Section 3 Problems Regarding Output for Action
In order to mitigate the loss of biodiversity, the “mainstreaming of biodiversity” is necessary. Various entities suchas the general public, companies, NGOs, researchers, and national and local governments are requested to understandthe need for action and initiate specific actions. The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity identifies the points
that various entities should focus on when taking such actions. The task at hand is to strengthen the following points
from now on.

1. Raising awareness among the general public.
In order for the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity to generate specific actions to mitigate loss, thegeneral public, companies, NGOs, researchers, schools, and national and local governments must be effectively
informed of the assessment results, as well as increasing their awareness of the need for action (see Table V-1).
In the first place, biodiversity is unique to individual areas. Consequently, there are different methods ofconserving biodiversity and its usage in different areas. Measures also differ among areas. As the basis of action to
mitigate loss, local residents are thus expected to reach a consensus regarding the ideal status of local biodiversity on
their own.
Given the circumstances described above, researchers involved in biodiversity and governments must use
assessments to proactively promote the dissemination of assessment results. Such dissemination shall not be limited
to assessment results. Efforts to promote the forming of a local consensus by publicizing information on the methodof assessment and the sources of information, and supporting the formulation of local biodiversity strategies andassessments unique to individual areas are therefore expected.

Table V-1 Actions requested to individual entities based on the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity
Specific action to mitigate losses (example)
National government

To prioritize research and policies based on assessment, and promoteactions to mitigate biodiversity loss by indicating targets on a national scale

Local governments

To assess biodiversity on a local scale, and make use of the assessment informulating such policies as local biodiversity strategies

Researchers/NGOs

To relate and contribute to assessment through improved observation of biodiversity
and by accumulating knowledge about ecosystem services and “tipping points”

Companies

To grasp and assess the impact of their own economic activities on biodiversity,and devise measures to mitigate that impact

General public

To get involved in forming a local consensus and taking actions of their own
regarding the ideal status of local biodiversity

Chapter V Section 3 Problems Regarding Output for Action237

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

2. Mapping of assessment regarding biodiversity
Biodiversity differs dramatically among areas. The nature and degree of the factors of loss are not common
nationwide. Necessary actions to mitigate loss will also differ according to individual areas. This is why the factors
and degree of loss must be assessed according to each area. This Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity
prioritized the time-line assessment on a national scale, and did not focus much on certain aspects of local differences.
In order to urge individual entities to take specific actions to mitigate loss from now on, it is important to organize(map) biodiversity assessment as spacial information at the local level.

3. Assessment of ecosystem services
Presenting an assessment of ecosystem services is important for making decisions and forming a consensus whenvarious entities take practical measures. This Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity prioritized the factors of
biodiversity loss and assessed the status thereof. However, it did not adequately assess ecosystem services as a wholein Japan.
In order to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, it is necessary to improve the assessment of
ecosystem services in Japan by adopting the “Satoyama-Satoumi Sub-global Assessment” (SGA) promoted by theUnited Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies and other entities, and the latest results such as studies
regarding a quantitative assessment of ecosystem services.

4. Presentation of options for actions
The Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity is expected to promote decision-making and consensus-forming
in order to mitigate biodiversity loss for the future by presenting options for future actions to various entities such as
national and local governments, researchers and NGOs, organizations such as companies, and the general public, andby showing them the costs and effects of such actions. This Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity prioritized theassessment of the factors and status of past losses of biodiversity. However, research on optional measures and theireffects have not been sufficiently promoted. Thus it was unable to adequate describe such aspects.
The functions of assessment must be strengthened to present options for actions by summarizing the knowledgeof experts in wide-ranging fields. Efforts to strengthen such functions shall include improving the assessment of
ecosystem services, analyzing different scenarios, generalizing existing measures and discussing their directions, andpresenting actions and measures to be taken by various entities including the private sector. It is also necessary to
discuss the presentation of options for actions and policies based on the results of “The Economics of Ecosystems &Biodiversity (TEEB),” an economic assessment of biodiversity being promoted by the German government and others.

Chapter V Section 3 Problems Regarding Output for Action

238

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Appendices
Appendix 1 Results of Questionnaire Survey Designed for Experts
Appendix 2 Summary of Opinions Shared by Experts
Appendix 3 References for data used in the Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan
Appendix 4 Data Used in the Report of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity

AppendicesReport of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Appendix 1 Results of Questionnaire Survey Designed for Experts

1. Purpose and Outline of the Questionnaire Survey
With the intention of summarizing the negative factors associated with major human activities that wereconsidered to cause crises of biodiversity in Japan over the past 50 years (from the end of World War II to the present),
a questionnaire survey was conducted by mail in FY 2008 for experts in the field of biology in Japan.
In the responses, participants were to select up to five major factors from the list of factors of loss (listed below)
and freely state the reasons why they selected those factors, along with citing specific examples.
List of factors of impact
01

Deforestation

09

Road construction

17

Feeding damage caused by animals

02

Conversion to artificial forests10

Dam construction

18

Influence of alien species

03

Development of lakes, rivers, and wetlands

11Collection of plants for gardening, appreciation and medicines

19

Contamination by pesticides and chemical substances04

Development of coasts

12

Hunting and fishing

20

Water contamination

05

Development of grasslands

13

Abandonment of forest management

21

Accumulation of nitrogen

06

Urban development

14

Abandonment of grassland management

22

Global warming

07

Development of golf courses and ski area

15

Abandonment of cultivation

23

Others08

Tourism Development

16

Less hunting pressure

Note: Factors of impact are based on the items of “factors of decrease” in the Red Data Book issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

2. Target Respondents of the Questionnaire Survey
In addition to members of the review committee, there were 581 respondents in total including members and theadministrators in charge of nature protection in the following investigative committees associated with the Ministry of
the Environment, as well as major scientific entities in the field of biology in Japan.
Members of investigative
committees associated with the
Ministry of the Environment(shown in right column)

Investigative committee and its workshop to select and assess endangered wildlife, investigative
committee for basic research on conservation of the natural environment, vegetation workshop and its
vegetation research working group, investigative committee for bird-banding research, Investigative
committee and its workshop for the monitoring promotion project for important ecosystem monitoringareas (1000 Monitoring Sites)

Committee members andadministrators involved innature protection at major
scientific entities in biologicalfields (shown in right column)

Ecological Society of Japan, Japanese Forest Society, Japanese Society of Grassland Science, JapaneseSociety of Limnology, Oceanographic Society of Japan, Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology,
Japanese Society for Plant Systematics, the Mammalogical Society of Japan, Ornithological Society ofJapan, the Herpetological Society of Japan, Ichthyological Society of Japan, Entomological Society ofJapan, Japanese Association of Benthology, Botanical Society of Japan

Appendix 1

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

3. Results of the Questionnaire Survey
There were 213 effective responses, reflecting a collection rate of 36.7%. Among the responses, two were
excluded from the survey due to more than five factors being selected. Each respondent selected up to five factors,
which were counted as one response in respective fields when said factors related to multiple fields. An average
number of 4.6 factors was selected by each respondent, with the number of all factors selected being counted. Major
comments in the free response were also summarized.

120

Number of selections

100
80
60

40
20
0
Others *The
thirdcrisis

The crisis ofglobal warming

Appendix 1

Global warming
Contamination by pesticides andchemical substances
Influence of alien species

Figure: Number of selections according to the factor

The second
crisisFeeding damage caused by animals* See the free comments on the following page for other survey results.

Less hunting pressure

Abandonment of cultivation
Abandonment of grassland
management
Abandonment of forest management

Accumulation of nitrogen

Water contamination

Hunting and fishing
Collection of plants for gardening,
appreciation and medicines
Dam construction

Road construction

Tourism development
Development of golf courses andski area
Urban development

Development of grasslands

Development of coasts
Development of lakes, rivers andwetlands
Conversion to artificial forests

Deforestation

The first crisis

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table: Major comments in the free responses (Examples)
Crisis

No.

Factor of impact

Response

Major comments in the responses (example)

The first
crisis1

Deforestation

62◯ Broadleaf natural forests such as fagaceae forests decreased
nationwide due to their conversion into artificial forests after WorldWar II.
◯ The crisis impacted forest animals and plants, and the riverenvironment.

2

Conversion to
artificial forests

60◯ Artificial forests of cryptomeria and Japanese cypress and simple
biota expanded to a large extent due to expanded afforestation fromthe 1950s to the 1970s.

3Development oflakes, rivers andwetlands

111◯ Straightened rivers and concrete-reinforced riverbanks have
simplified the waterside environment.
◯ Low wetlands in coastal areas and wetlands in land areas wereconverted into farmland and other landforms after World War II.

4

Development ofcoasts88◯ Many tidal flats and underwater forests were lost due to landfills,
reclamation, and the construction of harbors and ports since the1960s.
◯ Changes in habitat environments and the separation of land and sea
were caused by the construction of structures and roads along thecoast.

5

Development ofgrasslands

14◯ Conversion to land for housing, farmland, and artificial grasslands

6

Urban development

38◯ Secondary forests, wetlands, grasslands, and paddy fields aroundcities were converted into sites for housing and factories.
◯ Development of hills to construct new towns around a city

7

Development of golfcourses and ski area

33

◯ Alteration of forests in hills caused by the construction of golfcourses◯ Impact of agricultural chemicals/fertilizers drained from golfcourses on land-water areas

8

Tourismdevelopment

10◯ Impact of constructing mountain paths and hiking trails onsurrounding areas

9Road construction

47◯ Separation of forests, coasts, and water systems◯ Inhibited movement of wild animals, roadkill◯ Spread of alien species through roads10

Dam construction

60◯ Construction of dams and estuary barrages cause separation in rivers
and inhibit the movement of migratory organisms.
◯ Changes in water volume/temperature/turbidity, changes in sedimentsupply11

Collection of plants
for gardening,
appreciation andmedicines

39◯ The number of orchidaceous plants decreased due to illegal digging
during the gardening boom beginning in the 1980s.
◯ Certain reptile and insect populations probably declined due toillegal capture.

12

Hunting and fishing

12◯ Organism community structures changed drastically due tooverfishing, selective and mixed fishing of specific fish species, andthe release of newly hatched fish.

20

Water contamination

42◯ The crisis is associated with eutrophication in lakes, inner bays,
and along coasts caused by water discharge from industries andhouseholds from the 1950s and 1960s to the 1990s.

21

Accumulation of
nitrogen9(Most comments are the same as those on eutrophication in “20. Water
contamination.”)Appendix 1

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Table: Major comments in the free responses (Examples) (continued)
Crisis

No.

Factor of impact

ResponseThe
secondcrisis13

Abandonment offorest management

45◯ The transition in artificial/secondary forests progressed due tothe abandonment of management from the 1960s. Biota became
simplified especially in Satoyama forests.
◯ Bears and other wild animals intrude into residential areas.

14

Abandonmentof grassland
management

32◯ Fauna and flora living in grasslands decreased due to the reduced
management of secondary grasslands (fields of Japanese silver
grass) in mountains and around farmland from the 1960s to the1970s.
◯ Conversion of secondary grasslands into artificial grasslands

15

Abandonment ofcultivation25◯ Abandoned cultivation, especially in mountainous paddy fields
from the 1970s, caused decreases in the populations of amphibians,
insects and other fauna and flora.

16

Less hunting pressure

14◯ Deer populations rapidly expanded due to fewer large predators andless hunting pressure.

17

Feeding damage
caused by animals

33◯ Rapid increases in deer populations expanded the damage tovegetation in some mountains and other areas.
◯ Feeding damage on farmland caused by medium-size and large
mammals◯ Rocky-shore denudation caused by feeding damage by fish andsea urchins in underwater forests; Feeding damage caused byacanthasters in coral reefs

18

Influence of alien
species80◯ Impact of predation/competition/cross-breeding of alien organisms
brought in as pets or for gardening/industrial use.
◯ The impact is particularly serious in land-water areas and on islands.

19

Contamination
by pesticides andchemical substances

46◯ Sharp decrease of fauna and flora in paddy fields, etc. caused byagricultural chemicals (mainly herbicides), especially during the1950s to 1980s. Signs of improvement are now being seen.
◯ Agricultural chemicals/chemical substances accumulated inorganisms.
Note 1: The direct impact of agricultural chemicals is categorized aspart of the first crisis.

22

Global warming

27◯ Expanded distributions of living organisms in high latitude/highelevation areas in land and sea areas◯ Impact on alpine zones, coral reefs, underwater forests, and thefauna and flora that live and grow there

23

Others44◯ Conversion of paddy fields into dry fields through field adjustment;
concrete-finished channels; channel/sewage separation causing
impact on amphibians, freshwater fish, aquatic plants, etc.
Note 2: Most comments in “Others” are related to field adjustment.

The third
crisisClimatechangecrisisMajor comments in the responses (example)

Appendix 1

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Appendix 2 Summary of Opinions Shared by Experts Regarding the Gist of the Reportof the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity (draft)
1. Purpose and Outline of Sharing Opinions
Experts in the field of biology in Japan were requested to share their opinions regarding the gist of the Reportof the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity (draft), in order to collect remarks from scientific and technicalviewpoints regarding the appropriateness of descriptions of assessment and judgments on more useful data to support
the assessment (conducted in FY 2009).
The respondents were asked to point out the pages, lines and items of their choice, and freely state their opinions
and reasons for each item.
2. Selection of Respondents
The respondents were 208 committee members and the administrators in charge of nature protection in thefollowing investigative committees associated with the Ministry of the Environment, as well as major scientific entities
in the field of biology in Japan.

Table: Selected respondents for sharing opinions
Committees for assessment
related to the Ministry ofEnvironment

Committee and Sub-committee for Selection and Assessment of Wildlife Threatened with Extinction,
Sub-committee for Vegetation Science under the Committee for Basic Assessment of Natural
Environment Conservation, Department of Vegetation Science Research, Committee for Bird Banding
Assessment, Committee and Sub-Committee for Assessment of Monitoring Promotion in Significant
Ecosystem Surveillance Areas (Monitoring Site 1000 project)

The Ecological Society of Japan, Japanese Forest Society, Japanese Society of Grassland Science,
Committee members andJapanese Society of Limnology, Oceanographic Society of Japan, Japanese Society of Systematic
directors related to nature
conservation at major academic Zoology, Japanese Society for Plant Systematics, Mammalogical Society of Japan, Ornithologicalinstitutions of biology
Society of Japan, Herpetological Society of Japan, Ichthyological Society of Japan, EntomologicalSociety of Japan, Japanese Association of Benthology, and Botanical Society of Japan

3. Results of Sharing Opinions
There were 51 effective responses to the request for sharing opinions, reflecting a collection rate of 24.5%. A
total of 404 opinions were obtained and categorized into “assessment indicators” by “Chapter/Section level,” and thenused as references when preparing the assessment report.

1. The sharing of opinions was requested to 208 respondents from among the 581 persons selected for the “Questionnaire survey
conducted in 2009 for experts regarding factors causing the “crisis of biodiversity. ”

Appendix 2

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Appendix 3 References for data used in the Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan
Data No.

Data Name

SourceWhite Paper on Land, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

1- ①

Trend of Use of Land

Survey on State of Forest Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Area, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Basic Survey for Land Use Infrastructure Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
White Paper on Land, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Survey on State of Forest Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

1- ②Scale of Ecosystem in Land Area

Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Area, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Basic Survey for Land Use Infrastructure Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Statistical Analysis of Agricultural Land Construction Activities, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

1- ③Distribution of vegetation with little
conversion

Natural Environment Information GIS Data in Fundamental Survey of 5th Natural Environment Conservation, Ministry of the Environment

1- ④Changes in land use from the early 20th
century to the 1980s

LUIS (Land Use Information System), Yukio Himiyama

1- ⑤Changes in land use from the 1980s to the
1990s

1- ⑥

Transition in the area of farmland converted into landfor housing and factories (area of artificially converted Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Area, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
fields no longer used for agriculture)

1- ⑦

Transition in the area of forests converted White Paper on Land, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
into urbanized land use (by purpose of use)

2- ①

Trend of hunting population

3- ①

Trends of density of total nitrogen and total
Measurement Results of Public Water Quality and Groundwater Quality in Fiscal 2008, Ministry of the Environment
phosphorus in lakes, marshlands and the marine areas

3- ②

Impact of nitrogen through the atmosphere

Natural Environment Information GIS Data in Fundamental Survey of 2nd and 3rd Natural Environment Conservation, Ministry of the Environment
Natural Environment Information GIS Data in Fundamental Survey of 5th Natural Environment Conservation, Ministry of the Environment

Statistics on Wildlife, Forestry Agency
Statistics on Wildlife, Environment Agency
Statistics on Wildlife, Ministry of the Environment

Tabayashi Y and Yamamuro M，2009: Changes in the impact of anthropogenic effects on river water quality during the last 50 years in Japan,
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17(4), 409-415.
Tabayashi Y, 2009: Influence of Human Activities on River Water Quality after Modernization, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the Universityof Tokyo, Thesis for a degree2007: Red List (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Bird), Ministry of the Environment

4- ①

The ratios of extinct species, extinct wild
species and endangered species by taxon

2006: Red List (Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Brakish and Freshwater Fish), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Insect), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Plant I: Vascular Plant), Ministry of the Environment
2002: Revised Red Data Book - 1 (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
2002: Revised Red Data Book - 2 (Bird), Ministry of the Environment
2000: Revised Red Data Book - 3 (Crawler and Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
2003: Revised Red Data Book - 4 (Brakish and Freshwater Fish), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Revised Red Data Book - 5 (Insect), Ministry of the Environment

4- ②

Era and name of animals already inextinction or extinction in the wild

2006: Revised Red Data Book - 7 (Arachnid and Crustacea), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Bird), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Brakish and Freshwater Fish), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Insect), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Crustacea), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Arachnid and Myriapods), Ministry of the Environment

4- ③

No. of extinct species by period (vascularplants)Taku Fujita, Makoto Ogawa, Teruo Katsuyama, Yasuro Kadono, Nobumitsu Kawakubo, Shunsuke Serizawa, Hideki Takahashi, Masayuki Takamiya,
Shinji Fujii, Hiroyuki Matsuda, Kazuo Muneda, Masatsugu Yokota, Koji Yonekura, Tetsukazu Yahara, unpublished.

4- ④Name and era of species already extinct or Taku Fujita, Makoto Ogawa, Teruo Katsuyama, Yasuro Kadono, Nobumitsu Kawakubo, Shunsuke Serizawa, Hideki Takahashi, Masayuki Takamiya,
Shinji Fujii, Hiroyuki Matsuda, Kazuo Muneda, Masatsugu Yokota, Koji Yonekura, Tetsukazu Yahara, unpublished.
extinct in the wild (vascular plants)

4- ⑤

Cause of decrease of endangered species by 2000: Red Data Book - 3 (Crawler and Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
biological classification
2003: Red Data Book - 4 (Brakish and Freshwater Fish), Ministry of the Environment

2002: Red Data Book - 1 (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment

4- ⑥

2000: Red Data Book - 8 (Plant I: Vascular Plant), Ministry of the Environment
2002: Red Data Book - 1 (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
2002: Red Data Book - 2 (Bird), Ministry of the Environment
Factors of extinction for extinct species and 2000: Red Data Book - 3 (Crawler and Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
extinct species in the wild
2003: Red Data Book - 4 (Brakish and Freshwater Fish), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red Data Book - 5 (Insect), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red Data Book - 7 (Arachnid and Crustacea), Ministry of the Environment

Appendix 3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data No.

Data Name

4- ⑦

Number of species listed in the Red Data
Book (vascular plants) by prefecture

4- ⑧

Source2000: Red Data Book - 8 (Plant I: Vascular Plant), Ministry of the Environment

Major factors causing adverse effects on
tideland environments in Japan and theirrelative significance for individual tideland 1996: WWF Japan Science Report, Current Conditions of Tidal Wetlands in Japan and Benthic Organisms Living There, 3, 181pp.
environments
Documents of the Ministry of the Environment

5- ①

Trend of areas in major conservation areas

5- ②

Coverage ratio of conservation areas ineach ecosystem

5- ③Protected area cover ratios in ecosystems (according toDocuments of the Ministry of the Environment
designated entity)(15) Natural forests/natural grasslands, secondary forests withhigh naturalness (with a degree of naturalness of 8, 9 or 10) Digital National Land Information, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

6- ①

Transition of the numbers of designations Documents of the Ministry of the Environment
as “Natural Monument designated by
species” and “National Endangered Species
Documents of the Agency for Cultural Affairsof Wild Fauna and Flora”

6- ②

Transition of the number of prefectures
which have prepared prefectural version
of Red List or Red Databook or haveestablished rare species ordinance

Documents Published by Local Prefectural Governments

7- ①

Production of firewood and charcoal

Historical Statistics of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
Historical Statistical Series of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

7- ②

Transition in the use of working cattle

1995: Development History of Agriculture Technology in Showa Era (Vol. 4) – Livestock and Silk, Compilation Committee of the Development History of Agriculture
Technology in Showa Era in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Rural Culture Association

7- ③Transition of abandoned farmlands

Japan Census of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

7- ④Transition of the ratio of Satochi-Satoyama 2003: FY2002 Survey Report of Nature Conservation Measures of Satochi, Ministry of the Environment
meshes in national land

8- ①Transition of the numbers of occasions of formulating theSpecified Wildlife Conservation and Management Plans Documents of the Ministry of the Environment

9- ①

Changes in the entry/ number of settled
alien insect/weed species

Nobuo Morimoto, Keiji Kiriya, 1995: Fauna of Exotic Insects in Japan, Report of National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, 12, 87-120
Keiji Kiriya, 2000: Invasive Insects Swept the World, Insectarium, 37(8), 226-227
Osamu Watanabe, 2007: Invasive Condition and Distribution of Alien Weeds in Forage Crop Fields, Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University

9- ②

Transition of the quantity of “living
animals” imported from abroadMonthly Return of the Foreign Trade of Japan, Ministry of Finance

9- ③Transition of the quantity of “living animals”
imported from abroad in recent years

Monthly Return of the Foreign Trade of Japan, Ministry of Finance

9- ④

Expansion of the distribution of invasive
alien species

Documents of the Forestry Agency
Documents of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Documents of the Ministry of the Environment
Digital National Land Information, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Yoshun Kaneko, Tsutomu Wakabayashi, 1998: Angler's Novels
National Survey On Natural Environment in River and Watershore, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Taiga Yodo, Keiichiro Iguchi, 2004: History and Background of Bass Problem, Research Report of Fisheries Research Agency, No. 12, 10-24
Statistics on Wildlife, Environmental Agency
Statistics on Wildlife, Ministry of the Environment
9- ④Transition in the number of captured
Reference raccoons

7th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research Species (Racoon Inhabitation Information Collection) (FY
2006), Ministry of the Environment

10- ①

Transition of the status of detecting major
pollutants over years (in fishes and shellfishes)

11- ①

Number of types of specified alien,
Documents of the Ministry of the Environment
undetermined alien, and suspicious alien species

11- ②

The number of confirmed cases of
prevention by prefecture

Documents of the Ministry of the Environment

12- ①

Decrease in sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk

Keiichiro Oshima, Takuya Nakanowatari, Masataka Wakatsuchi, 2006: Sea of Okhotsk that is a highly-sensitive area of global warming: Impact on
North Pacific Ocean, Low Temperature Science, 65, 67-75

12- ②

Relationship between bleaching of corals
and temperature in Sekisei Lagoon

Okamoto M, S Nojima and Y Furushima, 2007: Temperature environments during coral bleaching events in Sekisei Lagoon, Bulletin of the JapaneseSociety of Fisheries Oceanography, 71 (2), 112-121, and others

12- ③Decrease in alpine plants on Mount Apoi

Takehiro Masuzawa, Jun Koda, Masato Tanaka, Toshiki Natori, Sadamoto Watanabe, 2005: Alpine Floras in Mt. Apoi, Hokkaido, Report ofEcological Society of Japan, 55, 85-89

12- ④

Changes in the distribution of greatMormons

Masahiko Kitahara, 2008: Distribution Expansion Phenomenon of Butterflies, Insect and Nature, 43(4), 19-23

12- ⑤

Changes in the distribution of
Ictinogomphus pertinax

Takashi Aoki, 2000: Distribution Expansion of Ictinogomphus Pertinax in Japan based on Records, TOMBO, XL II, 47-50

12- ⑥

Changes in the distribution of Nezara
viridula

12- ⑦

Changes in the fish fauna in the Chikuzen
Sea, Fukuoka Prefecture

Takashi Nishida, Akinobu Nakazono, Makoto Oikawa, Seiichi Matsui, 2005: Change of Fish Fauna in Chikuzen Coasts due to Recent Seawater
Temperature Rise, Liberal Arts Magazine of the Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyushu University

12- ⑧

Changes in population of overwintering
Cygnus columbianus in Japan

Hiroyoshi Higuchi, Shigeto Koike, Mayumi Shigeta, 2009: Influence of Global Warming on Phenology, Distribution, and Number of Population,
Global Environment, 14(2), 189-198

12- ⑨

Relationship between flowering dates ofcherry (Somei-Yoshino) and temperature

Hiroyoshi Higuchi, Shigeto Koike, Mayumi Shigeta, 2009: Influence of Global Warming on Phenology, Distribution, and Number of Population,
Global Environment, 14(2), 189-198

12- ⑩

Changes in the egg-laying period of Sturnus Koike, S and H, Higuchi,2002：Long-term trends in the egg-laying date and clutch size of Red-cheeked Starlings Sturnia philippensis. IBIS, 144(1),philippensis
150-152.

Documents of the Ministry of the Environment (Environmental Survey of Chemical Substance)

Sadamoto Watanabe, 2001: Change of Ultrabasic Rock Floras in Mt. Apoi for 45 Years (1954-1999), Global Environment Research, 3, 25-48

Kenji Fujisaki, 2007: The time when living of creatures changes: Conservation of nature, 499, 6-7
Junichi YUKAWA, Keizi KIRITANI, Naohisa GYOUTOKU, Nami UECHI, Daisuke YAMAGUCHI and Satoshi KAMITANI, 2007: Distribution
range shift of two allied species, Nezara viridula and N. antennata (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), in Japan, possibly due to global warming. Appl.
Entomol. Zool. 42 (2), 205?215.
Documents of Agricultural Experiment Stations in local prefectural governments

Appendix 3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data No.

Data Name

13- ①

Recognition of biodiversity

14- ①

Transition of ODA amounts in the areaof environment in Japan and the rate ofbiodiversity-related amount to the total

14- ②Japan's proportions of contributions tofunds, etc. related to the conservation of
biodiversity

14- ③

Number of technical cooperation projects
for each region in the area of biodiversity
by the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA)

15- ①

Transition of forest area (highly naturalforests/artificial forests)

15- ②

Transition of artificial forest area

15- ③

Changes in the distribution of Japanesedeer, and transition in number of deer
captured

Source
Review Results of Implementation of National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity (2nd) (Determined by the liaison
conference of governments and agencies on National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in September 13, 2004)
2009: National Census Concerning Environmental Problems, Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat
OECD/DAC Documents
OECD/DAC, CRS On-line Database
Documents of Conservation International
FCPF Documents
Documents of World Bank
2010: Report on Analysis of Cooperation Examples in Biodiversity for CBD COP10 and Examination of Activity Development (Project Research),Japan Wildlife Research Center
Forest Resources Assessment, Forestry Agency
Forest Area Statistics, Forestry Agency
Historical Statistics of Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
Forest and Forestry Statistics Directory, Forestry Agency
1985: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Animal Distribution Survey Report (Mammal) (1980/nationwide version), Environment Agency
2004: 6th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Mammal Distribution Survey Report (2004), Ministry of the Environment
Statistics on Wildlife, Forestry Agency
Statistics on Wildlife, Environmental Agency
Statistics on Wildlife, Environmental Agency

15- ④

The amount of damage caused by pine woodnematode (total volume of damaged timber)

Documents of Forestry Agency
URL http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/seisaku/sesakusyoukai/mamoru/1.html

16- ①

Status of forest fragmentation

2009: Dynamic Change Analytical Report by Forest Resource Survey Data, Forestry Agency

17- ①

1985: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Animal Distribution Survey Report (Mammal) (1980/
nationwide version), Environment Agency
Changes in distribution of Ursus arctos andUrsus thibetanus
2004: 6th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Mammal Distribution Survey Report (2004), Ministryof the Environment

17- ②

Living Planet Index (LPI)
Yamaura Y., Amano T., Mitsuda Y., Taki H. and Okabe K 2009: Does land-use change affect biodiversity dynamics at macroecological scale? A case
Changes in the distribution range of bird
study of birds over the past 20 years in Japan, Animal Conservation, 12, 110-119.
species from 1997 to 2002 relative to 1978

18- ①

Transition in the volume of forest accumulation Forest Resources Assessment, Forestry Agency(natural forests/ artificial forests)

18- ②

Volume of domestic production of uncut timber of broadleaf Lumber Supply/Demand Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
trees/coniferous trees, and self-sufficient rate in timber

18- ③

Changes in the area of forests worldwide
and in Japan

19- ①

Transition of cultivated areas
Statistics on Cultivated Land and Planted Area, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Transition in the area of readjusted paddy field and Basic Survey for Land Use Infrastructure Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
the ratio of readjusted paddy field compartments
Statistical Analysis of Agricultural Land Construction Activities, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

19- ②
19- ③
19- ④

19- ⑤

FAO STAT.
URL: http://faostat.fao.org/
Forest Resources Assessment, Forestry Agency
Lumber Supply/Demand Chart, Forestry Agency

Basic Statistics of Japanese Agriculture, Agriculture and Fishery Productivity Increase Committee
Transition in the production of agricultural
Handbook of Agricultural Chemicals, Japan Plant Protection Association
chemicals and chemical fertilizers
Pocket Handbook of Fertilizers, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Area of grasslands (native grasslands) other 2003: Historical Analysis of Forestry Census (1960 – 2000), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
than forests
Agriculture and Forestry Census, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Kazuko Uchida, 2003: Ponds in Japan – Disaster Prevention and Environmental Conservation, Kaiseisha, 270pp
1955: Register of Ponds, Resource Division, Farmland Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Changes in the number of reservoirs inJapan
1991: Survey for Long-term Disaster Prevention Activities - Register of Ponds (Nationwide Aggregative Version), Regional Planning Division,
Agricultural Structure Improvement Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

20- ①Trends of population of snipes and plovers that comeinland during the autumn migration season

21- ①

Transition of crop acreage of foxtail millet, Crop Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Japanese millet, and buckwheat (cereals)
2006: Revised Revision of Cereal Products Characteristics, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Promotion Foundation

22- ①Transition of land use in the special
districts of Tokyo

22- ②

Transition of the ratio of green coverage in
2004: Environmental White Paper, Tokyo Metropolitan Government
the special wards of Tokyo

22- ③

Transition in the area of city parks

23- ①

Changes in the distribution of larks in
Tokyo

23- ②

Tatsuya Amano, Kazuo Koyama, Hitoha Amano, Tamas Szekely and William J. Sutherland，unpublished

1996-2008: Tokyo Statistical Yearbook, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

Survey of Current Conditions of Public Park Maintenance, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
1998: Survey Report of Bird Breeding Conditions in Tokyo (1993-1997), Tokyo Metropolitan Government
1980: Survey Report of Bird Breeding in Tokyo (1973-1978), Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Changes in the distribution of white-eyes in 1998: Survey Report of Bird Breeding Conditions in Tokyo (1993-1997), Tokyo Metropolitan GovernmentTokyo
1980: Survey Report of Bird Breeding in Tokyo (1973-1978), Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Ueta, M., R. Kurosawa, S. Hamao, H. Kawachi and H. Higuchi, 2003：Population Change of Jungle Crows in Tokyo. Global Environmental
Research, 7(2), 131-137.

23- ③

Changes in the distribution of Corvus
macrorhynchos in Tokyo

24- ①

Changes in wetland areas from the Meiji
and Taisho eras to this day

Survey of Lakes and Wetlands, Geographical Survey Institute
URL http://www1.gsi.go.jp/geowww/lake/chousahoukokusho.html

24- ②

Changes in wetland area in the Kushiro
Wetland

Data Center URL of Kushiro Marsh Restoration Project
http://kushiro.env.gr.jp/saisei/

24- ③Area of reclamation or landfill in major
lakes

3rd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Lake Survey Report (1987/ nationwide version), Ministryof the Environment

24- ④

Lowering of riverbeds and removal of soil
and sand from river channels

2002: Sand Drift System Map, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

1998: Survey Report of Bird Breeding Conditions in Tokyo (1993-1997), Tokyo Metropolitan Government
1980: Survey Report of Bird Breeding in Tokyo (1973-1978), Tokyo Metropolitan Government

Appendix 3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data No.

Data Name

25- ①

Transition in the number of dams completed andcumulative total water storage since 1900

Source25- ②Ascendable range for fish in Class A rivers 2000: 5th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: River Survey Report (2000), Ministry of theEnvironment
in the 1990s

25- ③

1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Inland Sea Survey Report (Rivers) (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency
Transitions in status of the river waterfront 1987: 3rd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: River Survey Report (1987/ nationwide version), Ministry of the Environmentline
2000: 5th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: River Survey Report (2000), Ministry of the Environment

25- ④Alteration of the lakeshores of major lakes 1993: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Lake Survey Report (1993/ nationwide version),around 1990
Ministry of the Environment

25- ⑤Changes in the area of phragmites
community in Lake Biwa

26- ①

Fumie Kasai, 2006: Growth Survey of Endangered Algae, News of National Institute for Environmental Studies, Vol. 25, No. 5
Observed number of charophyte species in Booklet “Shajikumo”, Conservation of Chara, Homepage of National Institute for Environmental Studies
lakes nationwide
2007: Red List (Algae), Ministry of the Environment

26- ②

Number of alien species observed in ClassA rivers

2008: Census of Rivers and Waterfronts, Examination of General Overview of 1, 2, and 3 Times Survey Results (River Version) (Creature Survey)
Report, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

27- ①
27- ②
27- ③

Transitions of reclamation area in neritic areas
Transitions in the amount of gravel gathered

National Land Area Survey, Geographical Survey InstituteAggregate Supply/Demand Chart, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

National Land Numerical Information, Dam Data, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

2000: Mother Lake Plan, Fishery Division, Shiga Prefectural Government

Extension of riverbanks/shore protection and its ratio Seashore Statistics, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Sea Area Survey Report, Seashore Survey, Sea Area
Environment Survey, Tidal Land, Marine Forest, and Coral Reef Distribution Survey (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency

27- ④Transition in the extension of natural/semi- 1985: 3rd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Seashore Survey Report (1985/ nationwide version), Ministry of the Environment
natural/artificial coasts
1994: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Seashore Survey Report (1994/ nationwide version), Ministry of the Environment
1998: 5th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Seashore Survey Comprehensive Report (1998), Ministry of the Environment
1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Sea Area Survey Report, Seashore Survey, Sea Area
Environment Survey, Tidal Land, Marine Forest, and Coral Reef Distribution Survey (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency

27- ⑤Transition of the area of tidelands

1994: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Marine Creature Environment Survey Report, Vol. 1
Tidal Land (1994), Ministry of the Environment
1998: 5th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Seashore Survey Comprehensive Report (1998),
Ministry of the Environment

27- ⑥Transition in tideland areas in Tokyo Bay
and the Seto Inland Sea

1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Sea Area Survey Report, Seashore Survey, Sea Area
Environment Survey, Tidal Land, Marine Forest, and Coral Reef Distribution Survey (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency
1994: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Marine Creature Environment Survey Report, Vol. 1
Tidal Land (1994), Ministry of the Environment
1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Sea Area Survey Report, Seashore Survey, Sea Area
Environment Survey, Tidal Land, Marine Forest, and Coral Reef Distribution Survey (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency

27- ⑦

1994: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Marine Creature Environment Survey Report, Vol. 2
Transition in the area of underwater forests Marine Forest (1994), Ministry of the Environment
1998: 5th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Seashore Survey Comprehensive Report (1998),
Ministry of the Environment
1981: 2nd Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Sea Area Survey Report, Seashore Survey, Sea Area
Environment Survey, Tidal Land, Marine Forest, and Coral Reef Distribution Survey (1981/nationwide version), Environment Agency

27- ⑧Transition in the area of coral reef
communities and cover degree of coral
reefs

27- ⑨

Examples of changes in the coral coverdegree in the Sekisei Lagoon

27- ⑩Long-term changes in the concentration ofhydrogen ions (pH) on the surface of seawaterin winter at 137 degrees East longitude

27- ⑪

Changes in the speed of beach erosion

Documents of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

27- ⑫

Incidence of red tide/blue tide in Tokyo
Bay, Ise Bay and the Seto Inland Sea

Documents of the Ministry of the Environment27- ⑬

Degree of achieving environmental standards(BOD or COD) in enclosed coastal seas

Public Water Quality Measurement Results, Ministry of the Environment

28- ①

Population trends of snipes and plovers passing Tatsuya Amano, Kazuo Koyama, Hitoha Amano, Tamas Szekely and William J. Sutherland, unpublishedthrough Japan during autumn migration

28- ②Transitions of clam species catches

Fishery and Cultivation Production Survey Yearbook, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

29- ①Assessment of fishery resources in the sea
area surrounding Japan

Fishery Resource Assessment in Waters Surrounding Japan, Fisheries Agency and Fisheries Research Agency

29- ②
29- ③

Fishing quantity and Marine Trophic Index (MTI)
Long-term trends of fish catches

30- ①

Ratios of endemic species and endangered
endemic species on the Nansei Islands30- ②

Ratios of endemic species and endangered
endemic species on the Ogasawara Islands

30- ③

Factors of decrease in endangered specieson the Nansei islands

1994: 4th Report of Biodiversity Survey of Natural Environment Conservation Basic Research: Marine Creature Environment Survey Report, Vol. 3
Coral Reef (1994), Ministry of the Environment
Documents of the Ministry of the Environment
Ishii et al., 2008; 2nd International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World．
FY2008 Report, Global Environment Research Comprehensive Promotion Division, Ministry of the Environment

Cumulative Survey of Fish Catches of Sea-level Fisheries (nationwide), Fisheries Agency
Cumulative Survey of Fish Catches of Sea-level Fisheries (nationwide), Fisheries Agency
2006: Consigned Report of Important Area Survey of Candidate Sites for World Heritage around Ryukyu Islands in 2005, Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment
2006: Red List (Crawler), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
1989: Selection and Survey of Animal and Plant Species that Need Urgent Protection, Ministry of the Environment
Recommended Book for Noting on the List of World Heritages, Ogasawara Islands, Government of Japan
2007: Red List (Land Shell), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Insect), Ministry of the Environment
2007: Red List (Plant I: Vascular Plant), Ministry of the Environment
2002: Revised Red Data Book - 1 (Mammal), Ministry of the Environment
2000: Revised Red Data Book - 3 (Crawler and Amphibia), Ministry of the Environment

Appendix 3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Appendix 4 Data Used in the Report of the Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity
Some data used for assessment in this report are shown in the form of figures in Chapters II and III. The data notshown in said chapters and that combined with other data in the form of graphics are indicated here.
Sources of individual data are basically not shown except where necessary. See Appendix 3 for the sources.
Data 1-③: Distribution of vegetation with little conversion
Ratio of cases with a degreeof naturalness of 9 or 10

Prefectures corresponding
to the condition

40%〜

Hokkaido and Okinawa

20〜30%

Yamagata, Toyama,
and Kagoshima

10〜20%

Aomori, Akita, Miyagi, Iwate,
Fukushima, Niigata, Nagano,Gifu, Gunma, Yamanashi,
Ishikawa, and Miyazaki(12 in total)

0〜10%

Others(30 in total)

Third meshes with a degree ofvegetation naturalness of 9 or 10
Natural forests/natural grasslands* The distributions of meshes with vegetation having little artificial conversion [with a degree of vegetation naturalness of 9 (natural forests) or 10 (natural grasslands)] are shown.

Data 1-④: Changes in land use from the early 20th century to the 1980s

Area of land with converted use
1900→1985
1950→1985
Others → Others
325
321
328
195
Others → Forests
13
10
Others → City
62
40
Others → Farmlands
7074
Forests → Others
2275
2409
Forests → Forests
34
25
Forests → City
197
154
Forests → Farmlands
00City → Others
City → Forests
01City → City
10
39
City → Farmlands
37
Farmlands → Others
1111
Farmlands → Forests
72
70
Farmlands → City
85
68
Farmlands → Farmlands
397
457
Unit:100 km2
City: Roads, railroads, city/settlement, schools,
municipal offices, temples, shrines
Farmland: Dry fields, paddy fields, swamp fields,
cultivated fields, open space/pastures,mulberry plantation fields, tea plantation fields,
orchards, others: fields of trees, fields of seedlings
Forest: Broadleaf forests, coniferous forests,
bamboo forests, mixed forests
Others: Grasslands, wilderness,land where dwarf stone pine grows, gravel land,
wetlands, isolated trees, rivers, lakes, swamps,
seas, land where bamboo grass grows, golf courses,
dry vegetation, Edgeworthia chrysantha, salt field,
palm trees

Legend
1.Remain as a city/settlement
2.Converted to a city/settlement
3.Remain as farmland
4.Converted to farmland
5.Remain as a forest
6.Converted to a forest
7.Others

Reference: Changes in land use from 1900 (Meiji era) to 1985 (late Showa period)* Long-term changes in land use are shown from data based on the 1:50,000 terrain maps issued by the Geographical Survey Institute in each period.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 1-⑥: Transition in the area of farmland converted into land for housing andfactories (area of artificially converted fields no longer used for agriculture)

Data 1-⑤:
Changes in land use from the 1980s to the 1990s

698
−1.7%

0

0

0

4
11

Secondaryforests (7,8)

881
−2.7%

Area of artificially converted field no longer used
for agriculture (km2)

Natural forests (9);natural grasslands (10)

7
2

3

0

0
0

13

976
＋2.2%

914
＋0.4%

0

9

4

Farmlands (2,3);
Secondary grasslands(4,5)

Forested sites (6)

2 0

3

1
3

Suburban area/
developed land,
etc. (1)

158
＋6.1%

700
Rice paddies

600

Fields

500
400
300
200
100
0
1955

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 (year)

2

Unit:100 km

Note 1: Parenthesized figures indicate the degree of vegetation naturalness.

Note 1: Artificially converted field used for other than agriculture, such as forhousing, factories, construction sites, roads, railroads, rivers, channels,
grounds or abandoned fields for cultivation

Data 1-⑦: Transition in the area of forests converted into
urbanized land use (by purpose of use)

Data 3-②:
Impact of nitrogen through the atmosphere

160

Site for establishing a factoryor business;
Site for housing/vacation homes

140

Site for golf course/leisure120

Public use land (roads, dams, etc.)

100

Area (km2)○ : Nitrate concentrations in themountain streams in the
2000s are lower than theconcentrations in the mid- to
downstream area in the
1950s.
● : Nitrate concentrations in themountain streams in the
2000s are higher than theconcentrations in the mid- to
downstream area in the
1950s.

Total

80
60
40
20
0
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975

(year)

Figure shows the difference between water samples taken from the mid- to downstream area of
about 225 rivers across Japan in the 1950s and from 1278 points in mountain streams across Japanin the 2000s. Because we could not compare the nitrate concentration at different times with thedata sampled from the same and/or a close position, we averaged the data within the eight regions.
Thus, the average nitrate concentration of the river waters in each district using the data would
represent the downstream part at around 50 years ago, while the same average using the data
would represent the mountain streams at present.

Data 4-①: The ratios of extinct species, extinct wild
species and endangered species by taxon

Birds(about 700 species)

20%

60%

80%

100%

12

26.5%
15.1%

Reptiles(98 species)

31.6%

Amphibians(62 species)

33.9%

Brackish/freshwater fish
(about 400 species)

37.0%

Vascular plants(about 7,000 species)

40%

Factors of extinction(number of cases)0%
Mammals(about 180 species)

Data 4-⑥: Factors of extinction for extinct species andextinct species in the wild
11

10
8
6
4

5
4

2

2

2

Naturaltransition, etc.
Note 4

Alien
species
Note 50
Water
Development contamination
Note 1
Note 2

24.7%* The ratios of species categorized as Extinct (EX), Extinct in the wild (EW), andGroup 1 [Critically endangered (CR) + Endangered (EN)), and Group II(Vulnerable (VU)] are shown here.
Note 1: The presented data concern taxons with the following characteristics:
nearly the same number of species subject to assessment as the numberof known species, and relative progress of research conducted on
species subject to assessment.
Note 2: Parenthesized figures indicate the number of species and subspecies
subject to assessment.

CaptureNote 3* Using the Revised "Endangered Species of Wild Animals and Plants in Japan as compiled by the
Ministry of the Environment regarding mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, brackish/freshwater
fish, insects, Crustacea, arachnid/ myriapoda, and vascular plants, the factors of extinction for
extinct species and extinct species in the wild were categorized into such groups such as“development,” “water contamination (including agricultural chemicals),” “gathering/hunting,”“natural transition,” and “alien species (transplanted species)” for summarization.
Note 1: Logging, lake and river development, coastal and wetland development, grassland
development, coal mining, golf courses, ski resorts, land development, and road and dam
construction are included.
Note 2: Water contamination and agricultural chemical contamination are included.
Note 3: Collection for gardening/hunting for ornamental use, collection for medicinal use, and otherillegal collection activities are included.
Note 4: Abandoned management and the progress of transition/changes in vegetation are included.
Note 5: The intrusion of predators, competition over domestication, cross-breeding, and release areincluded.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 4-⑦: Number of species listed in the Red Data
Book (vascular plants) by prefecture

Data 4-⑧: Major factors causing adverse effects on tideland environments
in Japan and their relative significance for individual tideland environments

Number of species by prefecture

Salinewetland(Note 1)

Factor

0-100

River
mouth
(Note 2)

Tideland(Note 3)

Subtidalzone(Note 4)Mangrove Sea grasszone(Note 6)(Note5)Landfill

＋＋＋

＋

＋＋＋

＋

＋

＋

Artificial shore protection

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋＋

＋

＋

＋

Eutrophication

＋＋

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋

＋

201-250

Contamination

＋＋

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋

＋

251-300

Red clay inflow

＋

＋

＋

＋＋＋

＋＋＋

＋

＋＋

＋＋＋

＋

＋＋＋

＋
＋

＋

101-150
151-200

Port construction/dredging

301-419＋

Estuary barrage construction
Sea sand import＋

Excessive use of tideland＋＋

Entry of domesticated species

＋

＋

＋

Note 1: Saline wetlands are formed in places from the upper intertidal zone to thesupratidal zone susceptible to impact of the ebb and flow of tides in innerbays and around the mouths of rivers.
Note 2: River mouth zones where a river flows into the sea
Note 3: Intertidal zones covered with plants that appear at low tide
Note 4: The seaside of a tideland not dried out at a low spring tide
Note 5: Mangrove swamps in intertidal zones of a subtropical marine area
Note 6: A vast shallow sea area located inside a well-grown coral reef

Note 1: The number of species categorized as EX, EW, CR, EN and VU aretotaled.

Data 5-③: Protected area cover ratios in ecosystems (according to designated entity)

Natural forests/natural
grasslands, secondary forests 0%
with high naturalness (with adegree of naturalness of 8, 9 or
10)Secondary forests (with a degreeof naturalness of 7)
Artificial forests (with a degree ofnaturalness of 6)
Secondary grasslands (with adegree of naturalness of 4 or 5)
Farmlands (with a degree ofnaturalness of 2 or 3)
Suburban area (with a degree ofnaturalness of 1)
Open water (99 inland waters)

20%

40%

60%

80%

Data 7-②: Transition in the use of working cattle

0%

100%

20%

1958

40%

60%

80%

77

100%

13

All land areas
sea areas (within a range of about
12 nautical miles)
Total (including sea areas)

1965

500 important wetlands

25

36

28

Tideland research areas
research areas in underwater
forests
research areas in coral reefs

Protected areas designatedby the national government

Protected areas designatedby prefectures

Areas not designated asprotected areas

For work

For breeding

For fattenning

Note 1: Areas designated by multiple authorities are treated as national protected areas.

Data 7-④: Transition of the ratio of Satochi-Satoyama meshes in national land
50

Ratio (%)

40
30
20

46.2

43.4

42.8

1973

1987

1998

10
0

Note 1: The year indicated is the fiscal year when research was conducted. For example,“1973” refers to data of research conducted in FY 1973, “1987” refers to data ofresearch conducted from FY 1983 to FY 1986, and “1998” refers to data ofresearch conducted from FY 1994 to FY 1998.
Note 2: Satochi-Satoyama areas are ecosystems where farmland, secondary grasslands,
farming forests around farmland, channels and ponds form intricate mosaic
patterns. “Satochi-Satoyama mesh” is defined as a second mesh where area
having a degree of vegetation naturalness of 7 or 8 (secondary forests) covers noless than half the total area, including areas having a degree of vegetation
naturalness of 2 or 3 (farmland) and those of 4 or 5 (secondary grasslands)(Ministry of the Environment).

Appendix 4

Reference: Distribution of Satochi-Satoyama second meshes

4Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 9-①: Changes in the entry/ number of settled alien insect/weed species

Data 9-④: Reference: Transition in the number of captured raccoons

Accumulated numberof invasive insect species

50

250

40

200

12,000

20

100

10

0

50

1900
〜
1909

1910
〜
1919

1920
〜
1929

1930
〜
1939

1940
〜
1949

1950
〜
1959

1960
〜
1969

1970
〜
1979

1980
〜
1989

1990
〜
1999

Number of captured raccoons(number of heads)

150

1400

Number of species

30

Accumulated number of species

Number of species

1600

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1860

1880

1900

1920

Note 1:The figure includes 231 species having dataon their entry year among the 311 invasive
insect species.

1960

15

10

19
15
12

0

2005

2007

Injury and disease
Hunting

4,000

01996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2008

(Fiscal year)

Data 12-①: Decrease in sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk
4

-40

3

-30

2

-20

1

-10

0

0

-1

10

-2

20

-3

30

-4
1950

5

2006

6,000

2,000

2000

Atmospheric temperature (°C)

The number of prefectures that confirmed
cases of prevention (Note 1)

20

0

DamageFigure: Changes in the number of alien weed
species in Japan
Source: Osamu Watanabe, 2007: Status ofinvasion and distribution of alien weed
species in forage fields, bulletin of
Shinshu University, Faculty ofAgriculture, 43 (1·2)

Data 11-②: The number of confirmed cases of prevention by prefecture

5

1980

Academic reasons

8,000

Year

0

Figure: Transition in the number of insect species
that entered Japan over the past 100 years

1940

Prevention

10,000

1960

1970

1980
Year

1990

2000

40

* Yearly changes in the area of sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and temperature as checked onland windward of the sea ice
Note 1: The gray solid line indicates deviation in sea ice area (1979 - 2003) in February in the
Sea of Okhotsk as confirmed by satellite observation; the black solid line indicatesdeviation in surface temperature (1950–2005) during fall and winter (October–March)in the area east of the Eurasian continent (50° -65°N, 110°, -140°E). The black dashedline indicates the linear trend components of deviation in temperature. The
temperature data adopts the Jones’ data set. The left axis indicates the deviation intemperature. The right axis indicates the deviation in sea ice area. The symbols areshown upside down.
Source: Keiichiro Ohshima, Takuya Nakanowatari, and Masaaki Wakatsuchi, 2006: Global
warming observed in the high latitude area in the Sea of Okhotsk: Impact on thenorthern Pacific Ocean, Low Temperature Science, 65, 67-75

2009

Note 1: The Invasive Alien Species Act stipulates that local governments can obtainconfirmation from the state minister in charge regarding the prevention ofdesignated alien species as conducted in accordance with public notification.

Data 12-③: Decrease in alpine plants on Mount Apoi

Alpine meadows

Alpine meadows

Scrub forests

Scrub forests

Alpine zones on Mount Apoi in 1959

Area of sea ice [%]Number of invasive
insect species in 10 years

Alpine zones on Mount Apoi in 1988

* On Mount Apoi, coverage of the alpine plant habitat is rapidly decreasing due to an invasion of woody plants—dwarf stone pines and Pinus parviflora Sieb. et
Zucc. var. pentaphylla (Mayr) Henry.
Source: Sadamoto Watanabe, 2001: Changes in ultrabasicosaxicolous flora on Mount Apoi for 45 years (1954- 1999), Global Environmental Research, 3, 25-48

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 12-④: Changes in the distribution of great Mormons

Data 12-⑤: Changes in the distribution of Ictinogomphus pertinax

1983

1970
1940

2000
1980s 1990s

1997
1950

1960s

1960

1945
1930s

Source: Masahiko Kitahara 2008: The phenomenon of butterfly species'
distribution expansion and global warming, Insects and Nature, 43(4),with19-23 modified

Source: Takashi Aoki, 2000. Phases of distribution expansion of Ictinogomphus
pertinax in Japan based on records, TOMBO, XLII, with 47-50 modified

Data 12-⑥: Changes in the distribution of Nezara viridula

Early 1960s

2000s

Source: Kenji Fujisaki, 2007: When the life of living creatures changes, Nature Protection, 499, 6-7
Junichi YUKAWA, Keizi KIRITANI, Naohisa GYOUTOKU, Nami UECHI, Daisuke YAMAGUCHI and Satoshi KAMITANI, 2007: Distribution range shift of two
allied species, Nezara viridula and N. antennata (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), in Japan, possibly due to global warming. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 42 (2), 205-215.
Data by agricultural experiment stations in each prefecture

Data 12-⑦: Changes in the fish fauna in the
Chikuzen Sea, Fukuoka Prefecture

Data 12-⑧: Changes in population of overwintering
Cygnus columbianus in Japan
50,0001986-1996

2001-2004

45,000Temperate species

104

127

110

40,000Species withbroad distribution

18

22

19

Southern species

46

95

118

* Southern fish species are mainly distributed in semitropical and tropicalzones; Temperate fish species are mainly distributed in the warm temperatezone; Fish species with broad distribution range over two zones. The
composition ratios of all three groups were compared according to theperiod.
Source: Takashi Nishida, Akinobu Nakazono, Shin Oikawa, and Seiichi Matsui,
2005: Changes in fish fauna in the Chikuzen Sea caused by recently
rising seawater temperature, Science bulletin of the Faculty ofAgriculture, Kyushu University, 60(2), 187-201

Overwintering population

1957-1964

35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year
Source: Hiroyoshi Higuchi, Shigeto Koike, and Mayumi Shigeta, 2009: Impact of
global warming on phenology, distribution, and population, Global
Environment, 14(2), 189-198

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

150
100
50

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

0
1980

45

200

1975

50

250

1970

55

Egg-laying dates

300

1965

31 31 60

1960

7 17 28 27 15 23 42 36 30 20

1955

22 46

1950

N

60

Data 15-④: The amount of damage caused by pine wood nematode (total volume of damaged timber)
Total volume of damaged timber(in 10,000 m3)

Data 12-⑩: Changes in the egg-laying period of Sturnus philippensis

Figure: Transition in the total volume of damaged timber causedby pine wood nematode in Japan

40

100%

y = 54.55 − 0.73x, r = −0.951, P < 0.001

35
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

80%

2000

Tohoku
Kanto
Hokuriku/Higashiyama
Tokai
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
KyushuYear

60%* Changes with age in the average date of initial laying of Sturnus philippensis in the city of
Niigata.
Note 1: The average date of initial laying refers to the average based on the day whenbreeding begins in each case of breeding every year. April 1st is counted as one forindicating the number of days.
Source: Koike, S and H, Higuchi,2002: Long-term trends in the egg-laying date and clutch
size of Red-cheeked Starlings Sturnia philippensis.IBIS, 144(1),150-152.(Weacknowledge permission to reproduce this figure by the British Ornithologists'
Union.)

Figure: Transition in the amount of damage caused by pine wood nematode inprivate forests by area

Data 17-①: Changes in distribution of Ursus arctos and Ursus thibetanus

Data 18-①: Transition in the volume of forest accumulation (natural forests/ artificial forests)

40%
20%
0%

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Changes in the number of meshes for distributions of Ursus
arctos and Ursus thibetanus by area (5km mesh)

2003
2,224
1,787
355
1,638
400
299
32
0
6,735

Increase anddecrease

262
292
39
231
106
50
4
0
984

Volume of forest accumulation(in millions of m3)

1978
Hokkaido
1,962
Tohoku
1,495
Kanto
316
Chubu
1,407
Kinki
294
Chugoku
249
Shikoku
28
Kyushu and Okinawa
0
5,751

5,000
4,432
Artificial forests

4,040

Natural forests, etc.

4,000

3,483
2,862

3,000

2,000

2,651

1,892

2,186

665

798

1,329

1,414

1,388

1,430

1,502

1,540

1,591

1,702

1,780

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1990

1995

2002

2007

1,887

1,054

1,000

0

2,338

2,484
2,079

558

Inhabitation confirmed in 1978
(2nd research) only
Inhabitation confirmed in 2003
(6th research) only
Inhabitation confirmed in 1978
and 2003

3,138

1,361

1,598

(Year)

Note 1: The year indicates when research was conducted. This does not strictly denote theyear when research was actually conducted. For example, “1978” refers to researchdata obtained in 1978; “2003” refers to research data obtained from 2000 to 2004.

105

80%

70,00060,000Broadleaf trees

50,00060%

Coniferous trees
Volume of timber import

40,000Self-sufficient rate
in timber

40%

30,00020,00020%

10,000

0%

0
1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000 (Year)

Changes in the area of forests( Index for which the figure in 1990 is set as 100)

80,0001955

Data 18-③:
Changes in the area of forests worldwide and in Japan100%

90,000Self-sufficient rate in timber (%)

Volume of import/production volume (in 1,000 m3)

Data 18-②: Volume of domestic production of uncut timber of broadleaf trees/
coniferous trees, and self-sufficient rate in timber

100

100.00

99.85

99.70

99.67

95

90

Japan
Worldwide
Africa85

South America
and Southeast Asia

80
1990

Appendix 4

1995

2000

2005

(Year)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

60.7

60

47.1

50
40

27.0

30

21.4
20
10
0
1965

1960

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000 (Year)

Standard compartment
Ratio of readjustment into a standard compartment

8

Large compartment
Ratio of readjustment into a large compartment

7

Field adjustment for large
compartments

6

70
60
50

5

Liquidation policy for farmland beginningwith infrastructural development as momentum

40

4
Focusing on the policy to foster
human resources to contributeto agriculture

3

20

2

10

1
0

30

0
1964

1970

1980

1990

Ratio of readjusted paddy field compartments (%)

Cultivated acreage (in 1,000 km2)

70

Area of readjusted paddy fields in the year (in 100 km2)

Data 19-②: Transition in the area of readjusted paddy field and theratio of readjusted paddy field compartments

Data 19-①: Transition of cultivated areas

2000

Note 1: A standard compartment refers to one 30 a or larger; a large
compartment refers to one 1 ha or larger.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Basic research on land
use and infrastructural development, Statistical survey on farmland
construction work

Data 19-④: Area of grasslands (native grasslands) other than forests Data 19-⑤: Changes in the number of reservoirs in Japan
14
Number of reservoirs (Note 1)

300,000

Area (in 1,000 km2)

12
10
8
6
4
2

48956

Area of benefitting land no less than 5 ha
Area of benefitting land less than 5 ha

200,000

100,000

44812

240757169081

0

0

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2005 (Year)1989

1952〜54

Note 1: Native grasslands other than forests (including permanent pastures,
obsolescent pastures, and cultivation-abandoned land turned into native
grassland) and the land of shrub communities are included. Dry riverbeds,
dikes, banks, road sites, golf courses, etc. are excluded even if grass grows
there.

Note 1: Reservoirs in Okinawa Prefecture are not included in the survey conducted from1952 to 1954. There were 75 reservoirs in Okinawa Prefecture in 1989.
Note 2: “The area of benefitting land at 5 ha” is the unit of classification used in the survey
conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Bureau of
Agricultural Land, Resource Department in 1955.

Indicator 22-②: Transition of the ratio of green coverage in the special wards of Tokyo

Indicator 22-③: Transition in the area of city parks

Forests
Grasslands
Greenery along roads

Farmlands
Greenery in housing areas
Parks Water surfaces such as in rivers

5.9

4.3

0.4

1998 1.2 1.7

Ratio of green coverage (%)

0

2.8

10.9

Special wards of Tokyo

25

4.5

1.2

14.7

5.1

4.3

10
20
30
The ratio of land use in the area subject to the survey (%)

30
25Area of city parks (in km2)

1974

30

0.6

0.9

Nagoya
Osaka

20
15
10
5

20
15

0

10

1975

5

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0
1972
1983
1987
1991
1995 (Year)
Transition in the ratio of green coverage in the special wards of Tokyo (Note 1)

Note 1:The ratio of green coverage refers to the ratio of area covered with greenery ascompared to the total area in the special wards of Tokyo. Forests, grasslands,
farmland, greenery in housing areas (including greenery on rooftops), and greenery alongroads and in parks are included, but water surfaces such as in rivers are excluded.

City Park Law published and enacted in 1956
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism,
Survey on the status of city park development

Appendix 4

2007(Fiscal year)

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 24-①: Changes in wetland areas from the Meiji
and Taisho eras to this day

Data 23-③: Changes in the distribution of Corvus
macrorhynchos in Tokyo
1976-79● The meshes where breeding is
confirmed.

■ Meshes where a field survey was

Hokkaido

conducted in both periods

Other prefectures

Loss■ Meshes where the questionnaire
survey was conducted in both
periods

1886〜
1924

1772

339

1993-97

1975〜
1997

709

1290
112

0

Source: Ueta, M., R. Kurosawa, S. Hamao, H. Kawachi and H. Higuchi, 2003:
Population Change of Jungle Crows in Tokyo. Global Environmental
Research, 7(2), 131-137.
Tokyo, 1998: Report on the survey of breeding status of birds in Tokyo (1993-1997)
Tokyo, 1980: Report on the survey of breeding status of birds in Tokyo (1973-1978)

Data 24-②: Changes in wetland area in the Kushiro Wetland

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
(km2)

Data 24-③: Area of reclamation or landfill in major lakes

km2
300

Area ofreclamationor landfill
344km2(14.5%)

250
200
150

Other area
2036km2(85.5%)

100
50
0

1947

1970s

2000s

Note 1: The ratio of lake and tideland areas where some form of reclamation or landfill
was conducted from 1945 to 1985 as compared to all sites subject to thesurvey. The survey was conducted on 484 major lakes among natural lakes witharea of 1 ha or more.

Data 25-⑤: Changes in the area of phragmites community in Lake Biwa

Data 27-③: Extension of riverbanks/shore protection and its ratio

2
1
0
1953

1992

12,000Extension of riverbanks/shore protection, etc.

100
10353

The ratio of extension as compared to thetotal length of the coast

10,000

80

8,000
60
6,000

4841

4,000
18.7
2,000
0

28.4 27.5 28.2 28.9 29.5 29.7 29.5
24.9 26.040
200

The ratio of extension as compared tothe total length of the coast (%)

3
Extension of riverbanks/shore protection (km)Area of phragmites community(km2)

Source: Ministry of the Environment, Kushiro Wetland Restoration Project Data
Center website
http://kushiro.env.gr.jp/saisei/

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 (Fiscal year)

Note 1: “Extension of riverbanks/shore protection” here refers to the extension ofcoastal conservation structures (such as riverbanks and shore protection),railroad and roadside protection, and the extension of airports. The
redundancies in data among the authorities in 1960 are not deducted.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 27-④: Transition in the extension of natural/semi-natural/artificial coasts

Natural coasts(beach)
4,202
4,378
4,335
4,253

Around 1990
Around 1995
8,258
8,924
9,551
10,822

Artificial
coasts
0

2,000

4,000

Area of tidelands (Note 2)(Km2)

Natural coasts(rock reef)

Semi-natural
coastsData 27-⑤: Transition of the area of tidelands

8,901
8,829
8,770
8,692
9,817
9,326
9,089
1978
8,722
1984

6,000
8,000
Coast extension (km)10,00012,000Note 1: Natural coasts refer to coasts where the shoreline is not artificially modified andnature is maintained, and with no artificial structures along the shoreline, regardlessof any artificial structures in the backland.
Note 2: Semi-natural coasts refer to coasts where part of the shoreline is artificially modified.
If the coast (shoreline) maintains nature in intertidal zones and there are no artificial
structures along the shoreline, but there are structures such as bank protection in
the area, the coast is regarded as a semi-natural coast.
Note 3: Artificial coasts refer to coasts where ports, landfill, dredging work or reclamation
have been artificially created or conducted; artificial structures are located inintertidal zones.
Note 4: The year indicates the fiscal years when the survey was conducted, but does notstrictly refer to conditions during a given year. For example, “1978” indicates survey
data obtained from 1978 to 1979; “1984” indicates survey data in 1984. “around1990” indicates survey data in 1993; “around 1995” indicates survey data obtained
from 1995 to 1996.

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

840.7

1945

553.0

514.4

495.7

Around1978

Around1990

Around1995

Note 1: The area around 1978 consisted of the area around 1990 and the area of tidelands
lost around 1990. The area in 1945 includes the area around 1978 as calculated
above and the area of tidelands lost from 1945 to around 1978.
Note 2: Tideland refers to existing tideland that meets all of the following conditions:①The maximum width of dry area between the high tide line and low tide line is noless than 100 meters.
②The area of continuous dry area at a spring tide is no less than 1 ha.
③The bottom consists of loose objects (such as gravel, sand, muddy sand, or mud).
Note 3: The year indicates the fiscal years when the survey was conducted, but does notstrictly refer to conditions in a given year. For example, “around 1990” indicatessurvey data obtained from 1989 to 1992; “around 1995” indicates survey dataobtained from 1995 to 1996.
Note 4: The prefectures of Tokushima and Hyogo were not surveyed around 1995. The dataaround 1990 were used as supplemental data.

250

Tokyo Bay

200
150
100

103.5

50
0

Area of tidelands (Km2)

Area of tidelands (Km2)

Data 27-⑥: Transition in tideland areas in Tokyo Bay and the Seto Inland Sea

1945

19.2

16.4

Around1978

Around
1990

250

214.1

Seto Inland Sea(Note 2)

200
150

124.9

116.8

Around1978

Around
1990

100
50
0

1945

Note 1: The area around 1978 consists of the area around 1990 and the area of tidelands lost around 1990. The area in 1945 includes the area around 1978 as calculated above and the areaof tidelands lost from 1945 to around 1978.
Note 2: Data on the Seto Inland Sea represents all data on the following sea areas: west Suonada, east Suonada, west Iyonada, Beppu Bay, Bungo Channel, east Iyonada, Hiroshima Bay,Aki Bay, Bingonada, Hiuchinada, west Bisanseto, east Bisanseto, north Harimanada, south Harimanada, northern part of Osaka Bay, southern part of Osaka Bay, and the westernpart of the Kii Channel.
Note 3: The year indicates the fiscal years when the survey was conducted, but does not strictly refer to conditions in a given year. For example, “around 1990” indicates survey dataobtained from 1989 to 1992.

Data 27-⑦: Transition in the area of underwater forests
1973

478

1,587

31

1973

Around
1978

469

1,578

29

Around1978

Around1990

316

Around1995 264

0

1,561
655
500

135

537
1,000

Underwater forests ofsea grass
Underwater forests ofmarine algae
Others/unknown

1,500

2,000

2,500

360

157

312

Around1990

109

Around1995

78
0Area of underwater forests (Km )

118

207

Hokkaido
Other than Hokkaido

186
100

200

300

400

500

Area of underwater forests of sea grass (Km2)2Note 1: The area of underwater forests consisting of sea grass and marine algae is the total area multiplied by individual ratios.
Note 2: The prefectures of Tokushima and Hyogo were not surveyed around 1995. The data around 1990 were used as supplemental data.
Note 3: The area around 1978 consists of the area around 1990 and the area of underwater forests lost around 1990.
Note 4: The area in 1973 includes the area around 1978 as calculated above and the area of underwater forests lost around 1978.
Note 5: “Others/unknown” indicates marine algae and sea grass that are not categorized as the types of underwater forests designated in the survey (e.g., eelgrass beds, kelp beds,
sargassum beds). Underwater forests where different types coexisted in 1998 are also categorized as “Others/unknown.”
Note 6: The year indicates the fiscal years when the survey was conducted, but does not strictly refer to conditions in a given year. For example, “around 1990” indicates survey dataobtained from 1989 to1992; “around 1995” indicates survey data obtained from 1995 to 1996.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 27-⑧: Transition in the area of coral reef communities and cover degree of coral reefs

YaeyamaArchipelago

Area of coral reef communities (km2)
50
100
150

0
Amami Islands

200

22.0
3.9

Okinawa Island

50.6

16.0

2.3 4.6

Miyako Archipelago 12.7
16.3

Yaeyama Archipelago

124.1
Less than 5%

Amami
Islands

51.9
5〜50%

50〜100%Figure: area of coral reef communities according
to the cover degree in coral ponds (around 1990)

Ogasawara Islands
Okinawa
IslandMiyakojima Island

Figure: Transition of the area of coral reef communities according to the cover degree in coral ponds (around 1978 to around 1990)
The total area of existing coral reefs confirmed by the 4th Basic Research on Natural Environment Conservation (around 1990) was 96,497 ha. The area of coral reef communities in coral
ponds was 34,642 ha. After the 2nd Basic Research on Natural Environment Conservation (conducted around 1978), 1,512 ha of coral reef were lost.
Note 1: The size of the pie chart indicates the area of coral reefs. The black portion indicates the coral reefs lost.
Note 2: The area around 1978 consists of the area around 1990 and the area of coral reefs lost around 1990.
Note 3: The year indicates the fiscal years when the survey was conducted, but does not strictly refer to conditions in a given year. For example, “around 1990” indicates survey dataobtained from 1989 to 1992.

Data 27-⑨: Examples of changes in the coral coverdegree in the Sekisei Lagoon
90%
80%

35%

70%

30%

60%

25%

50%

20%

40%

15%

30%

10%

20%

5%

10%

0%

0%

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Average cover degree

40%

100%
Average cover degree
Ratio of points where
acanthasters appear
Ratio of bleaching

8.20
Concentration of hydrogen ions (pH)on the surface of seawater

45%

Ratio of points where acanthasters appear/bleaching50%

Data 27-⑩: Long-term changes in the concentration of hydrogen ions (pH)on the surface of seawater in winter at 137 degrees East longitude

8.15

30 degrees North latitude
33 degrees North latitude

15 degrees North latitude
10 degrees North latitude

8.05
8.00

Japan

25 degrees North latitude
20 degrees North latitude

8.10

3 degrees North latitude

1985

1990

1995
(Year)

2000

2005

2010

Concentration of hydrogen ions on the surface of seawater was calculated based on the concentrationof carbon dioxide and total carbonic acid concentration according to the longitude zone.
Source: Ishii et al., 2008; 2nd International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World. Ministry of
the Environment, Expense for comprehensive promotion of global environmental research(F-083), 2008 Report

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 27-⑪: Changes in the speed of beach erosion

About 70 years

About 15 years

Mid-Meiji era
About 50.6 (km2)

About
24.0
(km2)

0.72 km2 per year

1.60 km2 per year

Erosion

Data from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism

Coasts where the shoreline recedes
conspicuously: 3 m per year or more
: 1 m per year or more and less than
3 m per year

Data 27-⑫: Incidence of red tide/blue tide in Tokyo Bay,Ise Bay and the Seto Inland Sea

Tokyo BayIse Bay

80

Osaka Bay
Seto Inland Sea

70

Ariake Sea

60

Yatsushiro Sea

50

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

40

1980

Ise
Bay

Entire sea area

90

1978

Tokyo
Bay

Seto
Inland Sea

1976

Ise
Bay

1974

Number of casesof blue tide

100
Tokyo
Bay

Degree of achievement (%)

Number of casesof red tide

Data 27-⑬: Degree of achieving environmental standards(BOD or COD) in enclosed coastal seas

Note 1: Assessment of the status of achievement: As for BOD or COD, the environmental standard
will be considered achieved in the designated water area category when 75% of the daily
average value for the year satisfies the environmental standard at all environmental standard
points stipulated as representing the water quality of the designated water area category.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in Japan

Data 29-①: Assessment of fishery resources in the sea area surrounding Japan

Data 29-②: Fishing quantity and Marine Trophic Index (MTI)
3.90

12

Jack mackerel (biome in the Pacific Ocean and Tsushima Current);
sagittated calamari (biome emerging in winter); queen crabs (biomein the North Pacific Ocean, biome in the Sea of Japan), etc.
Chub mackerel (biome in the Pacific Ocean and Tsushima Current);true sardine (biome in the Pacific Ocean and Tsushima Current);
walleye pollack (biome in the northern part of the Sea of Japan)

10
3.60

8
6

3.30

4
2

3.00
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004

0

Note 1: In addition to the transition in the volume of resources (and fishing
quantity) over the past 20 years and longer, in consideration of theindicator of maximum sustainable production volume, threelevels—high, medium and low—have been set for assessment.
Note 2: A biome is a group whose life history (including spawning grounds,
spawning seasons, and migration routes) is partially or totally
distinguishable from that of others.

(Year)

Marine trophic index(MTI)

Medium level,
34 biomes

Saury (biome in the northwest Pacific Ocean);southern mackerel (biome in the Pacific Ocean);sagittated calamari (biome emerging in autumn)

Catch (million tons)

Low level,
37 biomes

Low level Medium level High level

Major fish species/biomes (Note 1)

High level,
13 biomes

Other fish species
Tetraodontiformes
Brachiostegus
Sand eels
Japanese seaperch
Mugil cephalus
Exocoetidae
Coryphaena
Scomberomorus niphonius
Parapristipoma trilineatum
Sea bream
Ray
Lepidotrigla
Chelidonichthys
TrichiurusCommon Japanese conger
Congridae
Stromateidae
Synodontidae
DrumfishArgentinoidei
Trichodontidae
Scorpaenidae
Ocean perch
Pleurogrammus
Cod
FlounderSeriolaSaury
Scomber
Horse mackerel
SardineSalmonBonitoMarlinTuna
Average trophic level

Note 1: The data are used as indicators of fishing in the North Atlantic Ocean where
high-level predators in the food chain are mainly captured. As Japan has utilized fish
species with low trophic levels, the indicators do not directly indicate sustainability.
Note 2: FISHBASE does not contain data regarding squid. Thus the data is not calculated
into this assessment. Past data on fishing include fisheries in distant waters where
the area differs from existing fishing zones. Therefore, comparisons should be
limited to the fishing quantity within EEZ.

Data 30-③: Factors of decrease in endangered species on the Nansei islands
0

Number of species (including subspecies)
10
20
30
40
50

Development (Note 3)

41

Water contamination (Note 4)

3

Hunting/gathering (Note 5)
Natural transition, etc. (Note 6)
Alien species (Note 7)

11
1
19

Number of endangered species (Note 8)45* As for endangered mammals, reptiles and amphibians (Note 2) living on the Nansei islands (Note 1), the factors of decrease are roughly categorized as “development,” ”water contamination(including agricultural chemicals),” ”hunting/gathering,” ”natural transition,” and ”alien species (invasive alien species).” The number of species (including subspecies) was counted. The newly added
species at revision of the Red List among endangered species living on islands are not included in the data because the factors of their decrease are not clearly indicated.
Note 1: The Tokara Archipelago, Amami Islands, Okinawa Islands, Kerama Archipelago, Miyakojima Archipelago, Yaeyama Archipelago, Daito Islands, and Senkaku Islands are included.
Note 2: Species categorized as Extinct (EX), Extinct in the wild (EW), Critically endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), and Vulnerable (VU) are included.
Note 3: The newly added species at revision of the Red List among endangered species living on islands are not included in the data because the factors of their decrease are not clearly indicated.
Note 4: Logging, lake and river development, coastal and wetland development, grassland development, coal mining, golf courses, ski resorts, land development, and road and dam construction are
included.
Note 5: Water contamination and agricultural chemical contamination are included.
Note 6: Collection for gardening, capture for ornamental use, collection for medicinal use, and other illegal collection activities are included.
Note 7: Abandonment of management, progression of transition, and changes in vegetation are included.
Note 8: The intrusion of predators, competition over domestication, cross-breeding and release are included.

Appendix 4

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity in JapanMay 10, 2010

Japan Biodiversity Outlook Science Committee
The Ministry of the Environment

Issued by Global Biodiversity Strategy Office, Biodiversity Policy Division, Nature Conservation Bureau,
The Ministry of the Environment
1-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8975, JapanTEL 03-3581-3351 (main line)
http://www.env.go.jp/