FSC National Risk Assessment
For Japan
DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0

VersionCode
National approval

V1-0
FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
National decision body: FSC Japan Board
Date: 30 November 2017

International approval

FSC International Center: Performance and Standards
Unit
Date: 27 June 2018

International contact

Name: Chisato Mishiba
Email address: ctomimura@forsta.or.jp

Period of validity

Date of approval: 27 June 2018
Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years)

Body responsible for NRA
maintenance

FSC Japan

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 1 of 175 –Contents
Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for Japan .......................................................... 3
Background information .............................................................................................................. 4
List of experts involved in the risk assessment and their contact details ..................................... 8
National Risk Assessment maintenance ................................................................................... 11
Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ........................... 11
List of key stakeholders for consultation ................................................................................... 11
Risk assessments..................................................................................................................... 14
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood .............................................................. 14
Overview........................................................................................................................... 14
Sources of legal timber in Japan ....................................................................................... 15
Risk assessment ............................................................................................................... 15
Control measures ............................................................................................................. 46
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights ........ 47
Risk assessment ............................................................................................................... 47
Recommended control measures ..................................................................................... 48
Detailed analysis ............................................................................................................... 48
Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests in which high conservation values are
threatened by management activities ..................................................................................... 112
Overview......................................................................................................................... 112
Experts consulted ........................................................................................................... 117
Risk assessment............................................................................................................. 118
Recommended control measures ................................................................................... 139
Information Sources ........................................................................................................ 139
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use............................................................................................................................................... 144
Risk assessment ............................................................................................................. 144
Control measures ........................................................................................................... 151
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted............................................................................................................................................... 152
Risk assessment ............................................................................................................. 152
Control measures ........................................................................................................... 155
Annex C1

List of information sources ................................................................................ 156

Annex C2

Identification of applicable legislation................................................................. 169

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 2 of 175 –Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for Japan
Indicator

Risk designation (including functional scale when relevant)Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood
1.1
Low risk
1.2
N/A
1.3
Low risk
1.4
Low risk
1.5
Low risk
1.6
Low risk
1.7
Low risk
1.8
Low risk
1.9
Low risk
1.10
Low risk
1.11
Low risk
1.12
Low risk
1.13
Low risk
1.14
N/A
1.15
Specified risk: Hokkaido
Low risk: Other areas
1.16
Low risk
1.17
Low risk
1.18
Low risk
1.19
Low risk
1.20
Low risk
1.21
N/A
Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights
2.1
Low risk
2.2
Low risk
2.3
Specified risk: Hokkaido
Low risk: Other areas
Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests where high conservation values are threatenedby management activities
3.0
Low risk
3.1
Low risk
3.2
Low risk
3.3
Low risk
3.4
Low risk
3.5
Low risk
3.6
Low risk
Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest
use
4.1
Low risk
Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted
5.1
Low risk

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 3 of 175 –Background information
Timeline Overview
Time(Month, Year)

Main activities
Approval of CNRA Category 1, 2 & 5

Jan 2016

Development of draft CNRA category 4 by CNRA consultants

Apr 2016

Development of draft CNRA category 3

Mar - Jun 2016

NRA 1st draft development

Jul 2016 - May 2017

Approval by FSC Japan Board of Directors

Jun 2017

First draft submission to FSC International

Jun 2017

Review of the first draft by the PSU

Jul 2017

Public consultation on 1st draft

Aug – Oct 2017

NRA final draft development

Nov 2017 – Dec 2017

Final draft approval by WG and FSC Japan Board

Dec 2017

Final draft submission to FSC

Dec 2017

Review by PSU

Jan - Mar 2018

Implementation of required amendments

Apr - May 2018

Approval of the NRA by FSC International Board

Jun 2018

In August 2014, the NRA for Japan developed according to the procedure FSC-PRO-60-002 V2-0 was
approved. The NRA had unspecified risk for Hokkaido with regards to the rights of Ainu Peoples for
Category 2, and unspecified risk for Nansei Islands south of Amami Islands. Except for these areas andcategories, the risk was considered low.
Prior to the development of this new NRA according to FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0, a Centralized National
Risk Assessment was developed in collaboration with international consultants appointed by the FSC
International and national technical experts. For Category 1 and 5, two Japanese consultants
recommended by FSC Japan developed the first draft together with the international consultant from
NEPCon appointed by the FSC International in 2014. For Category 2, an international consultant, Leo van
der Vlist, made the initial draft in fall 2014, and FSC Japan provided feedback, which was later
incorporated into the draft 1. The CNRA Categories 1, 2, 5 were then published for public consultationfrom March 3, 2015 to April 2, 2015. The CNRA category 1, 2, and 5 were approved without change fromthe original draft in January 2016. For Category 3, the CNRA was developed by Japanese consultants
recommended by FSC Japan, together with a CNRA consultant, NEPCon in June 2016. For category 4, a
simple review of legal framework was conducted by a CNRA consultant in 2016.
The NRA working group was organized in the summer of 2016, consisting of three members in the threechambers: environmental, economic, and social, chaired by Shuhei Tomimura. Since August 2016, the
NRA working group gathered several times to discuss the NRA, using the CNRAs as a starting point of
the discussion. Due to health problems, the chairperson of the NRA working group was later replaced by
Toru Katsura, who had been a member of the NRA working group in the economic chamber. A member

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 4 of 175 –in the environmental chamber was also replaced due to his availability. The members of the working
group and their qualification are provided in the table below.
Based on the CNRA and discussion in the NRA working group, the new NRA draft 1 was developed. The
draft was approved by the working group in May 2017 with the support from all three chambers, and thenby the Board of FSC Japan in June 2017. In June 2017, the first NRA draft was completed and was
submitted to the FSC International. After the review and approval from the FSC International Policy andStandards Unit, the public consultation for the NRA was conducted from August 28 to October 27, 2017.
Prior to the public consultation, FSC Japan identified core stakeholders who will be greatly affected by therevised NRA and conducted face to face interviews. During the public consultation, FSC Japan arranged
a public hearing section in which 16 stakeholders participated. The comments received in the public
consultation were discussed in the working group, and reflected in the draft as appropriate. After therevision and approval from the working group, FSC Japan Board and FSC International Board, the NRA
is expected to be finalized and published in the second quarter of 2018.
NRA working group members
Name

Mr. Shuhei
Tomimura

Dr. Toru
KatsuraMembershipchamber

Qualifications

Contact
details

Chair(resigned)

Mr. Tomimura is a Director at Tomimura
Environment Research Office and Forest
Revitalization Systems Co. Ltd. He has been aconsultant specializing in forest ecosystem andmanagement for over 40 years, and has been
involved in promotion of FSC since its first
introduction into Japan. He has been also
serving as a forest auditor for FSC FM
certification, and has evaluated a number offorests in Japan. He played a central role indeveloping the draft national forest stewardshipstandard up to 2007. He currently serves as adirector of FSC Japan and chairperson of
National Forest Stewardship Standard
Development Group, as well as local expert for
CNRA.

toshu@kt.rim.o
r.jp

Chair
(current)
Economic(previous)

CSR advisor to Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd, an
FSC certificate holder. He has a PhD in
agriculture. He has been involved in number of
research about paper, and planned theimplemented the first production of FSC certified
paper in 2001, since when he has beenpromoting FSC certification. He was also
involved in company verification of Controlled
Wood of wood suppliers in Tasmania, Australia
in 2008. He has been an FSC member(economic chamber) and a member of FSC
Japan board.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 5 of 175 –tkatsura@mvg.
biglobe.ne.jp

Dr. Yukito
Nakamura

Mr. Seiichi
DejimaMs. Chiaki
Furusawa

Mr. Mutai
HashimotoEnvironment

Professor of forest ecology at Tokyo Universityof Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture,
Faculty of Environment Science, Department ofForest Science. He received Ph.D. from Tohoku
University, Japan in 1985. He has extensive
knowledge and experience on vegetation
throughout Japan, and has published a numberof books and academic papers on forest ecology
and plant taxonomy.

yunaka@nodai.ac.jpEnvironment

Mr. Seiichi Dejima is a staff of the Nature
Conservation Society of Japan, an
environmental NGO that manages IUCN Japan
Committee. As a staff of the NGO, he has been
involved in a number of conservation projects inJapan. He is currently in charge of a project of
raptor conservation and an ecological park
support project. He was a member of theprevious NRA working group that developed theapproved NRA based on FSC-PRO-60-002 v2-0.

buteo@nacsj.or.jp

Environment

Graduated from Aoyama Gakuin University(Japan) in 2005 with Bachelor’s degree. After
working for The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ,she joined the forest team of WWF Japan in
2008. In the Forest Programme of WWF Japan,
she works for raising consumer awareness ofsustainable use of forest resources, especially inthe paper sector. She engages with private andpublic sector for their CSR and responsible
procurement. She went on maternity leave in
October 2017 and her position was replaced by
Mr. Hashimoto of the same organization.

chiaki@wwf.or.jp

Environment

A Forest Group leader of WWF Japan Nature
Conservation Department. Since 2004, he has
been involved in conservation of forest
resources. He has been managing forest
conservation projects abroad, and providing
advices for companies aiming to care for forest
ecosystem in their wood and paper procurement.
Since October 2017, he has joined the working
group as a replacement to Ms. Furusawa.

hashimoto@wwf.or.jp

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 6 of 175 –Mr. Masaki
YoshidaMr. Koji
Kajikawa

Mr. Daisuke
Kondo

Dr. Mitsuru
KikumaEconomic

CEO of Yoshida Honke, a family-owned forest
management enterprise, an FSC FM certificate
holder, and Hinokiya Co. Ltd. He is a qualified
national instructor of LEAF (Learning about
Forests) and serves as an Auditor of Japan
Forest Managers Association as well as vicepresident of the Association’s Youth Division. He
was nominated by the Japan Forest Managers
Association to represent the group in thisworking group. He is a member of a number ofcommittees on forestry and forest legislation.

Masaki.yoshida.forest@gmail.com

Economic

Manager of Domestic Sales Department of Oji
Holdings, the biggest paper company group as
well as the biggest private forest owner in Japan.
His department is responsible for procurement ofwood chips from Japan. He is nominated by the
Oji Holdings to represent the company in thisCW Working Group.

Kajikawa4562k
k@oji-gr.com

Economic(replaced Mr.
Katsura after
he becamethe chair)

Manager of Corporate Forest and Environmental
Fund Office, CSR Department at Mitsui & Co.,
Ltd., an FM and CoC certificate holder. Mitsui &Co., Ltd. is the 4th largest corporate forest ownerin Japan. Mr. Kondo has been supervising themanagement of the company’s FSC certified
forest scattered throughout Japan.

D.Kondo@mitsui.comSocialProfessor emeritus of Yamagata University withspecialty in forest economics and labor issues.
His research topics included roles of forestry
associations in local resources management,
small-scale forest management by diversifying
forest products. His publication includes
translation of “ILO Guidelines for Labour
Inspection in Forestry”, “Forest Workers Talk
About Themselves: A Global Account of Working
and Living Conditions in the Forestry Sector”,
and “Russian, English and Japanese Dictionaryof Forestry”.

chrysanths@ni
fty.com

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 7 of 175 –Mr. Kusuo
Akahori

Mr. Yukio Sato

SocialIndependent forest journalist and writer. He wasa journalist for Forestry and Wood Industry
Newspaper for 10 years before he became afreelance writer on forestry and wood industry.
His books include “Practical Guide forAdvantageous Wood Harvest and Sorting”,“Changing Residential Construction andDomestic Wood Distribution”, “Forestry Changes
with Forest and Forestry Revitalization Plan!”,“Introduction to the Basics of Wood and Its Use”.
He is a regular writer for many forestry journals.

kus48b@nifty.comSocialRepresentative of Hokkaido Ainu Association,
the biggest organization of Ainu indigenous
peoples. As a head of the Association, he has
been leading campaigns to expand Ainu
peoples’ rights as indigenous peoples.

iknowsato@ain
u-assn.or.jp

List of experts involved in the risk assessment and their contact
details
Names, qualification and contact details of the experts involved in the NRA development associated withinformation about Controlled Wood category expertise.
Name
Takashi Shiomi

Contact
shiomi@forsta.or.jp

ChisatoMishiba

ctomimura@forsta.or.jp

Qualification
He has Master’s degree in forestry fromthe University of Tokyo. He audited anumber of FM and CoC certificate
holders as a lead auditor while he worked
for a certification body, Amita Holdings,
Co., Ltd. He has been working for FSC
Japan as a consultant and helps manytechnical issues.
Chisato Tomimura has graduated fromYale University School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies with Master ofForest Science degree in 2008. In
February 2010, she joined Rainforest
Alliance Asia Pacific Regional Office inBali, Indonesia and since then has been
involved in FSC certification. Through her
work in Rainforest Alliance, she has
participated in a number of FM
assessments and audits in Asia PacificRegion. She has been working for FSC

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 8 of 175 –Expertise
Category 1-5

Category 1-5

Japan as Policy and
Coordinator since July 2014.

Standard

Following is the FSC Japan board members, who have reviewed the NRA and given approval. There aresome overlaps with the NRA members.
NameDr.
Takehiko
OtaContact
tk_ohta@xg8.sonet.ne.jp
Tel: +81 3 3707 3438

Mr.
ShuheiTomimura

toshu@kt.rim.or.jp

Mr.
JunichiMishibamishiba@foejapan.org

Mr.
HayamiT-hayami@ztv.ne.jp

Toru

Qualification
A professor emeritus at the University ofTokyo, he has been engaged in researchand education in the field of foresthydrology, forest environment anderosion control studies. He has been achairperson of the Society of Erosion
Control, Japan Society of Forest, andSociety of Greening Engineering and has
been engaged with a number of national
and prefectural governments.
Mr. Tomimura is a Director at Tomimura
Environment Research Office and Forest
Revitalization Systems Co. Ltd. He has
been a consultant specializing in forest
ecosystem and management for over 40
years, and has been involved inpromotion of FSC since its first
introduction into Japan. He has been also
serving as a forest auditor for FSC FM
certification, and has evaluated a numberof forests in Japan. He played a central
role in developing the draft national forest
stewardship standard up to 2007. Hecurrently serves as a director of FSC
Japan and chairperson of National Forest
Stewardship Standard Development
Group, as well as local expert for CNRA.
A staff of forest programme of Friends of
Earth
(FoE)
Japan,
aleadingenvironmental NGO in Japan. Since
2005, he has been leading many
campaigns against illegal timber andassociated human rights abuse inSoutheast Asia, especially in Sarawak,
Malaysia. Together with other NGOs, his
campaigns and lobbying activities has
led to establishment of Clean Wood Act,
which is a legislation against illegal
timber newly established in Japan.
President of Hayami Forest, the first FSC
certified forest management enterprise inJapan. He has held many public
positions in the field of forestry, includingpresident of a forest cooperative, Central
forest council committee member of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (MAFF), and MAFF Forestry
Policy Council expert committee, Mie
Prefectural
Forestry
Promotion
Measures Council committee; Forest,

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 9 of 175 –Expertise
Category 3, 4Category 1-5

Category 1, 2

Category 1, 2,
4

Dr.
KatsuraToru

tkatsura@mvg.biglobe.
ne.jp

Mr.
Daisuke
Kondo

d.kondo@mitsui.com

Dr.
MasamiShiba

mshiba@agr.uryukyu.ac.jp

Dr.
Norihiko
Shiraishi

siraishi@fr.a.utokyo.ac.jp

Dr.
Naito

dnaito@gmail.com

Daisukeforestry and timber industry basic Policy
Review Committee member, and thechairman of the Japan Forestry
Management Association. He is an FSC
member (economic chamber).
CSR advisor to Mitsubishi Paper Mills
Ltd, an FSC certificate holder. He has
Ph.D. in agriculture. He has been
involved in number of research about
paper, and planned the implemented thefirst production of FSC certified paper in
2001, since when he has been promoting
FSC certification. He was also involved incompany verification of Controlled Woodof wood suppliers in Tasmania, Australia
in 2008. He has been an FSC member(economic chamber) and a member of
CW NRA working group.
Manager of Corporate Forest andEnvironmental Fund Office, CSR
Departmentat
MitsuiBussanCorporation, an FM and CoC certificate
holder. He has been supervising themanagement of the company’s FSC
certified forest.
Professor at Ryukyu University in
Okinawa, his specialty includes forest
management forest informatics, forest
resources management, and forest use.
He is a member of various academic
societies, including Japan Society ofForest, Japan Society of Forest Planning,
International Union of Forest Research
Organizations (IUFRO).
Professor at the University of Tokyo
Department
ofAgriculture
withspecialization in forest metrology andforest finance. He has been involved in
FSC FM certification since 1999, when
he first joined an assessment as an
assessor. Since then, he has evaluatedmany forest management enterprises for
FSC FM certification. He has publishedmany research papers and made many
presentations about forest certification.
He has held many public positions suchas board member of the Society of Forest
Planning, board member of Japan Forest
Society.
Special Assistant Professor at ResearchInstitute for Humanity and Nature withspecialty in Southeast Asia Regional
Study and Political Ecology. His specialty
is indigenous people’s rights and social
issues of forest management. He is amember of Japan Forest Society andSociety of Tropical Ecology.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 10 of 175 –Category 1-5

Category 1-5

Category 3, 4,
5Category 1, 3,
4, 5

Category 2, 3

National Risk Assessment maintenance
The responsible body for maintenance of the NRA (in accordance with section 2 of FSC-PRO-60-002 V30):
FSC Japan
Musashi Bldg. 5F 7-4-4 Nishi-Shinjuku
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan
Phone: +81 3 3707 3438
Fax: +81 3 6701 7646
Contact person: Chisato Mishiba (Email: ctomimura@forsta.or.jp)
This NRA will be reviewed every 5 years, by a working group organized for the purpose of the revision.
Each updated or revised version will be sent to FSC for approval (with relevant justifications). The revision
process will be conducted in accordance with the requirements captured in section 10 of FSC-PRO-60-002
V3-0 (or updated version of that document valid by the time of the review).

Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk
Assessment
Any formal complaints about NRA should be sent in writing to the following contact together with the identityof the complainant:Chisato Mishiba
Policy and Standards Coordinator
FSC Japan
Address: Musashi Bldg. 5F 7-4-4 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0023 Japan
Email: ctomimura@forsta.or.jp
Fax: +81 (0) 6701 7646
Received complaints will be handled in accordance to FSC-PRO-01-008. After receiving a complaint, thecontact person acknowledges the receipt within 2 weeks in writing. Unless the complaint is very simple andcan be answered directly, the complaint is submitted to the subsequent Board meeting of FSC Japan, whichshould be held within 3 months. The board will discuss and determine how the complaint should be dealt
with, whether the NRA should be revised to incorporate the point, or a complaint panel should be organized
for further discussion or investigation. Following the procedure FSC-PRO-01-008, FSC Japan and theboard will strive to resolve the dispute at the lowest level possible. After the evaluation of the complaint andactions towards its resolution is taken, the complainant will be informed of its results in writing. All thecomplaints, together with actions taken and results of complaint evaluation will be recorded by the contact
person above and kept at least for at least seven years.

List of key stakeholders for consultation

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 11 of 175 –Announcement of the public consultation was sent via e-mail to 340 individuals/organizations, including
CoC and FM certification holders (though not comprehensive), industry associations, certification bodies,
NGOs, and researchers, together with the draft NRA.
Listed below are the stakeholders who have participated in the consultation either through face-to-faceinterview, submission of comments during the public consultation, and/or participation to the public
hearing session (in no particular order):Name
Hideaki Ikeda
Itsuka Kojima
Kiyoshi Kamikawa
Wataru Katagiri
Naofumi Maeda
Hiroshi Tachikawa
Takahiro Sato
Tomohiro Tajima
Akira Sebe
Keiji Nishi
Ryuichi Omori
Sadao Kokubun
Ryo Noguchi
Yasushi Kojima
Tetsuya Tanaka
Takenobu Danno
Shunsuke AisakaAtsuo Mizuta
Shinsaku Tobita
Hideki Chiba
Nobuaki Nasu
Yumiko Endo
Shinichi Saitou
Takayuki Tsujita
Masaya Ando
Hiromi Kumagai
Shoji Iijima
Hiroyuki Fujihara
Takehiko Yano
Kazuhito Narita
Kenichiro Oshu
Toshimitsu Fujie
Shozo Suzuki
Sayuri Yagi
Akio Kato
Tokushige Amano
Daisuke Umebayashi
Hajime Matsushita
Kyuichiro Sato
Nagaharu Takahashi
Hideo Yamauchi
Taiichi Sato

Representing organization
Forestry Agency
Forestry Agency
Japan Paper Association
Japan Paper Association
Japan Paper Association
Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Lumber Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Lumber Co., Ltd
Nippon Paper Lumber Co., Ltd
Oji Forest & Products Co.,LtdO&C Fiber Trading Co., Ltd
Hokuetsu Kishu Paper Co., Ltd
Hokuetsu Kishu Paper Co., Ltd
Hokuetsu Kishu Paper Co., Ltd
Daio Paper Corporation
Daio Paper Corporation
Mitsubishi Paper Mills Limited
Okamura Corporation
Okamura Corporation
Kokuyo Co., Ltd
Kokuyo Co., Ltd
Kokuyo Co., Ltd
Kokuyo Co., Ltd
Iijima Sawmill
Fujihara Ringyo Ltd
Shin-Akimoku Kogyo CO., Ltd
Akita Plywood Corporation
Akita Plywood Corporation
Hamamatsu CityAll Stuff Co., Ltd.
All Stuff Co., Ltd.
Suzusan Zaimokuten Co., Ltd.
Amano Co., Ltd
Hamamatsu Wood Industry Co., Ltd
Tenryu Forestry Association
Minamisanriku Forestry Association
Minamisanriku Forestry Association
Minamisanriku Forestry Association
Sakyu Co., Ltd

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 12 of 175 –Kunio Onodera
Kiyomi Imai
Gakuji Yamauchi
Hitomi Ujiie
Takaaki Yokoyama
Anonymous
Yuichi Hagiwara
Hiroaki Kakizawa
Hiroyuki Ushio
Hachiya Iwama
Naoya Ogawa
Satoko Sasaki
Hiroaki Kawate
Shinsuke Asano
Masaki Kato
Hideki Tanaka
Nagane Shigeru
Ryoichi Horiuchi
Katsuhiko Mori

Maruhei Timber Co., Ltd.
Shidugawakensetsu Company Limited
Yamasyou-Kensetu Co., Ltd
Minamisanriku Town
Minamisanriku Town
Anonymous (local government)
Hokkaido Federation of Wood Industry
Cooperative
Hokkaido University
Minami Shiribeshi Forestry Association
Iwama Mokuzaiten Co., Ltd
Amita Corporation
SGS Japan Inc.
Bureau Veritas Japan
Tanax Inc
Tendo Co., Ltd.
Tokushu Tokai Paper Co., Ltd.
Emachu Mokuzai Co.,Ltd
Horiuchi Wood Craft
NP Trading Co., Ltd.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 13 of 175 –Risk assessments
Controlled wood category 1: Illegally harvested wood
Overview
Forestry in Japan consists mostly of conifer plantation forest containing primarily Cryptomeria japonica, Chamaecyparis obtusa and Larix kaempferi. Forestry
Operations in broadleaf forest (hardwood forest) is not as active except for limited production of pulp wood and nursery logs for cultivating mushrooms inareas such as Hokkaido and Tohoku Region. Forests cover 66% of Japan's land and 40% of the forest is conifer plantation. Broadleaf forest with highconservation values exit in remote mountains and highlands. Forests in remote area and highlands are mainly owned by the national government and hadgone through large scale clear felling in the past during and after the World War II until high economic growth period of Japan. In the present days, theremaining broadleaf forests consisting mainly of Fagus crenata are protected under legal control such as Natural Parks Act, Nature Conservation Act andForestry Agency Forest Reserve System. Of the Japanese forest: 30% is state owned forest, 10% is owned by local government, 60% is owned privately byenterprises and individuals. The average size of a private forest is a few hectares.
Management plans based on Forest Act are made on voluntary basis, but are required if a forest owner wants to receive government supports such as
subsidies. It is made for five years as one period. Forest Management Plans are normally approved by municipal mayors or by prefectural mayors if the forestlies across more than one city, or approved by the Minister of Forestry Agency if the forest lies across more than one prefecture. In order to fell standing trees
in private or municipal owned forest subject to regional forest planning, forest owners etc. must submit a written notice of harvesting and post-logging
silviculture to the head of municipalities in advance. The harvesting notice shows, amongst other things: the location of the forest; area to be logged;
harvesting method; harvesting age; method of reforestation after the logging; operation period; tree species. This provision is kept throughout Japan, and anotice of forest harvesting is required for any harvesting operations, whether it is commercial use or not.
According to the forest development permit system, development of a forests other than state forest of 1 ha or more involving conversion to other land uses
can be permitted by prefectural governors only when the project enhances stability of people’s lives or promotes the healthy development of the region,
including aspects such as environmental preservation or prevention of landslides. Forestland Development Permit Request form is permitted by prefectural
mayors. After harvesting operation, an administrative officer of prefectural office inspects the forest to check if the operation was in line with the approved
forest management plan such as checking the forest boarders, thinning percentages and whether the forest is regenerated as planned. In case of any breach,an order for improvement or administrative instruction are issued.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 14 of 175 –Sources of legal timber in Japan
Forestclassification type
All types

Permit/license
type
Notice of Harvest

Main license requirements (forest
management plan, harvest plan or similar?)Harvesting notice, Forestland Development
Permit Request form, Forest Management Plan

Clarification
Harvesting notice is regulated in Article 10 of the Forest Act and oneneeds to obtain permission from municipal mayors. Forestland
Development Permit Request form is permitted by prefectural mayors.
Forest Management Plan is approved by normally municipal mayors or by
prefectural mayors in case the forest lies across more than one city or
approved by the Minister of Forestry Agency in case the forest lies acrossmore than one prefecture.

Risk assessment
Indicator

1.1 Landtenure andmanageme
nt rights

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Applicable laws and regulations
Civil Code (Established on April 27,1896), Article 92, 206, 207, 263 to
269.
Real Property Registration Act
Established in 189), Article 1 and 27.
Commercial Registration Act (Act No.
125 of 1963)
Forestry Cooperative Act (Act No. 36
of 1978)
Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of
1947) Article 238

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Legal rights to harvest
Civil CodeLow risk
http://law.eThreshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
gov.go.jp/htmldata/M29/M29HO089 are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by the.html
authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Real Property Registration Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H16/H16HO123.
html
Commercial Registration Act :http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S38/S38HO125.
html
Forestry Cooperative Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S53/S53HO036.
html

Accuracy of land registration is gradually increasing with the progress of thenational land survey that delineates ownership, but it has not been
completed for small owners of mountains or forests. National land survey
had been completed for 44% of the forested area by the end of fiscal year
2014. For the rest of 66% of the forest area, when forest management
operations are carried out, the boundaries with adjacent land are confirmed
and there are rarely mistakes, such as harvesting from other people's land.
There are few complaints and boundary disputes, and the issues are not at
the level to cause social problems, thus the risk can be considered low.
According to the “Outline of the first proceedings of civil suits” developed bySupreme Court of Japan, total number of number of cases in 2012 was
168,230 of which 425 was about land boarder. Most of these cases wererelated to residential area and so the number of cases related to forested
areas is even smaller.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 15 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Act Concerning Revision of Rights for
Common-Forest Use (Act No. 126 of
1966)
Act Concerning Utilization of National
Forest Land (Act No. 246 of 1951)
Act on Utilization of National Forests(Act No. 108 of 1971)
Act on Special Measures concerning
Shared Forest (Act No. 57 of 1958)
Compulsory Purchase of Land Act (ActNo. 219 of 1951)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Legally required documents orrecords
Register of Preservation of Ownership

Sources of Information
Local Autonomy Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO067.
html
Act Concerning Revision of Rights
for Common-Forest Use:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S41/S41HO126.
html
Act Concerning Utilization of
National Forest Land: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO246.
html
Act on Utilization of National
Forests: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S46/S46HO108.
html
Act on Special Measuresconcerning Shared Forest:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S33/S33HO057.
html
Compulsory Purchase of Land Act :http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO219.
html
Outline of the first proceedings ofcivil suits

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 16 of 175 –Risk designation and determination

Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

http://www.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/205
22003.pdf
1.2
Concession
licenses

Applicable laws and regulations

N/A

The indicator does not apply.
There is currently no Forest concession licensing system in Japan.
Note for future review and revision of the NRA: There is information about
proposal of introducing the concept of concession in Hokkaido as a way ofengagement between the Ainu Peoples and the local public authorities.
Details are not clear at the moment.

Forest Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO249.
html

Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Forestry Cooperative Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S53/S53HO036.
html
Forest and Forestry Basic Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S39/S39HO161.
html

A forest management plan is made in accordance with the application andprocedure provided in the Article 11 of the Forest Act, and is implemented byforest owners, forestry cooperative or private harvesting enterprises thathave contractual relationship with forest owners.
The management plan is made for five years as one period, and includes
silvicultural planning as well as harvesting planning.
The economic situation of Japanese forestry is so severe that one cannot
stay commercially viable without receiving subsidies. The approved forest
management plan is very often a condition for receiving subsidies so that a
lot of entities are developing and implementing the forest management plan.
According to the 2016 Annual Report on Trends in Forests and Forestry
issued by the Forestry Agency, as of March 2016, 5.18 million ha of forests
were covered by the forest management plan which is approximately a halfof the area of plantation forests in Japan.

N/A. There is no Forest concession
licensing system in Japan.
Legal Authority
N/A
Legally required documents orrecords

1.3
Manageme
nt andharvestingplanning

N/A
Applicable laws and regulations
Forest Act (Established on June 26,
1951) Article 11
Forestry Cooperative Act (Establishedon May 1, 1973)
Forest and Forestry Basic Act (Act No.
161 of 1964)
Act Concerning Utilization of National
Forest Land (Act No. 246 of 1951)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries

2016 Annual Report on Trends in
Forests and Forestry
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/
hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 17 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

There are two types of forest management plan. One is “Personal Plan” andthe other is “Territory Plan (consists of Forest compartment plan and
Designated regional plan”. Former is only allowed for forest managers
whose forest size is 100 ha or more. The manager can make a plan
specifically for his/her own forest. Latter is based on more than a half of a(or series of adjacent) forest compartment(s) (Forest compartment plan) or
more than30 ha of area designated by municipal mayor (Designated regionalplan).
More than a half of Japanese private forest owners who owns more than 1
ha of forest owns less than 3 ha of forest. As the average size of forest
owned by Japanese private forest owners are so small, they cannot makethe Personal plan. Therefore Forest Owner’s Cooperatives develops acommon forest management plan (territory plan) collectively for numbers ofsmall forest owners.

Forest Management Plan,
Forest Management Outsourcing
Contract,
Harvesting Notice.

If a harvesting plan has not been conducted, a harvesting notice must be
submitted within 90-30 days prior to felling. This notice of harvest will have toinclude the specifications for the particular harvest, such as felling age,volume, etc.

1.4
Harvesting
permits

Applicable laws and regulations
Forest Act (Established on June 26,
1951) - Article 11, Forest Management
Plan.

Forest Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO249.
html

The authorities are conducting very rigorous monitoring after thethinning/harvesting operation and subsidies will not be received without theapproval and control of the local government. According to Transparency
International, Japan ranks 18th out of 168 countries in Corruption
Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015 and 4th out of 28 countries in
Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011, demonstrating politicalcleanness.
Thus, risk of not following the plan is kept low.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Forestland Development

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 18 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Forestland Development Permission
System established as Article 10-2 ofForest Act in 1951.
Environmental Impact Assessment Act(Established on June 13, 1997. )Act on Special Measures concerning
Assurance of Stable Supply of Timber(Act No. 47 of 1996)
Act on Special Measures concerning
Advancement of Implementation ofForest Thinning, etc. (Act No. 32 of
2008)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Ministry of the Environment
Legally required documents orrecords
Harvesting notice,Environmental Impact Assessment
Report.

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Permission System
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/ti
san/con_4.html

Article 10-8 of the Forest Act stipulates that "In order to fell standing trees inprivate- or municipal- owned forest subject to regional forest planning, forest
owners etc. must submit to the head of municipalities in advance a written
notice of logging and post-logging silviculture which shows the location of theforest, area to be logged, harvesting method, harvesting age, method ofreforestation after the logging, operation period, tree species and othermatters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, based on the procedure specified by the Ministry. This provisionapplies throughout Japan, and notice of forest harvesting is required for any
harvesting operations, whether it is commercial use or not.

Environmental Impact Assessment
Act http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H09/H09HO081.
html
Prosecution statistics 2015
>Processing status and acceptanceof criminal cases＞Crime category
http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000
001157683
Act on Special Measuresconcerning Assurance of Stable
Supply of Timber: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H08/H08HO047.
html
Act on Special Measuresconcerning Advancement of
Implementation of Forest Thinning,
etc: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H20/H20HO032.
html

When a forest manager has an approved management plan, the notice of
harvest must be submitted within 30 days of the date of final harvesting
operation mentioned in the management plan. As the management plan has
already been approved this allows for the notice of harvest to be submitted
after the harvest. Monitoring will take place after harvesting. If nomanagement plan exist a harvesting notice has to be submitted 90-30 days
prior to harvesting. This allows for the local authority to approve harvestingprior to harvesting. Monitoring of whether the logging has been conducted inaccordance to the harvesting notice will be conducted after harvesting.
According to prosecution statistics, in 2015 there has only been about 33
reported cases of violation of Forest Act. Since there are about 20,000
reported harvestings, the violation only occurs less than in 0.2% of the case.
These violations include cases like steeling logs and setting fire, so cases oflack of harvesting notification, or insufficient harvesting notice, or not
following the harvesting notice/management plan is considered to behappening even less frequently.
According to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th out of 168
countries in Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015 and 4thout of 28 countries in Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011,
demonstrating political cleanness.
The control of the Japanese authorities is considered well implemented.
Hence, this indicator is considered low risk.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 19 of 175 –Indicator

1.5
Payment ofroyalties
andharvestingfees

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Applicable laws and regulations
Act Concerning Utilization of National
Forest Land, (Established on June 23,1951), Article 1-3.

Legal Authority

Act Concerning Utilization of National
Forest Land is managed by Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Taxes and fees
Act Concerning Utilization of
Low risk
National Forest Land
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
http://law.eare violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by the
gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO246. authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
html
The right to harvest standing trees on public lands are allocated thoughpublic bidding. Before the bidding, a yield survey is conducted by the state
officer or by an organization designated by the Minister of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries. Harvesting method can be decided by theoutsourcer (land owner) based on operation regulations in the Forest Act orprefectural regulations.
The bidding process takes place with all interested parties attending aphysical meeting and bids are delivered into boxes. The bids are disclosed at
the meeting, securing transparency within the attendances of the meeting.
These processes are strictly monitored by the authorities and reviews are
made of single documents. The bids are based on species, age, quality,
elevation and amount of volume.
The monitoring in the forest sector has been strengthen due to a collusive
bidding taking place in 2007 related to forest road construction with the
involvement of government agencies. This was followed by closing down theimplicated agency (Green Resources Agency) and stricter monitoring.

Sales contract,financial statements.
Eligible criteria of bidders in casebidding is limited to specific bidders.

1.6 Value
addedtaxes andother sales
taxes

Applicable laws and regulations

Risk designation and determination

Consumption Tax Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S63/S63HO108.
html

According to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th out of 168
countries in Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015 and 4thout of 28 countries in Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011,
demonstrating political cleanness. From these scores, it is shown that thelegislation system of Japan is well functioning and hence the risk for thisindicator is considered low.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 20 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Consumption Tax Act (Established on
December 30, 1988), Article 1, 5 and28.

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
There is a tax imposed on consumption. In Japan, it is the general term for"consumption tax prescribed in the Consumption Tax Law" and "local
consumption tax prescribed in the Local Tax Law" combined. The
consumption tax is imposed on virtually all tangible (which has physicalentity) and intangible (which has no physical entity such as fee) goods andservices. While legally manufacturers and merchants are specified as the
direct tax payer, but in fact the cost is passed on to the final consumer. As
such, the consumption tax is imposed and tax shall be paid for sales of wood
product as well as commission of forestry work, etc. In Japan, it is almost
impossible to evade the consumption tax on commerce as it is collected
automatically as system a digital system, thus stating the risk to be low.

Legal Authority
Ministry of Finance National Tax
AgencyLegally required documents orrecords
Sales contract,
Estimate (Quote),
Delivery note,
Invoice
1.7 Income
and profit
taxes

Applicable laws and regulations
Income Tax Act (Established on March
31, 1965), Article 238
Corporation Tax Act (Established on
March 31, 1968), Article 159.
Legal Authority
Ministry of Finance National Tax
AgencyLegally required documents orrecords
Tax return form

Income Tax Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S40/S40HO033.
html

Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Corporation Tax Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S40/S40HO034.
html

The Article 5 of the Income Tax Act states that “a resident (including resident
foreigners) shall be liable to pay income tax pursuant to this Act.” The Article
22 states "The tax base for the income tax imposed on a resident shall be
the amount of gross income, retirement income and timber income.” Assuch, the tax is imposed on all the income coming from the forestry
operations. In addition, according to Article 4, 21 and 22 of the Corporate
Tax Act, "If the resident is a corporation, the tax is imposed on operating
income of each business year in accordance with the rules." Similar to theConsumption Tax, it is difficult to evade the corporate tax, and such behavior
is punished as anti-societal behavior by law.
As Japanese forestry was developing in the 1980s, fraud was commonly
found at the log market leading to more rigorous monitoring by regional
taxation bureau. Hence forestry became one of the industries difficult to

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 21 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
make fraud. Considering this fact, as well as the comments fromstakeholders, this indicator is considered low risk.

1.8 Timber
harvesting
regulations

Applicable laws and regulations
Forest Act (Established on June 26,
1951.) - Article 11, Forest
Management Plan.
Forestland Development Permission
System established as Article 10-2 ofForest Act in 1951.
Forest Road provision (Established on
April 1, 1975), Paragraph 1, 2 and 3.
Ordinance for Enforcement of Forest
Act (Government Ordinance No. 276
of 1946)
Forest Act Enforcement Rule
(Ordinance of Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries No. 54 of 1946)

Timber harvesting activities
Forest Act
Low risk
http://law.eThreshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO249. are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by thehtml
authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Forestland Development
Permission System
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/ti
san/con_4.html
Forest Road provision
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/seibi/sagyoudo/pdf/kitei.pdf#search
Ordinance for Enforcement ofForest Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26SE276.
html

Natural Parks Act (Act No. 161 of
1957)

Forest Act Enforcement Rule
：http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26F00601
000054.html

Act on Special Measures concerning
Assurance of Stable Supply of Timber(Act No. 47 of 1996)

Natural Parks Act ：http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S32/S32HO161.
html

Act on Special Measures concerning
Advancement of Implementation of

Act on Special Measuresconcerning Assurance of Stable
Supply of Timber ：http://law.e-

It is mandatory for forest owners etc. to submit a notification of harvestingand post-harvest replanting before conducting harvesting of standing trees inforests. This is regulated in Article 10 of Forest Law. A harvesting plan or
harvesting notice will only be approved when in compliance with the legal
requirements for harvesting techniques and technology including selective
cutting, shelter wood regenerations, clear felling, transport of timber fromfelling site etc. Any harvesting that harms the environment or may induce
disaster is prohibited. Felling age is also regulated by the regional forest
plans and the municipal forest management plans. The Act mandates
reforestation after clear-cutting and the forest road provisions provides fordesign standards.
There is no law that directly regulates the transportation method or seasonal
harvest restriction. The local authority conducts both regular and irregularcontrol of the harvesting sites. If the legal requirements regarding harvesting
techniques and technology is not being followed in spite of an approved
management plan or harvesting notice operation is instructed to be stopped.
Approximately a half of Japanese forests are designated as “Conservation
Forest” under Article 25 of the Forest Act. The conservation forests aredesignated in order to achieve the public benefit by restricting the forestry
activities. There are 17 types of conservation forests depending on the main
purpose. When the forest is designated as conservation forests, the owneris provided with many tax breaks as well as opportunities for receiving
subsidies regarding silviculture. In order to harvest trees in these
conservation forests, the manager has to submit notification to (for thinning

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 22 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Forest Thinning, etc. (Act No. 32 of
2008)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

gov.go.jp/htmldata/H08/H08HO047.
htmletc.) or gain approval (for clear fell etc) from the prefectural governor. The
Forest Act article 38 specifies supervisory orders in case of any breach.

Act on Special Measuresconcerning Advancement of
Implementation of Forest Thinning,
etc: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H20/H20HO032.
html

2015 there has only been about 33 reported cases of violation of Forest Act.
Since there are about 20,000 reported harvestings, the violation only occurs
less than in 0.2% of the case. From the prosecution statistics it is not
stipulated to what percentage is directly related to regulations on timber
harvesting is not being followed. However, this percentage will be much lessthan 0.2% of all harvesting being conducted. All harvesting sites are visitedby forest authorities after harvest.

Forest Management Plan,
Forest Management Outsourcing
Contract,
Harvesting Notice.

1.9
Protected
sites andspecies

Applicable laws and regulations
Natural Parks Act (Established onJune 1, 1957), Article 20 and 21.
Nature Conservation Act (Establishedon June 22, 1972), Article 12 and 14.
Forestry Agency Forest Reserve
SystemAct on Protection of Cultural
Properties (Established on May 30,

Conrad Totman. 1998. The Green
Archipelago: Forestry in Preindustrial Japan. Ohio University
Press.
http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/T
he+Green+Archipelago
Forestry Agency. Forest andForestry White Paper 2015.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/
hakusyo/27hakusyo/index.html

Since the Japanese forest lies in the mountains, any harvested area is easily
observed from a distance so that anyone can notice any harvesting
operations. This means supervising authorities such as Prefecture, City,
Town and Village officers can also easily observe any changes to thesurrounding environment. This makes the monitoring more effective.
Furthermore, according to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th outof 168 countries in Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015
and 4th out of 28 countries in Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011,
demonstrating political cleanness. The monitoring of thinned/harvested sites
by the supervising authorities are well implemented. Hence this indicator isconsidered low risk.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Historically there has been a great pressure on the forest resources ofJapan, but initiatives to prevent forest deterioration were established during
the Edo era (1603 to 1868) - the “Tomeyama" system, which prohibited local
people from using the forest resources in the designated forest area. As aresult, many remote forests had been conserved. In Meiji Era (from 1868),
these remote forests were managed by the national government as state
forests. As safeguards, Forest Reserve System (1915), National Park Act(1931) and Act on Preservation of Historical Landmark, Scenic Spot and

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 23 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
1950), Article 109.
Wildlife Protection and Proper Hunting
Act (Established on July 12, 2002. ),Article 29.
Act on Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(Established on June 5, 1992), Article
1 and 10.
Landscapes Act (Established on June18, 2004. Last amended on June 27,2014), Article 28 to 35.

Convention Concerning the Protectionof the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage
Ramsar Convention
Landscapes Act (Act 110 of 2004)
Article 28-35
Convention for the Protection ofMigratory Birds (Japan-US, JapanRussian Federation, Japan-Australia,
Japan-China)
Legal Authority

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Natural Parks Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S32/S32HO161.
html

Natural Memorial (1919) were established to implement protection policy of
precious nature. On the other hand, during the World War II, both private
and public forests were heavily exploited to meet the timber demand of thestate. After the World War II, Japanese Government rolled out the“Productivity Enhancement Plan”, and “Timber Production Increase Plan” forthe state forests and established conifer plantation in the disturbed cutover
areas to restore disturbed land and to meet the increasing timber demands.
During the high economic growth period of Japan (1960 to 1970s), large
scale harvesting of natural forests took place to meet the demand of woodand growing needs for development. Even in state forests, harvesting 2 to 3
times of the growth and conversion into plantation in remote areas with poor
productivity and forestry efficiency took place. Considering such history, itcannot be said that valuable nature has been effectively protected in themodern Japanese history.

Nature Conservation Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO085.
html
Forestry Agency Forest Reserve
Systemhttp://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html
Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S25/S25HO214.
html
Protection and Control of Wild Birds
and Mammals and Hunting
Management Law
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H14/H14HO088.
html
Act on Conservation of Endangered
Species and Wild Fauna and Flora
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H04/H04HO075.
html
Landscapes Act
http://law.e-

However, after these period, as import of timber was liberalized, cheap
import wood started to flow into Japan rapidly with great volume, decreasing
the domestic wood share in the market. In 1950s, the self-sufficiency rate ofwood in Japan was 90% whereas in 2002, it dropped to 18.8%.
Subsequently, plantation with low profitability were left unmanaged. At thesame time, environmental awareness started to rise due to serious
environmental problems and severe natural disaster which made forest’s
ecosystem service a hot topic. People also shifted their energy use awayfrom fuel woods, significantly reducing the pressure on forest resources. As aresult, forest management in Japan started focus on the ecosystem services.
Sharp decline of fuel woods uses dramatically changed lives of people inforested areas. Population in rural areas decreased significantly and so as
the number of people involved in forestry. Insufficient number of workers inforestry industry has made it hard to maintain plantation up to now. On theother hand, as the re-orientation of policy towards ecosystem services has
led to smaller harvesting area size, expansion of protected areas expanded,
designation of areas under protective regulation proceeded to strengthen theoverall aspect of forest conservation.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 24 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
Legally required documents orrecords-

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

gov.go.jp/htmldata/H16/H16HO110.
html

Many of forests with high level of naturalness are protected by Natural Park
Law, Natural Conservation Law, Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law,
Protected forest System of the National Forest, Law for the Protection ofCultural Properties. Altogether, 72,057.40km 2 of land (19.33% of the nationalland) are protected by these laws. Other administrative safeguards include
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, The
Forest Act, and Landscapes Act as well as local laws designating prefectural
natural conservation zones, which altogether provides protection andconservation measures for the value of the forests including its culturalproperty, biodiversity, disaster prevention, and landscape. For large scale
development, environmental impact assessment is required according toEnvironmental Impact Assessment Act to restrict or control the development.

Ministry of the Environment: A
website introducing the Red Data
Book
http://www.biodic.go.jp/rdb/rdb_f.ht
mlControlled Wood National Risk
Assessment of Japan.
(FSC-CW-RA-017-JP):https://ic.fsc.org/en/documentcenter/id/132
Ministry of the Environment: Annual
Report on the Environment, theSound Material-Cycle Society andthe Biodiversity in Japan
http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/20
13/index.html
Present vegetation map created by
the Ministry of the Environment(http://www.biodic.go.jp/vg_map/vg_html/jp/html/vg_map_frm.html)
Maps of protected areas under
Natural Park Law and other laws.
(GIS data provided by the National
Land Information Division, National
Spatial Planning and Regional
Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport andTourism of Japan):In these areas, forest activities are controlled according to their designation
classes (e.g. Special Protection Zones of National Parks). In order tomonitor, state government officers with police authority and local officers of
Ministry of the Environment called "rangers" have the role to patrol frequently
in his/her responsible area to check presence of any illegal activities. While
there are criticisms that there are not enough rangers, their monitoring
activities contribute to detection of trespassing and waste dumping etc.
Areas with restrictions are delineated on various maps so that anyone who isconsidering to conduct forestry activities can easily see the boundaries of theprotected areas and there has been no major reporting on illegal harvestingtaking place within the protected areas. In recent years, harvesting costs
have been quite high compared with the revenue gained from selling timber.
Many forest owners have given up managing their forests. Therefore, theincentive for felling trees illegally in restricted areas is considered low.
Regarding the Ramsar Sites, Japan has set an original criterion for
designation which is to make sure the site is protected under regulations ofnational laws (Natural Parks Act, Protection and Control of Wild Birds andMammals and Hunting Management Law, etc.) for many years to come. As
a result, most of Japanese Ramsar sites are covered by Special Protection

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 25 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/gmlold/met
a/ksjshpgml-A10.html
The Nature Conservation Society ofJapan. 2013. “Protected Area Atlasof Japan”.
https://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/shizenmon/mxjy1cvrkn.html?sc_i=shp_pc_search_itemlist_shsr_title

Areas of wildlife sanctuary or Special protection zones/Special zones under
Natural Parks Act so that these sites are protected.
Regarding the UNESCO World Natural Heritage, in the designated areas, it
is required for public authorities in charge of nature protection to cooperatewith local organizations and experts to manage the areas appropriately with
scientific approach. Therefore, establishment and management of Local
Liaison Committee and Scientific Committee to develop management plans
is needed. There is no specific law for conserving heritage sites, however,the state government is making sure that these sites are covered by systems
that they can directly manage such as National Parks, Nature Conservation
Areas, Forest Ecosystem Protection Areas and Natural Monuments basedon Act on Protection of Cultural Properties. Currently there are four Natural
Heritage sites in Japan and they are all covered by either National Parks or
Natural Habitat Protection Area or both: Ogasawara Islands covered by
Ogasawara National Park and Minami Ioto Nature Conservation Areas;
Shirakami-Sanchi covered by Shirakami-Sanchi Nature Conservation Area;
Shiretoko covered by Shiretoko National Park and Onnebetsudake Nature
Conservation Area, Yakushima covered by Yakushima National Park andYakushima Nature Conservation Area.

Landscapes Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H16/H16HO110.
html
Ministry of the Environment : A
webpage on Convention for theProtection of Migratory Birds:
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/kisho/
global/migratory.htmlAbout Ramsar
Sites (Ministry of the Environment):
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/ramsa
r/conv/2-1.html
World Natural Heritage in Japan(Ministry of the Environment):
http://www.env.go.jp/nature/isan/wo
rldheritage/info/index.html

According to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th out of 168
countries in Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015 and 4thout of 28 countries in Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011,
demonstrating political cleanness. From these scores, it is shown that thelegislation system of Japan is well functioning

Transparency International:
Corruption Perceptions Index:
https://www.transparency.org/resea
rch/cpi/overview

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 26 of 175 –Indicator
1.10
EnvironmentalrequirementsApplicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Applicable laws and regulations
Environmental Impact Assessment Act(Established on June 13, 1997), Article
1.
Forest Act (Established on June 26,
1951), Article 10-2 and 25.
Forest Act enforcement ordinanceannex 3 about EIA of forest road
(Established on March 31, 2008)
Basic Act on Biodiversity (Act No. 58
of 2008)
Invasive Alien Species Act (Act No. 78
of 2004)
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act (ActNo. 82 of 1948)
River Act (Act No. 167 of 1964)
Act on Special Measures concerning
Improvement of Public Health Functionof Forests (Act No. 71 of 1989)
Forest Pest Control Act (Act No. 53 of
1950)
Act on the Conservation andSustainable Use of Biological Diversity
through Regulations on the Use of

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Environmental Impact Assessment
Act
http://www.env.go.jp/policy/assess/

Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Forest Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO249.
html
Forest Act enforcement ordinanceannex 3 about EIA of forest road
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H20/H20F17001
000024.html
Basic Act on Biodiversity:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H20/H20HO058.
html
Invasive Alien Species Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H16/H16HO078.
html
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S23/S23HO082.
html
River Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S39/S39HO167.
html

The superior law on environmental protection is the Environmental Impact
Assessment Act, but it is only applicable to relatively large projects. The act
is not applied in many cases of forest harvesting (less than 5 ha on averagein Japan) or logging road construction, which can affect the environment.
With regards to environmental impact from forestry operation, the Forest Act
provides for a harvesting regulations that “harvesting area shall be in thearea where there is no risk of inducing disaster to the downstream withconsideration of slope degree, soil characteristics and the water drainageetc., so there will not be an impact on surrounding houses and roads. Clearcutting shall not be conducted in the area of steep slope or unstable soil toprevent soil erosion. After harvesting, efforts shall be made to restore theforest by planned reforestation etc.”
There is no law providing for the establishment of buffer zones and restrictionof the machinery use.
With regards to environmental impact in forestry, these days commercial
thinning is prioritized to minimize the cost of forest management and there isvery little clear-cutting. The concentration of road in mountainous area withthe slope exceeding 35 degrees is low; 15m/ha on average. There has notbeen any report of severe environmental impact from harvesting or road
construction.
Localized heavy rain due to recent climate change has been causing
landslides, such as deep-seated landslide in greater severity, threatening the
lives and property of residents. This is not a problem caused by forestry, but
is brought by unprecedented rainfall due to the climate change. Japan has
experienced environmental pollutions in the past and is hit by various natural
disasters such as volcanic action, earthquake, Tsunami and typhoonfrequently. Therefore, the people’s environmental awareness is high and it isreflected in the legal framework to protect the environment as a measure to

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 27 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Living Modified Organisms (Act No. 97
of 2003)
Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act (ActNo. 89 of 1970)
Basic Environment Act (Act No. 91 of
1993)
Forest Road Rules (Notification ofForestry Agency No. 107, April 1,
1973)
Convention on Biological Diversity(including Cartagena Protocol andNagoya Protocol)
Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutant
Legal Authority
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Legally required documents orrecords
Environmental Impact Assessment
Report,Sources of Information
Act on Special Measuresconcerning Improvement of Public
Health Function of Forests:
http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgibin/idxselect.cgi?IDX_OPT=3&H_N
AME=&H_NAME_YOMI=%82%A0&H_RYAKU=1&H_CTG=1&H_YO
MI_GUN=1&H_CTG_GUN=1&H_N
O_GENGO=H&H_NO_YEAR=01&
H_NO_TYPE=2&H_FILE_NAME=
H01HO071

Risk designation and determination
prevent natural disasters.
Environmental requirements are also included in the forest management
plan or harvesting permit, which are required for every forest manager. The
environmental requirements are well monitored and there have been no
major issues reported on environmental infringements, thus the risk is
considered to be low.

Forest Pest Control Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S25/S25HO053.
html
Act on the Conservation andSustainable Use of Biological
Diversity through Regulations on
the Use of Living Modified
Organisms: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H15/H15HO097.
html
Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S45/S45HO089.
html
Basic Environment Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H05/H05HO091.
html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 28 of 175 –Indicator

1.11 Healthand safety

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Forest Management Plan,
Harvesting Notice

Applicable laws and regulations
Industrial Safety and Health Act(established on June 8. 1972), Article
1, 10, 14, 24 and 59.
Labor Standards Act (Established on
April 7, 1947), Article 11, 75.

Sources of Information
Forest Road Rules (Notification ofForestry Agency No. 107, April 1,
1973):
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/seibi/sagyoudo/pdf/kitei.pdf#search=%27%E6%9E%97%E9%81%93%E8%
A6%8F%E7%A8%8B%27
The International Labour
Organization. Health and Safety inForestry Work.
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/p
ublic/---ed_protect/---protrav/--safework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_107793.pdf

Workers' Accident Compensation
Insurance Act (Established on April 7,
1947), Article 1.

Information System on International
Labour Standards. Ratification byCountry.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:::NO:::

Ordinance on Industrial Safety and
Health (Ordinance of the Ministry ofLabour No. 32 of 1972)
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act(Established on July 1, 1948), Article
1, 11 and 12.

Industrial Safety and Health Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO057.
html

Ministerial Ordinance to Provide forStandards to be Complied by
Agricultural Chemical Users(Established on March 7, 2003), Article
1 and 2.

Risk designation and determination

Labor Standards Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO049.
html
Workers' Accident Compensation
Insurance Act
http://law.e-

Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Out of 10 ILO conventions related to the ILO’s “Safety and health in forestry
work” (ILO No. 81, 119, 127, 129, 135, 138, 148, 155, 161,170), theJapanese government has ratified three conventions.
Regarding the laws and regulations concerning the safety standards inforestry work, Industrial Safety and Health Act prescribes the nature ofmanagement system and training method to prevent industrial accidents,
while the Labor Standards Act provides for obligation for victims of industrial
accident to rest. Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Act requires
providing insurance benefits to victims of industrial accidents. Organizations
that operates forestry business are required to comply with the above threelaws. Unless they implement measures from prevention of industrial
accidents to assistance for victims to return to work, organizations will
receive penalties including increased amount of worker’s accident insurance
and disapproval of forestry business from the authority. In addition, theForestry Agency implements "Green Employment" system to train new
employees and implements safety training of 8-10 months a year in the first
three years from the recruitment. The agency also aims to prevent accidents
by establishing "Revised Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health relating
to wood transport machinery, etc." to adapt to aging of forestry workers andincreasing performance of forestry machinery and to reduce the number ofindustrial accidents.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 29 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Ordinance for Enforcement ofAgricultural Chemicals Control Act(Ordinance of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry No. 21 of
1951)
Act on Prevention of Radiation
Hazards due to Radioisotopes, etc.
(Act No. 167 of June 10, 1957)
Regulation on Prevention of Ionizing
Radiation Hazards (Ministry of Labour
Order No. 41 of September 30, 1972)
Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing
Radiation in relating to works etc. todecontaminate the soil etc.
contaminated by radioactive materials
generated by the Great East Japan
Earthquake (Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare Ordinance No. 152 of
2011)
ILO Convention No. 115 (Radiation
Protection Convention)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information
gov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO050.
html
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S23/S23HO082.
html
Ministerial Ordinance to Provide forStandards to be Complied by
Agricultural Chemical Users
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H15/H15F17002
003005.html
Ordinance on Industrial Safety and
Healthhttp://www.jaish.gr.jp/anzen/hor/hombun/hor1-2/hor1-2-220-1-0.htm
Japan International Center ofOccupational Health and Safety.
http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicoshold/japanese/country/japan/index.ht
mlWebsite of Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries(http://www.maff.go.jp/j/nouyaku/n_sizai/houritu_ihan.html).
This site provides all cases ofviolation of Agricultural Chemicals
Control Act.

Risk designation and determination

In addition, special trainings on safety and high-performance machinery fromthe prefectural government have been increasing in the field of forestry. In
December 2013, a special training for operating Vehicle-based forestry
machineries (such as forwarder, processor, harvester, swing-yarder andtower-yarder) became mandatory under the revised Ordinance on Industrial
Safety and Health. Efforts have been made in the form of self-risk
assessment (using safety checklist), risk prediction meeting, getting
qualification for operating machinery based on regulations, safety equipment
provision, and investigation of the cause and implementing prevention
measures in case of accident. Despite such regulations and efforts, thenumber of accidents in forestry has shifted from decreasing to flat or slightly
increasing trend. It is characterized by increase of accidents related toelderly workers, high-performance machines, harvesting or summer heatstroke and bees. The administration and organizations are focusing on such
accidents to strengthen the accident prevention system. Between 2008 and2012, the fatality in forestry was 37-59 with annual average of 44, which
accounts for 2.5-3.0% of the whole industry.
“Agricultural Chemicals Control Act”, “Ministerial Ordinance to Provide forStandards to be Complied by Agricultural Chemical Users” and “Ordinanceon Industrial Safety and Health” provides for the safe handling of chemicals
used in forestry, such as herbicides and rodenticides. In Japan, the use ofchemical is limited in the field of forestry to begin with. Examples of chemical
use include pesticide for withered red pine and use of rodenticides in larch
plantations in Hokkaido. Repellents for deer and hares are in limited use. As
use of pesticide against Red Pine withering and use of rodenticide in
Hokkaido are both limited to specific areas at present, use of chemicals in
the forestry section is minimal. There were four cases of violations ofAgricultural Chemicals Control Act in 2008, of which none was in the forestry
sector.
The Labor Standard Inspection Office under the Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare visits companies. Even though the Labor Standard Inspection
Office is not specifically specialized in forestry operations, the announced
and unannounced inspections are in place to ensure safety of work places in

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 30 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Workers' Accident Compensation
Insurance subscription form,
Claims form for medical compensation
benefit,Claims form for medical compensation
expense,Claims form for compensation benefits
for absence from work

Sources of Information
Ordinance for Enforcement ofAgricultural Chemicals Control Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26F00601
000021.html
Ordinance on Prevention of
Ionizing Radiation in relating toworks etc. to decontaminate thesoil etc. contaminated byradioactive materials generated by
the Great East Japan Earthquake(known as: Ordinance on Ionizing
Radiation Decontamination)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H23/H23F19001
000152.html
Fukushima Prefecture Forest
Maintenance Division. Guideline ondischarge of logged trees fromprivate forests in Fukushima
Prefecture, December 17, 2014.
Fukushima Prefecture Timber
Cooperative Association. “Lumber
from Fukushima Prefecture
Undergo Voluntary Inspection on
Radiation Dose.” Letter to thePress.

Risk designation and determination
forestry industries too. Based on the results of the inspection, the Labor
Standard Inspection Office can issue Corrective Action Request withdeadlines for identified breaches.
The control by the authorities are considered efficiently implemented. The
government support through the Green Employment programme as referred
to above and the forest sector experiences a low level of accidents.
Until recently, Japanese forestry never needed to care about measuresagainst nuclear radiation. However, due to the radiation leakage from
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant’s incident caused byGreat East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2016, areas around the power
plant were affected by radiation. In order for to evacuated people to return
their home as soon as possible, prompt reduction of impact of radiation inthese affected area became an important task and so decontamination has
been promoted by the government. Ordinance on Ionizing Radiation
Decontamination, developed to promoted decontamination, was revised inJuly 2012 to add target activities to include specific non-decontaminating
operations (including forest management such as harvesting evergreen
trees) carried out in an environment with average spatial radiation dose rateof 2.5μSv/h or more in “Special area for decontamination” and “Importantarea for monitoring radiation”. Hence forestry workers working in theseareas in such environment are now obliged to have safety management andtraining against radiation exposure. In response to the revision of theordinance, Forestry Agency developed “Points to consider as measures toprevent radiation exposure during operations in forests (Q&A)”. Additionally,
the Forestry Agency provides entities operating in these affected areas withtraining and radiation dosimetry devices.
In Fukushima Prefecture, the core area for this issue, “Policy on extraction of
harvested wood from private forests in Fukushima” has been developed tocall for avoiding any activities in areas with air dose rate over 2.5 μ Sv/h. It
also calls for limiting harvesting activities to areas with 0.5μ Sv/h at
maximum. In areas exceeding 0.5μSv/h, radiation level of barks must be

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 31 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
measured on sampling basis and harvesting and extraction is only permitted
when the radiation level is 6,400Bq/Kg or lower.
Forestry in these areas is still in its recovery phase. Ministry of theEnvironment in cooperation with Forestry Agency are carrying out various
monitoring and demonstration experiment in order to recover forest andforestry there.

1.12 LegalemploymentApplicable laws and regulations
Industrial Safety and Health Act(established on June 8. 1972. Last
amended on June 24, 2011)
Labor Standards Act (Established on
April 7, 1947)
Labor Union Act (Established on June
1, 1949)
Labor Contract Act (Act No. 128 of2007)
Minimum Wage Act (Act No. 137 of
April 15, 1959)
Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal
Opportunity and Treatment between

Industrial Safety and Health Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO057.
html
Labor Standards Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO049.
html
Labor Union Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S24/S24HO174.
html
Labor Contract Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H19/H19HO128.
html
Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal
Opportunity and Treatment

As the area has global attention and high national interest in terms ofradiation issues, government (including Health, Labour and Welfare Ministry,
Ministry of the Environment, Forestry Agency) is committed to monitor andsupervise the area. The forestry is still in its recovery phase. Hence the riskof wood harvesting in these areas violating the Ordinance on Ionizing
Radiation Decontamination is considered low.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Article 59 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides for safety training
as “the employer shall, when a new worker is employed, give the said worker
education for safety and/or health concerning work operations in which theworker is to be engaged, as provided for by the Ordinance of the Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare.” The Labor Standards Act stipulates establishing
the minimum standard of working conditions and providing treatment
exceeding the standard. Article 3 (equal treatment without discrimination),
Article 4 (principle of equal wages for men and women), Article 5 (prohibitionof forced labor), Article 14 (contract period), Article 56 (minimum age), Article
75 (medical compensation), Article 76 (compensation for absence from work)
corresponds to this. In addition, the Labor Union aims to improve the statusof workers by promoting that the workers stand in equal footing in
negotiations with the employers, and recognize the right of workers tovoluntarily organize labor unions, to associate, and to collectively negotiate.
Although it is not directly affecting the risk of legality, it is worth noting thatpercentage of employees belonging to a labor union varies largely among

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 32 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Men and Women in Employment (ActNo. 113 of 1972)
Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities(Act No. 84 of May 21, 1970)
Act on Employment Promotion etc. of
Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 123
of 1960)
Health Insurance Act (Act No. 70 of
1922)
Industrial Accident Compensation
Insurance Act (Act No. 50 of 1947)
Act on the Collection, etc. of Insurance
Premiums of Labor Insurance (Act No.
84 of 1969)
Employees' Pension Insurance Act(Act No. 115 of 1954)
Act against Delay in Payment of
Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to
Subcontractors (Act No. 120 of 1956)

Sources of Information
between Men and Women in
Employment: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO113.
html
Act on Employment Promotion etc.
of Persons with Disabilities:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S35/S35HO123.
html

Risk designation and determinationdifferent industries. According to the Labor Union Basic Survey 2015 of
Health, Labour and Welfare Ministry, agriculture, forestry and fisheries
industry showed the lowest percentage of 2.0%.
The Labor Standards Act require all the worker’s, and forestry organizations
be adhering to these laws and is found to be well implemented.

Health Insurance Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/T11/T11HO070.
html
Industrial Accident Compensation
Insurance Act : http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO050.
html
Employment Insurance Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S49/S49HO116.
html

Act on Promoting the Resolution ofIndividual Labor-Related Disputes (ActNo. 112 of July 11, 2001)

Act on the Collection, etc. of
Insurance Premiums of Labor
Insurance: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S44/S44HO084.
html

Act on Special Measures for
Improvement of Working Hours

Employees' Pension Insurance Act:
http://law.e-

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 33 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Arrangements (Act No. 90 of July 2,
1992)

gov.go.jp/htmldata/S29/S29HO115.
html

Act on Childcare Leave, Caregiver
Leave, and Other Measures for the
Welfare of Workers Caring for Children
or Other Family Members (Act No. 76
of May 15, 1991)

Act against Delay in Payment of
Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to
Subcontractors: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S31/S31HO120.
html

Act on the Succession to Labor
Contracts upon Company Split (ActNo. 103 of May 31, 2000)

Labor Union Basic Survey 2015:
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/itiran/roudou/roushi/kiso/15/

Sources of Information

Act on Ensuring Wage Payment (ActNo. 34 of May 27, 1976)
Act for Securing the Proper Operationof Worker Dispatching Undertakings
and Improved Working Conditions for
Dispatched Workers (Act No. 88 ofJuly 5, 1985)
Act on Improvement, etc. of
Employment Management for PartTime Workers (Act No. 76 of June 18,
1993)
The Act on Promotion of Women’sParticipation and Advancement in the
Workplace (Act No. 64 of 2015)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 34 of 175 –Risk designation and determination

Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Employment contract
1.13
CustomaryrightsApplicable laws and regulations
Act on Advancement of Modernizationof Rights in Relation to Forests
Subject to Rights of Common(Established on July 9, 1966. Last
amended on May 2, 2011), Article 1-4,
19.
Article 1-4 states that the Japanesecustomary rights are removed.
Private forests: Civil Code (Act No. 89
of 1896) Article 92, 263, 294
State forests: Act Concerning
Utilization of National Forest Land (ActNo. 246 of 1951) Article 18-24
Public forests: Local Autonomy Act(Act No. 67 of 1947) Article 238-6
Legal Authority
Legally required documents orrecords-

Third parties’ rights
Act on Advancement of
Low risk
Modernization of Rights in Relation Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
to Forests Subject to Rights ofare violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by the
Commonauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S41/S41HO126. Traditionally in Japan, there have been "common land" or "common forest”.
The common land is the customary area where forest, field or fishing groundhtml」
are managed jointly and residents of a specified area jointly hold the use
right (called commonage).
Nakatsugawa City's website
http://www.city.nakatsugawa.gifu.jp/
Under the modern “ownership” concept, ownership of forests were gradually
made clear and specific. These common lands were recognized as
Civil Code: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/M29/M29HO089 commonage under Civil Code for private forests, customary use right ofcommon property under Local Autonomy Act for public forests and common.html
forests under Act Concerning Utilization of National Forest Land for state
forests.
Act Concerning Utilization of
National Forest Land: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO246. However, the government recognized commonage as a feudalistic law
system which is a barrier to improving productivity of agriculture and forestry.
html
As such Act on Advancement of Modernization of Rights in Relation to
Forests Subject to Rights of Common was established in 1966 to improve
Local Autonomy Act: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO067. productivity of agriculture and forestry. By applying this law, commonage islost and ownership of a forest becomes clear. In 1960, there were
html
approximately 200 million ha of common forests. As the application of law
gradually takes place, the area of common forests decreased to 90 million hain 1980.
Today there are still common lands in many places in Japan. However, theirimportance has been diminishing due to modernized life style of people. In
the past these forests were important sources of thatching materials, fuel

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 35 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
woods and construction materials, but the use of these materials from
common land is very limited today. Today court cases in respect tocommonage is almost always regarding the development of common landsuch as building an industrial waste disposal facilities, nuclear power plant orresort facilities. In these cases, the point of issue is caused by disagreement
among commonage owners1.

1.14 Free
prior andinformed
consent

Applicable laws and regulations

N/A

Consultation to a researcher on commonage also revealed that issues
regarding commonage in recent years only happen when external pressure
such as development is put on the common land and cases regarding forest
resource use is very rare. According to the Forestry Agency, there is no
court case in respect to customary use of resources in the state forests inrecent years.
Since the economic value and utility value of common forest have declined
due to modernized life-style of people, awareness of commonage has also
declined. Generally this clause is considered low risk.
N/A

The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Convention on Biological Diversity
COP10 Nagoya Protocol (2010)
N/A.
Rights of community is limited to thosespecified in 1.13. Official forest
management rights are only held byforest owners and outsourced
enterprises.
There is no legislation in Japan

1 Hidetoshi Nakao and Takehiko Ebuchi, 2015, Commons court cases and environmental conservation – at the court case in respect to commonage (Horitsu Bunka Corporation).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 36 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
covering “free prior and informed
consent” in connection with transfer offorest management rights andcustomary rights to the organization in
charge of the harvesting operation.

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Act on the Promotion of Ainu
Culture, and Dissemination andEnlightenment of Knowledge about
Ainu Tradition, etc.
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H09/H09HO052.
html 」

Specified risk: Hokkaido
Threshold (2) is met: Identified laws are not upheld consistently by all entities
and/or are often ignored, and/or are not enforced by relevant authorities.

Legal Authority
N/A
Legally required documents orrecords

1.15
Indigenous
peoplesrightsN/A
Applicable laws and regulations
Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture,and Dissemination and Enlightenmentof Knowledge about Ainu Tradition,etc. (Established on May 14, 1997),
Article 1 to 5.
Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties (Act 214 of 1950) Chapter 1
General Provisions, Article 109, 134
International Bill of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights Article 26 and 27.
Constitution of Japan Clause 2 ofArticle 98.
International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Low risk: Other areas
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

CW NRA of Japan
Court precedents of Nibudani Dam
case:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Suzuran/5596/
Court precedents of Ainu peoples'
common property.
http://www.dogyousei.gr.jp/ainu/kousaihanketu.doc

Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture stipulates that it was enacted “to realize
a society in which the pride of Ainu people as an ethnic group is respectedby promoting the measures for the Ainu culture and dissemination andenlightenment of knowledge of the people about Ainu tradition, etc.” Thecontent of this act is limited to promotion of Ainu Culture and does not cover
the contents of the UN declaration, including provision about tenure and rightto self-determination of indigenous peoples. However, from the cultural
standpoint, the wood use for Ainu’s traditional sacred land and festivals is
considered to be covered by this act. Based on this act, state forests andpublic forests of local governments are providing forest resources uponrequest from Ainu people. Areas with special importance for Ainu people are

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 37 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Discrimination (1969) General
Recommendation on Indigenous
peoples 23 (1997, CERD).
The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Legal Authority
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology
The article 5 of the Act mentions thatthe responsibility lies both in the
Minister of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism andMinister of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology.
Legally required documents orrecords
N/A

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties: http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S25/S25HO214.
html

designated as “Pirikanoka” (Meaning beautiful shape) which is a national
scenic beauty and protected under the framework of Act on Protection ofCultural Properties. The government of Hokkaido, where the Ainu people
live is managing a database of repository and ruins of Ainu people to call for
protection.
Regarding a court case related to the rights of Ainu Peoples, there was acase called “Nibutani Dam Trial” which was about Ainu Peoples claiming
unacceptable development and destruction of Ainu Peoples’ sacred land. At
the time of the trial, Ainu Peoples was not recognized officially as indigenous
people by Japanese government, however, the decision of Sapporo District
Court recognized Ainu Peoples as indigenous people and concluded thatdam construction is illegal as it severely impact the culture of Ainu Peoples.
After the Sapporo District Court decision on Nibutani Dam case, there has
been several other court cases involving Ainu peoples such as the cases inrelation to common properties and returning of remains of Ainu peoples
collected for research purpose. While neither of them involves infringementof rights by forestry, but the forest land in Hokkaido utilized for forestry wereoriginally the land that Ainu peoples historically used for livelihood. The lands
were once all nationalized and later some of them have been sold off to theprivate sector. Such change of ownership was done without the consent of
the indigenous Ainu Peoples.
The rights of Ainu Peoples are not necessarily stipulated in the law evenafter the official recognition of them as indigenous people. However,International Covenants on Human Rights which Japan has ratified
recognizes the rights of minority people and there is also a case like Nibutani
Dam decision where the court recognizes the rights of Ainu peoples. Still, as
represented by the Nibutani Dam Tribunal, it cannot be said that the risk ofviolation of the rights is low.
Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture mentions “Prefectures provided for in
the Cabinet Order (Hokkaido is designated pursuant to the "Cabinet Orderproviding for the prefecture under paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Act on the
Promotion of Ainu Culture, and Dissemination and Enlightenment of

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 38 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
Knowledge about Ainu Tradition, etc.") shall provide the basic plan
concerning the measures to ensure the Promotion, etc. of Ainu Culture inaccordance with the basic policy.” Hence this act is only applied in Hokkaido
and therefore, the risk of violating this Act in other areas is low.
Following risk control measures should be taken in Hokkaido:
1. Are there any indigenous people (IP) present in the area of concern?
If IP cannot clearly be identified, contact the Ainu Association whether there
are any IP present. Or take the opinion of at least one expert on IP rights inJapan. (regarding the qualifications of the expert refer to Annex C in the CW
standard)
2. Evaluate whether there are any ongoing legal conflicts/cases regarding
the rights of Ainu people in the area of concern by contacting the Ainu
Association or an expert.
3. If there are any ongoing conflicts, take FPIC from the Ainu people of thatarea, before undertaking forest management activities. FPIC can be taken
regardless of presence of ongoing conflicts.

1.16
Classificatio
n ofspecies,quantities,
qualities

Applicable laws and regulations
Commercial Code (Established on
March 9, 1899), Article 526.
Legal Authority
Commercial code is managed by
Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications
Legally required documents orrecords
Sales contract,financial statements.

Trade and transport
Commercial CodeLow risk
http://law.eThreshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
gov.go.jp/htmldata/M32/M32HO048 are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by the.html
authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
The Commercial Code provides for sales and trading business practices ingeneral (Article 1 Section 1). Also transaction of products such as logs fromforestry is covered by the Commercial Code. The Code provides for controlof fraud in commercial trade. The primary producers including the Forestry
Cooperatives submit a felling notice based on the forest management planand make plot survey before felling. Harvested volume is verified by theprefectural government after harvest prior to payment of subsidy provision to
the forest owner. Internal audits of organizations, external audits by theauthority and the National Tax Agency altogether has been functioning wellto control illegal transaction with severe penalty for fraud. All companies are
subjected to the audit by national tax agency or tax offices. National tax

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 39 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS)certificate

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
agency audits large companies and tax offices audit smaller companies.
Through samples of transaction documents including information onclassification and species are controlled to see if there is any fraud. This ischecked against the tax. I.e. income tax, VAT, accession tax etc. On averagelarge companies are audited every 3 to 4 years. Small companies areaudited every 10 years on average.
It has been common practice to use the log market when selling logs.
Information such as harvested forest, species, volume, size, quantity, andgrade and so on are recorded so that the log market can be considered toprovide monitoring on harvesting operations.
Recently, there are more and more log producers which do not use the log
market but directly sell to sawmill in order to reduce cost or promote its local
branding. In these cases, log producers and sawmills are directly trading sothat the traceability is higher than when log market is used.
As Japanese forestry was developing in the 1980s fraud was commonly
found at the log market leading to more rigorous monitoring by regional
taxation bureau. Hence the forestry became one of the industries difficult tomake fraud.
As a voluntary system to enhance the accuracy of information regarding
species, quantity and quality, there is a standard prescribed by the Act onStandardization and Proper Labeling of Agricultural and Forest Products isgenerally called the JAS standard and it aims to improve productidentification as well as value of products by labeling species, size andgrading on wood products (Article 2). It provides the standard of quality(including forms, size, weight or conditions of packaging) of logs and wood
product as well as standards of labeling (including names and origin) of
quality. Therefore, organizations holding JAS certification needs to beaudited regularly by an accredited organization. This system functions as anadditional control system to avoid fraud in wood or wood products (Article 232). A report by Forestry Agency from 2011, shows that the percentage ofJAS certified sawmills are about 10% and JAS certified plywood factories are

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 40 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination
about 80%. A slight increase in 10 years but there is still a challenge for
expanding JAS certification among sawmills.

1.17 Tradeandtransport

Applicable laws and regulations
Customs Act (Established on April 2,1954), Article 1, 29, 30 and 67-2.
Motor Truck Transportation BusinessAct (Established on December 19,1989), Article 3 and 4.
Motor Truck Transportation Business
Safety Regulation (Established on July
30, 1990), Article 3, 4, and 5.
Consigned Freight Forwarding
Business Act (Established on June 1,
1949), Article 30, 31 and 32.
Outline for Quarantine of Imported
Wood (Established on November 22,1951), Article 1 and 2.
Road Transportation Act (Act No. 183
of 1951)

Customs Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S29/S29HO061.
html
Motor Truck Transportation
Business Act
http://www.houko.com/00/01/H01/0
83.HTM
Motor Truck Transportation
Business Safety Regulation
http://hourei.hounavi.jp/hourei/H02/
H02F03901000022.php
Consigned Freight Forwarding
Business Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S24/S24HO187.
html」

The corruption level in Japan is considered low, with Japan having a CPI of
75 (higher than the threshold of 50).
There are no indications or evidence that infringements are occurring
frequently.
Generally, in Japan, this indicator is considered low.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
Import/export: The Customs Act defines the necessary matters to ensure
proper processing of the customs procedures about tariff setting, payment,collection, refund as well as export and import of goods and refund. Cargo
exporters or importers shall declare the necessary information such as
product name, quantity and price of the applicable products to the Customs
director in the bonded area in pursuant to the provisions of a Cabinet Order.
Outline for Quarantine of Imported Wood provides for quarantine of plants
and microorganisms that are brought together with imported wood and it
monitors the introduction of invasive organisms from abroad. Based on theselaws, proper trade of wood and wood products has been promoted and legal
compliance of wood transport and safety has been enforced. The monitoring
system for international trade is being strengthened to control illegal trade.
Japan: Internally in Japan only delivery slip is following the timber from theforest operation.

Outline for Quarantine of Imported
Woodwww.pps.go.jp/law_active/Notificati
on/basis/8/55/html/55.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 41 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Road Transportation Act:
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO183.
html

Legal Authority
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism
Legally required documents orrecords

1.18
Offshoretrading andtransfer
pricing

Bill of entry
Customs declaration
Quarantine certificate
Cargo transportation plan
Applicable laws and regulations
Customs Act (Established on April 2,1954), Article 1, 29, 30, 67 and 108.
Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade
Act (Established on December 1,
1949), Article 1, 5, 17 and 18.
Act on Special Measures Concerning
Taxation (Act no. 26 of 1956), Articles
66-4 and 68-88
The National Tax Agency’s (NTA)
interpretation and guidance for theapplication of the transfer pricing rules
are set out in the related ASMT Basic
Circulars, dated 8 September 2000

Customs Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S29/S29HO061.
html

Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Foreign Exchange and Foreign
Trade Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S24/S24HO228.
html

The international tax standard, developed by OECD and supported by the
UN and the G20, provides for full exchange of information on request in all
tax matters without regard to a domestic tax interest requirement or banksecrecy for tax purposes. Currently all 30 OECD member countries, including
Japan have endorsed and agreed to implement the international tax
standard. Furthermore, all offshore financial centres accept the standard.
Japan has been actively part of developing the OECD Guidelines for
multinational enterprises and the revision hereof. In practice the OECD
Guidelines are interpreted and implemented within the framework of Japans
own transfer pricing legislation. Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act
provides for international trade and transfer pricing.

5-year Summary of violation of theForeign Exchange Act in export
and import
http://www.sigmasupport.com/category/1278178.htm
l#TOPICS1

Companies operating in Japan are required to complete and return an

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 42 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords(the 8 September 2000 Circular), 1
June 2001 (the 1 June 2001 Circular),and 25 June 2001 (the 25 June 2001
Circular).

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Original news of violation of theForeign Exchange Act in export
and import
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/index.ht
mlannual corporation tax return. As part of this details of the taxpayer’s foreign
affiliated parties and any transactions with those parties, including disclosureof the transfer pricing methodology adopted for each transaction. A reviewof this form, in conjunction with the company’s financial statements and areview of the company’s results, may lead the tax authorities to select acompany for audit.

Legal Authority
Ministry of Finance
Legally required documents orrecords
Bill of entry
Customs declaration
Remittance detail

http://www.eoitax.org/jurisdictions/JP#agreements
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
2012:
http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/2
012_international_transfer_pricing.
pdf
http://www.eoitax.org/jurisdictions/JP#agreements

Japan has signed 8 Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) withjurisdictions of offshore financial centres and are signatories to 1 multilateralmechanism, Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters(http://www.eoi-tax.org/jurisdictions/JP#agreements).
Japan is considers to be progressive on the practice of transfer pricing, andthe Japanese tax authorities has excessive experience and focus on thepolicing transfer pricing regime. Several significant tax assessments basedon transfer pricing adjustments have gotten public attention.
(PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2012).
According to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th out of 168
countries in Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 75 in 2015 and 4thout of 28 countries in Bribe Payers Index with a score of 8.6 in 2011,
demonstrating political cleanness. The control of the Japanese authorities is
considered well implemented.

1.19
Customregulations

Applicable laws and regulations
Customs Act (Established on April 2,1954), Article 1, 29, 30, 67 and 108.
Legal Authority
Ministry of Finance

Customs Act
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S29/S29HO061.
html

No indications of any significant violations are present regarding offshore
trading and transfer pricing in Japan and this the indicator is considered low.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.
The Customs Act defines the necessary matters to ensure proper processingof the customs procedures about tariff setting, payment, collection, refund as
well as export and import of goods and refund. Cargo exporters shall declare
the necessary information such as product name, quantity and price of the

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 43 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Legally required documents orrecords

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

CITES
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/external_economy/trade_control/boekikanri/cites/applicable products to the Customs director in the bonded area in pursuant
to the provisions of a Cabinet Order. A permit must be obtained for cargo to
be exported through necessary inspection. After such processes the permitof export can be issued. Export of wood and wood products is also subject tothe inspection in the bonded area in a public harbor. If there is a self-owned
wharf, it is possible to establish bonded facilities there. There are mirror
requirements for the import of timber and timber products to Japan. With
regard to customs inspections, there has been increasing cases leading toserious incident such as illegal drugs and infectious diseases. As such, therigor of inspection has been increasing and false declaration is not passed
easily.
Low risk
Threshold (1) is met: Identified laws are upheld. Cases where law/regulations
are violated are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by theauthorities and/or by the relevant entities.

Bill of entry
Customs declaration

1.20 CITES

Applicable laws and regulations
Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
About Export Permission ofEndangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (Japan has signed on
November 4, 1980)

No woody species, both conifer and hardwood species, produced in Japanare listed in the CITES lists and the risk is therefore considered low.

Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade
Act (Act No. 228 of December 1, 1949)
Article 55-10.
Export Trade Control Order (Cabinet
Order No. 378 of December 1, 1949)
Act on Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (ActNo. 75 of June 5, 1992)
Legal Authority

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 44 of 175 –Indicator

Applicable laws and regulations,
legal Authority, &legally required documents orrecords
Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry

Sources of Information

Risk designation and determination

Ministry of the Environment
Legally required documents orrecords
Export permit
1.21
Legislation
requiringdue
diligence/due careprocedures

Applicable laws and regulations
Act on Promotion of Use andDistribution of Legally-Harvested
Wood and Wood Products (Act no. 48
of 2016).

N/A

Diligence/due care procedures
N/A
Neither of the acts above obligate due diligence. Therefore precisely
speaking, there are not applicable laws in this context

Act on Promotion of Procurement of
Eco-Friendly Goods and Services by
the State and Other Entities (Act No.
100 of May 31, 2000)

Legal Authority
N/A
Legally required documents orrecords
N/A

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 45 of 175 –Control measures
Control measures (M – mandatory / R – recommended)

Indicator
1.1 Land tenure and management rights

N/A

1.2 Concession licenses
1.3 Management and harvesting planning

N/A
N/A

1.4 Harvesting permits
1.5 Payment of royalties and harvesting fees
1.6 Value added taxes and other sales taxes
1.7 Income and profit taxes
1.8 Timber harvesting regulations
1.9 Protected sites and species
1.10 Environmental requirements
1.11 Health and safety
1.12 Legal employment
1.13 Customary rights
1.14 Free prior and informed consent

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

1.15 Indigenous peoples rights

Recommended control measures in Hokkaido:
1. Are there any indigenous people (IP) present in the area of concern?
If IP cannot clearly be identified, contact the Ainu Association whether there are any IP present. Or take the opinion of at least
one expert on IP rights in Japan. (regarding the qualifications of the expert refer to Annex C in the CW standard)
2. Evaluate whether there are any ongoing legal conflicts/cases regarding the rights of Ainu people in the area of concern bycontacting the Ainu Association or an expert.
3. If there are any ongoing conflicts, take FPIC from the Ainu people of that area, before undertaking forest management
activities. FPIC can be taken regardless of presence of ongoing conflicts.

1.16 Classification of species, quantities, qualities
1.17 Trade and transport

N/A
N/A

1.18 Offshore trading and transfer pricing

N/A

1.19 Custom regulations
1.20 CITES
1.21 Legislation requiring due diligence/due care procedures

N/A
N/A
N/A

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 46 of 175 –Controlled wood category 2: Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights
Risk assessment
Indicator
2.1. The forest sector is not associated with violent armed
conflict, including that which threatens national or regional
security and/or linked to military control.

2.2. Labour rights are respected including rights as specified
in ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at work.

2.3. The rights of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples areupheld.

Sources of Information
See detailed analysis
below.

See detailed analysis
below.

See detailed analysis
below.

Functional
scale
CountryCountry

Hokkaido

Other areas

Risk designation and determination
Risk determination:
Low risk
Justification:
All ‘low risk thresholds’ (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) aremet.
None of the ‘specified risk thresholds’ aremet.
Risk determination:
Low risk
Justification:
The ‘low risk thresholds’ No. 11 and 12 aremet.
None of the ‘specified risk thresholds’ aremet.
Risk determination:
Specified risk
Justification:
The specified risk thresholds No. 23, 24 and26 apply.
Risk determination:
Low risk
Justification:
The ‘low risk thresholds’ No. 16, 19 and 21
are met.
None of the ‘specified risk threshold’ aremet.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 47 of 175 –Recommended control measures
Indicator
2.1
2.2
2.3

Recommended control measures
N/A
N/A
Recommended control measures in Hokkaido:
1. Are there any indigenous people (IP) present in the area of concern?
If IP cannot clearly be identified, contact the Ainu Association whether there are any IP present. Or take the opinion of at least one expert on IP rights in Japan.
(regarding the qualifications of the expert refer to Annex C in the CW standard)
2. Evaluate whether there are any ongoing legal conflicts/cases regarding the rights of Ainu people in the area of concern by contacting the Ainu Association or an
expert.
3. If there are any ongoing conflicts, take FPIC from the Ainu people of that area, before undertaking forest management activities. FPIC can be taken regardless ofpresence of ongoing conflicts.

Detailed analysis
Sources of information

Evidence

Scale ofrisk
assessment

Risk
indication2

Context(the following are indicators that help to contextualize the information from other sources)•
Searching for data on: level of corruption, governance, lawlessness, fragility of the State, freedom of journalism, freedom of speech, peace, human rights, armed or
violent conflicts by or in the country, etc.
World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators - the WGIs
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports (click on table
Countryreport aggregate and individual governanceview tab and select Country)
indicators for 215 countries (most recently for 1996–2012), for
In 2016 (latest available year) Japan scores between 78 (for Voice andsix dimensions of governance: Voice
Accountability) and 96 (for Government Effectiveness) on the percentile rank
and Accountability; Political Stability and Absence of Violence; among all countries for all six dimensions (the scores range from 0 (lowest
Government Effectiveness; Regulatoryrank) to 100 (highest rank) with higher values corresponding to better
Quality; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption
outcomes).
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
World Bank Harmonized List of Fragile Situations:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/
harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/189701503418416651/FY18FCSLIST-FinalJuly-2017.pdf

CountryJapan ranks 185th among 198 countries on country fragility in 2016 report(meaning that the country is stable).

2 A risk indication is provided for each source analyzed, except in the first part that addresses the general country context as that is not a risk indicator. A cumulative risk assessment for eachrisk indicator is provided in the row with the conclusion on each risk indicator, based on all the sources analyzed and evidence found.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 48 of 175 –Committee to Protect Journalists: Impunity Index
CPJ's Impunity Index calculates the number of unsolved
journalist murders as a percentage of each country's
population. For this index, CPJ examined journalist murdersthat occurred between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2016,
and that remain unsolved. Only those nations with five or moreunsolved cases are included on this index.
https://www.cpj.org/reports/2016/10/impunity-index-gettingaway-with-murder-killed-justice.php
Carleton University: Country Indicators for Foreign Policy: theFailed and Fragile States project of Carleton University
examines state fragility using a combination of structural dataand current event monitoring
http://www4.carleton.ca/cifp/ffs.htm

https://www.cpj.org/reports/2016/10/impunity-index-getting-away-with-murderkilled-justice.php
Japan does not feature in this list for 2016.

Country

http://www4.carleton.ca/cifp/app/serve.php/1530.pdf
Japan scores low on State fragility map 2016.

Country

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org

US AID: www.usaid.gov
Search on website for [country] + ‘human rights’ ‘conflicts’‘conflict timber’
For Africa and Asia also use:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnact462.pdf
Global Witness: www.globalwitness.org
Search on website for [country] +‘human rights’ ‘conflicts’‘conflict timber’Country
https://www.hrw.org/publications?keyword=&date%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2016&country%5B%5D=9552
The only report about Japan in the 2016 report is about the bullying against
sexual minority at schools.
No information found that indicates specified risk after searching Japan +‘human rights’ ‘conflicts’ ‘timber conflicts’.

http://www.globalwitness.org/japanmalaysia“A new report by Global Witness titled “An Industry Unchecked: Japan’s
extensive business with companies involved in illegal and destructive logging
in the last rainforests of Malaysia” [September 2013 – LV] examines theextensive timber trade between Japan and Sarawak, the widespread
corruption, illegal logging, and human rights violations in Sarawak’s forestry
sector, and weaknesses in Japan’s approach to preventing the import of illegal
timber from Sarawak.
Japan has been the largest buyer of timber products from Sarawak, Malaysia,
for more than twenty years. This trade is dominated by some of the largest
trading companies in Japan. This report presents two case studies based on
Global Witness research and investigation showing how Japanese companies
are purchasing timber products linked to widespread illegal and unsustainable
logging by two of Sarawak’s largest logging companies.
Global Witness’ analysis concludes that Japan’s current approach topreventing the import of illegal timber, the so-called Goho-wood system, isinadequate to ensure that its timber imports from Sarawak are legal andsustainable.”

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 49 of 175 –CountryCountryhttps://www.globalwitness.org/olympics/“Two Worlds Collide: How construction in Japan is driving destruction in
Malaysia’s last rainforests”
Anticipating the 202 Tokyo Olympics, the article reports that the Japaneseconstruction industry are using large amount of illegal wood from Sarawak,
Malaysia.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_forests/deforestat
ion/forest_illegal_logging/Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index
http://www.transparency.org/
Chattam House Illegal Logging Portal
http://www.illegal-logging.info

Trade statistics of Japan
http://www.customs.go.jp/toukei/srch/index.htm

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/reports/wilful-ignorance/“Wilful Ignorance: How Japan’s voluntary approach is failingto stop the trade in illegal timber”
April 2016 –Anticipating G7 summit held in Japan, The report criticizes thatJapan continues to import illegal wood from Sarawak, Malaysia on contrary to
the global tide.
Japan not mentioned in article
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_201
6 Japan scores 72 points on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 on a scalefrom 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). Japan ranks 20 out of 176 with rank
number. 1 being the cleanest country.

CountryCountryCountry
http://www.illegal-logging.info/regions/japan“• Japan is one of the world’s
largest importers of tropical timber, sourcing this timber largely fromneighbouring countries in Asia. It also imports a significant volume of illegal
timber, although this is estimated to have fallen since the turn of the century.
• The government has been engaged on the issue of illegal logging and relatedtrade, but its approach has been focused on voluntary measures rather thanestablishing legally binding requirements. It has been actively promoting thecountry’s legality verification system, known as the Goho-wood system. (…)
but because the system is voluntary and has design weaknesses, its ability to
exclude illegal products from Japan’s market is limited (Chatham House,2014). ”
According to the trade statistics data of 2016, the value of imported wood(including sawn timber, excluding cork) was 367,281,761,000 yen, while during
the same time, the value of exported timber (including sawn timber, excludingcork) was 12,905,368,000. The total value of exported wood was only about
3% of the total value of imported wood.
Considering the fact that the risk of illegal harvesting in Japan is generally low(except for limited situations in Hokkaido) as shown in the assessment of
category 1, the overall risk of Japan being a large source of illegal timber isconsidered low.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 50 of 175 –Country

Amnesty International Annual Report: The state of the world’s
human rights -information on key human rights issues,
including: freedom of expression; international justice;corporate accountability; the death penalty; and reproductive
rightsFreedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/japan/report-japan/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/japan/report-japan/“Freedom of expression
The Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets (Act No. 108 of
2013, http://elaws.egov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=425AC0000
000108&openerCode=1), which came into effect in December 2014, contained
provisions that could violate the right to access information held by publicauthorities. Critics of the Act stressed that the government could withhold
information without clear designation criteria, that parliamentary committees
overseeing the designation of secrets were too weak, and that journalists
risked imprisonment for soliciting and reporting information designated as
secrets. At the end of the year the government had yet to set up an
independent oversight mechanism that would include whistleblower provisions
and could effectively prevent abuse of the Act.”
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018
The status of Japan on the Freedom in the World index 2018 is ‘free’.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
The status of Japan on the Freedom of the Net 2017 is ‘free’.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017
The status of Japan on the Freedom on the Press 2017s ‘free’.

Reporters without Borders: Press Freedom Index

CountryCountryCountry
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Japan ranks number. 67out of 180 with a score of 28.64 on the 2018 World
Press Freedom Index.
https://rsf.org/en/japan“Don’t mess with “state secrets”
The Japanese media, which are among the most powerful in the world, arefree to cover what they want except “state secrets.” This rather vague category
is protected by a very harsh law that deters journalists from embarking on
investigations. The Fukushima nuclear disaster, the imperial family’s personal
lives and the defense of Japan are all “state secrets.””
Analysis of this score by FSC Japan:
Japan used to score high regarding the press freedom index, Japan was
number 11 out of all countries in 2010. It dropped unbelievably rapidly mainly
due to hostile views of journalists to Shinzo Abe, current Prime Minister (seefollowing link for more detail: https://rsf.org/en/japan). It was symbolized by theestablishment of “Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets” in
2013. The act is about to protect state secret which may increase the risk ofterrorism, spy activities, if made public. It also protects state secrets regarding
national defense and foreign diplomacy.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 51 of 175 –Fund for Peace - Failed States Index of Highest Alert - theFund for Peace is a US-based non-profit research andeducational organization that works to prevent violent conflictand promote security. The Failed States Index is an annual
ranking, first published in 2005, of 177 nations based on theirlevels of stability and capacity
In 2014 the FFP changed the name of the Failed State Index
to the Fragile State Index:
http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/
The Global Peace Index. Published by the Institute for
Economics & Peace, This index is the world's leading
measure of national peacefulness. It ranks 163 nations
according to their absence of violence. It's made up of 23
indicators, ranging from a nation's level of military expenditure
to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level ofrespect for human rights.
Source: The Guardian:
http://economicsandpeace.org/research/iep-indicesdata/global-peace-index
Human Rights Risk Index 2016 Q4 produced by Maplecroft.
https://maplecroft.com/map-of-the-week/
IMADR (The International Movement Against All Forms ofDiscrimination and Racism)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/IMADR-AOCHR-FI-HRN-Joint-OralStatement_HRC-33rd_item-4-GeneralDebate_19SEP2016.pdf

However, as far as forestry journalism is considered, the situation has notchanged from 2010 when Japan stilled scored high. The “state secrets”
mentioned above is in relation to national defense.
FSC Japan considers the press freedom in forestry industry is still kept.
http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/
Japan is ranked 156 out of 178 countries on the failed states index. (Number 1
being the most failed state). This ranks Japan in the category ‘very stable’.

Country

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/2014%20Global%20Peace%
20Index%20REPORT.pdf
The state of Peace in Japan is labelled ‘Very high’ with Japan ranking number
9 out of 163 countries with a score of 1.395 (p. 5)

CountryJapan scores ‘medium risk’ on the Human Rights Risk Index 2016 Q4.

Country

In this April, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion andexpression shared his specific concern regarding “disproportionate restrictions
on protest activity” and “the use of force against journalists” in Okinawa.
Yet, the Government has continued to employ oppressive measures including
forced evacuation and temporarily detention of sit-in protesters by anexcessive number of riot police officers. Furthermore, in May, it was revealed
that a security company contracted by the Defense Bureau had compiled a listof 60 protesters including leading environmental human rights defenders andpeace activists in order to monitor and report their protest activity in Henoko.
Since the list contained personal information of protesters which was not
publicly available, the Defense Bureau and police forces were suspected of
involvement. We regret that not only the Government denied its involvement,
but also they announced that no investigation to the incident will be conducted.
Moreover, we are alarmed by the report that on 20th August journalists wereprevented from reporting the scene of protest in Takae. Press freedom is under
threat in Okinawa. High ranking government officials and law makers haverepeatedly made repressive comments against the two major local
newspapers in Okinawa. However, most of those comments have not

Okinawa

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 52 of 175 –been condemned by the Government, and no specific action has beentaken to protect press freedom.”
Additional sources of information (These sources werepartly found by Googling the terms '[country]', 'timber','conflict', 'illegal logging')
No additional sources foundFrom national CW RA: FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1.0 (Info on
illegal logging)

Evidence

Scale ofrisk
assessment

Risk
indication“Any harvesting of forest is regulated by the Forest Law.
Forest Law applies throughout Japan. Forest owners and standing tree buyers
must submit application of harvest including information about harvesting area,
harvesting method, harvesting species, harvesting tree ages and regenerationplans after the harvest 30 to 90 days prior to harvesting. The application is
examined by municipality mayor to check if it complies with the Forest Law.
When it complies with the Forest Law, harvest permit is given. In case of any
suspect of harvest which is different from what it says in the application, themunicipality investigates on the ground. If the harvest was found to be notfollowing the application, municipality then instructs the forest owner orstanding tree buyer to correct the operation.
After harvest, legal certificate is needed to trade the harvested logs.
Harvesting in special protection zone of natural park needs permission fromstate minister for the environment or prefectural mayor.
Breach of the Forest Law rarely happens. According to the Prosecutorial
statistics in 2010, there were 40 suspected cases. Number of applications ofharvest submitted per year is estimated to be approximately 20,000. Therefore
only about 0.2% were suspected to be breaching the Forest Law and so therisk of breach is very low.”Country

Low risk

Conclusion on country context:
Japan scores good or very good on all indicators reviewed in this section on the country context, such as in relation to press freedom (at least inforestry related issues), peace, governance and absence of corruption. Some human rights issues are reported mainly in relation to criminal
justice and justice for the survivors of Japan’s military sexual slavery system. Japan is also reported as a significant importer of illegally
harvested timber, although some regulations and policies are in place to combat illegal logging.
Indicator 2.1. The forest sector is not associated with violent armed conflict, including that which threatens national or regional security and/or linked to militarycontrol.
Guidance•
Is the country covered by a UN security ban on exporting timber?
•Is the country covered by any other international ban on timber export?
•
Are there individuals or entities involved in the forest sector that are facing UN sanctions?
Compendium of United Nations Security Council Sanctions
There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from Japan.
Country
Low risk
Lists http://www.un.org/sc/committees/list_compend.shtml
Japan is not covered by any other international ban on timber export.
US AID: www.usaid.gov

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 53 of 175 –Global Witness: www.globalwitness.org

There are no individuals or entities involved in the forest sector in Japan thatare facing UN sanctions.

From national CW RA

Japan is not included in UN Security Council Ban on timber.

Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

CountryCountry

Low risk
Low risk

http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/JPN
No information on conflict timber in Japan found.

Country

Low risk

No information on conflict timber related to Japan found.

Country

Low risk

Guidance•
Is the country a source of conflict timber? If so, is it at the country level or only an issue in specific regions? If so – which regions?
•
Is the conflict timber related to specific entities? If so, which entities or types of entities?
No information on conflict timber related to Japan found.
www.usaid.gov
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnact462.pdf
Conflict Timber is defined by US AID as:- conflict financed or sustained through the harvest and sale oftimber (Type 1),- conflict emerging as a result of competition over timber orother forest resources (Type 2)
Also check overlap with indicator 2.3
www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests
https://www.globalwitness.org/olympics/“Two Worlds Collide: How construction in Japan is driving destruction in
Malaysia’s last rainforests”
Anticipating the 202 Tokyo Olympics, the article reports that the Japaneseconstruction industry are using large amount of illegal wood from Sarawak,
Malaysia.

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
World Resources Institute: Governance of Forests Initiative
Indicator Framework (Version 1)
http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/gfi_tenure_indicators_sep09.
pdf
http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/governance-forestsinitiative
Now: PROFOR http://www.profor.info/node/1998
Global Forest Watch
Amnesty International Annual Report: The state of the world’s
human rights -information on key human rights issues,
including: freedom of expression; international justice;

No information on conflict timber originating from Japan found.
No information on conflict timber related to Japan found.
http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/governance-forests-initiative
This tool has not yet been applied to Japan.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 54 of 175 –corporate accountability; the death penalty; and reproductive
rightshttps://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-thepacific/japan/report-japan/
World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators - the WGIs
report aggregate and individual governanceindicators for 213 economies, for six dimensions ofgovernance: Voiceand Accountability; Political Stability and Absence of Violence;
Government Effectiveness; Regulatory
Quality; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
Use indicator 'Political stability and Absence of violence'
specific for indicator 2.1
Greenpeace: www.greenpeace.org
Search for 'conflict timber [country]'
CIFOR: http://www.cifor.org/;
http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_
conflict.htm

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports
In 2016 (latest available year) Japan scores on the indicator political stability
and absence of violence 86 on the percentile rank among all countries (ranges
from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest rank) with higher values corresponding to better
outcomes.

Country

Low risk

No information on conflict timber in Japan found.

Country

Low risk

http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm

Country

Low risk“Forests and conflict
Illegal forestry activities and poor governance in tropical forested regions are
two factors which can encourage violent conflict. Widespread violence in turnmakes forestry and conservation policies in forested areas less effective.
The scope of the problem
There are currently violent conflicts in forested regions in Colombia, Côte
D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico,
Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sudan, andUganda.
In the past twenty years there have also been violent conflicts in the forested
regions of Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Guatemala,Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Surinam.
Together these countries account for about 40 percent of the world's tropicalforest and over half of all tropical forest outside Brazil.
Timber incomes have financed violent conflict in Cambodia, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Liberia, Myanmar, Sierre Leone, and other

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 55 of 175 –countries. While Illicit drugs are widespread in the forested regions of Bolivia,
Colombia, Laos, Myanmar, and Peru.”

Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms or in
combination 'conflict timber', 'illegal logging'

Japan not mentioned
http://www.illegal-logging.info/regions/japan“Japan is a heavily forested country, with nearly 70% of its land covered byforests. Primary forests account for about 20% of the total forest cover,naturally regenerated forest areas for 40%, and plantations for the remaining
40%. Between 1990 and 2015, Japan experienced little change in forest cover(FAO, 2015).
https://indicators.chathamhouse.org/explore-the-data/japan“Japan’s imports of timber-sector products at high risk of illegality are
estimated to have declined in recent years. However, levels of high-risk
imports remain significantly above those of the other consumer countries
reviewed, and are currently estimated to comprise 15 per cent of the total. Thisis considered to be due in part to the government’s limited response to the
problem of illegal logging and related trade. Its approach to date has focusedon ‘soft’, voluntary measures rather than establishing legally binding
requirements.
The government has been actively promoting the country’s legality verification
system, known as the Goho-wood system, and this is helping to raiseawareness of the issue of illegal logging in Japan. However, the system is not
only voluntary but has serious design weaknesses which limit its ability toeliminate illegal products from Japan’s market.”
http://www.illegal-logging.info/content/japan%E2%80%99s-links-rainforestdestruction-malaysia-risks-sustainable-2020-tokyo-olympics“As Japan prepares to break ground for the new Olympic Stadium in Tokyo,
evidence gathered by Global Witness shows that timber linked to rainforest
destruction, illegal logging, and human rights abuses can be found on
construction sites across Tokyo. The findings call into question Japan’s ability
to make good on its commitment to host a sustainable 2020 Olympic Games.
Japan is the world’s second largest direct importer of tropical wood, largely inthe form of plywood. Nearly half of Japan’s imported plywood is sourced from
Sarawak, Malaysia, where intensive logging is destroying some of the lasttropical rainforests and threatening the livelihoods of tens of thousands ofindigenous peoples who claim the forest as their own and depend on it for theirlivelihoods.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 56 of 175 –Country

Low risk

This briefing explains the risks in Japan’s timber supply chain and why Japan
must urgently adopt new and effective measures to ensure the timber used forconstruction projects, including new Olympic venues, is legal, sustainable, andfree of human rights abuses.”
http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/current_conflict.php?id_state=116
Japan is not currently engaged in an armed conflict.
From national CW RA FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1.0

“Japan is not designated as supply region of conflict timber by USAID. In
Japan, there is no civil conflict or military conflict therefore there is no evidence
that domestic wood is supplying money to parties involved in those conflicts.”

Conclusion on indicator 2.1:

Country

Low risk

Country

Low riskscale of risk
assessment
Country

risk
indication
Specifiedrisk forforcedAlthough information was found on Japan’s involvement in importing illegally harvested timber, no information on conflict timber in Japan was
found.
The following low risk thresholds apply:(1) The area under assessment is not a source of conflict timber3; AND(2) The country is not covered by a UN security ban on exporting timber; AND(3) The country is not covered by any other international ban on timber export; AND(4) Operators in the area under assessment are not involved in conflict timber supply/trade; AND(5) Other available evidence does not challenge ‘low risk’ designation.
Indicator 2.2. Labour rights are respected including rights as specified in ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at work.
Guidance•
Are the social rights covered by the relevant legislation and enforced in the country or area concerned? (refer to category 1)•
Are rights like freedom of association and collective bargaining upheld?
•
Is there evidence confirming absence of compulsory and/or forced labour?
•
Is there evidence confirming absence of discrimination in respect of employment and/or occupation, and/or gender?
•
Is there evidence confirming absence of child labour?
•
Is the country signatory to the relevant ILO Conventions?
•
Is there evidence that any groups (including women) feel adequately protected related to the rights mentioned above?
•
Are any violations of labour rights limited to specific sectors?
general sources from FSC-PRO-60-002a V1-0 EN

information found and specific sources

Status of ratification of fundamental ILO conventions:
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:0::NO::

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COU
NTRY_ID:102729
Japan has ratified six of the eight ILO Core Conventions. Japan did not ratify:

3 “Conflict timber” limited to include “timber that has been traded at some point in the chain of custody by armed groups, be they rebel factions or regular soldiers, or by a civilian administration

involved in armed conflict or its representatives, either to perpetuate conflict or take advantage of conflict situations for personal gain - conflict timber is not necessarily illegal (see FSC-PRO-60002a).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 57 of 175 –or use: ILO Core Conventions Database:
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm
C29 Forced Labour Convention, 1930
C87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right toOrganise Convention, 1948
C98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,
1949
C100 Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
C105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957
C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958
C138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973
C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999
Ratification as such should be checked under Category 1. In
Cat. 2 we take that outcome into consideration. Refer to it.
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work. Country reports.
http://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm
Source of several reports. Search for 'racial discrimination','child labour', 'forced labour', 'gender equality', ‘freedom of
association’C105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 andC111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---srobangkok/documents/publication/wcms_178415.pdf
Equality and non-discrimination at work in East and South-East Asia – Guide(2011)

labour anddiscriminati
onCountry

Specifiedrisk forgenderdiscriminati
onCountry

Specifiedrisk
discriminati
on ofBurakumin“Evidence of the gender wage gap in Asia According to an OECD study
published in 2010 the gender wage gap in the Republic of Korea was almost
40 per cent and in Japan over 30 per cent – both much higher than the
average 17.6 per cent across OECD membership.” (p. 19)“Available data also point to continuing vertical segregation in Asian labour
markets. In China, including Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam women represent less than
30 per cent of legislators, senior officials and managers. […] In Japan andRepublic of Korea, the figure is particularly low (under 10 per cent).” (p. 25)“Discrimination against women remains pervasive throughout the labour
markets in Asia as they continue to be concentrated in the most vulnerable
categories of atypical and informal employment. For example, in Japan and theRepublic of Korea women continue to be overrepresented in part-time andnon-regular employment, earning much lower wages than full-time and regular
workers, most of whom are men.” (p. 26)“Box 14. Discrimination the basis of social origin – Asia
Burakumin, Japan: The situation of the Burakumin, a Japanese social minority
group, ethnically and linguistically indistinguishable from other Japanesepeople, represents an example of discrimination on the basis of sociooccupational category. The Burakumin face discrimination in Japan because of

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 58 of 175 –an association with work once considered impure, such as butchering animals
or tanning leather. In particular, they often have trouble finding marriage
partners or employment.” (p. 29)“The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has
noted that persons with disabilities continue to face discrimination in
employment, among others, in Cambodia, China and Japan. The underlying
reason leading to difficulties in finding skilled employment is the deep-rooted
inaccurate stereotype that persons with disabilities cannot be productive
members of the society.” (p. 38)
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_154779.pdf
Equality at work: The continuing challenge (2011)

Country

Specifiedrisk
discriminati
on ofpersonswith
disabilities

Country

Specifiedrisk
discriminati
on ofpersonswith
disabilities

Country

Specifiedrisk forgenderdiscriminati
on in labour
market“In Japan, for example, the number of dismissed workers with disabilities
increased on a quarter-to-quarter basis for five consecutive months from
November 2008 to March 2009.” (p. 8)
http://www.ilo.org/gb/GBSessions/GB325/ins/WCMS_420196/lang-en/index.htm“(p.xxii) While women make up less than 40 per cent of total wage
employment, they represent 57 per cent of part-time employees. Many women
work part time as it allows them to combine paid work with domestic and care
responsibilities. In countries such as Argentina, Germany, India, Japan, theNetherlands, Niger and Switzerland, there is more than a 25 percentage point
difference in women’s participation as part time employees when compared tomen.
(p.66) In Japan, recourse to temporary employment and other forms of NSE
began even earlier than in other Asian countries, as firms sought to offset
rising personnel costs for senior employees, following the collapse of the asset
bubble in the 1980s. … By 2015, 37 percent of employees were “non-regular”,
56 with women being disproportionately represented in this employment form.
(p.143) Part-time employment is the most widespread type of NSE foundamong women. In 2014, over 60 per cent of women were in part-time jobs in
the Netherlands and India; over 50 per cent in Zimbabwe and Mozambique;and over 40 per cent in a number of countries including Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mali, Malta, New
Zealand, Niger, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
In nearly all countries of the world, women are also more likely to be found in
part-time work than men. While women make up less than 40 per cent of total

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 59 of 175 –employment, their share of all those working part time is 57 percent. Genderdifferences with respect to part-time work are over 30 percentage points in the
Netherlands and Argentina. There is at least a 25 percentage points differencein Austria, Belgium, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Niger, Pakistan and
Switzerland(p.141)In the majority of countries, young women are more likely to beunderemployed than young men, with particularly striking differences in Egypt,
Madagascar and, to some extent, Japan and Paraguay.
(p.284) Japan has a highly dualistic labour market with a large proportion ofworkers, particularly women, employed in non-standard jobs.

ILO Child Labour Country Dashboard:
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Regionsandcountries/lang-en/index.htm
Global March Against Child Labour:
http://www.globalmarch.org/
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR), Committee on Rights of the Child:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx
ILO Helpdesk for Business on International Labour Standards:
http://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/business-helpdesk/lang-en/index.htm(p.289) In Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, the erosion of
bargaining coverage has continued over a number of decades, in tandem withfalls in trade union membership.
Japan does not feature in the Child Labour Country Dashboard. (As of
November 20, 2016)
No specific information found on child labour in Japan (As of November 20,
2016)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbol
no=CRC%2fC%2fJPN%2fCO%2f3&Lang=en
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations: Japan 20 June2010 (latest available report as of November 20, 2016)
No mentioning of child labour in Japan.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COM
MENT_ID:3076050:NO
Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Japan (Ratification: 1967)“Assessment of the gender pay gap. The Committee notes the statisticalinformation provided by the Government concerning the evolution between
2008 and 2010 of the disparity in hourly scheduled cash earnings between
male and female workers, and concerning the same disparity by industry andby occupational group. The results of the Basic Survey on Wage Structure of2011 show that, as of 2011, the average scheduled cash earnings (regularsalary) of female “general workers” were 70.6 per cent of that of male workers(a pay gap of 29.4 per cent), and that considerable differences remain between
industries and occupational groups (a pay gap of 45.5 per cent in the financeand insurance sector, and a pay gap of 36.3 per cent in the manufacturingsector).”“Part-time work. The Committee notes from the Labour Force Survey in 2010of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication that the rate of part-time

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 60 of 175 –Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Specifiedrisk gender
discriminati
on in labour
marketworkers (those who work less than 35 hours per week) among all the workers
was 26.6 per cent. The rate of male part-time workers was 14.6 per centamong male workers, while it was 43 per cent for female workers. Female
workers constituted 68.3 per cent of all the part-time workers.”
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COM
MENT_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_ID,P11110_COUNTRY_NAME,P11110_COM
MENT_YEAR:3174112,102729,Japan,2014
Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Japan (Ratification: 1967)…as of 1 April 2012, there was a total of 603,582 temporary and part-timeofficials in local governments, of whom 74.2 per cent were women and that job
categories are highly segregated by gender.
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women
http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx(Use the link to ‘Key documents’ on the left hand side. Go to“observations’ and search for country.) (Refer to CW Cat. 1)
Or:
Right top select country click on CEDAW treaty, click on latest
reporting period and select concluding observations

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbol
no=CEDAW%2fC%2fJPN%2fCO%2f7-8&Lang=enConcluding observations of
the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women – Japan 10
March 2016 (latest available report)“(p.11) Employment
34. The Committee welcomes the adoption of the Act on the Promotion of
Women’s Participation and Advancement in the Workplace in 2015, whichseeks to empower women in employment, including non-regular workers,
ethnic and other minorities. However, the Committee remains concerned at:(a)
The widening gender pay gap, which is partly attributable to theinadequate enforcement of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value;(b)
Continued horizontal and vertical segregation in the labour market
and the concentration of women in low-paid sectors of employment, which ispartly attributable to the track-based system of employment;(c)
The continued concentration of women in part-time work owing tofamily responsibilities, which affects their pension benefits and is partly
responsible for post-retirement poverty as well as the persistent reports ofmaternity and child-birth related harassment;(d)
The lack of an adequate prohibition and appropriate sanctions forsexual harassment as well as the fact that the State party has not ratified thecore Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No.
111), of the International Labour Organization (ILO);(e)
The persistence of multiple/intersectional forms of discrimination in
the employment sector with regard to indigenous women, minority and other
women (Buraku, Korean, Okinawa), women with disabilities and migrant
women workers;(f)
The lack of information on the status of women domestic workers in
the State party.
“Reconciliation of family and work life

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 61 of 175 –Country

Specifiedrisk ondiscriminati
on ofwomen inlabourmarket.

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
Child Labour Index 2014 produced by Maplecroft.
http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/10/15/childlabour-risks-increase-china-and-russia-most-progress-shownsouth-america-maplecroft-index/

http://www.verite.org/Commodities/Timber

47. While welcoming the State party’s legislative and policy efforts, such as theCharter for Work-Life Balance, the Action Policy for Promoting Work-Life
Balance and the Strategy to Support Children and Family, as well as othermeasures to improve the reconciliation of family and work life, the Committee
is concerned that domestic and family responsibilities are still primarily borneby women, and that this is reflected in the extremely low rate of men who takeparental leave and by the fact that women interrupt their careers or engage inpart-time jobs to meet family responsibilities.” (p. 10)
No information found that indicates specified risk regarding labour rights inJapan. (As of November 21, 2016)
http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/10/15/child-labour-risksincrease-china-and-russia-most-progress-shown-south-america-maplecroftindex/
Japan scores ‘medium risk’ on the Child Labour Index 2014.
Update data of this index was not available. (November 2016)“According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2010), timber is produced withforced labor in Peru, Brazil and Myanmar (Burma). “Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

Country

Specifiedrisk onmigrant
worker’s
rights(useful, specific on timber)

The ITUC Global Rights Index depicts the world’s worst
countries for workers by rating 139 countries on a scale from
1-5 based on the degree of respect for workers’ rights.
Workers’ rights are absent in countries with the rating 5 andviolations occur on an irregular basis in countries with therating 1.
http://survey.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-RightsIndex.html?lang=en
Amnesty International
https://www.amnesty.org/en/

Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms'violation of labour rights', 'child labour', 'forced labour', 'slave

Japan not mentioned. (Checked on November 20, 2016. Updating of theinformation could not be confirmed as the date is not provided. The information
provided remains the same.)
https://www.ituc-csi.org/ituc-global-rights-index-2016Japan is classified in thescore 2 – Repeated violation of rights.
Countries with a rating 2 have slightly weaker collective labour rights thanthose with the rating 1. Score varies from 1 to 5 from least to most violation ofrights. Certain rights have come under the repeated attack by governments
and/or companies and have undermined the struggle for better working
conditions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/japan/report-japan/
Annual Report Japan 2015/2016
Migrant workers’ rights
The government maintained tight restrictions on immigration and announcedplans to expand further the existing Technical Intern Training Program to bringin more foreign workers. The Program was subject to abuse by employers,
resulting in forced labour, lack of effective oversight or protection for workers,
and other human rights abuses. As of June, some 180,000 foreigners worked
under the Program.
http://www.ituc-csi.org/japan-public-workers-rights-still,8548

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 62 of 175 –labour', 'discrimination', 'gender gap labour', 'violation of labour
union rights' ‘violation of freedom of association and collective
bargaining’“The report finds that the right to organise, collective bargaining and strike arestill not recognised for civil servants and employees in state-run enterprises.
Organising and collective bargaining are further undermined due to theincrease in the number of non-regular workers and fixed-term contract holders– according to the most recent survey, the number of non-regular workers has
now increased to 34.5 per cent of Japanese employees.
The report also finds a considerable gender wage gap. Women’s averagemonthly wage in 2009 was 226,100 yen (2,005 euros), while men earned
333,700 yen (2,960 euros).
Although forced labour is not a widespread problem, there are cases of debt
bondage in Japan’s foreign trainee programme that need to be urgently
investigated. Such debts are run up under contracts between trainees andsending agencies in their home countries. In Japan the trainees have been
subject to exploitation under extremely poor working conditions that can entail
very low wages and long hours.”

Country

Specifiedrisk ondiscriminati
on ofwomen inlabourmarketCountry

Specifiedrisk onmigrant
workers’
rightsCountry

Specifiedrisk ondiscriminati
on ofwomen inlabourmarkethttp://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/gender-gap-still-exists-injapan-in-pay-working-conditions-oecd-report[…]”Even for younger workers in Japan, the gender pay gap is 15%, and it
increases to around 40% for those over 40. Japanese women have great
difficulty to rise to the top and less than 5% of listed company board members
in Japan are women, one of the lowest proportions among OECD countries,
the report says. Difficulties with reconciling work and family commitments help
explain the relatively poor female labor market outcomes in Japan. “World Economic Forum: The Global Gender Gap Index
The Global Gender Gap Index 2015 ranks 145 economies
according to how well they are leveraging their female talentpool, based on economic, educational, health-based andpolitical indicators.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-worst-internship-ever-japans-labor-pains[…] VICE News recently traveled to Japan to investigate the internshipprogram. We found that many interns are underpaid, saddled withinsurmountable debt, and forced into a form of indentured servitude. Many are
illegally placed as oyster shockers, construction workers, and other unskilled
positions. And, despite international condemnation, Japan plans to use
thousands of new foreign interns to build the infrastructure for the 2020
Olympics in Tokyo.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR16/WEF_Global_Gender_Gap_Report_2
016.pdf
Japan ranks 111st among 144 countries with the score 0.660, where 0.00
means inequality and 1.00 means equality. Rank number. 1 means mostequality.
On the indicator Economic Participation and Opportunity Japan ranks 118
among 144 countries with a score of 0.569.
On the more specific indicator wage equality for similar work Japan ranks
number. 58 out of 144 countries with a score of 0.662 (p. 210)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 63 of 175 –Additional general sources
Feedback from FSC Japan on discrimination of women inlabour market“Japan records a significant widening of the gender gap for professional andtechnical workers, adversely affecting its ranking despite further progress in
reducing the gender gap in tertiary education enrolment and women’s
representation among legislators, senior officials and managers, and in
improving wage equality for similar work.”
Additional specific sources
The social and economic status of the Japanese women are improving, but it isstill low compared with many Western countries, as various statistics andreports from international organizations suggest. However, the data andinformation is limited when it comes to forestry. Globally, forestry is a maledominated industry with intense physical labor and considerable danger. Thus
it is not appropriate to conclude there is gender discrimination just by looking at
the number of women working in the industry. It may be also due tooccupational preferences of women. Statistics are not available to show how
many women wish to work in the forestry industry.
In addition to the physical rigor required, the Japanese forestry also has
economic problem. Forestry is a dangerous industry with the rate of labor
related accident 13 times as much as other industries. On the other hand, theaverage income is lower 1.5 million yen (15,000 USD) than the mean income
in all industries combined4. 80% of the forest cooperatives pay the wage daily,
not as monthly salary. When the workers are paid by daily wage, female
workers cannot earn for months at the time of pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing. While the Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of April 7, 1947,
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=5&vm=&re=) providethat employers need to take necessary actions for pregnant and nursing
mothers in terms of work time and content of work, it may be difficult in reality
for small forestry contractors that undertake physical work, or for non-regular
workers that are paid daily. There are also problems of work environment suchas lack of proper toilet in the field. All things combined, it is not a work
environment favorable to women. This is not to say that women are
discriminated. The situation is the same for men and women, But by nature,
women may be more likely to face problem when it comes to pregnancy andtoilet issues. Usually, managers take care for women so that less physicalworks are assigned and more flexible working hours are made possible during
pregnancy. These were confirmed by FSC Japan’s interviews conducted
specifically on this topic in November and December 2014 to 10
organizations/individuals. Selected interviewees include forest managers,
forestry journalists, University Professors, Prefectural governmental office,4 Forestry Agency. “Forestry work at a glance”http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/routai/koyou/pdf/hitome.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 64 of 175 –Country

Low risk fordiscriminati
on ofwomen inforestry
sectorForestry Girls Group (the founder and a member). In each organization, efforts
are made to interview as many women as possible. The founder of theForestry Girls Group is a woman herself and also works as a private forestry
business consultant with clients all over Japan. She provided valuable
opinions which are not personal but represent the situation of the industry. The
low risk designation was agreed by Japan working group during the NRAdevelopment process and no stakeholder questioned the risk designation
during consultations.
According to the 2014 Forestry White Paper5 published by the Forestry
Agency, there were 48,728 women working in the forestry industry in 1965,
comprising of 17% of total forestry labor (282,432 workers). However, forestry
labor kept decreasing with time, and by 2005, the figure has shrunk to 48,618
workers, of which 7,015 were women (14%). The number of workers inforestry has increased to 68,563 in 2010, though the proportion of female
worker kept decreasing to 13.2%. In the past, women often took lightsilvicultural work such as planting, raising seedlings, weeding. However, as the
population declined in rural villages and large area of plantations that were
established after the World War II gets mature, the demand for such lightsilvicultural work has declined. At the same time, as different types of works
became available in the rural area, the job opportunity for women became nolonger limited to agriculture and forestry. Either case, the reasons are notrelated to gender discrimination.
Still, with the tide of gender equality, women are encouraged to advance toevery aspects of the society, and more and more women enter the forestry
industry. Many of such stories are available in forestry related journals andonline articles in the internet. "The Society of Forestry Girls", a nation-wide
network of women who are interested in forestry has been established, and its
branches are active all over Japan. It is said that introduction of highperformance forestry machineries has removed the barrier of gender fromphysical strength67.
As the data and statistics on gender issues in forestry is limited, we needed todepend on interviews and direct consultations to investigate this issue. We
have interviewed members of the Society of Forestry Girls, forestry journalists,and forestry professors who often provide recruitment support to students. In
general, most of the times, people stated that they do not feel gender
discrimination. In fact, discrimination rarely become apparent as specifying

5 2014 Forestry White Paper: www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/26hakusyo/index.html
6 “’Forestry Girls’ change the forests?” Construction Knowledge Builders no.19 winter 2014. P. 114-115
7 “Mechanization and female operators”. Mechanization Forestry. 1996. 516: 15-16

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 65 of 175 –gender for recruitment is prohibited by the law. Still, there were some stories
indicating that there still may be preference for women in the forestry labormarket. We did not hear any information related to discrimination of treatment
once employed.
We did not hear any specific story suggesting gender discrimination intreatment. However, it is difficult to compare wages as the amount often
depends on the form of employment and payment. In the case of field workers,
most of them are paid daily, often by the volume system. As a result, it ispossible that women get lower wage due to inferior physical strength. Yet by
far the majority of women in the forestry industry take clerical positions, andtheir earning cannot be simply compared with that of men who more frequently
engage in the field work. One study that compared earning of male and female
workers in forest owners cooperatives in Kyushu concluded that there is still
disparity of wage between men and women, though it was shrinking8.
Regarding sexual harassment, we cannot deny its existence, but theinterviewed women tended to consider sexual jokes as part of communicationin the warm, easygoing atmosphere of the rural area. Most women replied thatthey did not know anyone who take it seriously. Some women told that theirmale colleagues are very mindful about their use of bathroom and shower, andwith regards to their relative physical weakness.
In investigating this issue, we could not find concrete evidence to support that
there is no gender discrimination in Japanese forestry workplace. On the other
hand, the number of female workers are still limited in most forest management
enterprises, and there were some stories suggesting opportunities for women
is rather limited compared with men at the time of recruitment. At the sametime, however, the general opinion of women engaged in forestry were thatthey had not really felt discrimination at workplace. If the gender equality canbe only proven by equal participation in any work in of the forestry industry, it isclearly not met. However, it cannot be concluded so easily, considering
women’s occupational preferences and suitability to work type. Prejudiceagainst women are steadily disappearing, and it is premature to conclude that
there is specified risk about gender equality simply by looking at the statisticsof the entire labor market in Japan.” Considering that forestry industry is, inanywhere in the world, dominated by male workers, and the fact interviewed
women themselves did not feel any discrimination against them, together withgeneral care to women by managers, the risk of women being discriminated islow.

8 Shigeru Iida. 2005. Gender disparity in forestry wage. Journal of Kyushu University.86:121-132

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 66 of 175 –Additional information from FSC Japan on discrimination of
Burakumin in labor market“It is written that the Burakumin (people of Buraku) face discrimination in Japanbecause of an association with work once considered impure, such as
butchering animals or tanning leather. This is not exactly correct from historicalperspective. There are various theories on origin of Burakumin, but they aredescendants of people who belonged to the bottom class called “Eta” and“Hinin” in the rigid feudalistic social hierarchy during Edo era (1603-1868). The
social hierarchical system was enforced throughout Edo Era, and people
inherited the social class from one generation to the next, though it waspossible that people in the higher class drop to the bottom due to crimecommitted. Because of their caste, Eta and Hinin were only given such jobs asprocessing of dead animals and tanning leather, which people considered
impure and avoided. Even after this caste system was officially abolished with
Meiji Restoration in late 19th century, the discrimination against the groupremained, and many Burakumins earned their living by leather processing withthe skills passed down from their ancestors.
However, this issue has been weathering, and today many people are barely
aware of the issue. Many Burakumins have moved to urban cities and live
among people of various backgrounds. In cities, origin of people rarely
becomes an issue. Burakumins do not look any different from other people,
therefore once they move to other areas, it becomes almost impossible to telltheir origin.
During the consultation to people in the forestry to investigate the issue, there
was a comment that the culture of discrimination is also fading away as it has
become difficult to maintain even the existence of rural villages as
depopulation continues in rural areas. For example, there was once a festival
which only the people in the upper class from the old caste system could
participate. But it was made open to everyone as the population of this village
has fallen down as to make it difficult even to keep the tradition.
Not many people in younger generation would be aware that this problem isstill existent. While it may vary with schools, the opportunity to learn
discrimination against Burakumin at school is limited. In particular, a few
young people in urban cities would be aware of this issue as an ongoing issueeven if they know history of the issue.
According to the results of the public opinion survey published by Tokyo
Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs in April 20149,
the most common answer to a question about discrimination against
Burakumin was “I don’t know about the issue”, 19.2%. 18.4% of people

9 http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/CHOUSA/2014/04/DATA/60o48100.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 67 of 175 –Country

Low risk fordiscriminati
on ofBurakuminin forestry
sectoranswered that they have heard it from TV, radio, newspaper and books; 17.7%
answered that they have learned it in schools; 15.4 % answered that they haveheard about it from their parent. This result showed that discrimination is notnecessarily passed down from parents to children.
To the question “Do you think the rights of Burakumin are respected?” in thesame survey, the most common answer was they do not know (41%),suggesting that not many people are familiar with the issue. 32.3 % answeredthat the rights are respected or respected to a certain degree. 26.2%
answered that the rights are not respected or not very much respected. The
survey also listed 20 different human right issues and asked about peoples’interest on them. Among different human rights issues, Burakumin issue
showed the third lowest interest, after Ainu issue and discrimination against
Hansen's disease sufferers.
It is said that Burakumin issue comes to the surface at the time of marriage.
To the question “how they would react when their child wants to marry to aperson from discriminated Buraku” in the survey. 46.5% answered that theywould leave the decision to the child; it is not the business of parents, while
only 4.3% said that they would not allow the marriage. To the question “Whatwould you do if your parents are against your marriage to a person fromdiscriminated Buraku?”, 56.5% answered that they would not listen to theirparents and marry him/her, or they would try their best to persuade theirparents and then realize the marriage; while 15.4% answered that they would
give up the marriage or they would give up if their parents object. We cannot
say that discrimination against Burakumin has disappeared completely, but thesurvey results clearly show that the majority of people do not care or object thediscrimination. While it is not easy to compare the degree of discrimination
occurring in other countries, we do not consider the issue is as serious as
many discriminations due to origin or social class in many countries.
According to the statistics of Legal Affairs Bureau10, amongst all human rights
issues consulted in 2013, 386 were about Burakumin issue. This number islower than those for discrimination against women, elders, people withdisabilities and foreigners. The data show that there was almost no such casein Hokkaido and Tohoku (Northeast) area whereas people still consult theauthority regarding the issue in Kinki, Chugoku and Shikoku area.
In terms of legislative measures, in 1969, Unity Measure Operations Special
Act was established with active period of 10 years to implement projects toimprove the infrastructure of discriminated Buraku area and to eliminate thediscrimination. After numbers of extension and revision to the law, it was notrenewed after expiration in 2002, with perceived disappearance of the

10 http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000024991720

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 68 of 175 –discrimination. With the expiration of the law, the measures for Burakumin by
the national government have officially ended.
We have carried out consultation to various people from different backgroundto find out how this issue relates to forestry. In short, the general reaction wasthat they have not even considered or heard of the issue in forestry, though theissue may remain in some parts of the society. Even a forestry journalist who
had been in the forestry industry for 30 years did not know any case where
Burakumin issue was brought up.
Article 3 of the Labor Standards Act prohibits discrimination based onnationality, belief and social class. Our consultation confirmed high awarenessamong people involved in employment that they should not do anything which
may lead to discrimination such as specifying gender at the time of recruitment
or investigating the origin of applicants. Certification bodies also replied thatthey have never heard of anything related to Burakumin discrimination in theforestry industry. In general, people showed high awareness that there should
not be any discrimination, not limited to the issue of Burakumin.
Some people seemed to consider that Burakumin issue should not be evenmentioned. Thus they would not reveal the place of discriminated Buraku even
if they know, and they would not tell it to people from outside. With suchtendency, it is possible that the knowledge about discriminated Buraku area islimited to older generation, and younger generation often do not know about it.
However, as the issue is fading away, there are no objective data to support
disappearance of the discrimination.

Additional information from FSC Japan on discrimination of
persons with disabilities in the labour market

Although it is not possible to say that the issue has disappeared completely inrural areas, we consider the risk is low throughout Japan.”
Definition of people with disability varies among countries, and theiremployment rate cannot be easily compared for this reason. According to thestudy of Kudo (2008)11, average percentage of people with disabilities in thewhole working population (20-64 years old) among 20 member countries ofOECD was 14%. When only 15 EU countries are considered, the occurrence
rate was 16.4% among the population of working age (16-64 years old). Japanapplies rather narrower definition for people with disabilities; the population ofpeople with disabilities is about 3.6 million, comprising 4% of the total
population at working age (18-64 years old) of 80.27 million people. As such,
Kudo proposed that when comparing the data about people with disabilities ofCountry

Low risk fordiscriminati
on against
personswith
disabilities
in theforestry
sector11 Dadashi Kudoh (2008) "Employment status of people with disabilities and challenges" The monthly journal of the Japan Institute of Labour. No.578. p.1-13. 2008.09

http://www.jil.go.jp/institute/zassi/backnumber/2008/09/pdf/004-016.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 69 of 175 –Japan with that of other countries, it is more reasonable to compare it with thedata about people with severe disabilities.
In 2006, employment rate of people with disabilities in Japan was 40.3%12.
This is similar to the average employment rate of people with disabilities
among 19 member countries of OECD in late 1990s, 40.8%. On the other
hand, in late 1990s, the average employment rate of people with severe
disabilities among 14 member countries of OECD (that had available data) was
24.5%13. This shows Japan had much higher employment rate of people withsevere disabilities.
As a legislative measure, the Japanese government enacted Act on
Employment Promotion etc. of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 123 of 1960)
in 1960. With this law, companies were mandated to employ people withdisabilities at a certain rate. Currently the rate is 2.0%. When a company does
not meet the rate, the company has to pay 50,000 yen (about 500 USD) per
one person with disabilities in short as a penalty.
However, the law specifies exclusion rate for industries that would be difficult to
employ people with disabilities. The exclusion rate is applied to the calculationof required number of people with disabilities to be recruited to lighten therequirement. The exclusion rate for forestry was lowered from 45% to 35% in201014. With the regular rate of 2.0%, a company with 50 or more employees
need to employ at least one person with disabilities. In the case of forestry,
however, with the exclusion rate of 35%, companies with 77 or more
employees will need to hire at least one person with disabilities.
Now let’s look at the typical size of organizations in the forestry industry inJapan. According to Census of Agriculture and Forestry 201515, out of 87,284
forestry organizations in Japan, 78,080(89.55%) are family managed. Average
size of such organizations are quite small; only 8,524 organizations, whichconstitute 9.8% of the all organizations in the industry employ workers. In
2015, the number of forestry workers in employment were 63,824, of whichpermanent workers were 32,726 and 31,108 were in part-time. This means that

12 OECD (2003) Transforming Disability into Ability: Policies to Promote Work and Income Security for Disabled People
13 OECD (2003) Transforming Disability into Ability: Policies to Promote Work and Income Security for Disabled People
14

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/koyou/shougaisha/04.html

15 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. Agriculture and Forestry Census 2010. World Census of Agriculture and Forestry Definite Report vol.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery

Management Survey Report - Summary Edition -FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 70 of 175 –organizations that employ workers employ 7.49 works on average, while theaverage of workers per organization in the whole industry is 0.73.
Forestry Cooperatives play the central role in Japanese forestry; they carry out
more than 50% of all Japanese plantation, weeding and thinning work in termsof area size16. Yet the average number of permanent staff of a forestry
cooperative paid by monthly salary is 11.917. When the number of workers
paid by daily wage or performance based wages is added, the average
becomes 31.2. This shows that very few forestry organization have 77 or more
employees.
However, this should not be interpreted that people with disabilities are not
employed in forestry. According to the press release of the Ministry of Health,Labour and Welfare published in November 201518, the actual employment
rate of people with disabilities among all private companies in Japan has been
increasing for 13 years consecutively, and reached 1.88%, with 47.2% of thecompany achieving the legally required rate. The employment rate of people
with disabilities in the industry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries combined
was 2.19%, which was the highest among all industries. While we could not
find data specific to forestry industry, there was no evidence that employment
rate of people with disabilities in forestry industry is lower than other industries.
According to the report from the Section of Employment Measures for Persons
with Disabilities, Employment Security Bureau, Ministry of Labor and Welfare
published in November 201519, the number of people with disabilities employedhas been increasing for the 13 consecutive years since 2002 and the actual
employment rate has reached 1.88%, though it has still not reached the
mandatory rate. 47.2% of companies has achieved the mandatory
employment rate of people with disabilities. It has been reported that thesituation around people with mental disabilities has improved significantly andon the whole the employment situation of people with disabilities has been
improving.
During the consultation conducted by FSC Japan, there were some opinions
that it would be difficult to accept people with disabilities for dangerous field

16 2013 Forest and Forestry White Paper Part I Chapter IV
172012 Forestry Association Statistics. Summary Table (Fiscal year 2011 and 2012) Employed worker relations. 4-2 Number of employees by wage payment system. http://www.e-

stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000027248656
18

the press release of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare published in November 2015: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/0000105446.html

19

Result of employment statistics of the disabled in 2016.
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-Houdouhappyou-11704000-Shokugyouanteikyokukoureishougaikoyoutaisakubu-shougaishakoyoutaisakuka/0000106111.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 71 of 175 –work of forestry. On the other hand, some people commented stated that they
have seen people with disabilities working for a forestry company.

Additional information on the rights of foreign workers in thelabour market

From national CW RA FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1.0

Considering all the information mentioned above, the risk of discrimination
against people with disabilities is considered low throughout Japan.
http://www.jitco.or.jp/system/shokushu-hanni.html
Japan's Internship Training Program for Foreign Workers, which has been
exploited to supplement the labour shortage in Japan, is open for 74
professions and 133 kind of works, which do not include forestry as of April
2016. As such, the risk concerning the rights of foreign workers is low inforestry.
“About the infringement of the ILO fundamental principles for labors (except for
Clause 105 and Clause 111 which are unratified by Japan), we did not find thefact through ILO online database that violations of the right in forest areas inJapan had occurred.
Especially about the Child Labor, the child labor for ”Business of cultivation ofland, planting, growing, harvesting or cutting of plants, or other agro forestry
business.” is prohibited by the Labor Standards Act.
Clause 105 (Abolition of Forced Labor Convention) is not ratified because
public workers are not allowed to have rights of dispute including strike by
National Civil Service Law and Local Public Service Law. This is because any
breach to these laws will end up imprisonment where they need to render aservice which can be seen as forced labor. However, in the public forests,
Forestry operation is outsourced to private contractors. These private
contractors’ rights of dispute is ensured by Labor Standards Act. Hence there
is practical no forced labor in forestry industry.
Clause 111 (Discrimination (Employment and Occupation Convention) is
another one which is not ratified. However, according to the Labor Standards
Act, not discriminations of gender, nationality, faith and social status areallowed. Especially for gender equality, Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal
Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment (Act No.
113 of July 1, 1972) is in place to strengthen the gender equality. For Persons
with Disabilities, Act on Employment Promotion etc. of Persons with Disabilities
is in place.
Nikkei telecom service was used to search for any articles about breachagainst ILO non-ratified clauses in forest management and forestry. Articles
were searched from 5 major national newspapers, 48 local newspapers and 5
industrial newspapers for the period of Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2012. No article
about the breach was found.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 72 of 175 –Country

Low risk

Country

Low risk

For these reasons, there is no fact that ILO fundamental conventions areentrenched in domestic forest practice. However we continue to keep an eye
on the situations regarding non ratified conventions.”
Conclusion on Indicator 2.2:•
Not all social rights are covered by the relevant legislation and enforced in Japan. The right to organise, collective bargaining and strike
are still not recognised for civil servants and employees in state-run enterprises. However, in the public forests, Forestry operation is outsourced
to private contractors. These private contractors’ rights of dispute is ensured by Labor Standards Act. Hence there is practical no forced labor inforestry industry. According to the Labor Standards Act, not discriminations of gender, nationality, faith and social status are allowed. Especiallyfor gender equality, Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment is in place tostrengthen the gender equality. For Persons with Disabilities, Act on Employment Promotion etc. of Persons with Disabilities is in place.
Nevertheless, several international sources indicate that Japan has a very high gender wage gap, that persons with disabilities continue to facediscrimination in employment and that the Burakumin face discrimination in general in Japan, but in particular, they often have trouble finding
employment. However, the additional information provided by FSC Japan indicates strongly that these risks can be considered low in the forestry
sector in Japan.
(refer to category 1)•
Rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining are not upheld in the public sector, but this does not affect the forestry
sector. (see also previous point)•
There is no evidence confirming compulsory and/or forced labour in the agricultural sector (which includes forestry).
•
There is evidence confirming discrimination in respect of employment and/or occupation, and/or gender, but this is considered a low
risk in the forestry sector based on additional information provided by FSC Japan. (See also first point).
•
There is no evidence confirming child labour in the agricultural sector (which includes forestry). There have been reports about violationof foreign workers’ rights from the Japan's Internship Training Program for Foreign Workers, but the program is not open for forestry yet.
•
The country is signatory to 6 fundamental ILO Conventions. Japan did not ratify: C105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957
because public workers are not allowed to have rights of dispute including strike by National Civil Service Law and Local Public Service Law.
This does not affect the forestry sector (See also first point). Japan did also not ratify C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958. Although there is legislation to prevent discrimination in reality women, persons with disabilities and Burakumin facediscrimination in the labour market, but this is considered a low risk in the forestry sector based on additional information provided by FSC
Japan.
•
There is some evidence that any groups (in particular women, persons with disabilities and Burakumin) do not feel adequately
protected related to the right to equal opportunity and payment in the labour market, but this is considered a low risk in the forestry sector basedon additional information provided by FSC Japan..
•Violations of labour rights are not limited to specific sectors, but are most widely reported in the public sector. No incidents of violations
were found in the forestry sector.
The following low risk thresholds apply, based on the evidence:(11) Applicable legislation for the area under assessment does not cover all key provisions of ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at work butother regulations and/or evidence of their implementation exist. Reports do not lead to conclusions of systematic violations of rights. When labourlaws are broken, cases are efficiently followed up via preventive actions taken by the authorities and/or by the relevant entities.
AND(12) Other available evidence do not challenge ‘low risk’ designation.
Indicator 2.3. The rights of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples are upheld.
Guidance:•
Are there Indigenous Peoples (IP), and/or Traditional Peoples (TP) present in the area under assessment?

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 73 of 175 –Country

Low risk

•
•
•
•
•
•

Are the regulations included in the ILO Convention 169 and is UNDRIP enforced in the area concerned? (refer to category 1)
Is there evidence of violations of legal and customary rights of IP/TP?
Are there any conflicts of substantial magnitude [footnote 6] pertaining to the rights of Indigenous and/or Traditional Peoples and/or local communities with traditionalrights?
Are there any recognized laws and/or regulations and/or processes in place to resolve conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining to TP or IP rights and/or
communities with traditional rights?
What evidence can demonstrate the enforcement of the laws and regulations identified above? (refer to category 1)
Is the conflict resolution broadly accepted by affected stakeholders as being fair and equitable?

general sources from FSC-PRO-60-002a V1-0 EN

information found and specific sources

ILO Core Conventions Database
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm- ILO Convention 169
Survival International: http://www.survivalinternational.org/

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11200:0::NO:11200:P11200_COU
NTRY_ID:102729
Japan did not ratify Convention 169. Therefore this source does not provide
information on its implementation by Japan.
No information found that indicates specified risk.

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
Amnesty International http://amnesty.org

Minority Rights

http://minorityrights.org

scale of risk
assessment
Country

risk
indication
Specifiedrisk on ILO
169

Country

Low risk

No information found that indicates specified risk.

Country

Low risk

http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA22/007/2012/en/5eb739de-6137-40268604-8fbc9932dfe7/asa220072012en.pdf
Human rights concerns in Japan (2012)“Ethnic and other minority groups in Japanese society, including Ainu,
Burakumin and Okinawans, continue to face discrimination.” (p. 6)

Hokkaido
andOkinawanSpecifiedrisk ondiscriminati
on of IPs

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk ondiscriminati
on against
Ainu women

No new information is found as of November 2016
http://minorityrights.org/publications/state-of-the-worlds-minorities-andindigenous-peoples-2016/
State of the Worlds Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2016
Challenging exclusion through cultural traditions: the struggle of Ainu feminists
to end multiple discrimination in Japan (2016)(p.159-160) For centuries Japan’s marginalized Ainu population, historically
based in the north of the country and in particular the island of Hokkaido, havesuffered forced assimilation and the repression of their unique way of life. Only
recently have there been signs of a more positive attitude from authorities,
including the formal recognition in 2008 of the community as indigenous.
[….]At a national level, too, understanding of Ainu’s history of discriminationand their situation today remains limited. In a series of textbooks approved in2015, for example, references to the violent expropriation of Ainu land during
the Meiji Period (1868–1912) were revised to imply the government had
actually made efforts to protect Ainu.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 74 of 175 –The Indigenous World http://www.iwgia.org/regions

Some Ainu rights defenders and scholars have also noted with concern thatthe localization of Ainu culture creates an inaccurate and essentialist notion of
Ainu identity inextricably connected to Hokkaido, although the territory of Ainu
Mosir, the Ainu name for their homeland, has never been clearly delineated.
This has resulted in the alienation of Ainu living outside of Hokkaido […][…] One area where Ainu efforts to achieve emancipation have challenged
traditional prejudices and inspired cultural revival most starkly is throughindigenous feminism, which has developed in distinct ways to mainstream
Japanese feminism. Ainu feminists have accused Japanese feminists ofdisregarding the intersectional dimensions of race, class or ethnicity in theircampaigning, while also challenging mainstream Ainu rights activism forprivileging Ainu ethnic rights defense more broadly over gender empowerment
issues. […] In Ainu culture, gendered spheres of labour have not necessarily
been considered ‘gender discrimination’ because they were treated as part of aunique spiritual engagement between women and the natural world, whichconstituted an integral component of Ainu culture and feminine identity. Unlike
mainstream Japanese feminism, which seeks to liberate Japanese womenfrom traditional gendered spheres of production, Ainu feminism has embraced
gendered cultural performances as empowerment.
http://www.iwgia.org/images/stories/sections/regions/asia/documents/IW2014/J
apanIW2014.pdf
IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2014 JAPAN“The two indigenous peoples of Japan, the Ainu and the Okinawans, live on
the northernmost and southernmost islands of the country’s archipelago.

Hokkaido
andOkinawanIPs
presence

Okinawa

Specifiedrisk for lackof
recognitionof
Okinawans
as IP

AINU
The Ainu territory stretches from Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands (now both
Russian territories) to the northern part of present-day Japan, including theentire island of Hokkaido. Hokkaido was unilaterally incorporated into theJapanese state in 1869. Although most Ainu still live in Hokkaido, over thesecond half of the 20th century, tens of thousands migrated to Japan’s urban
centers for work and to escape the more prevalent discrimination on Hokkaido.
Since June 2008, the Ainu have been officially recognized as an indigenous
people of Japan. As of 2006, the Ainu population was 23,782 in Hokkaido androughly 5,000 in the greater Kanto region.
RyukyuOkinawans, or Ryūkyūans, live in the Ryūkyūs Islands, which make up Japan’s
present-day Okinawa prefecture. They comprise several indigenous language
groups with distinct cultural traits. Although there has been some migration of
ethnic Japanese to the islands, the population is largely indigenous
Ryūkyūans. Japan forcibly annexed the Ryūkyūs in 1879 but later relinquishedthe islands to the US in exchange for its own independence after World War
Two. In 1972, the islands were reincorporated into the Japanese state and

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 75 of 175 –Okinawans became Japanese citizens although the US military remained.
Today 75% of US forces in Japan are in Okinawa prefecture, which constitutes
only 0.6% of Japan’s territory. 50,000 US military personnel, their dependents
and civilian contractors occupy 34 military installations on Okinawa Island, thelargest and most populated of the archipelago. The island is home to 1.1
million of the 1.4 million people living throughout the Ryūkyūs. Socioeconomically, Okinawa remains Japan’s poorest prefecture, with income levels
roughly 70% of the national average and unemployment at double the national
average.
The Japanese government has adopted the UNDRIP (although it does notrecognize the unconditional right to self-determination). It has ratified CERD,
CEDAW and the CRC. It has not ratified ILO Convention
169.” (p. 232)
“Indeed, one of the main issues of contention for many Ainu continues to be
the slow progress and resistance on the part of universities to the return ofancestral remains stolen from burial sites under the guise of research, despite
repeated efforts by Ainu representatives stating the matter’s urgency and highpriority.” (p. 235)

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk culturalrights Ainu

“The presence of US military forces remains the central source of Okinawans
most pressing problems.” (p. 235)

Okinawa

Specifiedrisk
militarizationOkinawans

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk on hatespeechagainst Ainu

http://www.iwgia.org/images/stories/sections/regions/asia/documents/IW2016/J
apan2016.pdf
The Ainu and Japan’s hate speech problem
Although hate speech continues to be an issue of concern for the Ainu, 2015
saw some positive developments. In response to the Twitter post in September
2014 by a member of the Sapporo City Assembly in Hokkaido claiming that
“Ainu no longer exist”, scholars and activists published an anthology in
February 2015 challenging the growth of Ainu minzoku hitei-ron (the “discourseof Ainu people’s non-existence”). With the mobilization of greater awarenessand opposition to hate speech, the Sapporo City Assembly member in question
was unable to win re-election to his seat in the April 2015 municipal elections.
Meanwhile, a member of the Hokkaido Prefectural Assembly who had also
made controversial statements regarding the Ainu declined to run for reelection. The fact that these two politicians who had attacked the Ainu were nolonger in political office was seen as a major victory by many activists. (p.233234)
Historical revisionism
Not only did the government fail to take a step forward on the hate speechissue, it took a step backward in terms of recognizing historical wrongs
committed against the Ainu. In April 2015, the Ministry of Education, Culture,

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 76 of 175 –United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples
http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/ipeoples/srindigenouspeoples/
pages/sripeoplesindex.aspx

UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentatio
n.aspxSports, Science and Technology announced the results of its screening
process of middle school textbooks approved for use in 2016. One of these
history textbooks revised a passage on the Hokkaido Former Aborigines
Protection Act, a discriminatory law enacted in 1899 to force the Ainu toassimilate.
Responding to government comments during the screening process, thepublisher revised the passage from “the government... confiscated land fromthe Ainu” to “the government... gave land to the Ainu.” This revision was
criticized by Ainu activists, as well as by academics and the media, as a
distortion and whitewashing of history. The Hokkaido Ainu Association has
requested that the publisher and the ministry ensure that proper Ainu history istaught, and has contacted the local educational boards to urge them to select a
textbook publisher that has “fair and just” passages on the Ainu and humanrights. Thus far, the government’s position is that, with the revision, “defects inthe passage have been resolved” (p.234-235)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session24/Docume
nts/A-HRC-24-41-Add3_en.pdf
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples, James Anaya Addendum Consultation on the situation of indigenous
peoples in Asia, 2013 (Latest as of November 2016)“The groups in Asia that fall within the international rubric of “indigenous
peoples” include groups such as those referred to as “tribal peoples”, “hilltribes”, “scheduled tribes” or “adivasis”. The international concern for
indigenous peoples, as manifested most prominently by the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples extends to those groups thatare indigenous to the countries in which they live and have distinct identities
and ways of life, and that face very particularized human rights issues related
to histories of various forms of oppression, such as dispossession of theirlands and natural resources and denial of cultural expression. Within the Asian
region, the distribution and diversity of such groups varies by country, as does
the terminology used to identify them and legal recognition accorded to them.
These groups, some of which span State boarders, include, among others, the:[…] (e) Ainu of Japan, officially referred to as indigenous peoples, and the
Ryukyuans or Okinawans, who have sought similar recognition as indigenous
peoples;” (p. 5)
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/155/80/PDF/G1215580.pdf?OpenElementsummary of 30 stakeholders’ submissions to the universal periodic review“79. JS11 indicated that the living standards of Ainu people were far below
than those of the general population. Ainu women were subject to multiple
forms of discrimination and there was no legal means or recourse to improvetheir situation.” (p. 10)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 77 of 175 –Hokkaido
andOkinawanSpecifiedrisk forrecognitionof
Okinawans
as IPs-Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk
discriminati
on of Ainu
women

UN Human Rights Committee
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.
aspx
search for country
Also check: UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/CERDIndex.
aspx

http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/187/52/PDF/G1218752.pdf?OpenElement
No conclusions or recommendations on indigenous peoples. (December 2012)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CC
PR_CSS_JPN_17358_E.pdf
Rights of Persons Belonging to MinoritiesThe Issue of Ryukyu and Okinawa
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICCPR (2014)“The Ryukyu Kingdom, an independent state of the indigenous peoples of the
Ryukyus, was forcibly annexed by the government of Japan in 1879 as one ofits prefectures named “Okinawa”, in contravention of Article 51 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. Since then various policies and practices ofcolonisation, discrimination and assimilation have been imposed upon theindigenous peoples of the Ryukyus by the government of Japan, while peoplesof the Ryukyus were excluded from participating in Japanese policy making
process through election until 1919. A series of land reform were also carriedout by Japan, denying the traditional form of communal land ownership of theindigenous peoples in the Ryukyus, known as Somayama, and converting theirland into state owned property. It disintegrated the traditional economies, whichwere based upon the traditional land ownership system. To assimilate
indigenous peoples of the Ryukyus into Japanese cultural norms, governmentof Japan prohibited the use of their indigenous languages in schools and many
traditional cultural practices such as washing bones of the dead (senkotsu),
tattoo for women (hajichi), and Ryukyuan hairstyle for men (katakashira).
During World War II and the subsequent US military occupation, large tracts of
the land of indigenous peoples in the Ryukyus were seized by the governmentof the United States, in contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention and theHague Regulations Relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (widely
known as the 1907 Hague Regulations). This land was used to construct the
US military bases and facilities. The government of Japan neglected the illegal
expropriation of land and construction of bases without any protest.
Furthermore after the 1972 reversion, the government of Japan constructed its
own military facilities as well. The presence of the US military in the Ryukyus /Okinawa, including the land occupied by the military bases and facilities, theirmilitary activities as well as behavior of military personnel, are creating various
human rights issues and risks in the life of the peoples in the
Ryukyus / Okinawa. Those human rights problems affecting the indigenous
peoples in the Ryukyus e.g. emerging from colonization and militarisation,
crimes of UN military personnel and lack of justice and remedies to the victims,
sexual assaults, land issues, violation of the right to education, environmental
and health issues are also documented in different NGO reports submitted to
relevant UN bodies.
Today, Okinawa is the southernmost prefecture of Japan, consisting of 160
islands with Okinawa Island being the largest. The population of Okinawa

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 78 of 175 –Okinawa

Specifiedrisk on land
rightsOkinawanprefecture is 1.4 million and the vast majority of the population are theindigenous peoples of the Ryukyus, while there are also a certain number ofJapanese (Yamato Japanese), who have migrated to Okinawa. There are
more than 50 communities of the indigenous peoples in the Ryukyus i.e.
Okinawa prefecture 3 having various and strong communal identity and own
local languages/dialects. Despite these uniqueness and distinctness of theindigenous peoples in the Ryukyus, the government of Japan has been failingto give due recognition to their existence, while concerns were expressed byseveral UN Treaty Bodies over the lack of proper recognition of the indigenous
peoples of the Ryukyus and protection of their rights.” (p. 2-3)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CC
PR_CSS_JPN_17361_E.pdf
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICCPR (2014)“1. The government does not recognize the rights of the Ainu people as an
indigenous people. Consequently Ainu people have faced very difficult
situations.
2. There are no governmental policies or measures in Japan to guarantee therights of indigenous peoples as prescribed in the international law system.
3. Schools do not teach the Japan’s unjust and unlawful historical control over
the Ainu people. Consequently, the government has made no apology andreparation and has not even recognized the right to land of the Ainu people.
1. Japanese Government argues that the UNDRIP has no clause on thedefinition of indigenous peoples nor is there a definition within the Japanese
legal system, and has not recognized any individual or collective rights of the
Ainu people. Only the development and promotion of Ainu culture is legally
recognized under the 1997 Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture, andDissemination and Enlightenment of Knowledge about Ainu Tradition, etc.
(Act No. 52 of May 14, 1997), that largely conflicts with the framework of the“Measures Relating to the Improvement of Living of the Hokkaido Ainu” of the
Hokkaido Prefectural Government. At least, these measures of Hokkaido
recognize the support/aid to individual Ainu in the fields of education, healthand economy, albeit insufficiently. Naturally, these measures are local welfare
programs for the socially vulnerable and are limited in its geographical scope to
the Hokkaido region, despite the fact that Ainu people live in many otherregions in the country. These measures are not measures specifically for the
Ainu as an ethnic group, and do not recognize the rights of the Ainu as an
indigenous people. […]2. In 2009, the government has set up the “Ainu Policy Promotion Council”
which functions to promote a comprehensive and effective Ainu policy chairedby the Chief Cabinet Secretary. Nevertheless, it has not implemented any“comprehensive and effective” measure. For instance, the Council consists of

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 79 of 175 –Okinawa

Specifiedrisk
recognitionof
Okinawanas IPsHokkaido

Specifiedrisk forrights ofAinu

14 members, of which only four are Ainu. It is only convened once a year, andit has so far met only four times for the past five years since its formation. Also,
it has not taken any measures to address the problems in the fields ofeducation, employment, housing, daily living, health and economy, which the
Ainu people have kept calling for. In addition, the Council has never made any
discussion regarding the guarantee of their rights. What it has discussed anddecided on in its working groups are; the designing and construction of the so called “Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony” where visitors will learn the Ainu
culture, and the proposal to include a scholarship program for the Ainu children
into the scheme of the Japan Student Services Organization. The Ainu Culture
Promotion Act is exclusively for the promotion of Ainu culture, and not for the
Ainu people themselves. Subsidies provided to the implementing body of theAct, namely “Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture”, havebeen reduced from 360 million yen per annum in 1997 to 250 million in 2013.
Furthermore, the subsidies that the national government has given to the
Hokkaido autonomous government under the title of “measures concerning theimprovement of living of the Hokkaido Ainu” have been cut to 1.4 billion yen in2013 from about 3.4 billion in 1998. These setbacks indeed contradict the factthat in 2008 the Diet adopted the resolution on “Request to recognize the Ainu
as indigenous peoples” which clearly stated that “the government shallcontinuously help the Hokkaido local government implement its measures for
the Ainu, and make efforts to secure related budgets necessary for its smoothpromotion.” It is also due to the fact that the Ainu people do not have the rightto build their own financial basis.
3. Today, the existence of the Ainu people is mentioned in the school
education of Japan. Nevertheless, it has never taught the colonial domination
over the Ainu people that the government of modern state Japan has done
since 1869 when it started the “Hokkaido development.” Among others, theJapanese population do not learn that the one fourth of the Japanese territory
is from the arbitrary confiscation of the Ainu’s traditional land (Ainu mosiri) by
Japan claiming it as state-owned land; that the Ainu people were forciblyassimilated as Japanese while being deprived of their language, religious,
culture and livelihood; and that the strong discriminatory structure has been
built on these historical events. While the Diet has recognized the historical fact
in its resolution to a certain extent, it has not been reflected in the revision of
the discriminatory policy toward the Ainu people and destitution that they have
had to live with, nor has it made any apology and reparation. Thus, their rights
to land and natural resources are totally denied. (p. 13-14)
http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/142/49/PDF/G1414249.pdf?OpenElement
Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Japan (2014)“Rights of indigenous peoples
26. While welcoming the recognition of the Ainu as an indigenous group, the

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 80 of 175 –Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk for land
rights Ainu

Okinawa

Specifiedrisk
recognition
OkinawansCommittee reiterates its concern regarding the lack of recognition of the
Ryukyu and Okinawa, as well as of the rights of those groups to their traditional
land and resources and the right of their children to be educated in theirlanguage (art. 27). The State party should take further steps to revise its
legislation and fully guarantee the rights of Ainu, Ryukyu and Okinawa
communities to their traditional land and natural resources, ensuring respect
for their right to engage in free, prior and informed participation in policies that
affect them and facilitating, to the extent possible, education for their children in
their own language.[...]” (p. 9)

Hokkaido
and Okinawa

Specifiedrisk land
rights and
FPIC of
Ainu andOkinawans

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk
participationin decision
making Ainu

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk rights of
Ainu

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CE
RD_NGO_JPN_17538_E.pdf
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICERD (2014)
Rights of the Ainu People“2. Problemsa) Insufficient guarantee of the participation of the Ainu in relevant bodies
including the Council for Ainu Policy Promotion of the government.
b) Survey on the protection and promotion of the rights of the indigenous
peoples of Ainu and the improvement of their social status has not yet been
conducted at the national level.
c) Limited progress in the governmental measures for the implementation of“the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.
d) Non-implementation of the recommendations issued by UN Treaty Bodies
such as CERD, CCPR and CESCR, in regard to the rights of the Ainu people.”(p. 20)“In 2008, following the adoption of “the resolution to recognize the Ainu as
indigenous peoples” by both the House of Representatives and the House ofCouncilors, the government of Japan recognized the Ainu as an indigenous
people and set up the Experts Advisory Panel. In 2009, with the report of theExperts Advisory Panel, the Council for Ainu Policy Promotion was set up
within the Cabinet Secretariat. The Council, however, has only worked for themeasures in a very narrow and limited scope leaving the restoration of therights of the Ainu in an insufficient state.” (p. 20)“The Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony focuses on the historical and cultural
exhibit (museum), research and study on history and culture, and thedevelopment of memory keepers. Obviously, these functions alone cannot
achieve the restoration of the rights of the Ainu as indigenous peoples. Instead,much more comprehensive policy is required in full accordance with the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples including measures for theprotection and promotion of the right to land and natural resources of the Ainu,
for the improvement of the situation in education, employment and welfare

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 81 of 175 –services as well as for the realisation of the right to own unique culture andlanguage.” (p. 21)d) The government has ignored and failed to implement the recommendationsof the UN Treaty Bodies relevant to the issues mentioned above. These
recommendations were made for example for the implementation of the UN
Declaration and creation of a new working group for it (as per the CERD
Concluding Observations CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6), recognition of the right to land
and indemnification thereto, and the ratification of the ILO Convention 169 (asper the CERD Concluding Observations CERD/C/58/ CRP ).”” (p. 21-22)
Indigenous Peoples of the Ryukyus“i) Problems
Denial of the existence and rejection of the due recognition of the Indigenous
Peoples of the Ryukyus by the government of Japan.
[…] The Ryukyu kingdom was an independent state with own territory, citizens
and social system, which also had ratified treaties with the US, France and theNetherlands. However, it was annexed to Japan by force and in a one-sided
way to Japan by then government of Japan in 1879, which can be regarded as
violation of the Article 51 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
These are objective and historical facts that cannot be interpreted otherwise.
One of the clear evidences of the discrimination against the Indigenous
Peoples of the Ryukyus and its colonisation by Japan is the fact that 74 % of
the US military bases in Japan are concentrated in the islands of the Ryukyus
which consists of only 0.6 % of the land area of Japan.
Despite the concerns expressed and recommendations issued by several UN
bodies including the ones by the Human Rights Committee (para 32,
CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5), by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (paras 13 and 40, E/C.12/1/Add.67) and by CERD (most recently, para
21, CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6), the government of Japan has never responded
sincerely, nor taken substantial action for the solution of the issues.” (p. 23)

Okinawa“At the same time, the government of Japan has been insisting that theequality is protected under the Constitution of Japan. However, theConstitution does not stipulate or anticipate the specific rights of the indigenous
peoples and equality under such constitution cannot protect the rights of the
Indigenous Peoples of the Ryukyus.” (p. 24)“i) Problems
Increasing Yamato (mainland Japanese) to the Ryukyu islands andconsultation with the government of Japan.
[…] CERD has previously encouraged the government of Japan to “engage inwide consultations with Okinawan representatives…” in 2010. Although there isno detailed statistics, it is estimated that about 30,000 people, most of them

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 82 of 175 –Okinawa

Specifiedrisk rights of
OkinawansYamato people (mainland Japanese), are immigrating to the Ryukyus, which
has about 1.4 million population. In some of the islands of the Ryukyus, thenumber of immigrants has become even higher than that of the indigenous
peoples there. While “wide consultations with Okinawan representatives” wererecommended by CERD (para 21, CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6), it is becoming more
and more difficult and complicated to identify the will of the indigenous peoplesof the Ryukyus under the current election system of Japan.” (p. 24)

Specifiedrisk
participationin decision
makingOkinawans

Construction of military bases and facilities in Henoko and Takae which willcause significant environmental destruction” (p. 25)“While, the government of Japan is forcing the construction of new base in
Henoko with the argument to lighten the US military burden on Okinawa, it isalso discussed that the new military base to be built in Henoko can be jointly
used by the Self Defense Force of Japan, which will further accelerate themilitarisation of the Ryukyus also concerning the fact that the government ofJapan has been increasing the deployment of the Self Defense Force in the
Ryukyus in recent years. Such on-going and increasing militarisation of the
Ryukyus is increasing the risk to the physical safety and life of the Indigenous
Peoples of the Ryukyus.” (p. 25)“Restriction on the freedom of peaceful assembly.
[…] The government of Japan has decided on the application of the Special
Penal Code to the opposition movements of the Indigenous Peoples of the
Ryukyus against the construction of the new military base in Henoko or
helipads in Takae being forced by the government against the will of the
Ryukyu peoples. This decision i.e. application of the said law will significantly
restrict the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Ryukyus especially to thefreedom of peaceful assembly and to life.” (p. 26)

Henoko andTakaeSpecifiedrisk
militarisationOkinawans

Okinawa
Specifiedrisk
participationin decision
making of
Okinawans
Okinawa
Specifiedrisk culturalrightsOkinawans“Denial of the rights to language and education of their own history and culture.
[…] Despite the recommendations by UNESCO in 2009 to protect thelanguages of the Ryukyu islands, the government of Japan has not taken any
measures and no opportunities was provided for learning their own languages
within the framework of public education in the Ryukyus.” (p. 26)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/CERD_
C_JPN_CO_7-9_18106_E.pdf
Concluding observations on the combined seventh to ninth periodic reports ofJapan
Hokkaido“Situation of Ainu people
20. While noting efforts by the State party to promote and protect the rights of
the Ainu people, the Committee is concerned at shortcomings in measures

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 83 of 175 –Specifiedrisk
participation

developed by the State party, including; (a) the low/insufficient number of Ainu
representatives in the Council of the Ainu Promotion Policy and in otherconsultative bodies; (b) persistent gaps between Ainu people, including thoseliving outside Hokkaido, and the rest of the population in many areas of life, inparticular in education, employment and living conditions; and (c) insufficientmeasures taken to protect the rights of Ainu people to land and natural
resources and the slow progress made towards the realization of their right totheir own culture and language (art. 5). […]Intercontinental Cry http://intercontinentalcry.org/

Situation of Ryukyu/Okinawa
21. The Committee regrets the position of the State party not to recognise the
Ryukyu/Okinawa as indigenous peoples, despite recognition by UNESCO of
their unique ethnicity, history, culture and traditions. While noting measurestaken and implemented by the State party concerning Ryukyu based on the
Act on Special Measures for the Promotion and Development of Okinawa (ActNo. 14 of 2002) and Okinawa Promotion Plan, the Committee is concernedthat sufficient measures have not been taken to consult Ryukyu
representatives regarding the protection of their rights. The Committee is also
concerned by information that not enough has been done to promote andprotect Ryukyu languages, which are at risk of disappearance, and that
education textbooks do not adequately reflect the history and culture of Ryukyu
people (art. 5).[…]” (p. 7-8)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/216154458/Indigenous-Struggles-2013
No information found that indicates specified risk.

in decision
making of
Ainu

Okinawa
Specifiedrisk
participationin decision
making of
OkinawansCountry

Low risk

No information found that indicates specified risk.

Country

Low risk

No information found that indicates specified risk.

Country

Low risk

There is no regional Asian human rights commission or court.

--

http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/IndigenousStruggles-2012.pdf
No information found that indicates specified risk.
Forest Peoples Programme: www.forestpeoples.org
FPP’s focus is on Africa, Asia/Pacific and South and Central
America.
Society for Threatened Peoples:
http://www.gfbv.de/index.php?change_lang=english
Regional human rights courts and commissions:- Inter-American Court of Human Rights
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/indigenous/- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights- African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights- European Court of Human Rights

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 84 of 175 –Data provided by National Indigenous Peoples’, Traditional
Peoples organizations;

The Ainu Association of Hokkaido
http://www.ainu-assn.or.jp/english/about01.html“The Ainu Association of Hokkaido (incorporated) (hereafter "the Association")is an organization made up of Ainu who live in Hokkaido, which aims to "workto improve the social status of Ainu people and to develop, transmit andpreserve Ainu culture in order to establish the dignity of the Ainu people". The
figure below shows traditional Ainu settlement areas from approximately the17th to the 19th centuries. The figure shows the confirmed settlement areas of
the Ainu people. Needless to say, it is recognized that the Ainu people moved
to neighboring areas and came into contact with people there. Furthermore, it
is recognized that the distribution of place-names stemming from Ainu words
covers an area a little larger than the traditional settlement area. However, thefigure below omits some of these places because of inconsistencies, including
the existence of place-names whose origins cannot be proven.”

Association ofIndigenous
Peoples in the
Ryukyus (AIPR)

http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/WrittenStatement_HRC-21st-session_Militarization-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 85 of 175 –Hokkaido

IPs
presence

Joint written statement* submitted by the International Movement Against All
Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), the Association of the
Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR), non-governmental organizations in
special consultative status (2012)Land rights
During WWII, the Japanese government was confiscating lands from thecivilians for military usage, while in Ryukyu / Okinawa such land confiscationby the government significantly increased since 1943. No proper compensation
was offered or provided by the government, even after the WWII. The forcibly
confiscated lands of the Ryukyu people were resold to third parties or given to
the U.S. military. US military has been also grabbing the land of the peoples of
Ryukyus during the WWII as well as its occupation of Ryukyu / Okinawa
thereafter for constructing its bases, violating Article 46 of the Hague
Convention.1
In 1972, US military government returned Okinawa (Ryukyu Islands) to Japan.
However, under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement between Japanese andUS government, US military bases have remained unchanged and even moremilitary bases and facilities, including those of Japanese Self-Defense Forces,were brought to Okinawa from mainland Japan.2 Today 74% of U.S. militarybases in Japan are concentrated in Okinawa which consists of only 0.6% ofJapanese territory. It is not only the violation of their land rights, but also suchdisproportionate concentration of military facilities in Ryukyu / Okinawa must
be regarded as clear discrimination by Japanese government which violates
various human rights of the peoples of Ryukyus. (p. 2)

Data provided by Governmental institutions in charge ofIndigenous Peoples affairs;[…]Environmental issues and related human rights violation
Several instances listed below highlight various environmental issues andrelated human rights violations emerging from or caused by the presence andaction of US military in Ryukyu / Okinawa.
• Sea pollution, forest and bush fires as well as noise pollution caused byvarious military training conducted at the Camp Schwab are frequently
reported. (p. 3)
Council for Ainu Policy Promotion
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/index_e.html“•The Council was set up in December 2009, based on the Report of theAdvisory Council for Future Ainu Policy in July 2009, and is hosted by the Chief
Cabinet Secretary. […] the Council is comprised of 14 members in total,among which five are Ainu representatives, five from scholars and experts on
Ainu culture and human rights, and the remaining four from the leaders of thenational and local governments.
[...] The population of Ainu people living in Hokkaido is estimated at about
17,000, or 0.4% of the region's total, according to the 2013 survey by the
Hokkaido prefectural government.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 86 of 175 –Okinawa

Specifiedrisk land
rightsOkinawans

Okinawa

Specifiedrisk
environment
al andhumanrightsOkinawans

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk
participationin decision
making Ainu

Data provided by National NGOs; NGO documentation ofcases of IP and TP conflicts (historic or ongoing);

International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism(IMADR)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/WrittenStatement_HRC-20th-session_Indigenous-Peoples-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Okinawa, which was Former Ryukyu Kingdom, is the southernmost prefectureof Japan with the population of about 1,400,000, most of them Ryukyuans, theindigenous peoples in Ryukyu Islands. Ryukyu Kingdom, which Ryukyuans
had founded, was colonized by Japan in 1872, and renamed as “Okinawa
prefecture” in 1879, in violation of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
Article 51. While Japanese government has enforced assimilation policy on
Ryukyuans, Ryukyuans have been facing discrimination as another ethnic
group. However, the Japanese government has never accepted Ryukyuans as
indigenous peoples, but been holding the view that they are Japanese incontradiction to the opinions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms ofracism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
[…]Currently 74% of U.S. military bases in Japan are concentrated in Okinawa
which consists of only 0.6% of Japanese territory. […] Large number of crimes
and accidents by US military personnel are reported in Okinawa, but not all ofthem can be properly dealt with due to the extraterritoriality. […] (p. 3) Against
the will of Ryukyuans and despite the variety of problems caused by thepresence of US military, the government of Japan is now forcing theconstruction of a huge military base in Henoko-Oura Bay and 6 helipads in
Takae, both in Okinawa. […]Moreover, Japanese and the US governments areforcing deployment of V-22 military planes called Osprey in the bases in
Okinawa, again against the will of Ryukyuans.” (p. 4)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IMADR-AOCHR-FIHRN-Joint-Oral-Statement_HRC-33rd_item-4-GeneralDebate_19SEP2016.pdf
The large presence of the foreign military has caused a countless number ofhuman rights violations for decades, including sexual violence against
women and girls, environmental destruction, land grabbing and forced
displacement. Yet, victims’ access to justice remains limited. Despite thepersistent opposition from the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, the Government ofJapan has been advancing the plans to construct new U.S. military facilities in
Henoko and Takae.
In this April, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion andexpression shared his specific concern regarding “disproportionate restrictions
on protest activity” and “the use of force against journalists” in Okinawa.
Yet, the Government has continued to employ oppressive measures including
forced evacuation and temporarily detention of sit-in protesters by an

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 87 of 175 –Okinawa

Specifiedrisk
recognition
Okinawans
as IPsOkinawa

Specifiedrisk
militarisationOkinawansNational land bureau tenure records, maps, titles andregistration (Google)

excessive number of riot police officers. Furthermore, in May, it was revealed
that a security company contracted by the Defense Bureau had compiled a listof 60 protesters including leading environmental human rights defenders andpeace activists in order to monitor and report their protest activity in Henoko.
Since the list contained personal information of protesters which was not
publicly available, the Defense Bureau and police forces were suspected of
involvement. We regret that not only the Government denied its involvement,
but also they announced that no investigation to the incident will be conducted.
Moreover, we are alarmed by the report that on 20th August journalists wereprevented from reporting the scene of protest in Takae. Press freedom is under
threat in Okinawa. High ranking government officials and law makers haverepeatedly made repressive comments against the two major local
newspapers in Okinawa. However, most of those comments have notbeen condemned by the Government, and no specific action has beentaken to protect press freedom.”
No maps, titles or registration of indigenous peoples’ territories found on
Japanese governmental websites.

Relevant census data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Minorities“The Japanese Census asks respondents their nationality rather than identify
people by ethnic groups as do other countries. For example, the United
Kingdom Census asks ethnic or racial background which composites the
population of the United Kingdom, regardless of their nationalities. Naturalized
Japanese citizens and native-born Japanese nationals with multi-ethnic
background are considered to be ethnically Japanese in the population census
of Japan”
http://www.refworld.org/docid/49749cfe23.html“There may be between 30,000 and 50,000 Ainu in Japan (there are no official
census figures; one of the few such surveys conducted was by the Hokkaido
Government in 1984, which gave the Ainu population of Hokkaido then as 24,381). Only a very small number remain fluent in their traditional language.”
http://www.tofugu.com/2013/11/08/the-ainu-reviving-the-indigenous-spirit-ofjapan/“According to the government, there are currently 25,000 Ainu living in Japan,
but other sources claim there are up to 200,000. “
http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/en/study/eng01.html
Ainu who lived in Hokkaido, the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin were called"Hokkaido Ainu", "Kurile Ainu" and "Sakhalin Ainu" respectively. Most Ainu now

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 88 of 175 –Hokkaido
andOkinawan

Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk on land
rights of
Ainu andOkinawans-live in Hokkaido. It has been confirmed that a few Ainu people now live in
Sakhalin. The census of the Ainu was started by the Japanese in the 1800 s
for various purposes, e.g. for putting them to work. The Ainu population from1807 to 1931 varied as follows :- Evidence of participation in decision making;- Evidence of IPs refusing to participate (e.g. on the basis ofan unfair process, etc.);
National/regional records of claims on lands, negotiations inprogress or concluded etc.
Cases of IP and TP conflicts (historic or ongoing). ) Data about
land use conflicts, and disputes (historical / outstanding
grievances and legal disputes)
Social Responsibility Contracts (Cahier des Charges)
established according to FPIC (Free Prior Informed Consent)
principles where available
Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms'indigenous peoples organizations', 'traditional peoples
organizations', 'land registration office', 'land office','indigenous peoples', 'traditional peoples', '[name of IPs]','indigenous peoples + conflict', 'indigenous peoples + land
rights'1807 : 26,256
1822 : 23,563
1854 : 17,810
1873 : 16,272
1903 : 17,783
1931 : 15,969
According to a current survey conducted by the Hokkaido Government in 1984,
the Ainu population of Hokkaido then was 24,381.
See information in boxes above.

See information in boxes above with regard to claims on and Okinawans

See information in boxes above with regard to claims on land of Ainu andOkinawans
not applicable in Japan

Hokkaido
andOkinawan
Hokkaido
andOkinawan
Hokkaido
andOkinawan--

Okinawa
Country

Specifiedrisk
recognition
of

-

-

-

http://www.minorityrights.org/ryukyuans-okinawans.html“The Ryūkyūan are an indigenous group of peoples living in the Ryūkyūarchipelago, which stretches southwest of the main Japanese island of Kyūshū
towards Taiwan. The largest and most populated island of the archipelago,
Okinawa Island, is actually closer to Manila, Taipei, Shanghai and Seoul than it
is to Tokyo. Though considered by the Japanese as speaking a dialect, theRyūkyūans speak separate languages such as Okinawan, also known as
Uchinaguchi and has less than a million speakers (Source: World Christian
Database, 2000), as well as Amami, Miyako, Yaeyama and Yonaguni with amuch smaller number of speakers. All are part of the Japonic language family,
to which the Japanese language also belongs.
[…] While there have been some private initiatives in revitalising Ryūkyūan
languages and a greater appreciation of traditional culture and traditions, there
has been no positive movement from Japanese authorities. Japan's reports tovarious UN treaty bodies dealing with human rights, minorities or indigenous
peoples do not acknowledge the existence of the Ryūkyūans as distinct
linguistic or cultural minorities. Despite some demands in the 1980s and 1990s
for greater use of Ryūkyūan languages in government, no use of these

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 89 of 175 –languages is legally guaranteed in the judicial system, in public education or foraccess to public services. Educational materials for use in public schools
continue to be largely silent on the topic of the Ryūkyūans as separate
minorities with their own languages, cultures and traditions as indigenous
peoples.
[…]The Japanese government has begun in recent years to recognise the Ainu
and Koreans, but there remains an almost complete refusal to consider the
Ryūkyūans as minorities or indigenous peoples. While the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance referred to the ‘people of Okinawa' as anational minority and as having an indigenous culture in his 2006 report on his
mission to Japan, no such recognition is forthcoming from the side of thecountry's authorities.
The only response from the government to the Special Rapporteur's comments
has been to mention the formulation of an ‘Okinawa Promotion andDevelopment Plan' and the creation of an Okinawa Policy Council, none ofwhich refer in any way to the Ryūkyūans as minorities or indigenous peoples.
Representations were made in 2005 to the Special Rapporteur by Ryūkyūan
representatives as to their perceived discriminatory treatment because of thecontinued presence and negative impact of the US military bases, but there
were few attempts for the greater recognition of their indigenous traditions or
language rights.
At present, the United States' military presence and the discriminatory policiesof the Japanese government that facilitate the US military occupation of theislands dominate the time and energy of most politically active groups in
Okinawa.”
http://www.academia.edu/3299428/A_Shift_in_Japans_Stance_on_Indigenous_Rights_and_its_Implications
A Shift in Japan's Stance on Indigenous Rights, and its Implications – article byDavid McGrogan (International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 17 (2010)355-373)“The fact that currently only 23,782 people identify themselves as Ainu
according to the most recent survey,' while figures of up to 200,000 are
regularly cited as estimates of the total population,'" indicates that this hiddengroup are in the large majority, and ironically, it is these Ainu - urban, working
class and of mixed descent - who have suffered most from the assimilationist
policies of the past, not to mention the most discrimination.'” (p. 358)
“Ryukyuans are concentrated in a small geographical area, where they
constitute the great majority of the population. And Okinawan identity is verystrong: in a 2006 poll of the prefecture 40.6 per cent of responders categorised
themselves as exclusively 'Okinawan', 36.5 per cent classified themselves as

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 90 of 175 –Okinawans
as IPs

'Okinawan Japanese', and only 21.3 per cent called themselves 'Japanese' “(p.
366)
“Most importantly, however, where at least a high percentage of the Ainu selfidentifying as an explicitly indigenous group, the Okinawan populace largely
does not. Though Ryukyuans have been included in documents brought to the
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee by a Tokyo-based indigenous
rights NGO and in its most recent dialogue with Japan the HRC has explicitly
expressed the view that the Ryukyuans are an indigenous group, there is little
indication of any widespread movement among Ryukyuan people themselves
towards 'claiming' indigenous status. In fact, activism among the Okinawan
populace has tended towards advocating outright independence rather thantaking on the nomenclature of indigenous rights - or even rights as a national
minority.” (p. 368)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/09/23/national/ainu-okinawans-joinfirst-u-n-indigenous-peoples-conference/#.VE0RrSLF_vY
Ainu, Okinawans join first U.N. indigenous peoples’ conference“Delegates for indigenous peoples from around the world, including Ainu andOkinawans, gathered this week at the United Nations to discuss measures toensure their political representation and freedom from discrimination in the first
U.N.-backed conference of its kind.
Kazushi Abe, vice president of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, and ShiseiToma, of the Association of the Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus, an
Okinawa civic association, were among those invited to speak at the two-day
World Conference on Indigenous Peoples through Tuesday.”
Additional general sources for 2.3

Additional specific sources

Source found during research on indicator 2.2.

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---srobangkok/documents/publication/wcms_178417.pdf
Equality and non-discrimination at work in East and South-East Asia - Exercise
and tool book for trainers (2011)“Case B. Protection of traditional livelihoods of the Ainu in Japan: Case
Discussion
In 1971 the Japanese Government announced plans to construct a massive
industrial park and a large dam on the Saru River to supply water andelectricity. The dam would be built in Nibutani, on land sacred to the Ainu
people. Although the industrial park never materialized, appropriation of Ainu
land and construction continued, and the dam was completed in 1997. The
government did not consult the Ainu before or during the construction process,nor did it conduct environmental impact or cultural studies.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 91 of 175 –scale of risk
assessment

risk
indication

However, Kayano Shigeru and another Ainu activist, resisting both thegovernment and some of their neighbours, refused to sell their land to theGovernment. Instead they fi led a lawsuit in the Sapporo District Court against
the Japanese Government on the basis of violation of their indigenous rights.
In a landmark decision in 1997, the court recognized the indigenous rights of
the Ainu and declared the land appropriation unconstitutional. However, by thetime of this decision, the dam was completed and the reservoir filled, drowning
sites sacred to the Ainu. A second dam is now being proposed.
The dam construction caused a wide range of problems for the Ainu. First ofall, it caused considerable social and political conflict among the local Ainu
community, especially among those who sold their land and the two who
refused to sell. Many of the Ainu agreed to sell their land to the Government
because they were poor and they could no longer make a living as farmers.
Fish no longer filled the Saru River because of changes in water temperature;
the places where the Ainu used to gather wild plants had disappeared; and thesacred sites that were central to Ainu ceremonies in Nibutani were now underwater.

Additional information provided by FSC Japan on
discrimination of Ryukyu people

Still, the 1997 Nibutani case was a breakthrough in the recognition of theethnic identity of the Ainu. Although the Ainu plaintiffs failed to stop
construction, the court ruled that the Ainu people were indigenous as definedby the United Nations (UN) protocols. The court also criticized the Hokkaido
Prefecture Government for its management of other Ainu properties. On 29
March 1997, the day after the decision was announced, Prime Minister
Hashimoto Ryutaro for the first time referred to the Ainu as an indigenous
people. A decade earlier the Government had conceded in an UN-orderedreport that it recognized the Ainu as a minority, but they had not been officiallyconsidered as Japan's original inhabitants. On 6 June 2008, a "Resolution on
Demand to Classify Ainu as Indigenous Peoples” was adopted unanimously ata plenary session of both houses of the Japanese Parliament.” (p. 190-191)
Ethnicity and independence movement of Okinawan
There are various arguments around whether or not Ryūkyūans should beconsidered as indigenous people. However, it is difficult to conclude that they
are distinct indigenous people considering the FSC definition of indigenous
people, when there are not many Okinawan people who consider themselves
belonging to distinct ethnic group different from other Japanese.
FSC definition of indigenous peoples includes” self-identification as indigenous
peoples at the individual level and acceptance by the community as theirmember” as “the key characteristic or criterion”. People in Okinawa may have

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 92 of 175 –Hokkaido-

Okinawa

Low riska sense of identity stronger than those in other prefectures that they are
different from the rest of Japan, but do not necessarily regard themselves as
indigenous peoples.
During 1950s and 1960s, after the World War II, when Okinawa was put under
the occupation of the US military force, Okinawa Teachers Union promoted
return movement to Japan under the slogan of “independence of nation”. In
this movement the Okinawa return movement, the idea of Okinawa as a part ofJapan has been well established in Okinawa and fervently supported by thepeople in Okinawa20. After the return in 1972, this momentum of thenationalism stopped, and people in Okinawa started to accumulate discontent
against Japanese government for the presence of US military bases in
Okinawa. It is doubtful that the people in Okinawa today would currently use
the term “nation” with the same sentiment and meaning. However, in theinterview conducted by FSC Japan, some comments were heard from people
in Okinawa that they do not feel comfortable with the term Ryūkyū ethnic
group.
After October 2008, the United Nations repeated urge the Japanese
government to recognize the people in Okinawa as indigenous people.
Regarding this issue, opinions of Okinawan people are also divided. On 22nd
September 2014, Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus advocatedtheir rights as an indigenous people in the UN World Conference on
Indigenous Peoples21. A local newspaper in Okinawa posted an opposing
opinion from an Okinawan reader. In the article, a 78-year-old resident of
Naha city (in the main Okinawa island) criticized the Association of Indigenous
Peoples in the Ryukyus for the participation of the conference as arepresentative of indigenous people in Okinawa.
On April 27, 2016, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Seiji Kihara declaredthat the government will not accept the UN recommendation. Regarding thisnews, local Okinawa newspaper carried various perspectives of the local
people. On June 24th, 2016, a counselor of Tomigusuku City, Okinawa
Prefecture contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a perspective that

20Eiji Oguma (1998) "Boundaries of the Japanese - From the colonial occupation of Okinawa, Ainu, Taiwan and Korea to their retrocession movement" Shiyosha Publishing. p.540

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 93 of 175 –“people of Okinawa have never requested the government to recognize us asindigenous people, and the US recommendation is faulty.” “We, the people
having lived in Okinawa for many generations, are Japanese and we have noself-recognition as indigenous people”. Tomigusuku City has passed the“statement to request UN committees to change the understanding that
“Okinawans are Japanese indigenous peoples” and to cancel therecommendation”. This statement has been sent to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Prime Minister, and the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture.
Furthermore, the Research Society for Ryukyu Nationals Independence, which
actively campaigns for the rights of indigenous peoples, protested against thechairperson of Tomigusuku City council. In Okinawa, many people are
discontent with the problems repeatedly caused by the presence of US militarybases and with government response, and opposition movement against the
US military base and the government’s decision to relocate the base has beenongoing. On the other hand, the movement for Okinawa’s independence ishardly the mainstream of public opinion.
Until recently, there was only one political party, “Kariyushi Club”, advocating
independence of Okinawa”, and only one candidate from this party named Mr.
Chousuke Yara has been running elections. He ran for a series of elections
including the election for the governor of Okinawa in November 2006, election
for mayor of Naha city in November 2008, election for Naha city council
member in July 2013, and Naha city council by-election in November 2014 andlost in all of them. He did not get many votes in any of the elections; thehighest vote he got was 6.8% in the recent Naha city council by-election in
November 2014. Most of his shares of votes in the past were less than 1%.
However, the Association of Comprehensive Studies for Independence of the
Lew Chewans22 has become another group advocating the independence ofRyūkyūans. The association has just been established on 15th May 2013 andactively makes campaigns such as holding symposiums.
According to the 2007 study by LIM, John Chuan-tiong, associate professor of
Ryukyu University targeting more than 1,000 Okinawan of 18 years old or
above, 20.6% answered that Okinawa should become independent23. On theother hand, a survey carried out by Ryukyu Shinpo (local newspaper) in

23 http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%90%89%E7%90%83%E7%8B%AC%E7%AB%8B%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95#cite_note-10

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 94 of 175 –November 2011 regarding the future position of Okinawa, 61.8% answeredthat Okinawa should stay as it is (as one prefecture of Japan); 15.3%
answered Okinawa should become a special administrative region; and only
4.7% answered Okinawa should become independent. Another survey was
conducted in December 2012 by Masaki Tomochi, who is a professor of
Okinawa International University and a joint president of The Association ofComprehensive Studies for Independence of the Lew Chewans. The survey
collected response from 140 university students, of which 6% supported
independence. In the survey conducted by NHK (Japan Broadcasting
Corporation, a public enterprise) to 1,800 people in Okinawa in 2012, 78%
expressed positive view about return of Okinawa to Japan from the US
occupation 40 years ago24.
While there are various arguments about whether or not Okinawan people
should be regarded as indigenous peoples, Okinawan people who consider
themselves as indigenous peoples hardly constitute the majority. According to
the FSC definition of indigenous peoples, the key characteristic is “selfidentification as Indigenous Peoples at the individual level and acceptance by
the community as their member”, and it is doubtful that Okinawan people
satisfy this criterion at present.
We refrain from clearly positioning Okinawan people as indigenous peoples.
But by applying the precautionary approach, we will examine the description
and the information above to evaluate the risk that the rights of Okinawan
people are threatened by forest management activities, land issues and US
Military Bases in Okinawa
Regarding the history of land use as well as possibilities of violation of
Okinawan people’s rights, most forests were public land called Somayama
during Ryukyu Dynasty Era (1429-1879). Each community managed theirdesignated area of Somayama, which supported wood production for
construction of castles and ships. Residents held commonage as use right for
the land, and they were allowed to extract resources under certain rules. In
other words, the responsibility of the forest management was shared and heldby communities. The community set control measures on forest resource use
to sustain the forest, such as limitation on equipment to be brought, limitation

24Security guarantees of Okinawa after 40 years from returning to Japan - From the civilian survey and national attitude survey":

https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/summary/research/report/2012_07/20120701.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 95 of 175 –on harvesting level, prohibition of outsiders from entering the forest. According
to the survey and border delineation of Somayama completed in the mid-18th
century, the area and location of forests has not changed much since then.
After Okinawa was integrated into Japan in 1872 and became Okinawa
prefecture in 1879, a modern land registration system was introduced to clarify
the land tenure, just as other parts of Japan. While many forests became
privately owned, resource use was restricted in the forest lands that belonged
to the national government, where people lost the commonage. Acquisition ofconcessions and development policy promoted abuse of the forest resources
and farmers were pushed out of the forest. However, appropriation of common
lands by the government was not a process specific to Okinawa; it was
implemented throughout Japan. For example, in 1892, 97% of forest was
designated as public land in Aomori Prefecture25.
In Okinawa, land sorting was carried out from 1899 to 1903. Some people
gained ownership of Somayama by clearing the land, but most of Somayama
was categorized as public forest. In 1905, 72% of forests are categorized asstate-owned. In 1906, with “Okinawa Prefecture Special Regulation on
Somayama”, those state owned forests were disposed to municipal
governments and private owners. This led to deprivation of commonage fromthe local people and heavy debt from the payment for the forest. After theseries of land reformation, the composition of forests in Okinawa became 28%
state-owned, 45% by the local government, and 27% privately owned, which issimilar to the present figure.
During WWII, Okinawa became the only area in Japan which experienced
ground battle. In the late stage of the war, Japanese troops appropriated lands
in many places in the Okinawa main island to build military facilities such as
airport. However, all of such lands forcibly appropriated by the Japanese Army
have been either returned to the rightful owner or the cases have been settled
in the court26.

25 Yuei Nakama (2011) "A study on history of forestry policy in Okinawa" Media Express p.108

26

Except for Kadena and Yomitan, those lands were returned to original land owners after the war during the reign of the American military. Regarding the state owned land in Kadena base,land owners brought it the court in 1977 to claim ownership of the land, but lost by the Supreme Court decision in 1995. Land used for airport in Yomitan was finally returned in 2006.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 96 of 175 –After the end of the World War II in 1945, Okinawa was put under control of the
US military until 1972. During this period, large area of forests were occupiedby the US military bases without change of land tenure. Even after Okinawa
was returned to Japan in 1972, large area of the military bases remained as
before. Today, the Japanese government pays over 90 billion JPY of rental fee
annually to the roughly 39,000 landowners of the US military bases in
Okinawa.
The concentration of US military bases in Okinawa has been criticized as
discrimination against people in Okinawa and has causes violation of rights
and various conflicts in Okinawa. However, as described above, it has a deeproot in the history, and it also concerns diplomacy and national defense.
Geographical factors also play a major role. Due to the nature of the militarybase, relocation is not easy, and indeed, despite the urgency to relocate
Futenma Military Base, which is very dangerous due to proximity to the city, 20
years have passed since the relocation was decided in 1996 while reviewing
many ideas. The Futenma Base is to be relocated to Henoko in Okinawa, butthere is strong local opposition, partly because the local people hoped
relocation of the base to outside the prefecture but it was not realized.
Regarding the issue of Military Base and forests in Okinawa, in particular, thelargest military base, Jungle Warfare Training Center was established in the
Northern part of Okinawa main island, occupying 78,330 ha. The forests in thenorthern part of Okinawa main island is called Yambaru, and the area has
been a traditional timber producing area since the age of Ryukyu Dynasty.
There have been forest fires caused by the military training in the training
center, and concerns have been raised regarding the environmental impact. In
2016, 53% of the Training Center occupying 4,010 ha was returned to Japan.
This has reduced the concentration of US military bases in Japan to Okinawa
Prefecture from 74.5% to 70.5%. However, exchange condition of thisrelocation was to relocate a helipad to Takae, which was carried out forcibly
despite a fierce opposition by local residents.
Regarding forests in Okinawa, forest occupies only 46% of Okinawa, and the
proportion is 10th lowest among the 47 prefectures nationwide. For its
management, Forest Act of Japan has been applied to Okinawa as aprefecture of Japan after its return to Japan in 1972. The forests in Okinawa
are managed within the framework of the Japanese national forest plan. Yet
large part of the state-owned forest is still enclosed as military bases and no

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 97 of 175 –timber production has been carried out there. In private forest, a local forestry
cooperative practices forestry in the northern part of Okinawa main island, but
in limited scale. Okinawa is frequently hit by typhoons, and straight trees usefulfor constructions do not grow well, and hardwood of limited size are harvested
for chips. In 2016, Yambaru National Park has been established to protect
13,622 ha of subtropical evergreen forests in North Okinawa.
Today, people in Okinawa live a modern life which is no different from otherparts of Japan. With the modernization of life throughout Japan, people nolonger extract resources such as firewood from forest, and forests’ role havebeen marginalized in peoples’ lives. The situation was the same in Okinawa. In
a survey conducted in 2001 to 2,000 people in Okinawa, there was no such
opinion that they use the forest for spiritual ceremony or for living27.
Thus it is unlikely that forest management in Okinawa is disturbing traditionaluse of forests by the local people. On the other hand, land occupied by the US
military bases may be indeed violation of land rights of the original owners,
which has a potential to be specified risk for Controlled Wood. However, we
could not find any information as to whether timber is harvested in the militarybases and distributed in the market. Therefore it is unlikely that timber
originating in Okinawa comes from the US military bases where land tenurerights are violated.
Conclusion
Okinawa has unique culture and history which indeed differs from main islandsof Japan. However, their self-recognition as a separate ethnic group is low, andit does not satisfy one important criterion of the definition of indigenous people:
self-identification. Therefore we cannot conclude that they should be regarded
as distinct indigenous peoples.
To examine the rights of people in Okinawa as a precautionary approach, in
the Meiji Era, there is indeed history that local people were deprived of the rightto use the previous public forests in the process of introducing the modern land

27 Yuei Nakama. 2012. “Forest and Culture of the Island Society”. In the survey, 43% of people answered that they go to forest to enjoy the landscape and scenery, 42% go to forest to relax innature, and 41% go to forest to refresh their mind.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 98 of 175 –registration system. However, this history is not specific to Okinawa but
happened throughout Japan.

Additional information from FSC Japan on discrimination of
Ainu

Regarding the presence of the US military bases, while it is a complex problem
concerning diplomacy and national defense, it has a possibility of violating local
peoples’ rights. However, there is little information that timber is harvested insuch lands occupied by the military bases to be distributed in the market, so
the risk of timber coming from Okinawa violating the rights of local people islow. Thus we consider the risk designation for category 2 in Okinawa is low.”“There are different theories about the area where Ainu people were present,
but it is said that their territory once extended from Sakhalin, Kuril Islands (bothoccupied by Russia at present) to North Japan including the whole Hokkaido
Island. For the purpose of this assessment, we limit our discussion to theisland of Hokkaido. Measures for Promoting Ainu Culture and Improving
Ainu People’s Lives
In the 19th Century, the Japanese government appropriated the land in the
territory the Ainu peoples (Ainu Mushiri) without their consent and sold them off
to the private sector. The Japanese government enacted “Hokkaido Former
Natives Protection Act” in 1899 to provide the Ainu people with little lands,
medical service, economic assistance and education. Yet the purpose of thelegislation was to assimilate Ainu people into the Japanese. More recently,
Hokkaido Prefecture Ainu Policy Promotion Office implemented “Ainu Welfare
Policy” from 1974 to 2001, then “Promotion Policy on Ainu People’s Livelihood”
in an attempt to improve Ainu people’s economic as well as social status.
These measures included: subsidy for Ainu children’s education at highschools and universities and economic measures; Ainu housing improvement
project subsidy; and Ainu small and medium corporation promotion special
subsidy, which enabled exhibition for Ainu handicraft marketing, technicaltraining and corporate management training etc28.
In 1997, following the international public opinions to improve the status ofindigenous people and request of Hokkaido Ainu Association, the Japanese
government established “Act on Ainu Culture Promotion and Promotion andSpread of Knowledge about Ainu Tradition”. The Supplementary Provisions of
the Act abolished “Hokkaido Former Natives Protection Act”. In 2007, the28 http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/new_suisin.htm

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 99 of 175 –Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk for
Ainu
Peoples’rightsgovernment agreed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. Then the both houses of representatives adopted“Resolution to Request Recognition of Ainu people as an Indigenous People”
in 2008, formally recognizing the Ainu people as an indigenous people inJapan. In 2009, “Expert Council on Modalities of Ainu Policy” submitted areport to the Chief Cabinet Secretary, and the Council of the Ainu Promotion
Policy was organized in 2011.
Regarding the composition of the Council of the Ainu Promotion Policy andtheir activities criticized by Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the
ICCPR (2014), the Council is chaired by the cabinet secretary, the vice-chair isthe Vice-minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and thegovernor of Hokkaido and Sapporo City Mayors are also members. The
members this Council, excluding the chair and the vice chair who are both
high-ranking officials of the government, as of November 7, 2016, the council iscomprised of 12 members, of which four are representatives of Ainu
organizations, three belong to research institutions or museums related toAinu, two are representative or researcher on human right organizations, two
are the heads of the prefectural and municipal governments, and one is a
representative of a local tourism company29. We could not confirm how manyof them are actually Ainu, but seven members are representatives from Ainu
groups and Ainu related institutions, comprising half of the council. Whether or
not this conformation is reasonable is a matter of opinion, considering that Ainu
is by far the minority even in their residential area (comprising only 0.4% of
population in Hokkaido, according to the survey by Hokkaido Prefecture in2013), and it is necessary to consult non-Ainu experts and leaders of the local
governments. Regarding the meeting frequency of the Council, the council isheld eight times since its establishment in 2010 till November 2016. However,there are three policy promotion work groups under the Council, and there
have been 49 meetings of the work groups since 2010 to date (November2016).
Following activities and measures have been implemented for Ainu people’s
protection:•

The 21st Century Ainu Cultural Heritage Forest Restoration Plan - On April
17, 2013, a comprehensive agreement was signed between Biratori Ainu
Association, Biratori Town, and Hokkaido Forest Management Bureau toestablish “Blakiston's fish owl’s Forest” to pass down Ainu Culture30.

29 http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/meibo.pdf
30 http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/hokkaido/press/kikaku/130410.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 100 of 175 –

•

•

•

•

•

•

Establishment of Sustainable Use Strategies Study Group of Manchurian
elm - The authority (Hokkaido Prefectural government) supports
procurement of Manchurian elm (Ulmus laciniata), which is an ingredientfor the traditional Ainu clothes, Attusi 31 32.
Traditional Life Space (Ioru) Restoration Project - In July 2005, the Ainu
Culture Promotion Measures Council compiled “The Basic Concept on
Restoring Ainu Traditional Living Space”. Based on this plan, specificmeasures have been taken to implement the plan33. It is expected that
restored Ioru (traditional life space) will serve as a holistic living space toconserve and promote Ainu culture for the future of the Ainu People34.
Establishment of Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony35 - On June 13,
2014, the Cabinet decided to establish Ethnic Harmony Park (tentativename) by Poroto Lake of Shiraoi Town, Hokkaido as “the Symbolic Space
for Ethnic Harmony" and a base for Ainu Cultural Promotion, including the
National Museum of Ainu Culture (tentative name), traditional housecomplex, Ainu Workshop. It is expected that this museum will function as anational center of Ainu culture promotion. Ainu Ethnic Museum has been
open at the same site since 1976.
Designation of “Ainu Tradition and modern development in the culturallandscape of the Saru River basin” as an Important Cultural Landscape
In July 2007, “Ainu Tradition and modern development in the culturallandscape of the Saru River basin” was selected as the 3rd “important
cultural landscape” for its distinct value as cultural property.
Consultation of Ainu people and related personnel for development ofForest Management Plan. Hokkaido Forest Bureau consults Ainu
stakeholders in advance when developing regional management plan for
Hidaka catchment area and Iburi area36.
Hokkaido Ainu Children Education Promotion Subsidy and Hokkaido Ainu
Children University Education Loan - Scholarship is provided or lent for
tuition and enrollment of Ainu students to high school and or higher

31 http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/dyr/20140121siryo.pdf
32 http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/dyr/20140319siryo.pdf
33 http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000015024.pdf
34 http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/new_iorusuisin1.htm
35 http://www.town.shiraoi.hokkaido.jp/docs/2013012300233/
36 http://www.cais.hokudai.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ainu_report2L_3-saigo.pdf

Survey Report on Ainu Peoples’ Actual Life Condition2009. p.42

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 101 of 175 –education institute. In the case of high school students, subsidy for long
distance commuting is also provided.
Policies and measures related to Ainu mostly concerns economic support andculture conservation and promotion. In addition, Hokkaido Prefecture Forest
Management Bureau, Hokkaido Prefecture Department of Fisheries andForestry, Hokkaido Prefecture Department of Environment and Life Ainu
Measures Promotion Office, the Ainu Culture and Research Promotion
Organization conducts various activities of promoting traditional handicraft andtechnical training. The Hokkaido Ainu living survey conducted for the Ainu
peoples in 2013 shows that the number of people who answered that they are
involved in the Ainu cultural activity have increased from 1999 and 2006.
Regarding Ainu language, the number of speakers have dramatically declined
owing to the past assimilation policy. Since the language did not have letters,
the language is endangered to extinction37. However, various efforts forpreservation are currently made38, and according to the survey, the number ofpeople who are interested in Ainu language or who can speak it is increasingslightly39. Regarding the lawsuit mentioned in The Indigenous World 2014,
twelve Japanese universities collected and stored bones of Ainu people for the
purpose of research from about 1880 to 1950, and Ainu people are currently
requesting return of the bones. On September 14, 2012, the first lawsuit
against Hokkaido University was filed by three Ainu people, followed by two
similar cases in January 2014 and May 2014. These cases were merged andfor collective evaluation, But in March 2016, the first case has reachedsettlement that the 11 unidentified remains collected by Hokkaido University
would be returned to Ainu Villages (Kotan). The second and third cases are still
discussed as of October 2016.
In the “Basic principle regarding establishment and management of “Symbolic
Space for Ethnic Harmony” to promote restoration of Ainu Culture” decided by
the Cabinet on June 13, 2014, one of the roles of the “Symbolic Space”
including the national Ainu Cultural Museum is “to manage Ainu people’s

37 According to the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages, less than ten people can speak Ainu language at presenthttp://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/nasia_report.html#Ainu
38 As a project of culture preservation, The Ainu Ethnic Museum, established by Shiraoi Ethnic Culture Heritage Foundation in 1976, has developed the Ainu Language Archive, which provides

an online platform to hear Ainu folktales spoken in Ainu language.
39 The 2013 survey by Hokkaido Prefecture Department of Environment and Life shows that only 7.2 people answered “able to speak the Ainu language” or “able to speak the language a little”

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 102 of 175 –bones and burial accessories”. The consolidation and memorial of the remains
and the burial items collected by the research institutions in the past are alsomentioned in the explanation.
History Education
Regarding the lack of education of history about Ainu, it is true that Ainurelated materials are limited in the nation-wide history education.
Still, Hokkaido Prefecture Education Committee develops teaching guidelines
for teachers, homepage for children, and conducts training40. In addition, there
are initiatives at municipal level: following the recommendation of the United
Nations, Sapporo City has developed teaching guidelines for teachers andconducted trainings for teachers so that Ainu history and culture can beproperly taught in public schools in Sapporo City41. As a result of such efforts,in the 2013 Survey by the Cabinet Office, 95.3% of people answered yes to thequestion “Do you know the existence of the ethnic group Ainu?”, and 43.8%
people answered that they learned at school lessons.
Discrimination against Ainu people
Ainu people have suffered from poverty after their lands necessary for theirlivelihood were deprived by the Japanese. However, the difference between
the Ainu and other Japanese is gradually shrinking with the times. According to
the Hokkaido Ainu livelihood survey, which is conducted every 6 to 7 years
since 1972, the ratio of the Ainu to other Japanese in corresponding
municipalities in the proportion of household receiving welfare payments was
6.6 in 1972, but it has steadily shrunk to 1.4 in 2013. According to the statistics
on human rights violations by the Ministry of Justice42, there were 4 cases ofhuman rights violations related to Ainu people's discrimination from 2006 to
2015, although several consultations are given every year. Various surveys
shows that discrimination is decreasing from the past, and more people

40 http://www.dokyoi.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/hk/gky/pizara.htm
41 http://www.city.sapporo.jp/kyoiku/top/education/ainu/ainu_minzoku.html
42 http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_jinken.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 103 of 175 –recognize their identity as Ainu positively. Still, concern remains regarding thediscrimination.
According to the Hokkaido Ainu Livelihood Survey conducted by Hokkaido
Prefecture in 2013, 23.4% of Ainu people said that they have been
discriminated at least to some degree since their childhood. On the other
hand, according to the "public opinion survey on the understanding about the
Ainu" conducted by the Cabinet Office to 3,000 Japanese citizens of the age of
20 or more, in response to a question whether they think there is still
discrimination or prejudice against the Ainu people, 17.9% answered "yes"while 50.7% answered "no (there is no discrimination)". Meanwhile, in a survey
conducted by the Cabinet Office to 1,000 Ainu people, 72.1% of the Ainu
respondents answered "there is discrimination and prejudice against the Ainu."
Among those who responded that prejudices and discrimination exist, 51.4%
answered "either family, relatives, friends, or acquaintances are discriminated".
The 2009 Ainu Living Survey Report, which provides stories of Ainu of various
age groups, revealed that the older generation has experienced severer
discrimination. On the other hand, in recent years, discrimination has graduallysubsided; Some Ainu in younger generation had never experienced any
discrimination, and some feel proud of being Ainu. This survey revealed that
40.2% of Ainu thought positively of their identity as Ainu, while only 6.3%
perceived it as negative.
Ainu People’s Traditional Use of Forests Today
Regarding the use of forest resources by Ainu peoples, Hokkaido forest
management station answered that when Ainu people request use of forest
resources or use of land in the National Forest, they accommodate it as muchas possible within the limitation of available budget and regulations, to meetthe goal of national forest management to contribute to local industry andimprovement of welfare of local citizens. They also answered that they havenever heard of any conflicts with Ainu people about such request. Interviewed
Ainu people also confirmed that when they request use of forest resource(mostly wood), they are allowed to use it after payment, if it is available. Yet it
is also possible to consider that their rights are limited as they cannot exactly
choose the place to use, and the resources used to be freely available to them.
FSC Japan has been engaged with the representative of the Ainu Associationof Hokkaido, which holds that at present it cannot be said that rights of Ainu
peoples as the indigenous peoples is necessarily protected in Hokkaido.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 104 of 175 –Land Rights of Ainu
Ainu people’s traditional livelihood is based on hunting and gathering, without
notion of land ownership. They have engaged in trade with neighboring ethnic
groups such as Yamato Japanese, and by 16th and 17th century, they havebeen gradually incorporated into the political and economic system of Yamato
Japanese. In 1869, the new Japanese government placed Hokkaido under its
direct control, and promoted immigration of the Yamato Japanese to Hokkaido
develop the island. When introducing the modern land registration system, thenational government nationalized the land, and sold off some lands toindividuals including the Ainu, but the large area of forests were given to large
companies, and the land given to the Ainu peoples was very limited. As thenatural environment that had supported their livelihood was destroyed and theirtraditional hunting and gathering was denied, they were plunged into poverty.
In 1899, with enactment of "Hokkaido Former Native Protection Act", thegovernment provided land, medical service, livelihood assistance, education to
Ainu people, while also implementing the cultural assimilation policy. This law
was abolished in 1997, and the support for Ainu peoples is continued with theabove-mentioned “Act on Ainu Culture Promotion and Promotion and Spreadof Knowledge about Ainu Tradition” and policies of Hokkaido Prefecture,
although the support mainly focus on education and financial support forlivelihood, but not the measures to address the land issue.
Hitherto there has been only few cases where the Ainu contested their right toa specific tract of land in the court, and the Nibutani Dam litigation case, where
the rights of indigenous peoples was recognized for the first time, was a rareexample. Some Ainu people suggested that it is difficult for them to contest theownership and use rights of the land they used to have in the history within theframework of modern land registration and ownership system.
In November 2014, Hokkaido Ainu Association submitted a formal opinion,
which is summarized below:•

The history of modern land system and forest ownership of Hokkaido was
carried out based on the principle that the national government takes
ownership of terra nullius (or land without clear ownership), without any
consideration for indigenous people’s use of land and resources.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 105 of 175 –•Regarding FSC forest certification, the Ainu indigenous people arecompletely neglected from the origin of the “Controlled Wood from
Hokkaido”. It also have a big problem that even the state-owned forest andprefecture owned forests do not satisfy the level of FSC forest certification.

Still, Ainu Associations did not deny the use of wood from Hokkaido as
Controlled Wood completely. They stated that while there are still problems
with the current situations of Ainu people, recognizing the challenge, they arewilling to engage in the discussions with other stakeholders for possible
resources use with focus in the future.
Considering the history of land rights and development in Hokkaido, it isundeniable that the rights of Ainu people as indigenous people was neglected
and the situation still continues today. While it is difficult to change the politicalenvironment and the system concerning land, argument remains as to how theControlled Wood standard can be met. Yet with the current condition, the risk
cannot be said to be low, therefore we conclude that there is specified risk
concerning the rights of Ainu Peoples.
Conclusion
The life of Ainu people has been changing with time. According to theinterviews, Forest resources in the state forests can be sold off to Ainu people
for their traditional activities upon request, and there has not been a conflict orproblem reported regarding it.
On the other hand, Ainu people’s traditional rights as indigenous people areindeed limited in some aspects. While there have been many measures ofcultural promotion, most of the land that Ainu people used to use freely for the
traditional livelihood of hunting and gathering now belong to other individuals ororganizations. Ainu people have been relegated to specified area, and they
have limited rights to the land that they used to use. Given the situation that therights of the Ainu people as indigenous peoples are not necessarily respected
throughout Hokkaido, we think that there is a specified risk in Hokkaido
concerning the rights of Ainu Peoples as indigenous peoples.
Information regarding the commons (iriai land) from FSC
Japan

In many Japanese rural villages, there used to be a system called “iriai”, inwhich communities jointly use and manage the common forest lands etc.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 106 of 175 –Country

Low risk

based on customary rule. Individuals in the communities would have thecustomary right to use the land jointly with other members of the communities.
It was pointed out that this customary right may be at risk, thus the risk isevaluated below.
Iriai land (the commons) played an indispensable role for daily life as a place tosupply firewood, green fertilizer and roofing materials. With the reformation ofland registration system in Meiji Restoration, the land ownership system wasmodernized, and the legal ownership of land needed to be clarified. Many
commons were not approved as people’s land, but was confiscated to thegovernment’s ownership. In Northeast Region, where they previously fought
against the emerging power that had established the new government, large
proportion of the land was appropriated to state ownership; 97% of Aomori
Prefecture and 83% of Akita prefecture were declared to become state-owned.
In those lands that were confiscated by the state government, the customary
use by the local people were denied, and the access to the use was restricted.
The local people who would use the iriai land resisted against it, and there
were many fights to retrieve the common land in various places.
There were some forest land that were given back to the communities later, but
the majority of the land stayed state-owned. Some iriai lands that were notconfiscated to become state-owned were also made public after the municipal
system change in 1889 and modernization of municipal administration. Still,there said to be about 2,200,000 ha of forest land belonging to communities as“iriai-land” in 195543. However, with the enactment of the Act Concerning
Revision of Rights for Common-Forest Use in 1966, many common forests
was dissolved. Today, iriai forests are managed in various forms, such asorganizational ownership, individual ownership, and common ownership.
In the history of iriai, the customary rights have been restricted and violated by
the state. However, with modernization of people’s lives, the importance offorests to their lives have lessened. Although the land used to be indispensable
to extract roofing materials, firewood, and construction wood, such use is very
limited at present. Currently, court cases involving the iriai rights are mostly
cases regarding development of the common land. For example, there has
been cases where iriai rights holders dispute the landownership and legitimacyof the decision of the land disposition in face of a proposed project to develop
the land into landfill of industrial waste, nuclear power plant, or resort arises44.

43 Takeshi Murota and Manabu Mitsumata. 2004. Iriai Forests and the Commons. Nippon Hyoryon-sha.
44 Hidetoshi Nakao and Takehiko Ebuchi, 2015, Commons court cases and environmental conservation – at the court case in respect to commonage (Horitsu Bunka Corporation).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 107 of 175 –Interview with researchers who specialize in iriai rights confirmed that any
dispute about iriai rights in recent years exclusively arise from the externalpressure such as development, and there is hardly any case where the classic
use of forest resources is disputed. The state Forest Agency also answered tothe inquiry that there has been no dispute regarding the customary rights to
use the resources within the state forest in recent years. With modernization oflife, the iriai forest carry less economic value and value for use, and people nolonger seem to keep the strong sense of right to the common land. Only when
the new value of the land emerges in face of development or sightseeing, isthe right disputed.

From national CW RA FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1.0

As such, the risk that trees are harvested in violation to the customary right tothe common forests, including those in the state forests, is considered low.
2.4 There are recognized and equitable processes in place to resolve conflictsof substantial magnitude pertaining to traditional rights including use rights,
cultural interests or traditional cultural identity in the district concerned.
“About the right for people under the range of current proprietary right, its
ownership right is protected by various laws such as the Constitution, the Civil
law and the Real Property Registration Act. To solve disputes regarding theownership right, the Constitution (Clause 32) guarantees the right for a trial. In
addition, to improve the accessibility for conflict resolutions, Civil Conciliation
Act would be used.
On the other hand, in Japan, as an entity with use rights and traditional rights,
Ainu people in Hokkaido are known to be indigenous people. The rights of
Ainu people is limited in Hokkaido.
Dialogue and consultation with Ainu people by FSC Japan revealed that there
are many different opinions about Ainu peoples’ use rights and traditional rights
as well as their tenure right of land and resources in Hokkaido. It was found to
be difficult to judge if there is a concrete equitable processes in place toresolve conflicts regarding these rights. Therefore the risk in Hokkaido region isdetermined to unspecified.”
2.5 There is no evidence of violation of the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest areas in the district concerned.
“FSC Japan asked Hokkaido Regional Forest Office, Hokkaido Office, ILO
office in Japan and Hokkaido timber industry about the current situation of the
Ainu people, and we did not find the fact that the Ainu people are infringed on
their right in the forest areas.
Meanwhile, Association of Ainu and Ainu participant showed the examples of
the issue of land use, which are not directly related to forest practices such as

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 108 of 175 –Country

Specifiedrisk

past case of Nibudani Dam and current situation of Biratori Dam as well as
Monbetsu industrial waste dumping site.
About the issues of the Ainu people, after the colonization of Hokkaido in 1869,
land ownership was established without taking care for potential ownership ofland and resources of Ainu people.
For these reasons, we could not prove there is no evidence for violation ofownership and tenure right of land and resources. We therefore conclude thatthe risk in Hokkaido is unspecified.
Regarding other areas in Japan, there is a view of United Nations Human
Rights Committee and the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination
about indigenous people in Okinawa and there is also a concern about accessrights in US Military bases. However, Japanese government announced its
view that they understand that people in Okinawa could not be covered by“racial discrimination” as provided for in the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Level of recognition by people in Okinawa
about themselves being indigenous people is very low. The prefectural
government does not mention anything about indigenous people in its future
vision.
Considering above situation, FSC Japan decided that Okinawa be notapplicable for this indicator.
In the future revisions of the NRA, FSC Japan is to check any changes in thesituation regarding indigenous issues in Okinawa.
Regarding other regions of Japan, there is no evidence of violation of the ILO
Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest
areas.”
Conclusion on Indicator 2.3:•
Since June 2008, the Ainu have been officially recognized by the Japanese national government as an indigenous people of Japan. As
of 2006, the Ainu population was 23,782 in Hokkaido and roughly 5,000 in the greater Kanto region, while figures of up to 200,000 Ainu are
regularly cited as estimates of the total population. Historically, Ainu territory stretches from Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands (now both Russian
territories) to the northern part of present-day Japan, including the entire island of Hokkaido.
•
The Japanese government has never accepted Okinawans/Ryukyuans as indigenous peoples, in contradiction to the opinions of UN
Treaty Bodies and Special Rapporteurs and despite recognition by UNESCO of their unique ethnicity, history, culture and traditions. Okinawans,or Ryūkyūans, live in the Ryūkyūs Islands, which make up Japan’s present-day Okinawa prefecture. The island is home to 1.1 million of the 1.4
million people living throughout the Ryūkyūs. The Association of the Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus participated in the UN World
Conference on Indigenous Peoples in September 2014 and Okinawans are also referred to as an indigenous peoples in IWGIA’s Yearbook The
Indigenous World 2014. However, the majority of people in Okinawa do not necessarily identify themselves as indigenous peoples. As selfidentification is an important criteria in the FSC definition of indigenous peoples, it is difficult to conclude the Okinawans should be positioned asindigenous peoples within the FSC framework. The greatest threat to the rights of people in Okinawa is the existence of US military bases, butthere are not much information on forestry activities within the US military bases. Therefore it is not very likely that wood harvested from the US
military bases, where the rights of the people of Okinawa is violated, is distributed in the market.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 109 of 175 –Hokkaido

Specifiedrisk for land
rights andright toFPIC of
Ainu people

Other areas

Low risk•Regulations included in the ILO Convention 169 and UNDRIP are not enforced in the area concerned, in particular regarding land rights
and rights to FPIC. (refer to category 1)•
Historically, it can be said that the legal and customary rights of Ainu peoples are not sufficiently respected, in particular in relation toland rights.
•
There are conflicts of substantial magnitude45 pertaining to the rights of Ainu people, and it cannot be said that their rights are fully
protected (see previous point).
•
There are recognized laws and/or regulations and/or processes in place to resolve conflicts of substantial magnitude pertaining toindigenous peoples’ rights such as the Ainu Policy Promotion Council, and Okinawa Policy Council, but they have not been many cases thatthey are utilized as a forum to resolve conflicts pertaining to indigenous peoples’ rights. The regular court system has proven to be effective forclaiming Ainu rights in the case of the Nibutani Dam lawsuit, but there are some Ainu peoples who consider that for the Ainu people vying forland ownership and land use rights in the court is difficult.
For Hokkaido, the following specified risk thresholds apply, based on the evidence:(23) The presence of IP and/or TP is confirmed or likely within the area. The applicable legislation for the area under assessment contradicts
indicator requirement(s) (refer to 2.2.6);AND(24) Substantial evidence of widespread violation of IP/TP rights exists;
AND(26) There is evidence of conflict(s) of substantial magnitude pertaining to the rights of IP and/or TP. Laws and regulations and/or other legally
established processes do not exist that serve to resolve conflicts in the area concerned, or, such processes exist but are not recognized byaffected stakeholders as being fair and equitable. Note under threshold No 20 applies. (27) Neither the legality framework for the area underassessment covers all key provisions of ILO governing identification and rights of IP and/or TP and UNDRIP nor do other regulations and/or
evidence of their implementation exist. Substantial evidence of widespread violation of rights exists.
For other areas, the following low risk thresholds apply:(16) There is no evidence leading to a conclusion of presence of indigenous and/or traditional peoples in the area under assessment;AND(19) There is no evidence of conflict(s) of substantial magnitude pertaining to rights of indigenous and/or traditional peoples;AND(21) Other available evidence do not challenge a ‘low risk’ designation.

45

For the purpose of the Indicator 2.3, a conflict of substantial magnitude is a conflict which involves one or more of the following:a)Gross violation of the legal or customary rights of indigenous or traditional peoples;b)
Significant negative impact that is irreversible or that cannot be mitigated;c)
A significant number of instances of physical violence against indigenous or traditional peoples;d)A significant number of instances of destruction of property;
e)Presence of military bodies;f)Systematic acts of intimidation against indigenous or traditional peoples.
Guidance:
In the identification of conflicts of substantial magnitude one must also be aware of possible parallel activities of other sectors than the forest sector that also impact the rights ofindigenous/traditional peoples and that there can be a cumulative impact. This cumulative impact can lead to a ‘gross violation of indigenous peoples’ rights’ or ‘irreversible consequences’ but
the extent of the contribution of forest management operations needs to be assessed.
The substance and magnitude of conflicts shall be determined through NRA development process according to national/regional conditions. NRA shall provide definition of such conflicts.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 110 of 175 –FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 111 of 175 –Controlled wood category 3: Wood from forests in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities
Overview
Overall, 67% of Japan’s total land area is classified as forest. Based on 10 natural vegetation classifications (1) developed by the Ministry of the Environment,
forests fall under 6 to 9, where 9 indicates natural forest with the highest level of wilderness features and 6 is closer to what is considered a plantation (class 7
being secondary forests and class 8 being secondary forest which shows characteristics close to natural forest). A total of 18.1% of Japan’s total land isclassified as 9. These areas are mainly distributed along mountainous areas ranging from of 1,500 to 3,000 metres (m) and have poor access. A total of
25.2% of Japan’s total land is classified as 6 and 17.4% is classified as 7 or 8. Presently, 41% of Japan’s forests are classified as plantation forest (2).
Another common Japanese forest type is ‘Satoyama’ which are secondary forests located between natural forest areas and human settlements which wasformed as a result of human interactions over long history. Approximately 20% of Japan’s land area is Satoyama (3) forests. Forest management at various
levels can occur within the above classified forest types.
Japanese forest ownership is as follows: 31% are owned by the state government, 12% owned by local governments and 58% are privately owned (4). Mostof ecologically valuable forests belonging to class 9 of the vegetation naturalness are present within state and local government owned forests and privately
owned forests are mostly comprised of plantations and secondary hardwood forests belonging to the vegetation naturalness of 6 and 7.
Hardwood forests with high level of naturalness exist in remote areas of mountains and highlands. Some of these natural forests, mainly owned by thenational government, once experienced large scale harvesting during and after the World War II and during high economic growth period (1960 and 1970s).
Thus most of the existing areas with high level of naturalness are those which escaped from the harvesting during these periods. The cultural values,
biodiversity, erosion control function and landscape values of such important areas are protected by regulations under Natural Park Act, Natural Conservation
Act, Wildlife Protection Act, Protected forest System of the State Forest, Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties, Conservation of Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora (for the protection of species and habitat of Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) species), Forest Act (via forest management
plans, harvesting and silvicultural notices and the Forestland Development Permission System) and Landscapes Act (for the protection of landscape values)
etc. For large scale land development, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required to be conducted according to Environmental Impact
Assessment Act. For more details on these protection measures on HCVs in Japan see the below Table 1.
Forests are important habitats for many animal and plant species in Japan. Approximately, 70% of Japan’s mammal species and 170 bird species(approximately 70% of all 251 bird species which breed in Japan (5)) rely on forests for their survival. Japan is one of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)
leading countries and hosted COP 10 in Nagoya (Aichi Prefecture) in 2010 in which the Aichi Biodiversity Targets were set. Since 2010, the Japanese
government has made continuous efforts to expand designated protected areas and to create of green corridors linking protected forests. Figure 3-1-32 ofJapan’s CBD 5th National Report (March 2014) shows areas of designated protected forest in state forests and green corridors connecting them haveincreased and consequently, approximately 20.3% of Japan’s terrestrial and inland water areas are being conserved as protected areas (where the Aichi
target 11 sets a 17% country target area).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 112 of 175 –Number of endangered species in Japan has increased from 3155 in 2007 to 3597 in 2013. Several organizations employed several different methods toanalyze the gap between designated protected areas and important areas for conservation of biodiversity and reported that 20 to 50% of important areas are
not designated as protected areas.
On the other hand, among the endangered species in Japan, approximately 70% of amphibian species, fish species (both fresh water and sea) and insects aswell as approximately 60% of shellfish and vascular plant species exist in small natural forests or secondary nature (where the environment is created byhuman influence). One of the major causes for extinction of these species is said to be abandonment of Satoyama – woodland near human settlements that
had been maintained by humans. Some disturbance by humans, including forestry activities, had contributed to maintenance of the secondary natureenvironment, and do not necessarily threaten HCVs in Satoyama. On the other hand, the secondary natural environment is likely to be under the threat ofland development due to its decreased economic value.
The main Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in Japan are mushrooms, bamboo shoot, wild vegetables, bamboo, fruits, wasabi, Japanese lacquer andwood acid. More than 85% of the total production values of NTFP are from mushrooms (6). The production method of mushrooms has been shifting from log
cultivation to artificial mushroom bed cultivation in air conditioned facilities as it needs no pest animal control. This shift in production can also be attributed to
declining forestry industries. Even the Shiitake mushroom, the mushroom most often cultivated with logs, are now mainly cultivated on artificial beds (7).
Therefore, NTFPs that depend on forests as well as impact of NTFPs harvest from forests are very limited. Thus, for the purpose of this CNRA, the focus will
be on risk associated with wood rather than NTFPs harvesting.
According to the Forestry White Paper of 2016, sales of timber generated about 1,000 billion yen in 1980 where as the sales of timber only generates about
200 billion yen each year recently. In 1980, log price of Cryptomeria japonica (constitute 44% of planted species) was 39,600 yen / m3 whereas the price isabout 13,000 yen / m3 in recent years. The log price of Chamaecyparis obtusa (constitute 25% of planted species) in 1980 was 76,400 yen / m 3 whereas theprice is about 18,000 yen / m3 in recent years (90, page 89). Consequently, silvicultural cost is now exceeding the income from sales of timber. When 50
years old Cryptomeria japonica forest is clear cut, income is estimated to be 880,000 yen / ha. The silvicultural cost to establish 50 years old Cryptomeria
japonica forest is estimated to be between 1,140,000 yen / ha to 2,450,000 yen / ha (90, page 96). In such situation, many plantations established to meet thedemand of wood after the second World War are now becoming mature and ready to be clear cut, but are actually not cut due to the low profit and high cost to
regenerate the forest (97).
Regarding the enforcement of laws and regulations, it is clear from the result of CNRA category 1 approved on 17th December 2015 (FSC-CNRA-JPN V1-0)
that Japan’s legal performance is generally good. According to the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International, Japan scored 75 (17th out of
168 countries) in 2015 (8).
Judging from the overall situation mentioned above, Table 1 and CNRA HCV analysis below, the threats of forestry on HCVs in Japan is deemed small.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 113 of 175 –Table 1. Japan’s forests under Protection & key HCV safeguards
Protection Forests
Ramsar Sites: The Convention on Wetlands, called the Ramsar
Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides theframework for national action and international cooperation for theconservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. Thereare currently 50 Ramsar sites in Japan (148,002 ha in total). (9)The core areas of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: Biospherereserves are areas comprising terrestrial, marine and coastal
ecosystems. Each reserve promotes solutions reconciling theconservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use. There are
currently 7 designated reserves in Japan. Core areas includes
protected areas, as they act as reference points on the naturalstate of the ecosystems represented by the biosphere reserves.
(10) (11)

UNESCO World Natural Heritage: Natural Heritage is valued for
geographical and geological features, ecosystems, magnificent
scenery and endangered species. There are currently 4
designated heritages in Japan. (16)

HCV Safeguards in Japan
Ramsar Sites: Japan has set an original criterion for
designation which is to make sure the site is protected underregulations of national laws (Natural Parks Act, Wildlife
Protection Act, etc.) for many years to come. As a result,most of Japanese Ramsar sites are covered by Special
Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary or Special protection
zones/Special zones under Natural Parks Act so that thesesites are protected. In Special Protection Areas of wildlife
sanctuary, harvesting activities are strictly prohibited. In
special zones under the Natural Parks Act, unauthorized
harvesting, plant removal, hunting, introduction of plant andanimals, extraction of rocks, stone and soil are prohibited. In
the Special Protection zones, any damage to trees and use
of fire are also prohibited.
The core areas of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves:‘Biosphere Reserve designation criteria’, Japan’s original
designation criteria, requires long term protection of the sites
under laws and regulations. As a result, most of the coreareas of the Biosphere Reserves are covered by Special
Protection Zones and Class 1 Special Zones of National
Parks, Wilderness Areas and Special Zones of Nature
Conservation Areas based on Nature Conservation Act, andForest Ecosystem Protection Areas based on Protected
forest System of the State Forest. No unauthorized accessis allowed in Wilderness Areas and no activities which impact
natural environment is allowed. Any activities in Special
Zones of Nature Conservation Areas need permission of thestate government. Protected forest System of the State
Forest is a system to protect state forests with highecosystem values. These forests are governed by the state
government and monitoring is implemented to check there isno negative impact on the forest ecosystem and wildlife. (12)(13) (14) (15)HCV Occurrence description
HCV 1: Many of the Ramsar sites contain significant
numbers of rare and/or threatened bird and plant
species in Japan.

UNESCO World Natural Heritage: In the designated areas, it
is required for public authorities in charge of nature
protection to cooperate with local organizations and experts
to manage the areas appropriately with scientific approach.
Therefore, establishment and management of Local Liaison
Committee and Scientific Committee to develop
management plans is needed. There is no specific law for

HCV 1: Natural Heritage is valued for geographicaland geological features, ecosystems, magnificent
scenery and endangered species. There are
currently 4 designated heritages in Japan.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 114 of 175 –HCV 3: Rare Wetlands ecosystems as well as
important habitat.

HCV 1: Core areas of the Biosphere Reserves aredesignated important areas for long term biodiversity
conservation at national level.
Rare and endangered species are known to exist.
HCV 3: Ecosystems which are representative of theecoregion.

HCV 2: Smaller (than IFLs) ‘intact forests’ in Japan
including those designated as World Heritage

conserving heritage sites, however, the state government ismaking sure that these sites are covered by systems thatthey can directly manage such as National Parks, Natural
Habitat Protection Areas, Forest Ecosystem Protection Areas
and Natural Monuments based on Act on Protection ofCultural Properties. Any changes to Natural Monuments
need permission from the state government. These
safeguards ensures that no commercial logging happens in
the designated sites.(17) (18)(Yakushima, Shirakami sanchi, Shiretoko andKasugayama Primeval Forest).

- Natural Monument Protection Area (for Special Natural
Monument): Natural Monument Protection Area is designatedbased on Act on Protection of Cultural Properties. Areas with richNatural Monuments are designated. When Natural Monuments
have significant value nationally or globally, they are designatedas Special Natural Monuments. There are currently 4 designatedas Natural Monument Protection Areas with rich Special Natural
Monuments in Japan. (19) (20)Natural Monument Protection Area (for Special Natural
Monument): Based on the Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties, any changes to Natural Monuments needpermission from the state government.

HCV 1: Areas with rich Natural Monuments (including
animals and plant species) which have significant
value nationally or globally.

Special Protection Zones of National Parks and Quasi- National
Parks: Sites of magnificent natural landscapes which are of
special importance for Japan are designated as these types ofparks. Both are designated by the state government based on
Natural Parks Act. National Parks are directly managed by thestate government and management of Quasi- National Parks is
outsourced to local prefectures. There are currently 32 National
Parks and 57 Quasi- National Parks in Japan.(21)Wilderness Areas: Nature Conservation Areas are designatedbased on Nature Conservation Act and prefectural bylaw for the
purpose of conserving nature and biodiversity. There are currently
5 designated Wilderness Areas in Japan. (23)Special Protection Zones of National Parks and QuasiNational Parks: In special zones under Natural Parks Act,
unauthorized harvesting, plant removal, hunting, introductionof plant and animals, extraction of rocks, stone and soil areprohibited. In the Special Protection zones, any damage totrees and use of fire are additionally prohibited.(22)

HCV 2: Sites of magnificent natural landscapes which
are special importance for Japan are designated. An
IFL area is located within the Hidaka-sanmyaku Erimo
Quasi-National Park

Wilderness Areas: No unauthorized access is allowed in
Wilderness Areas and no activities which impact naturalenvironment is allowed here.
(23)

HCV 1: Sites which needs special conservation
measures to maintain biodiversity are designated.

Natural Habitat Protection Areas: Based on Act on Conservationof Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, when the
Minister of the Environment finds it necessary for the conservationof a nationally endangered species of wild fauna or flora, he/she
may designate a natural habitat protection area. There are
currently 9 designated areas in Japan. (24) (25)Natural Habitat Protection Areas: Based on Act onConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora, any unauthorized land re-formation, mining, extractionof soil and stone, changes to water quantity and quality andwood harvest is prohibited. (26)Special Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary: Areas recognizedas particularly important for protecting wildlife and their habitat aredesignated as Special Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary underSpecial Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary: In Special
Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary, harvesting activities

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 115 of 175 –HCV 3: UNESCO World Natural Heritage areas areimportant habitat conservation areas for some ofJapan’s endangered species.

HCV 2: Sites with almost no human influence aredesignated.
HCV 1: These areas host habitat areas of for theconservation of a nationally endangered species ofwild fauna or flora.
HCV 3: Some of these areas are rare and uniquehabitat that are indispensable for the survival of somespecies.
HCV 1: These areas contained significant
concentrations of rare and/or threatened species.

Wildlife Protection Act. There are currently 70 sites designated by
the state government and 540 sites designated by prefectures inJapan. (27) (28)are strictly prohibited. (29)

HCV 2: Areas larger than 10,000 ha and contain wide
range of animals including large mammals andRaptors are designated.
HCV 3: Areas known to have Large group of migrant
birds as well as important breeding sites for large
groups of birds and bats are designated.
HCV 3: State forests with high ecosystem values aredesignated.

Protected forest System of the State Forest: Protected forest
System of the State Forest is a system to protect state forests withhigh ecosystem values. Currently there are 855 Protected forests
making up 968,000 ha in total. (30)These forests are governed by the state government andmonitoring is implemented to check there is no negative
impact on the forest ecosystem and wildlife.

Designated area for Erosion Control: Areas with significant
concerns of slope erosion and accumulation of earth and sand asa consequence, as well as areas of significant concerns of soils
entering streams and rivers in the case of natural disaster such as
earthquake are designated under Erosion Control Act. (31) (32)

In the designated areas, any unauthorized extraction ofwood, rocks, stone, soils, which may negatively impact theerosion control function are prohibited. (33)

HCV 4: Areas with significant concerns of slope
erosion and accumulation of earth and sand as aconsequence, as well as areas of significant concernsof soils entering streams and rivers in the case ofnatural disaster such as earthquake are designated.

Steep Slope Area in Danger of Failure: Steep Slope Areas inDanger of Failure which, in case of failure, will pull residents insignificant risk and adjacent areas are designated by Prefectural
government under Act on Prevention of Disasters Caused by
Steep Slope Failure.
(34) (35)
UNESCO World Cultural Heritage: Designation of monuments,
buildings, ruins and cultural landscapes with outstanding universal
values. There are currently 15 World Cultural Heritages in Japan.
(18)

Any unauthorized activities which enhances the risk of failure(such as digging, harvesting) are prohibited under Act on
Prevention of Disasters Caused by Steep Slope Failure. (36)

HCV 4: Steep Slope Areas in Danger of Failure
which, in case of failure, will pull residents insignificant risk and adjacent areas are designated.

In Japan, those already designated as cultural properties
under Act on Protection of Cultural Properties arerecommended UNESCO status if they are considered tohave outstanding universal values. Therefore, all World
Cultural Heritage sites in Japan are subjected to protection
under Act on Protection of Cultural Properties. Any changes
to cultural properties need permission from the state
government. (38)

HCV 6: Monuments, buildings, ruins and culturallandscapes with outstanding universal values aredesignated.

Special Scenic beauty: Landscapes crucial for Japanese beauty,
significantly valuable and those with high artistic and academic
values are designated by the state government under Act on
Protection of Cultural Properties. There are currently 36 sites inJapan. (39)

Any changes to the Special Scenic beauty need permission
from the state government.
(19)

HCV 6: Landscapes crucial for Japanese beauty,
significantly valuable and those with high artistic andacademic values are designated.

Pirikanoka (of Ainu peoples): Aesthetic landscapes derived from
Ainu historic culture are designated by the state government under
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties. There are currently 9
Pirikanokas in Hokkaido. (40)

Any changes to the Pirikanoka need permission from thestate government. (19)

HCV 6: Aesthetic landscapes derived from Ainu
historic culture are designated.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 116 of 175 –Experts consulted
Name

Organization

Area of expertise (category/sub-category)HCV 1 to 3
As a staff of the NGO, he has been involved in a number of conservation projects in Japan. He is currently
in charge of a project of raptor conservation and an ecological park support project.
HCV 1 to 3
He has extensive knowledge and experience on vegetation throughout Japan, and has published a numberof books and academic papers on forest ecology and plant taxonomy.
HCV 1 to 6.

1.

Seiichi Dejima

Nature Conservation Society of
Japan

2.

Yukito Nakamura

Tokyo University of Agriculture

3.

The University of Tokyo

4.

Hirokazu
Yamamoto
Itsuro Katano

5.

Mr. Kajikawa

6.

Masaya Tokuya;
Masayuki Teruya;
Katsuaki Kinjo;
Hideki Irei;
Tohru Higa;
Kensaku Kanna;
Kou Hirata;
Akira Kikukawa;Takeshi Uchihara;
Asamichi Iguchi
Yuto Takahashi

7.

8.

9.

Yasushi Oshiro;
Kenji Agarie;
Kazunori
Kamizato
Susumu Higa;
TakeshiYamashiro;
Seikou Nishime

Kagoshima Prefecture Oshima
Office Agriculture, Forest andFisheries Dept.
Oji Paper Co., Ltd

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

Okinawa Prefecture
Environmental Dept., Nature
Protection Sect. & Agriculture,
Forest and Fisheries Dept.

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

Ministry of the Environment
Naha Natural Environment
OfficeNatural Park Section
Kunigami Village
Economic Dept. & World
Heritage Promotion Dept.

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

Kunigami Village forest owners'
cooperative

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3. (follow up of current NRA)

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 117 of 175 –10.

Tsuguo Takanishi

11.

Masami Shiba

12.

14.

SatsukiMatsumoto
Tokuki Yamiya
Yoshiyuki Suzuki
Taku Mizuta
Chizuru Iwamoto
Takatoshi Makino
Mariko Suzuki

15.

Mitsuhiro Tabata

16.

Takehiko Ohta

17.

Ken Sugimura

13.

Former head of Shinjuku Gyoen
Park, Ministry of theEnvironment (retired)
University of the Ryukyus

General consultation with focus on HCV 2.

Uken Village

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 to 3.

Amami Ranger Office, Ministryof the Environment

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 to 3.

Amami Branch, ResearchCenter for the Pacific Islands,
Kagoshima University
Amami Nature Conservation
Society
Emeritus professor of The
University of Tokyo.
Professor of Nagasaki University

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 to 3.

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 and 3.

General consultation with focus on HCV 1 to 3.
General consultation with focus on HCV 4.
General consultation with focus on HCV 1 to 3.

Risk assessment
Indicator
3.0

Sources ofInformation
Table 15, 8, 9,10, 11,
16, 18,19, 20,21, 23,24, 25,27, 28,30, 31,32, 34,35, 39,40, 52,53, 54,

HCV occurrence and threat assessment
HCV Occurrence Data Assessment:

Geographical/ Functional
scale
Geographicalscale: Country

In Japan, there has been almost no report/document that systematically and comprehensively investigatedthe occurrence of HCVs according to FSC’s definition. However, the current CW NRA approved by FSC on
4th August 2014 (FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0) and ‘HCV guideline’ currently under development by Japanese
CW working group are very useful sources.
Areas where HCVs are highly likely to exist are the designated areas under national legislations and/orinternational conventions which can be found in table 1 in the overview above. These areas are shown andidentifiable via websites of Ministry of the Environment, The Agency for Cultural Affairs and local
governments. As the information is managed by public bodies, the accuracy and update-frequency are
sufficiently good so that the Japan working group agreed not to doubt their accuracies (9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19,
20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, and 40).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 118 of 175 –Risk designation anddetermination
Low risk for thecountry
Thresholds (1) and (2)are met:(1) Data available aresufficient for
determining HCV
presence within thearea underassessment;AND(2) Data available aresufficient for assessing

55, 56,
57, 60,61, 72,73, 74,78, 81,
83, 87,90, 91,
96

When assessing the HCV occurrence in areas not designated under national legislations and/orinternational conventions, publically available data such as biodiversity assessment maps developed by
Ministry of the Environment and selected top 100 watershed (headwater) forests selected by Forestry Agency
and red listed species listed by each local government are very useful (54, 55, 61, 72). Other information
sources the working group valued were the public data provided by national/international NGOs such as
Biodiversity Hotspot designated by Conservation International (53), WWF’s Global 200 (56, 60), IFL Map(16), important wild bird habitat by Wild Bird Society of Japan (62, 63) and WWF Nansei Islands livingorganisms map developed by WWF Japan (57)
Regarding the basic needs of communities (HCV 5), comprehensive information can be found in the White
Paper of the Forestry Agency (90). Regarding basic needs of Ainu Peoples, a website of Ainu Museum (91)
as well as input from the working group members are useful.
Regarding the cultural value (HCV6), it is very important to give special consideration to Ainu Peoples in
Hokkaido. To do so, it is essential that the direct stakeholders (Ainu Peoples) provide input to the risk
assessment. To do so, FSC Japan asked one person in the Hokkaido Ainu Association to be a member ofthe working group. In order to obtain high quality inputs in various areas across HCV 1 to 6, other members
selected to form the working group included representatives of Environmental NGOs, Researchers, a
Journalist and certificate holders. These experts ensured the quality of the available data used in theassessment was sufficient.
Data availability for the assessment of the threats to HCVs from forest management activities:
Regarding the data availability on assessments of threats on the designated areas under national legislations
and/or international conventions, Corruption Perception Index provided by Transparency International gives
us a good overview (8). Cases of breaches can be identified to a certain level with prosecutorial Statistics
although it is not possible to filter down the cases to those related to forestry activities (78).
Japan is a signatory country to the CBD. Progresses towards achieving Aichi targets, therefore, is regularly
reported (5). These reports were also used to assess the situation or possible influences on HCVs.
There are many reports/maps/news provided by governmental bodies which can be considered trustworthy.
These include:- Forestry White Paper which summarizes current situation of domestic forestry and published every year by
the Forestry Agency (90).
- A map of “Gaps between protected areas and Areas with natural ecosystem that characterizes Japaneseland” developed by Ministry of the Environment in 2012 (81).
- News on newly designated protected areas such as National Parks after the development of above
mentioned map in 2012 (87).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 119 of 175 –threats to HCVs
caused by forest
management activities.

- Forestry statistics (such as harvesting volumes) updated and published every year by local governments(55, 56).
- Forest Fire reports maintained published by the Forestry Agency (73).
- Annual water quality survey on all first-grade rivers in Japan which Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism directly manage (74).
- Annual water quality survey of other rivers is conducted by each prefecture.
- Satoyama ecosystem research of Ministry of the Environment (83).
- Results of Research to develop a policy on greening plan use (52).
- Rontai Co., Ltd (a private greening company) website as an example (96):http://www.rontai.co.jp/combination/
On top of the information sources specified here, technical inputs from the working group members together
with inputs from stakeholder consultation gave us sufficient information to assess the threats to HCVs.
3.1 HCV
1

5, 8, 46,
50-63,
68-69,
79-81,
83-87
94

HCV Occurrence
As indicated in Table 1, HCV 1 areas designated as important under national legislations and/or international
conventions are subjected to restrictions enforced by the respective legislations. Moreover, as there is noallowance of forest management activities in these areas so no further analysis on these protected forest
areas is required in the HCV 1 sections below. The effectiveness of the protection of protected forest areas
are shown by indicators 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 under category 1.
According to the Biodiversity Hotspot designated by Conservation International, Japan as a whole is abiodiversity hotspot (53). There are many endemic species and other HCV 1 species that occur including
within production forests in Japan.
Red listed species: After the publication of the IUCN red list, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan and
WWF Japan subsequently published a red data book for plant species for Japan in 1989. Since thenrelevant authorities are maintaining the publicly available database (54). Red listed species may also befound within production forests of Japan.
KBAs: Are based on Important Bird Areas (IBAs) of Bird Life International which has been developed since
1980s. These areas are protected as important wild bird habitat by Wild Bird Society of Japan (62, 63).
In order to develop and support policies and strategies to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable use,
the Ministry of the Environment has been developing maps (named ‘biodiversity assessment maps) toillustrate current status of biodiversity, areas with risks and prioritized areas where measures should be taken(55, 61). These maps include ‘Areas (forest, inland water, coast) with natural ecosystem that characterizes
Japanese land’, ‘Number of endangered species whose habitats are limited’, ‘Number of endemic species’,

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 120 of 175 –Geographicalscale:- Region
Functional
scale:- Protection
scheme• Protected
areas• Other areas

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (7) applies:(7) HCV 1 is identified
and/or its occurrenceis likely in the area
under assessment, but
it is effectively
protected from threats
from management
activities.

‘Coastal areas where migrant birds potentially visit’ etc. In addition to the maps, a ‘Biodiversity Chart’ foreach municipality was developed which shows basic summary of biodiversity found in each municipality.
Based on the Basic Act on Biodiversity, each municipality is obliged to make best effort to develop
biodiversity regional strategy in order to conserve local biodiversity. The Chart is used as input to thisstrategy. In the ‘Guidance for developing biodiversity regional strategy’ (55), the ‘Municipal Forest
Maintenance Plan’ is specifically mentioned as very closely related plan. Hence through the Municipal Forest
Maintenance Plan, the biodiversity regional strategy is influencing decisions related to forest management toensure biodiversity is conserved.
Conservation International also designates areas called Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) which are mapped. The
KBA tends to cover fair large areas as a whole. So it is likely that not whole KBA has HCV 1 values but it islikely there are some HCV 1 species in each KBA.
Southern part of Nansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south)
Japan has several islands such as Izu Islands, Ogasawara Islands, Iki Island, Tsushima Island, Goto Islands
and the Nansei Islands. The land territory, coast and offshore areas often have unique ecosystem andvaluable landscapes and the influence of human activities is generally small on most of these islands.
Forests of Nansei Islands are the only land areas of Japan included in WWF’s Global 200 which means it
contains an ecoregion that hosts HCV 1 values including areas that harbour exceptional biodiversity and are
representative of its ecosystems which feature high levels of species richness, endemic species, unusual
higher taxa, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and the global rarity of habitats and species (56,60). This area has a variety of climates and species of temperate and subtropical zones and shows one of
the most valuable natural environment in the world. Faunal boundary line between the Palearctic region andthe IndoMalaya region called Watase Line is just north of Amami Islands (57). Thus the Southern part ofNansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south) belongs to a different ecozone from the rest of Japan. The
uniqueness in the flora and fauna makes these areas clearly contain HCV 1 species and are considered very
symbolic areas for nature conservation. The HCV 1 values do also overlap with production forests in theregion.
Due to historical reasons, post-war reconstruction and industrial promotion were prioritized in Nansei Islandand designation of National parks were less prioritized which led to late designation of national parks here.46

46 In order to protect valuable nature of islands, Izu Islands were designated as Izu Shichito National Park in 1955 (currently incorporated into Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park), Ogasawara Islands

were designated as Ogasawara National Park in 1972, Iki Island and Tsushima Island were designated as Iki-Tsushima Quasi-National Park in 1968, and Goto Islands were designated as
Saikai National Park in 1955. Yakushima Island (in northern part of Nansei Islands) was designated as Kirishima Yaku National Park in 1964 (currently as Yakushima National Park). On theother hand, designation of all national parks in the southern part of Nansei Islands were after 1972 which is the year when Ryukyu (present Okinawa prefecture) was returned to Japan from the

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 121 of 175 –Until only recently, coverage of legal protection was considered insufficient which made WWF Japan todevelop “WWF Nansei-Islands living organisms’ map” to call for protection of biodiversity (57). However, in
2013, the region was included in the tentative World Heritage Site list of UNESCO (58), Iriomote-Ishigaki
National Park was expanded on 15th April 2016 and in September 2016 (68), and designation of Yanbaru
National Park which cover the forested areas located in north region of Okinawa Island was announced (69).
In Amami Islands (Amami Oshima Island being the core of islands), a new national park, Amami Islands
National Park was established in March 2017 (82). The designation as natural parks has been partly made inorder to designate Ryukyu-Amami area as UNESCO world heritage site.
The Scientific Committee of Amami-Ryukyu World Natural Heritage Candidate has demonstrated thefollowing as outstanding values of this region (58, 59):High rate of endemic species: Out of 59 land reptiles, 47 are endemic (80%). Out of 24 amphibians, 19 areendemic (79%). Amami Islands and Okinawa Islands were isolated from main lands and other islands about
200 million years ago so there are many conserved endemic species which do not have any related species
in nearby areas. Some symbolic species include the: Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi), Ryukyu long-tailed
giant rat (Diplothrix legata), Ryukyu black-breasted leaf turtle (Geoemyda japonica), Kuroiwa's ground gecko(Goniurosaurus kuroiwae) and Limnonectes namiyei.
The area has outstanding plant diversity. The main small islands each have more than 1,000 flowering plant
species. Amami and Ryukyu islands makes up less than 1% of total land of Japan but 17% of endangeredtracheophyte in Japan distribute here therefore the area is very important for conserving plants.
Finally, another area worth noting for its symbolic valuable nature (which is often spoken together with
Nansei Islands) is Ogasawara Islands. Ogasawara Islands have never been connected to any large
continent and so have quite unique ecosystem. The value of ecosystem and biodiversity including HCV 1
values is by no means any less than Nansei Islands. However, as the aforementioned gap map showed, alarge portion of the islands are covered by Ogasawara National Park and the area is already a designated
UNESCO World Heritage so good protection measures are in place. Moreover, as the area does not havemuch forests, forest management does not pose a real threat to the natural ecosystems identified in the gap
analysis.
Threat Assessment:
Endemic Species: Safeguards for protecting endemic species including within production forests are inplace under various efforts listed in Table 1 and these regulatory safeguards are sufficiently implemented as

USA (Iriomote-Ishigaki National Park in 1972, Amami Gunto Quasi-National Park in 1974, Okinawa Kaigan Quasi-National Park in 1972 and Kerama Shotō National Park was once included in
Okinawa Kaigan Quasi-National Park in 1978 and then designated independently in 2014).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 122 of 175 –attested to in the context section above (Japan overall has a good legal compliance record (also see
Category 1) and has a CPI index is 72/100 and is 20th out of 176 countries in 2016. (8)Red Listed Species:
As described above, the red data book and the red listed species database are in place and well maintainedin Japan (54). While there is no specific legislation for red listed species, this information is taken into
consideration when designating areas under the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Management Law and when
implementing environmental impact assessment for protecting and conserving wild organisms. Red list
species are also protected by proxy through the designation of important areas as Natural Habitat Protection
Areas and Special Protection Areas of wildlife sanctuary (also see Table 1) (54). Thus areas withconcentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered species,
forestry management activities are restricted so that the risk of removal of these important RTE species islow.
Key Biodiversity Area (KBA), Important Bird Area (IBA):KBA is based on IBA, which has been developed and maintained by an international NGO, Birdlife
International. KBA includes species other than birds and also criteria of Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) and
Important Plant Area (IPA) (46). Conservation International Japan, an Environmental NGO, has analyzed
GIS data and reported that about a half of KBA is covered by some sort of protected areas.
These areas are protected as important wild bird habitat by Wild Bird Society of Japan (62). The protection
activities are based on local effort in cooperation with local community. However, at the same time, the Wild
Bird Society of Japan is making requests to governmental bodies to designate IBAs as protection sites underlegislative regulation (i.e. wildlife sanctuary, National Parks and Quasi- National Parks, Nature Conservation
Areas and Natural Monument).
Currently about half of the IBAs (or part of IBAs) are designated as protection sites under legislative
regulation (63). Wild Bird Society of Japan is a large organisation with 90 branches and more than 50,000
members/supporters. Their proactive activities include protection of IBAs together with local community.
Thus it can be concluded that the risk that forest management activities will threaten the IBAs is low.
Additionally, Japan is a signatory country to the CBD. In order to achieve Aichi targets, Japan has revised its
Biodiversity National Strategy in 2012 and developed a roadmap to achieve targets (5). During COP 12 in2014, in order to make interim assessment of progress towards achieving Aichi targets, Global Biodiversity
Outlook 4 was used. This concludes that although some progress to achieving Aichi targets wasdemonstrated globally, the progress is insufficient to achieve targets unless immediate effective measures
are implemented to mitigate the pressure on biodiversity. As a result, only targets 11, 16 and 17 wereassessed likely to be achieved. Japan’s national report used as input to the GBO4, demonstrate that targets
11 (regarding land conservation areas) and 17 are already achieved. Upon developing the Biodiversity

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 123 of 175 –National Strategy, the Forestry Agency of Japan started reflecting its intention in the form of allocating
various subsidies which contribute to enhancing biodiversity of forests since 2012 (95).

Habitat removal and fragmentation
Gap Map areas:
The Ministry of the Environment, following the long term objective of the National Biodiversity Strategy,
conducted an investigation to specify important ecosystem areas for the purpose of conserving biodiversity atnational level. As a result, ‘Information on important areas for biodiversity conservation’ was published in
2001. Based on this information, in 2012 the Ministry of the Environment developed a map of ‘Areas (forest,
inland water, coastal areas) with natural ecosystems that characterizes Japanese lands’ (79). They also
developed a map of ‘Designated status of protected areas’ and overlaid these maps to produce a map of‘Gaps between protected areas and Areas with natural ecosystem that characterizes Japanese land’ (81).
According to this gap map, most gaps are found along backbone ranges in Hokkaido, central Honshu andNansei Islands. Percentage of gaps calculated from GIS data are 45.5%, 43.3%, 34.3% in Hokkaido,
Honshu and Ogasawara Islands respectively; whereas the percentage of gap in Southern part of Nansei
Islands is 69.5%. In Hokkaido and Honshu, most of the natural forest ecosystem core areas are protected
and the gaps are found mainly in the buffer zones around the core protected area. Such gap areas havebeen left due to steep topography and/or poor access, and it is unlikely to be utilized for forestry. In Nansei
Islands, the main gaps are found in Amami Oshima Island, Tokuno-shima Islands and northern areas of
Okinawa main island. These facts were clear from the maps and confirmed by working group members.
In southern part of Nansei Islands, there was a concern of a risk of tree harvesting by private harvesters
negatively impacting HCV 1 and/or 3. However, by the designation of a new National Park (Yanbaru National
Park) in September 2016 in Okinawa Main Island, one of the main areas with forestry industry, forestry
activities in high ecological value areas is now restricted. In Amami Islands, a new national park was
established in March 2017, encompassing 42,181 ha of land, including subtropical forests in the center ofAmami Oshima Island (81). As the area used to be mostly the “gap” zones, the designation of these two newnational parks in Okinawa and Amami islands has reduced the gap map areas in Nansei Islands significantly(most of the forests in the gap areas in Amami Islands and Okinawa Island are now covered by the nationalpark).
The Nature Conservation Society of Japan has also compared plant community red data with the current
protected area to identify the gap areas (80). Results show that 2.70% (10,061.44 km2) of national land ishabitat for species listed in the red data book, and 73.81% of the habitat is covered in some sort of protectedareas. This means 26.19% of the habitat is not included in any of the designated protected areas. The
results also showed a trend that areas with high altitude are largely covered by protected areas and more
gap areas are found in lower land.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 124 of 175 –Among the endangered species in Japan, approximately 70% of amphibian species, fish species (both fresh
water and sea) and insects as well as approximately 60% of shellfish and vascular plants exist in secondary
nature (the environment created and maintained by humans) (83). As people stopped using fuel woods,
Satoyama, woodland near settlement, which was managed to collect fuel woods started to be abandoned,
allowing natural succession to proceed. What is important to ensure these endangered species’ survival iscontinuous use and management of the secondary nature of Satoyama; designation of protected areas bygovernments is not always the best solution. Instead, for such species which depend on the secondary
natural environment, human disturbance such as forestry activities may be necessary. However, because
secondary hardwood forest of Satoyama has little economic value, forestry activities do not often take place.
At the moment, they are maintained by efforts of volunteers to conserve Satoyama in Japan. Certain amountof human disturbance is considered to be beneficial survival of species in the secondary nature.
The risk of the secondary natural environment being converted into plantation is very small. Commercial
forestry in Japan mostly takes place in conifer plantation. Forestry in Japan has been stagnant for a long
period of time, and the revenue gained from selling harvested woods can hardly pay for the cost ofreforestation and following silviculture. It is unlikely that someone wish to pay the cost to expand plantation
forest in hardwood secondary forested areas. Some secondary hardwood forests are harvested for
pulpwood production. Hardwood naturally regenerate from coppicing very promptly and the forest ecosystem
consisting mainly of secondary vegetation is maintained by such disturbance. Thus it cannot be said thatsuch forestry operation threats the endangered species in such habitats.
Alien / Invasive species:
Regarding the threat of human introduction of alien / invasive species, alien species which are likely to havenegative impact on ecosystem are specified and designated under Invasive Alien Species Act and any
activities which lead to expansion of such species are prohibited (50). When there is already a known impact
caused by a specified alien species on ecosystems, mitigation measures are implemented by the Ministry of
the Environment (per article 11 of the Act). Mitigations currently implemented in Japan are against
mongoose and Bufo marinus.
Regarding the use of alien commercial tree species, Japan started introducing some as a trial as early as the
Meiji Era (1868-1912) (51). In Taisho Era (1912-1926), Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris were introduced
widely in Hokkaido as a snow break along railways. In the postwar ‘plantation expansion’ period, Pinus
strobus was introduced in Hokkaido due to its fast growth rate. As plantation expansion ceased, introductionof alien commercial trees also ceased and there is almost no commercial introduction of alien trees now.
On the other hand, there is a slight concern on biodiversity from the long term habit of use of alien grasses toprotect embankment slopes along forest roads. The reasons for the use of alien grasses are because they
are relatively cheaper, they have a better initial growth and survival rate. To investigate the potential impacts
of using alien grass for protection of slopes the government decided to implement a comprehensive research(named ‘Research to develop a policy on greening plan use’) in 2006 lead by the Ministry of the Environment,

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 125 of 175 –Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries andForestry Agency (52). Following the research results, the Forestry Agency, in 2011, developed a ‘Guideline
on application of greening plants in public construction projects which take into account conservation of
biodiversity’ (84). Since then, public construction projects are following the guideline and the impact of alien
grasses on biodiversity is decreasing. Private greening companies (which sell and apply the grass seeds)
are also following the guideline so only species which their invasiveness impacts have been assessed areused. Currently there is no reported situation where invasive alien grasses are uncontrollably expanding tothreat HCVs with forest management production forests.
Southern part of Nansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south)
Because Nansei Islands are frequently hit by strong wind and wind storms such as typhoons, trees of sizes,
shapes and quality suitable for construction timber can hardly be grown. The main forestry activity isharvesting of trees for woodchip production as well as wood for civil engineering. Overall, the scale offorestry activities is usually relatively small. Amami Oshima Island and Okinawa Main Island, are the twoareas where main forestry activities take place in Nansei Islands and produce 24,000m 3 and 4,000m3 ofwoods annually respectively (85, 86). Each island has estimated annual growth rate of approximately at least
300,000m3, forestry industries in these islands, especially Okinawa Main Island, are very minor industries.
The main harvesting method is clear felling as most trees cut are mainly hardwoods whose shapes are notsuitable for thinning (i.e. not straight). The area of clear felling is small and never exceeds 5 ha. As
explained in category 1, any harvesting of forests need prior submission of harvesting permit application as
well as regeneration plan which include environmental requirements too. There is a post operation
inspection by local authority to confirm the operation was done accordingly to the submitted and approved
plan. As shown in the assessment of category 1, there are very few cases of violation of this system. No
reported violation case could be found in this region by internet search.
The Okinawa Main Island, one of the main areas with forestry industry, the annual timber production volume
is only approximately 1.3% of the annual growth rate (4,000m3 / 300,000m3) thus the potential threats on
HCVs caused by forestry activities are quite small. Additionally, the designation of a new national park
(Yanbaru National Park) in September 2016 reduced gap areas significantly (69).
Following the establishment of Yanbaru National Park, another national park was established in March 2017
in Amami Islands, with Amami Oshima Island being the core. Amami Oshima Island produces approximately
8% of the growth rate annually (24,000m3 / 300,000m3); which is quite small but relatively large for thisregion. The island was once heavily exploited by a local company which owns large portion of the land of theisland and harvested large amount of timber by destructive practice. Prior to designation of the new nationalpark, this company had agreed to sell 4,200 hectares of its corporate forest to the Ministry of the Environment
as this area was likely to be included in the national park (87). The area sold was in the centre of the islands
with high likelihood of HCV occurrence. As a result, forestry activities in the centre of Amami Oshima Island
is going to be restricted and endemic species as well as their habitat are to be protected. This local company

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 126 of 175 –owned 7,000 ha of forests (94). As the company sold 4,200 ha (approx. 60% of original area) to Ministry of
the Environment, the company ended up having 3,800 ha (approx. 40% of original area) of forests. These
3,800 ha areas are not directly regulated by legislations but are included in the buffer zones surrounding thecore area of the core area of UNESCO world natural heritage site which the area is in the process ofregistration. The company is aware of the social expectation of preserving the area as natural as possible forthe purpose of maintaining the status eligible for UNESCO world natural heritage site. Since the forestry was
not very profitable business, the company has shifted its behavior from harvesting forests to protecting thehabitats which in turn contributes to their tourism business. There are reported activities of the company tocombat exotic invasive mongoose in order to protect a symbolic indigenous rabbit.
Once the area is registered as a UNESCO world natural heritage site (assessment to be completed in 2018),
a monitoring activity is obliged every 5 years to ensure maintenance of the value. Therefore, the social
expectation towards the company to maintain its forests as natural as possible will continue.
Designation of new national parks in Okinawa and Amami Islands is a necessary measure in order todesignate the Ryukyu-Amami region to be UNESCO world heritage site which the Ministry of theEnvironment is proactively promoting. By having the legal safeguards in place, endemic species as well as
their habitats in Okinawa and Amami Islands are to be protected.
3.2 HCV2

13,
16-19,
21 – 23
27 – 30
39, 70HCV 2 Occurrence:

Geographicalscale: Country

As the IFL maps indicate, it is clear that not many IFLs are left in Japan (70). This is due to an obvious
population increase occurring already in Edo era (since 1600) and post-war(s) wood demands. The easiest
accessible forests were harvested and intact forests are only left in remote areas under state land.
The IFL maps shows two areas of Japan having IFLs. One area is overlaps with Fagus crenata forest
designated as ‘Asahi Sanchi Forest Ecosystem Protection Areas’ based within the protected forest system of
the State Forest. The other area overlaps with the Hidaka-sanmyaku Erimo Quasi-National Park. There areother smaller forests called ‘intact forest’ in Japan including those designated as World Heritage (Yakushima,
Shirakami sanchi, Shiretoko and Kasugayama Primeval Forest) (16).
In Japan, outstanding landscape values are subjected to designation of parks under Natural Parks Act andscenic beauty under Act on Protection of Cultural Properties and Protected forest based on Protected Forest
System of the State Forest. These designated areas may contain HCV 2 but are adequately safeguarded(see Table 1 for more details).
Threats Assessment
According to the IFL Map there are only 2 IFLs remaining in Japan both of which are adequately protectedfrom forest management activities as they both are under protection (‘Asahi Sanchi Forest Ecosystem
Protection Areas’ based within the protected forest system of the State Forest and the other IFL overlaps with

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 127 of 175 –Functional
scale:- Protection
scheme• Protected
areas• Other areas

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (10) applies:(10) There is
low/negligible threat to
HCV 2 caused bymanagement activities
in the area underassessment;the Hidaka-sanmyaku Erimo Quasi-National Park) and forest management activities are prohibited in theseareas.

Fragmentation, including access (roading):
Additionally, smaller ‘intact’ natural forests are very limited in Japan and are adequately protected from any
forest management activities under national legislation. According to the IFL definition, IFL refers to at least
500 km2 (50,000 ha) and minimal width of 10 km. The scale is much larger than the criteria used fordesignating natural parks of Japan; the criterion on scale for national parks is at least 30,000 hectares withprimeval core landscape area of at least 2,000 hectares; while the criterion for quasi-national park is at least
10,000 hectares with core area of at least 3,000 hectares. Any area that is considered as large landscapelevel ecosystems with global, regional, or national significance are designated as world heritage and otherprotected areas, such as National parks under Natural Parks Act, scenic beauty under Act on Protection ofCultural Properties (17) and Protected forest based on Protected Forest System of the State Forest (15). In
these designated areas, any activities including forest management to damage the values are not permitted.
Commercial logging:
The law and regulations are generally well enforced and respected in Japan. According to the Worldwide
Governance Indicators of the World Bank, Japan scores high in all the indicators. In the percentile rank,
Japan scores 95.67 in government effectiveness; 85.10 in regulatory quality; 89.42 in rule of law in 2015 (88).
In addition, forestry in Japan takes place mostly in conifer plantation. Secondary hardwood forests used to be
used to supply fuelwood, but the need has been lost as people started to use fossil fuels (90, page 111).
Forestry in Japan has been stagnant for decades due to low timber price and high cost of forest management
including harvesting. When even many mature plantations are abandoned, the pressure from forestry on
protected area is extremely low (see overview for more detail). Probably the biggest threat to the protectedareas and forest landscapes in general is the overpopulation of pest animals such as deer and wild boars,
which is not caused by forestry activities. Overall, it can be concluded that there is low/negligible threat to
HCV 2 caused by forest management activities in Japan.
3.3 HCV3

5,50-53,
55-58,
60-63,
68-69,
79-86

HCV 3 Occurrence
As indicated in Table 1, areas designated as important under national legislations and/or international
conventions are subjected to restrictions enforced by respective legislation and there is no allowance offorest management activities in these areas. Thus no further analysis on these HCV 3 areas is required in thesection below.
According to Biodiversity Hotspot designated by Conservation International, Japan as a whole is a hotspot(53). There are many HCV 3 ecosystems in Japan which potentially overlap with production forest areas ofJapan.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 128 of 175 –Geographicalscale:- Region
Functional
scale:- Protection
scheme• Protected
areas

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (15) applies:(15) HCV 3 is identified
and/or its occurrenceis likely in the area
under assessment, but
it is effectively
protected from threats• Other areas
In order develop and support policies and strategies to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable use,
the Ministry of the Environment have been developing maps (named ‘biodiversity assessment maps) toillustrate current status of biodiversity, areas with risks and prioritized areas where measures should be taken(55, 61). These maps include ‘Areas (forest, inland water, coast) with natural ecosystem that characterizes
Japanese land’, ‘Number of endangered species whose habitats are limited’, ‘Number of endemic species’,‘Coastal areas where migrant birds potentially visit’ etc. In addition to the maps, a ‘Biodiversity Chart’ foreach municipality was developed which shows basic summary of biodiversity found in each municipality.
Based on Basic Act on Biodiversity, each municipality is obliged to make best effort to develop biodiversity
regional strategy in order to conserve local biodiversity. The Chart is used as input to this strategy. In the‘Guidance for developing biodiversity regional strategy’ (55), the ‘Municipal Forest Maintenance Plan’ isspecifically mentioned as very closely related plan. Hence through the Municipal Forest Maintenance Plan,
the biodiversity regional strategy is influencing decisions related to forest management to ensure biodiversity
it conserved.
Conservation International also designates areas called Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) which are mapped. The
KBA tends to cover fairly large areas and may contain many HCV 3 important ecosystem and/or habitat
areas.
Southern part of Nansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south)
Japan has several islands such as Izu Islands, Ogasawara Islands, Iki Island, Tsushima Island, Goto Islands
and the Nansei Islands. The land territory, coast and offshore areas often have unique ecosystem andvaluable landscapes and the influence of human activities is generally small on most of these islands.
Forests of Nansei Islands are the only land areas of Japan included in WWF’s Global 200 which means it
contains an ecoregion that hosts HCV 3 values including areas that harbour exceptional biodiversity and are
representative of its ecosystems which feature high levels of species richness, endemic species, unusual
higher taxa, unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena, and the global rarity of habitats and species (56,60). This area has a variety of climates and species of temperate and subtropical zones and shows one of
the most valuable natural environment in the world. However, there are reported issues about insufficient
coverage of protected areas by law. WWF Japan has, hence, been promoting development of ‘NanseiIslands biodiversity strategy’ via ‘WWF Nansei-Islands living organisms’ map’ project. Faunal boundary line
between the Palearctic region and the IndoMalaya region called Watase Line is just north of Amami Islands(57). Thus the Southern part of Nansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south) belongs to a different
ecozone from the rest of Japan. The uniqueness in the flora and fauna makes these areas clearly contain
HCV 3 ecosystems/habitats and are considered very symbolic areas for nature conservation. The HCV 3
values may overlap with production forests in the region.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 129 of 175 –

caused bymanagement activities

Due to historical reasons, post-war reconstruction and industrial promotion were prioritized in Nansei Islandand designation of National parks were less prioritized which led to late designation of national parks here.47
Until only recently, coverage of legal protection was considered insufficient which made WWF Japan todevelop “WWF Nansei-Islands living organisms’ map” to call for protection of biodiversity (57). However, in
2013, the region was included in the tentative World Heritage Site list of UNESCO (58), Iriomote-Ishigaki
National Park was expanded on 15th April 2016 and in September 2016 (68), and designation of Yanbaru
National Park which cover the forested areas located in north region of Okinawa Island was announced (69).
In Amami Islands (Amami Oshima Island being the core of islands), Amami Islands National Park was
established in March 2017, covering the central forested area of Amami Oshima Island. Designation of anarea as National Park puts the area under rigorous regulation to conduct any activities negatively impacting
the environment including forest harvesting. The government is planning to recommend Ryukyu-Amami area
as UNESCO world heritage site and taking necessary measures to enforce the protection of the area.
Finally, another area worth noting for its symbolic valuable nature (which is often spoken together with
Nansei Islands) is Ogasawara Islands. Ogasawara Islands have never been connected to any large
continent and so have quite unique ecosystem. The value of ecosystem and biodiversity including HCV 3
values is by no means any less than Nansei Islands. However, as the aforementioned gap map showed, alarge portion of the islands are covered by Ogasawara National Park and the area is already a designated
UNESCO World Heritage so good protection measures are in place. Moreover, as the area does not havemuch forests, forest management does not pose a real threat to the natural ecosystems identified in the gap
analysis.
Threat Assessment:
Key Biodiversity Area (KBA), Important Bird Area (IBA):KBA is based on IBA which has been developed and maintained by an international NGO, Birdlife
International. KBA includes species other than birds and also criteria of Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) and
Important Plant Area (IPA) (46). Conservation International Japan, an Environmental NGO, has analyzed
GIS data and reported that about a half of KBA is covered by some sort of protected areas.
These areas are protected as important wild bird habitat by Wild Bird Society of Japan (62). The protection
activities are based on local effort in cooperation with local communities. However, at the same time, the47 In order to protect valuable nature of islands, Izu Islands were designated as Izu Shichito National Park in 1955 (currently incorporated into Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park), Ogasawara Islands

were designated as Ogasawara National Park in 1972, Iki Island and Tsushima Island were designated as Iki-Tsushima Quasi-National Park in 1968, and Goto Islands were designated as
Saikai National Park in 1955. Yakushima Island (in northern part of Nansei Islands) was designated as Kirishima Yaku National Park in 1964 (currently as Yakushima National Park). On theother hand, designation of all national parks in the southern part of Nansei Islands were after 1972 which is the year when Ryukyu (present Okinawa prefecture) was returned to Japan from the
USA (Iriomote-Ishigaki National Park in 1972, Amami Gunto Quasi-National Park in 1974, Okinawa Kaigan Quasi-National Park in 1972 and Kerama Shotō National Park was once included in
Okinawa Kaigan Quasi-National Park in 1978 and then designated independently in 2014).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 130 of 175 –Wild Bird Society of Japan is making requests to governmental bodies to designate IBAs as protection sites
under legislative regulation (i.e. wildlife sanctuary, National Parks and Quasi- National Parks, Nature
Conservation Areas and Natural Monument).
Currently about half of the IBAs (or part of IBAs) are designated as protection sites under legislative
regulation (63). Wild Bird Society of Japan is a large organisation with 90 branches and more than 50,000
members/supporters. Their proactive activities include protection of IBAs together with local communities.
Thus it can be concluded that the forest management activities will not threatened the habitat of the IBAs
through.
Additionally, Japan is a signatory country to the CBD. In order to achieve Aichi targets, Japan has revised its
Biodiversity National Strategy in 2012 and developed a roadmap to achieve targets (5). During COP 12 in2014, in order to make interim assessment of progress towards achieving Aichi targets, Global Biodiversity
Outlook 4 was used. This concludes that although some progress to achieving Aichi targets wasdemonstrated globally, the progress is insufficient to achieve targets unless immediate effective measures
are implemented to mitigate the pressure on biodiversity. As a result, only targets 11, 16 and 17 wereassessed likely to be achieved. Japan’s national report used as input to the GBO4, demonstrate that targets
11 (regarding land conservation areas) and 17 are already achieved. Upon developing the Biodiversity
National Strategy, the Forestry Agency of Japan started reflecting its intention in the form of allocating
various subsidies which contribute to enhancing biodiversity of forests since 2012.
Gap Map areas:
The Ministry of the Environment, following the long term objective of the National Biodiversity Strategy,
conducted an investigation to specify important ecosystem areas for the purpose of conserving biodiversity atnational level. As a result, ‘Information on important areas for biodiversity conservation’ was published in
2001. Based on this information, in 2012 the Ministry of the Environment developed a map of ‘Areas (forest,
inland water, coastal areas) with natural ecosystems that characterizes Japanese lands’ (79). They also
developed a map of ‘Designated status of protected areas’ and overlaid these maps to produce a map of‘Gaps between protected areas and Areas with natural ecosystem that characterizes Japanese land’ (81).
According to this gap map, most gaps are found along backbone ranges in Hokkaido, central Honshu andNansei Islands. Percentage of gaps calculated from GIS data are 45.5%, 43.3%, 34.3% in Hokkaido,
Honshu and Ogasawara Islands respectively; whereas the percentage of gap in Southern part of Nansei
Islands is 69.5%. In Hokkaido and Honshu, most of the natural forest ecosystem core areas where protected
and the gaps were found mainly around the buffer zones around the core protected area located mainly inremote steep land with poor access where forestry activities rarely take place. In Nansei Islands, the main
gaps were found on the Amami Oshima Island and northern areas of Okinawa main island.
In southern part of Nansei Islands, there was a concern of a risk of tree harvesting by private harvesters
negatively impacting HCV 1 and/or 3. However, by the designation of a new National Park (Yanbaru National

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 131 of 175 –Park) in September 2016 in Okinawa Main Island, one of the main areas with forestry industry, forestry
activities in high ecological value areas is now restricted. In Amami Islands, a new national park, Amami
Islands National Park was established in March 2017 (82). Designation of these two new national parks in
Okinawa and Amami islands has reduced the gap areas in Nansei Islands significantly.
The Nature Conservation Society of Japan has also compared plant community red data with the current
protected area to identify the gap areas (80). Results show that 2.70% (10,061.44 km2) of national land ishabitat for species listed in the red data book, and 73.81% of the habitat is covered in some sort of protectedareas. This means 26.19% of the habitat is not included in any of the designated protected areas. The
results also showed a trend that areas with high altitude are largely covered by protected areas and more
gap areas are found in lower land.
Among the endangered species in Japan, approximately 70% of amphibian species, fish species (both fresh
water and sea) and insects as well as approximately 60% of shellfish and vascular plants exist in secondary
nature (the environment created and maintained by humans) (83). As people stopped using fuel woods,
Satoyama, woodland near settlement, which was managed to collect fuel woods, started to be abandoned,
allowing natural succession to proceed. What is important to ensure these endangered species’ survival iscontinuous use and management of the secondary nature of Satoyama; designation of protected areas bygovernments is not always the best solution. Instead, for such species which depend on the secondary
natural environment, human disturbance such as forestry activities may be necessary. However, because
secondary hardwood forest of Satoyama has little economic value, forestry activities do not often take place.
At the moment, they are maintained by efforts of volunteers to conserve Satoyama in Japan. Certain amountof human disturbance is considered to be beneficial for survival of species in the secondary nature.
The risk of the secondary natural environment being converted into plantation is very small. Commercial
forestry in Japan mostly takes place in conifer plantation. Forestry in Japan has been stagnant for a long
period of time, and the revenue gained from selling harvested woods can hardly pay for the cost ofreforestation and following silviculture. It is unlikely that someone wish to pay the cost to expand plantation
forest in hardwood secondary forested areas. Some hardwood secondary forests are harvested for
pulpwood production. Hardwood naturally regenerate from coppicing very promptly and the forests consisting
mainly of secondary forest ecosystem is maintained by such disturbance. Thus it cannot be said that suchforestry operation threats the endangered species in such habitats.
Alien / Invasive species:
Regarding the threat of introduction of alien / invasive species, alien species which are likely to have negative
impact on ecosystem are specified and designated under Invasive Alien Species Act and any activities whichlead to expansion of such species are prohibited (50). When there is already a known impact caused by aspecified alien species on ecosystems, mitigation measures are implemented by the Ministry of theEnvironment (per article 11 of the Act). Mitigations currently implemented in Japan are against mongooseand Bufo marinus.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 132 of 175 –Regarding the use of alien commercial tree species, Japan started introducing some as a trial as early as the
Meiji Era (1868 to 1912) (51). In Taisho Era (1912 to 1926), Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris wereintroduced widely in Hokkaido as a snow break along railways. In the postwar ‘plantation expansion’ period,
Pinus strobus was introduced in Hokkaido due to its fast growth rate. As plantation expansion ceased,
introduction of alien commercial trees also ceased and there is almost no commercial introduction of alien
trees now.
On the other hand, there is a slight concern on biodiversity from the long term habit of use of alien grasses toprotect embankment slopes along forest roads. The reasons for the use of alien grasses are because they
are relatively cheaper, they have a better initial growth and survival rate. To investigate the potential impacts
of using alien grass for protection of slopes the government decided to implement a comprehensive research(named ‘Research to develop a policy on greening plan use’) in 2006 lead by the Ministry of the Environment,
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries andForestry Agency (52). Following the research results, the Forestry Agency, in 2011, developed a ‘Guideline
on application of greening plants in public construction projects which take into account conservation of
biodiversity’ (84). Since then, public construction projects are following the guideline and the impact of alien
grasses on biodiversity is decreasing. Private greening companies (which sell and apply the grass seeds)
are also following the guideline so only species which their invasiveness impacts have been assessed areused. Currently there is no reported situation where invasive alien grasses are uncontrollably expanding into
forests to threat HCVs with forest management production forests.
Southern part of Nansei Islands (Amami Islands and further south)
Nansei Islands are affected by strong wind and wind storms such as typhoon so trees of sizes, shapes andquality suitable for construction timber can hardly be grown here. The main forestry activity is harvesting oftrees for woodchip production as well as wood for civil engineering. Overall, the scale of forestry activities isusually relatively small. Amami Oshima Island and Okinawa Main Island, are the two areas where main
forestry activities take place in Nansei Islands and produce 24,000m 3 and 4,000m3 of woods annuallyrespectively (85, 86). Each island has estimated annual growth rate of approximately at least 300,000m 3,
forestry industries in these islands, especially Okinawa Main Island, are very minor industries. The main
harvesting method is clear felling as most trees cut are mainly hardwoods whose shapes are not suitable forthinning (i.e. not straight). The area of clear felling is small and never exceeds 5 ha.
The Okinawa Main Island, one of the main areas with forestry industry, the annual timber production volume
is only approximately 1.3% of the annual growth rate (4,000m3 / 300,000m3) thus the potential threats on
HCVs caused by forestry activities are quite small. Additionally, the designation of a new national park
(Yanbaru National Park) in September 2016 reduced gap areas significantly (69).
Following the establishment of Yanbaru National Park, another national park was established in March 2017
in Amami Islands, with Amami Oshima Island being the core. Amami Oshima Island produces

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 133 of 175 –approximately 8% of the growth rate annually (24,000m3 / 300,000m3); which is quite small but relatively
large for this region. The island was once heavily exploited by a company which owns large portion of theisland and harvested large amount of timber by destructive practice. Most of the forests of the island is now anaturally regenerated secondary forest. Due to its climate, the recovery of forest from disturbance is very
fast, however, they do not have the same value as the primitive natural forests. Thus occurrence of HCV3
may be limited in Amami Islands. Nevertheless, forests left with high ecological values are most likely to be
included in the new national park, where forestry activities are restricted.
Following is a summary of assessments of the threats so far:
- Regarding the IBA, protection of designated sites under legislative regulation together with the effort of Wild
Bird Society of Japan, the forest management activities will not threaten the habitat of the IBAs.
- Regarding the gap areas mentioned above, the gap itself has narrowed due to designation of National
Parks in Anami-Okiwanawa region. The remaining gap areas are unlikely to be subjected to harvesting due
to their remoteness and low productivity. There is no commercial incentive to harvest such forests.
- Regarding the use of alien commercial tree species, there is almost no commercial introduction of alien
trees now. Also thanks to the "Guideline on application of greening plants in public construction projects",
there is no reported situation where invasive alien grasses are uncontrollably expanding into forests to threat
HCVs.
The current CW NRA approved by FSC on 4th August 2014 (FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0) concluded‘unspecified risk’ for these areas due to is insufficient coverage by the legal protection and designation suchas national parks. Designation of new national parks in Okinawa and Amami Islands is the first step toregister the Ryukyu-Amami region as UNESCO world heritage site, and the Ministry of the Environment istaking necessary measures for the registration. Any sites with significant biodiversity and ecosystem values
are protected the legal safeguards newly put in place. Thus it can be concluded that the risk for HCV3 byforest management activities is low.
3.4 HCV4

31- 37,72 - 75

HCV 4 Occurrence
Soils:
Japan is greatly affected by natural disasters. The risks of disasters caused by heavy storms such as
typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic activities are high. Therefore, forests are regarded as critical for
preventing and mitigating the impact of disaster are designated as ‘Designated area for Erosion Control’ and‘Steep Slope Area in Danger of Failure’ etc (31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). These areas contain HCV 4 values.
Water:
Other forest areas likely to contain HCV 4 include forest selected top 100 watershed (headwater) forests.
The forests which have long been protected and maintained by local communities for obtaining good quality
water were selected by Forestry Agency in 1995 which became the ‘top 100 headwater forests’ (72).

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 134 of 175 –Geographicalscale:- Watercatchments
Functional
scale:- Types of soil

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (21) applies;(21) HCV 4 is identified
and/or its occurrenceis likely in the area
under assessment, but
it is effectively
protected from threatscaused bymanagement activities.

Forest Fires:
Forest fires are one of the least impactful disasters in Japan as the average precipitation in forested areas ishigh (more than 2,000 millimetres / year) and most forest fires in Japan do not occur naturally. There arecertain areas with high rate of forest fires such as ‘Setonai Sea coast areas’ and ‘Iwate mountain areas’ (75).
According to the statistics of the Forestry Agency, the frequency of forest fires of more than 10 hectares (ha)in scale was 7 times a year on average over a five-year period (2011 – 2015) (73). Overall, the long term
trend indicates the number of forest fires is decreasing over time.
To detect the level of forest fires occurring in Japan there is a yearly updated database published on Forestry
Agency’s website: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/hogo/yamakaji/con_1.html (73)
Threat Assessment
Soils:As stated, ‘Designated area for Erosion Control’, ‘Steep Slope Area in Danger of Failure’ and ‘Landslide
Prevention Area’ are protected under regulation of respective legislations thus forest management activities
which may damage erosion control function are not permitted. Therefore, forestry activities aiming to producttimber (such as building roads, harvesting trees) and not possible. Only activities which does not degrade
the erosion control function such as correcting seed, fruits, pruning branches to allow more light to reach
forest floor are possible (31, 34, 37). Overall, the compliance with regulations in Japan is very high (All theindicators of worldwide governance indicators are over 80 percent rank in the year 2015) (88).
Water:The top 100 watershed (headwater forests) were selected based on criteria which were connected toprotection measures implemented by local communities (72). These forests are protected by local
communities and not threatened by forest management activities.
The most common commercial plantation species in Japan is Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) which grows fasteralong valley streams. The concept of buffer zones along watercourses to protect aquatic environments has
not been well integrated into Japanese forestry operations. Thus forestry operations (including roads along
streams) without sufficient care to watercourses can still be observed in Japan. However, current Japanese
forestry has been suffering from economic depression and as a result, the cost of re-planting after clear
felling became hard to spare and so the main forestry harvesting method shifted from clear felling to thinning.
Therefore, the general impact of forestry activities on soil and streams has become smaller and according to
the statistics presented just below the risk level from these forest activities is not threatening the water qualityof important water catchment areas.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is conducting annual water quality survey on all firstgrade rivers in Japan which they directly manage. The latest report shows that about 99% of all criteria forhuman health were met on average (74). Water quality survey of other rivers are conducted by each

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 135 of 175 –prefecture. In 2014, survey was conducted in total of 5,375 plots in Japan and 99.1% of criteria for humanhealth were met on average.
Fires:
Due to the rare occurrence of fire, it is not common to designate specific place as a firebreak. Rural villages
commonly try to prevent fires fire by their self-governing firefighting activities. There is a category of fire
prevention in “protected forest”, but according to the statistics, the designated area is negligible. (0.0
thousand hectares) (89). Thus it can be considered that HCV4 for prevention of fore fire is very limited to theextent it is negligible. Threat of forest management activities on the designated area therefore also very
limited.
Generally, Japanese government and people are very conscious about importance of erosion control andwater conservation and as the analysis above indicates the law is sufficient to ensure there is no negative
impact of forest management operations on water quality. Hence the risk of forest management activities
threatening HCV 4 is low.
3.5 HCV590, 91

In present Japan, there are no people who depend on satisfying their fundamental basic necessities (heath,food, water etc.) from forest management areas/production forests.
People have traditionally collected wild plants and fuel woods from forests; however, today, people collectwild plants mainly as a hobby or for recreational purposes and in most cases, forest owners acknowledge thecustomary traditions/hobbies of local people to enter their forest to collect wild plants (90).
Regarding fuel wood, there are situations people still use fuel wood for heating houses and water as well as
for lighting purposes. However, alternative methods such as propane gas or electricity are dominant and it isa preference to use fuel wood as a source of pleasure/recreation. Use of fuel wood is now becoming a trend
among nature conservative people as a leisure activity. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone cannot live
without fuelwood.
On the other hand, in Hokkaido, the development brought by the Japanese has had huge impact on culture
and lives of the indigenous Ainu people, ever since the first establishment of the Japanese settlement in the
medieval to early modern age in Oshima and Hiyama Area, proceeding to establishment of Hokkaido
Development Commission (91). Such development includes development of harbors in the coastal area,
agriculture and fisheries, construction of dam for industrial development and river improvement for water
intake for paper production, pollution and environmental change occurred within waterbodies.
It is possible that HCV5 of Ainu Peoples had been destroyed in large scale in the history of development of
Hokkaido. Yet today, their life style has been already changed significantly, and forests play less vital role totheir lives.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 136 of 175 –Geographicalscale: Country

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (23) applies:(23) There is no HCV 5
identified and its
occurrence is unlikely
in the area underassessment.

3.6 HCV
6

18,38,
76-78,
92, 93

HCV 6 Occurrence

Geographicalscale: Country

HCV 6 values are in areas designated as important under national legislations and/or international
conventions including: the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage (18), Special Scenic beauty and Pirikanoka andare subjected to management restrictions enforced by relevant and respective legislation. Other areas which
may contain HCV 6 are Ruins, Scenic beauty, buried cultural properties not included in former listed
designated areas.
Ruins and Scenic sites can be searched with Cultural Properties database managed by Agency for Cultural
Affairs (38). Known sites (460,000 sites in total) of buried cultural properties are also recognized andrecorded in databases of local municipal governments.
Regarding the indigenous peoples, valuable properties of Ainu peoples in Hokkaido needs special
consideration in Japan. Documents to identify such properties include a list of designated cultural properties
as well as buried cultural properties information system developed by Hokkaido education board (77). But
these list and information system overlaps with the Cultural Properties database managed by Agency for
Cultural Affairs (76).
Sites and properties likely to be HCV 6 are covered by above; however, HCV 6 at the forest management
unit level, by nature, must be identified through comprehensive consultation with local community andindigenous peoples. The purpose of this NRA is not to identify every single HCV 6 at FMU levels but rather
to identify obvious HCV 6 at national level. Therefore, the assessment data used here does not deny theexistence of HCV 6 may occur at finer scales.
Threat Assessment
All designated areas under national legislations and/or international conventions are subjected to respective
regulations as described in under Table 1 so the risk of forest management activities threatening HCV 6 islow. Specifically, Ruins, Scenic beauty and buried cultural properties are protected under regulations of Act
on Protection of Cultural Properties so any changes to the properties hosting such sites need permission ofstate government.
According to Prosecutorial Statistics 2014 ‘Situation of cases received and treated’ only 14 cases ofsuspected breaches of Act on Protection of Cultural Properties is reported (out of total 414,483 cases ofsuspected breaches of Japanese Acts; 14 were only related to the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties)(78). Thus breaches of Act on Protection of Cultural Properties itself is very rare and those originate fromforest management activities it can be logically estimated as even rarer as they would have to be a subset of
the total of 14 cases.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 137 of 175 –Functional
scale:- Protection
scheme• Protected
areas• Other areas

Low risk for thecountry.
Threshold (29) applies;(29) HCV 6 is identified
and/or its occurrenceis likely in the area
under assessment, but
it is effectively
protected from threatscaused bymanagement activities.

In addition to the formally recognized cultural properties that are considered HCV6, Japanese foresters havelong adored the ‘God of Mountain’ (mountain means the same as forest in Japan) for their safety and better
harvest yield. Even in the present, people who work in forests organize ceremonies to pray for the safety
usually during a period between the end and the beginning of year. Culturally, it is quite normal for, local
communities where most often forest workers reside to proactively protect forests which are valuable to them.
Regarding the indigenous Ainu Peoples, during 19th century to early 20th century, anthropologists collected
remains and burial accessories for research without consent from stakeholders and stored these in facilities
such as universities and museums (92). There are remains and burial accessories collected in the ruins
based on procedures stipulated in the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties. Some were found during
construction and then were donated to universities and museums. Yet majority of them were collected andstored without an agreement. Some even has record of acquisition that is considered to be illegal, althoughmany were collected without any records.
Currently under Article 92 of the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties, a notice needs to be submitted
before commencing any archeological research involving excavation. Awareness among people has also
improved. Thus any uncontrolled archeological research like those in the past would not be possible
anymore. It is also unlikely that any forestry activities will collect any remains and burial accessories. When
any site disturbing activities are implemented in areas with buried cultural properties, one needs to follow theprocedure stipulated in articles 93 and 94 of the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties so that the risk offorestry activities damaging the grave site or ruins of Ainu Peoples is considered low.
Results of assessments of categories 1 and 2 show specified risks for the violation of rights of Ainu Peoples.
However, the specified risks are not based on forestry activities. FSC Japan has long been consulting FSC
Japan Ainu Association, Hokkaido Regional Forest Office, Hokkaido Office, ILO office in Japan and Hokkaido
timber industry about the current situation of the Ainu people, and no case of violation of Ainu Peoples
caused by forestry activities was reported.
In conclusion, the risk of forest management activities threatening HCV 6 is considered generally low.
Note for future review and revision of the NRA: In recent years, Ainu Peoples have filed appeals to return thecollected remains and burial accessories to them (92). Some cases reached judicial reconciliation by
returning the remains and accessories, while other cases are still ongoing. This collection of remains andburial accessories without agreement is considered violation of HCV6 if they are related to forest
management. In order to prevent occurrence of such a problem, Hokkaido Ainu Association, The
Anthropological Society of Nippon and Japanese Archaeological Association are discussing on how theseresearch should be carried out and challenges they are facing (93).
Although, the risk of risk of forest management activities threatening HCV 6 is currently considered generally
low, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido wants to make sure that the risk is kept low in the future too. Hencethey are considering to develop a guideline for protecting HCV 6 in Hokkaido when conducting any site

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 138 of 175 –disturbing operations. In the future review and revision of the NRA, this document should be assessed for its
effectiveness too if the document is available.

Recommended control measures
N/A
Information Sources
No.

Source of information

Relevant HCV category andindicator

1

Ministry of the Environment: Natural Environmental Investigation results (http://www.biodic.go.jp/ne_research.html)

Overview

23Forestry Agency: Forest cover, plantation cover of each prefecture. (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/genkyou/h24/1.html)
Convention on Biological Diversity. Japan – Country Profile.
https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=jp
Forestry Agency: Forest and Forestry statistics 2015. (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/toukei/youran_mokuzi.html)
CBD Fifth National Report (https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/jp/jp-nr-05-en.pdf)
Forestry Agency: Trend of NTFPs production (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/press/tokuyou/pdf/150929-01.pdf)

Overview
Overview

Forestry Agency: Shiitake production (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tokuyou/tokusan/megurujoukyou/pdf/2-2-1shiitake.pdf)
Transparency International’s website (https://www.transparency.org/)
Ramsar sites in Japan: http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/japan
THREE FUNCTIONS & THREE ZONES: http://www.watertonbiosphere.com/biosphere-reserves/three-functions-three-zones/
Biosphere Reserves World Map: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002343/234319M.pdf
Biosphere Reserve designation Criteria:
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/06/03/1341691_05.pdf
Ministry of the Environment: Nature Conservation Areas: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/hozen/about.html

Overview
Overview
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

16

Forestry Agency: Protected forest System of the State Forest:
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html
Japanese Properties inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/jp

18

Ministry of the Environment: World Natural Heritage in Japan (http://www.env.go.jp/nature/isan/worldheritage/info/index.html)

20

A list of Natural Monument Protection Areas:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E7%84%B6%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E5%8C%BA%E5%9F%9F%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 139 of 175 –Overview
Overview, HCV 1, HCV 3
Overview

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2,
HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2,
HCV 3, HCV 6
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1

21
22

Table 1, 3.0, HCV2
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 2

23

List of National and Quasi-national Parks: https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/parks_list.html
Ministry of the Environment: Activities which permission or notification is needed to conduct in National parks:
http://www.env.go.jp/park/apply/basic/01.html
Wilderness Areas and Nature Conservation Areas: https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/wanca.html

25
26

A list of Natural Habitat Protection Areas: http://www.env.go.jp/nature/kisho/hogoku/list.html
Ministry of the Environment: Protection under Natural Habitat Protection Areas

Table 1, 3.0, HCV1, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV1, HCV3

28

Overview of wildlife sanctuary system: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/area/area1.html

29

Ministry of the Environment: About wildlife sanctuary: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/area/area1.html

30

Protected Forest: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2,
HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2,
HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 3

32

Map of designated areas (one example of Kagoshima Prefecture): http://www.kago-kengi-cals.jp/sabomap/map.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4

33
35
38

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: About Designated area for Erosion Control
Map of designated areas (one example of Kagoshima Prefecture): http://www.kago-kengi-cals.jp/sabomap/map.html
Agency for Cultural Affairs: Cultural Properties: http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 6

39
40
41
42

Table 1, 3.0
Table 1, 3.0
3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

43

Cultural Properties database: http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.html
Cultural heritage online: http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/163318
CW NRA approved by FSC on 4th August 2014 (FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0)
Prosecutorial Statistics 2010＞Situation of cases received and treated＞ Sorted by violation name: http://www.estat.
go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001078043
Biodiversity assessment maps http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/list.html

46

KBA map of Japan: http://kba.conservation.or.jp/map.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

47

Forestry Agency: Forest Management Plan (s). http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/sinrin_keikaku/con_6.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

48

Mitigation measures implemented by the Ministry of the Environment: http://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/4control/bojokankyo.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

49

Municipal Forest Maintenance Plan: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/ken_sidou/forester/pdf/05_3.pdf

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

51

Consideration on alien trees: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kensyuu/pdf/satou.pdf

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

52

Results of Research to develop a policy on greening plan use: http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=7857

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

53

Japan overview on CI website: http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Asia-Pacific/Pages/Japan.aspx

HCV 1, HCV 3

54

Red list database in Japan: http://www.jpnrdb.com/

HCV 1, HCV 3

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 140 of 175 –Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

55

HCV 1, HCV 3

57

Guidance for developing biodiversity regional strategy:
http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/local_gov/local/files/biodiversity_local_guide_2014.pdf
Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests from WWF global 200 website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/nanseishoto_archipelago_forests.cfm
WWF Nansei Islands living organisms map’ project: http://www.wwf.or.jp/activities/nature/cat1153/cat1187/wwf/

58

Values of Amami-Ryukyu World Natural Heritage: https://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/data/m_5/1st/131217bg.pdf

HCV 1, HCV 3

59

Amami-Ryukyu recommendation framework: http://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/data/m_5/h26-1/210.pdf

HCV 1, HCV 3

60

Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests from WWF global 200 website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/nanseishoto_archipelago_forests.cfm
Ministry of the Environment: White paper on environment.
(https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/honbun.php3?kid=212&serial=12127&bflg=1)
Important Bird Areas in Japan: http://www.wbsj.org/nature/hogo/others/iba/about/index.html
About the Wild Bird Society of Japan: http://www.wbsj.org/about-us/summary/about/
Coverage of IBAs by protection sites under legislative regulation: http://www.wbsj.org/nature/hogo/others/iba/hogo/hogo01.html

Overview, HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

66

Biodiversity National Strategy 2012 – 2020: http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/about/Global Biodiversity Outlook 4: https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
Ministry of the Environment. Press Release. October 11, 2011. On important area Information by land category for biodiversity
conservation. http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=2908
Ministry of the Environment. List of biodiversity assessment maps. http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/list.html

67

Naha Nature Environmental Office’s website. (http://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/m_5.html)

HCV 1, HCV 3

68

Ministry of the Environment: Press release. About expansion of Iriomote-Ishigaki National Park.
(https://www.env.go.jp/press/102401-print.html)
Ministry of the Environment: “Yanbaru National Park was born!” http://www.env.go.jp/nature/np/yambaru.html

HCV 1, HCV 370

IFL Map: http://intactforests.org/world.webmap.html
GFW IFL Maps: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/7/42.80/145.93/JPN/grayscale/loss,forestgain/607?tab=countriestab&begin=2001-01-01&end=2015-01-01&threshold=30&dont_analyze=true

HCV 2

71

Ministry of the Environment: White paper on environment.
(https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/honbun.php3?kid=212&serial=12127&bflg=1)

HCV 1, HCV 3

72

Selected top 100 headwater forests: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/suigen/hyakusen/index.html

HCV 4

73

Forest fire occurrence: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/hogo/yamakaji/con_5.html

HCV 4

74

Water quality survey results of first grade rivers in Japan:
http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/toukei_chousa/kankyo/kankyou/suisitu/h26_suisitu.html
Public water quality survey results 2014: http://www.env.go.jp/water/suiiki/h26/h26-1.pdf

HCV 4

56

61
62
63
64
65

69

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 141 of 175 –HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

75

Overview of reported fires in 2015 published by FDMA:
http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/houdou/h28/02/280218_houdou_1.pdf
White paper on fire prevention 2015: http://www.fdma.go.jp/html/hakusho/h27/h27/index2.html#part1

HCV 4

76

Cultural Properties database: http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/db/
Buried cultural properties: http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/shokai/maizo.html

HCV 6

77

List of designated cultural properties: http://www.dokyoi.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/hk/bnh/bun-hogo-bunkagaiyo.htm

HCV 6

78

HCV 6

82

Prosecutorial Statistics 2014＞Situation of cases received and treated＞ Sorted by violation name: http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001137864
A Map and GIS data of ‘Areas with natural ecosystems that characterizes Japanese lands’ developed by the Ministry of theEnvironment: http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/map01/index.html
Nature Conservation Society of Japan. 2013. Nature Conservation Society of Japan Collection of Documents No.51. Japan Atlasof Conservation Areas
Ministry of the Environment. The Gap between protected areas and areas with natural ecosystem that characterizes Japaneseland https://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/map21/index.html
Ministry of the Environment. “Amami Gunto National Park was Established”. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/np/amamigunto.html

83

Survey and Analysis of Japanese woodland (Satoyama) https://www.env.go.jp/nature/satoyama/chukan.html

HCV1, 384

HCV1, 3

87

Ministry of the Environment. Result of Survey by the Ministry of the Environment on plants for greening.
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/6document/files/h22_IAS_Act/mat03-6.pdf
Okinawa Prefecture. Forest and Forestry of Okinawa 2015.
http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/norin/shinrin/sinnrin.html
Kagoshima Prefecture Forest and Forestry Statistics 2016. https://www.pref.kagoshima.jp/ad01/sangyorodo/rinsui/tokei/shinrin/27toukei_151201.html
Nankai Nichinichi Shimbun (Newspaper article). October 4, 2016.

88

World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators; http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home

HCV 2

89

The Forestry Agency. Area of Protected Forests by Category. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/tisan/con_2_2_1.html

HCV4

90

The Forestry Agency. White Paper on Forest and Forestry 2016.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.html
Ainu Museum. History and Culture of Ainu. http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/nyumon/rekishibunka/

3.0, HCV4

Hokkaido University Disclosed Documents Research Group. On Litigation for Returning Remains.
http://hmjk.world.coocan.jp/trial/trial.html
Ainu Association of Hokkaido, Japan Society of Anthropology, Japan Association of Archeology. 2016. Roundtable on studies
and research on Ainu peoples’ bones and burial accessories. http://archaeology.jp/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/dc163de9d75c26bfb9452b3db6526dfe.pdf
About corporate forest of Iwasaki Industry
http://amamimori.exblog.jp/8589222/

HCV6

79
80
81

85
86

91
92
93

94

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 142 of 175 –HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3

HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3
HCV1, 33.0, HCV6HCV6

HCV1, 3

95
96
97

The Forestry Agency: Protecting biodiversity in the forests.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/24hakusyo_h/all/a36.html
Rontai Co., Ltd (a private greening company) website as an example: http://www.rontai.co.jp/combination/

HCV1, 3

News article of Daily Industrial News on Jan, 13, 2018 “Interview to the Director-General of Forestry Agency.
https://newswitch.jp/p/11649

3.0

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 143 of 175 –

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

Controlled wood category 4: Wood from forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use
Risk assessment
Indicator
4.1

Source of information
Natural Parks Act (Act no.161 of1957)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S32/S32HO16
1.htmlNature Conservation Act (Act No.
85 of 1972) http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO08
5.htmlForestry Agency Forest Reserve
Systemhttp://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuy
u_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.htmlAct on Protection of Cultural
Properties (Act No. 214 of 1950)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S25/S25HO21
4.htmlWildlife Protection and Proper
Hunting Act (Act No. 88 of 2002)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H14/H14HO08
8.htmlEnvironmental Impact
Assessment Act (Act No.81 of
1997)

Functional
scale-

Risk designationand determination
Assessment based on legality
Content of the law
Turning forest into other land-uses is only permitted under the ‘Forestland Development Permission
System’ which is specified in the Forest Act and can only be allowed when no negative impact isanticipated to the surrounding environment. . In this system, quarrying, digging out tree roots,
cultivation or any activity that changes the land characteristics of land that is more than one hectare
needs to get permission from the prefectural governor. When a request is filed, the governor needs
to approve it as long as the development activity will not pose a serious risk of causing 1) soil
erosion, collapse or any other hazard; 2) flood in the area dependent on the flood preventionfunction of the forest; 3) water deficiency in areas dependent on the watershed function of theforest; or 4) deteriorating the surrounding environment.
Conversion of protected forests, natural forest and protected area to other land-uses is prohibited.
Conversion of protected areas are regulated under various laws and regulation on protection, suchas Natural Parks Act, Nature Conservation Act, Forest Reserve System of the Forestry Agency,
Forestland Development Permission System, Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Act onConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and Forest Act. The special
protected areas prescribed by the Natural Parks Act, natural environment preservation zone
designated by prefectures prescribed by the Nature Conservation Act, nationally protected species
prescribed by Act on Protection of Cultural Properties, special protection zone prescribed by Wildlife
Protection and Proper Hunting Act.
For construction projects such as road building above certain scale, an environmental impact
assessment needs to be conducted, depending on the scale and risk of the planned development.
It is necessary to notify the stakeholders of conservation methods such as impact mitigation
measures and get agreement from stakeholders, including the local residents. Environmental
Impact Assessment Act is applied to relatively large projects such as road and dam building. The
minimum applicable scale depends on the type of project but for any projects the minimum scale islarger than 25 ha. As aforementioned, turning forest into other land-uses is only permitted underthe ‘Forestland Development Permission System’. According to this system, development andconversion of a forest of 1 ha can be permitted by prefectural governors only when the project
enhances stability of people’s lives or promotes the healthy development of the region, including
aspects such as environmental preservation or prevention of landslides.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 144 of 175 –Forestland Development
Permission System
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/t
isan/con_4.html
Act on Conservation ofEndangered Species and Wild
Fauna and Flora (Act No.75 of1992)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/H04/H04HO07
5.htmlForest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951)
http://law.egov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26HO24
9.htmlThe Forest Ordinance:
http://elaws.egov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/ela
ws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=3
26M50010000054
The Forestry Agency. White Paper
on Forest and Forestry 2016.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.htm
lNews article of Daily Industrial
News on Jan, 13, 2018 “Interview
to the Director-General of Forestry
Agency.
https://newswitch.jp/p/11649
World Bank World WideGovernance Indicators. 2015.
http://databank.worldbank.org/dat
a/reports.aspx?source=worldwidegovernance-indicators

Conversion to specific land uses that do not require permit:
1. Facilities needed for railway building and train running operation;
2. Facilities needed for trolleybus;
3. Schools;
4. Areas designated to land quality improvement under Land quality improvement Act.;
5. Broadcasting facilities for basic station;
6. Fishery harbors;
7. Harbor facilities;
8. Facilities managed by harbor board except those included in 7 above;
9. Roads for vehicles;
10. Museums;
11. Facilities needed for airport;
12. Facilities needed for gas operators;
13. Land readjustment projects;
14. Industrial water facilities;
15. Car terminals;
16. Facilities needed for electricity operators;
17. Municipal engineering projects;
18. Heat supply facilities;
19. Facilities needed for oil operators (The Forest Ordinance, Paragraph 1, art. 5).
This is applicable for all commercial forestry, including plantations. A private forest owner canconvert a forest into other land use if permitted by local government according to procedures
specified in Forestland Development Permission System. The conversion by a private land owner
cannot exceed 1 ha. The conversion is not limited to only construction purpose, but when forest isturned into other land use, some sort of construction is likely to take place.
In the period between 2003-2011 forest development projects have been conducted within theareas of Creating industrial land, creating residential land, creating resort property, establishing golfcourses, leisure facilities, creating agricultural land, Quarrying, road construction and others.
Quarrying, road construction, creation of agricultural land and industrial land being the main reasonsfor forest development projects.
Development in forestland can thus be permitted if the restrictive conditions are met, but
environmental assessment is required for large-scale development. For the permitted development,
certain percent of forests, depending on the objective of the development, are required to be left orafforested (e.g. 70% for ski resort and golf course, 30% for residential estate etc, See
http://www.maff.go.jp/j/kokuji_tuti/tuti/pdf/t0000897_2.pdf for the detail).
Legal authority is the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 145 of 175 –Vegetation Survey under the 4th
and 5th National Survey on the
Natural Environment Conservation
http://www.biodic.go.jp/reports2/5t
h/vgtmesh/vgtmesh.html
Global Forest Resources
Assessments Japan Country
Reportwww.fao.org/3/a-az247e.pdf
Forest Resource Status Survey
data provided by the Forestry
Agency of Japan
www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/genkyou/h24/

Forest Ecosystem Diversity Basic
Survey of Forestry Agency ofJapanwww.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/tay
ouseichousa/
National Survey on the Natural
Environment of Ministry of theEnvironment
www.biodic.go.jp/kiso/fnd_list_h.ht
mlForestry Agency
Transition of timber pricewww.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/haku
syo/27hakusyo_h/all/chap4_3.html
Forestry Agency
About forests in Japan
http://www.maff.go.jp/hakusyo/rin/h06/html/SB1.3.1.htm

Is the law enforced?
Yes. The legislation is highly respected and well enforced. There are no known major issues withthe conversion of forest (no reported case found by google search, no case known by experts in theworking group or reported during stakeholder consultation).
According to Transparency International, Japan ranks 18th out of 177 countries in Corruption
Perceptions Index, and according to the World Bank World Governance Indicators in 2015, Japan
has a Control of corruption of 1.6 (91.3 in percentile rank) ; government effectiveness of 1.8 (95.7 inpercentile rank), and rule of law of 1.5 (89.4 in percentile rank). Thus in general, it can be said thatthe legislation in Japan is well implemented.
According to the Forestry White Paper of 2016, sales of timber generated about 1,000 billion yen in
1980 where as the sales of timber only generates about 200 billion yen each year recently. In 1980,
log price of Cryptomeria japonica (constitute 44% of planted species) was 39,600 yen / m 3 whereas
the price is about 13,000 yen / m 3 in recent years. The log price of Chamaecyparis obtusa(constitute 25% of planted species) in 1980 was 76,400 yen / m 3 whereas the price is about 18,000
yen / m3 in recent years. Consequently, silvicultural cost is now exceeding the income from sales oftimber. When 50 years old Cryptomeria japonica forest is clear cut, income is estimated to be
880,000 yen / ha. The silvicultural cost to establish 50 years old Cryptomeria japonica forest is
estimated to be between 1,140,000 yen / ha to 2,450,000 yen / ha. In such situation, many
plantations established to meet the demand of wood after the second World War are now becoming
mature and ready to be clear cut, but are actually not cut due to the low profit and high cost to
regenerate the forest (according to the Interview to the Director-General of Forestry Agency). Under
such circumstances, the incentive to convert natural forest to plantation or other use is extremely
low.
The fact most forests in Japan occur in steep mountains as described in “About forests in Japan” ofthe Forestry Agency, also makes it costly to convert it to plantation, agricultural farms or other landuse. Due to the extremely low profitability of forestry and high cost for conversion, as described indetail in the previous paragraph, there is not much incentives for developing plantation.
Is it possible to conclude that the spatial threshold (0.02% or 5000 ha) is met by assessing
the enforcement of legislation?
No. The law does not prohibit conversion to the outcomes in the indicator.
Assessment based on spatial data
In Japan, different organizations use different definitions to publish statistics on forest area,
vegetation and land use.
[Data used for the assessment of this NRA]FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 146 of 175 –Forestry Agency FAQ:
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keika
ku/sinrin_keikaku/situmon.html
1994 White Paper on theEnvironment (Ministry of theEnvironment):
https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakus
yo/h06/8691.html

First, according to the country report of Global Forest Resources Assessments 2015 of FAO, thearea of natural forest in Japan was 13,185,000 ha in 2002, 13,312,000 ha in 2007 and 13,348,000
ha in 2012, meaning approximately 0.3% net increase between 2007 and 2012, and 1.2% netincrease in10 years since 2002. This net increase specified here includes both the loss and gain.
Since the indicator 4.1 is asking about net loss, what matters here is total of loss and gain. The
total of loss and gain in the last five years shows positive value which means net gain which meansthat natural forest area is increasing. Therefore, the indicator is met.
The definition of “natural forest” in this report includes all forests other than those formed by artificial
plantation or insemination, which differs from the definition of natural forest used in the FSC national
forest stewardship standard of Japan. The FAO data classifies natural forest of 81 years old or
above as primary forest with no human influence, and shows that the area has increased from3,517,000 ha in 1995 to 4,568,000 ha in 2007 and to 4,905,000 ha in 2012. Therefore, according to
the statistics of FAO, both natural forest and primary forest are increasing in recent years in Japan.
The basis of the FAO’s data is the Forest Resource Status Survey data provided by the Forestry
Agency of Japan. This survey is compiled every 5 years based on the data of Forest Registry used
for developing forest management plans (by the Forestry Agency for the state-owned forest and by
Prefectural governments for other forests). The forest registry is based on the initial inventory dataat the time of forests establishment, incorporating change over the years calculated from thestandardized yield table which is specific to the region and tree species. Since it does notnecessarily reflect the actual resource status of forests, still, it is recognized as the official national
data of Japan. In order to correct the forest registry data, any forest operation history as well as
forest stands data obtained from standard plot survey during the forest operation are reflected into
the forest registry (as explained in the FAQ of the Forestry Agency). This means that the data in theforest registry is kept updated constantly whenever a forest experiences any forestry operations. So
if any conversion takes place, the data in the forest registry is updated to give most up-to-date
information.
Therefore, Japan working group agreed that the data used in the FAO’s report is extracted from theofficial national data of Japan, on which a reasonable effort is made to keep its accuracy. Hence
this data can be considered valid in assessing this indicator.
[Data used for the assessment of ‘old’ NRA as well as in the definition of natural forest inJapanese NFSS but NOT used in this assessment]
Another useful statistic available is the national vegetation survey as a part of the National Survey
on the Natural Environment conducted by Ministry of the Environment several times in the past.
This survey data was the primary source of information used to develop the last NRA of Japan(FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0). Under this survey, plantation established by afforestation is classified
as class 6 of 10 vegetation naturalness classes (6 to 9 allocated to forested areas, see following
URL for more detail: http://www.biodic.go.jp/kiso/vg/vg_kiso.html#mainText). Secondary forests areclassified as 7. Secondary forests that are developing characteristics of natural forest are classified

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 147 of 175 –as 8. Natural forests are classified as 9. Their distribution is mapped on 1:50,000 vegetation maps
and the GIS data is published online. FSC national forest stewardship standard of Japan definesthat the vegetation of class 7 as plantation, except that those grown in unproductive lands that are
to be turned into natural forest are defined as natural forest. Therefore, the definitions used in thenational vegetation survey do not exactly match definitions used in the FSC national forest
stewardship standard of Japan. According to the results of Vegetation Survey under the 5th
National Survey on the Natural Environment (1994 - 1999) , which is the latest data publicallyavailable, the areas classified as class 7, 8 and 9 were 6,854,000 ha, 1,959,800 ha and 6,582,400
ha respectively. Those classified as class 7, 8 and 9 in the 4th survey (1989 – 1993) were
6,925,600 ha, 1,973,300 ha and 6,639,400 ha respectively. They all decreased during this period.
The decrease in total area of vegetation classified as class 8 and 9 is 70,500 ha. When this area isdivided by 5 (period between the 4th and 5th survey), the average annual loss is calculated to be
0.16%. When class 7 is also included in the calculation to be more conservative, the averageannual loss is 0.18%. These figures exceed 0.02%, which is specified in the ‘specified risk’threshold (4).
[Reasons for NOT using the national vegetation survey data in this assessment]
The data of the national vegetation survey conducted by Ministry of the Environment is of about 20
years ago. During the late 1980s to early 1990s, the Japanese economy was booming, and many
development projects such as developing new golf course and roads took place at the cost of forest
loss (as described in White Paper on the Environment). Today such projects that entail conversionof forest lands have become much less common. As the 2016 White Paper of the Forestry Agency
shows, 20 years ago, the forest industry also enjoyed good economic condition. Timber was tradedat high price, resulting in high pressure on forests. Yet the domestic timber price has plummeted
quite significantly since 1990. The prices of logs of two main plantation trees Cryptomeria japonica
and Chamaecyparis obtusa have fallen to roughly a half of what they used to be in 1990s (seeForestry Agency Transition of timber price). As explained in the previous section, the revenue fromtimber sales is often lower than the cost of forest management. Hence the pressure of forestry
industry on forests is much lower in recent years. The economic incentive to convert natural forest
into plantation is also very limited. Indeed, Aforementioned Forest Resources Status Survey of theForestry Agency also shows that natural forest area had decreased until 2002, but turned into
increase after 2002. Some companies sourcing wood in the field claim that the National Survey on
the Natural Environment does not really reflect the actual forest status on the ground. Considering
the information above, the Japan working group agreed that it is not reasonable to use the data of
the National Survey on the Natural Environment of Ministry of the Environment from 20 years ago toanalogize today’s forest status. Even though the data was decided not to be used for thisassessment, the WG decided to mention about this national vegetation survey in this assessment
as it was the primary source of information used to develop the last NRA of Japan (FSC-CW-RA017-JP V1-0) so any stakeholders watching this assessment can acknowledge the reason for notusing the same data set for this assessment. Another reason for mentioning this national

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 148 of 175 –vegetation survey in this assessment is because the definitions of natural forest and plantation in
the NFSS of Japan refer to the vegetation classification used in this national vegetation survey. So
the WG decided to mention this national survey data in this assessment to emphasize theimportance of using the data from this national vegetation survey when newer data sets becomes
available in the future for the sake of consistency among different FSC documents developed inJapan.
[Assessment of risk/incentive for converting natural forest to non-forest land uses]
A website of the Forestry Agency titled “About forests in Japan” states “Natural forests are generally
located in remote areas and often managed as a conservation forest or Natural Parks for the
purpose of protecting national land and landscape.” Since they are located in remote areas far fromurban areas, converting the forests into other land uses such as agricultural land or residential land
does not have economic benefit. The Forest Resource Status Survey data provided by the Forestry
Agency shows increase in the natural forest area size. There is no report or press coverage on
conversion of natural forests into other land uses (Google search using key words such as “Japannatural forest conversion” did not show any recent reports or news on conversion of natural forests
in Japan).
[Summary]
In conclusion, the data from the National Survey on the Natural Environment, which was the primarysource of information in the old NRA and also provides basis for the definition of natural forest in
National Forest Stewardship Standard of Japan, is not appropriate to use for assessment of thisindicator as it does not reflect the current status of forest in Japan. Referring to the alternative,
more up-to-date data source, the official data of the Forestry Agency, used as a basis of FAO
country report 2015, indicates increase in both natural forest and primary forest areas in recent
years. There is also no economic incentives to convert natural forests into plantation due to low
timber price, and also that there is no report or press coverage on conversion of natural forests into
other land uses, it is very unlikely that conversion of natural forest into other land uses is happening
in Japan at any problematic scale. Hence we conclude the risk of conversion of natural forests islow.
Risk designation:
Low risk:
Low risk threshold (1) and (3) applies. See below for more detail.
The official data of the Forestry Agency, used as a basis of FAO country report 2015, indicatesincrease in both natural forest and primary forest areas in recent years. Therefore, low risk
threshold (1) applies and specified risk threshold (4) does not apply in Japan.
Low risk threshold (2) and Specified risk threshold (6) are not applicable in Japan.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 149 of 175 –There is no economic incentives to convert natural forests into plantation due to low timber price,
and also that there is no report or press coverage on conversion of natural forests into other land
uses. Hence Specified risk threshold (7) does not apply.
Other available evidence does not challenge a ‘low risk’ designation. Therefore, Low risk threshold(3) applies.
For reference:‘Low risk’ thresholds:(1) Thresholds provided in the indicator are not exceeded;AND(3) Other available evidence does not challenge a ‘low risk’ designation.
[Notes for the future review and revision of the NRA]
Note 1: Currently, the latest round of National Survey on the Natural Environment is being
conducted to develop vegetation maps in 1: 25,000 scale, which is four times accuracy of the past
survey. It is likely that the completion of the survey will take another several years. Even when the
results become available, it cannot be easily compared with the old survey results as the accuracyof the data is different. Only when the results of most recent two surveys are published, they canbe compared using 1: 25,000 scale maps and only then, the data of the National Survey on the
Natural Environment will be a primary source of information regarding assessment of this indicator.
Note 2: On top of the Forest Resource Status Survey, Forestry Agency also conducts, Forest
Ecosystem Diversity Basic Survey every 5 years. This survey does not depend on an analysis ofaerial photo but is based on-site field survey at 4 km square fixed plots, and is considered morecredible than aerial analysis. However, at the moment, this data shows forest ecosystem types foreach plot, but does not provide the land area size for each forest ecosystem type, so that it is notpossible to calculate the change of natural forest area.
Note 3: A concern has been raised that promotion of renewable energy increases the potential riskof conversion of natural forests for energy generation. Recently, there are reported cases thatplantations and secondary forests have been cleared to build solar power generation facilities
including very large ones. It is also pointed out that natural forests may be destroyed by installationof wind power generators along mountain ridges. However, these projects are subjected torestriction by the aforementioned Forestland Development Permission System. There has not beensystematic installation of these facilities, and there is no statistics available reporting any naturalforest loss due to such projects. Hence at present, these concerns are not at the level of Specified
risk threshold (7), but we need to keep our eyes on this topic and review this risk assessment as
necessary.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 150 of 175 –Control measures
N/A

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 151 of 175 –Controlled wood category 5: Wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted
Risk assessment
Indicator
5.1

Sources of information
Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations
on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (Established on June 18, 2005)
http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/H15/H15HO097.html

Functional
scale-

Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act (Established on May 22, 1970.)
http://hourei.hounavi.jp/hourei/S45/S45HO089.php
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan Web page on “Approval andconfirmation of genetically modified organisms”.
http://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/nouan/carta/torikumi/
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute Press Release “Technology to suppress
cedar pollen formation developed by genetic engineering:https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/press/2013/20130321.html
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute “On the isolated field test of geneticallymodified Sugi (sterile male Sugi)”
https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/ftbc/business/sinhijnnsyu/idennsikumikaesugikakurihojyo.html
Research with Genetically Engineered trees advances in Asia
http://wrm.org.uy/uncategorized/research-with-genetically-engineered-trees-advances-inasia/
The website of Japan Biosafety Clearing Housewww.biodic.go.jp/bch/english/e_index.html
The search results of the website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House for approved
projects:
Eucalyptus tree containing cold tolerance inducing gene des9 derived from
Cyanobacteria by University of Tsukuba.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/download/en_lmo/H25.8.30_English1.pdf)
Pollen-free Cryptomeria japonica by Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/lmo/OpenDocDownload.do?info_id=1701&ref_no=1)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 152 of 175 –Risk designation and determination
Low risk
Low risk threshold (2) and (3) are met:
The use of GMO is not prohibited in Japan, but isregulated and approval is required prior tocommercial use. The Act on the Conservation andSustainable Use of Biological Diversity throughRegulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms
applies with regards to the use of GMOs. In order to
use GMO commercially, an approval of thecompetent minister is required together withevidence proving that the GMO does not affectbiological diversity.
(2) There is no commercial use of GMO (tree)
species in the area under assessment,
There is research on genetically modified forestry
trees (such as low level pollen or no pollen trees),
but these are still in the phase of research. It is
predicted that it will take another ten years before
there is any commercial use. Commercial use of
GMOs need the approval of the competent ministerand there is no case of such approval so far.
AND(3) Other available evidence does not challenge ´lowrisk´ designation.
GMO is regulated and no approval is given to date.
As it is assumed to take another 10 years before
research on GMO can be used commercially inJapan the indicator is considered to be of low risk.

World Rainforest Movement information sheet on GE tree research (Japan)
wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-information/japan-wrm-information-sheet-on-ge-tree-research/

GMO Context Question
1

2

3

Is there any legislation covering GMO(trees)?

Does applicable legislation for thearea under assessment include a ban
for commercial use of GMO (trees)?

Is there evidence of unauthorized useof GM trees?

AnswerYes

Sources of Information (list sources if different types of information, such asreports, laws, regulations, articles, web pages news articles etc.).
Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations
on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (Act no. 97, Established on June 18, 2005.
Also called Cartagena Act)
http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/H15/H15HO097.html
This is the national law established based on Cartagena Protocol, a bio-safety regarding
conventions on bio-diversity. It regulates conditions and procedures for using geneticallymodified organisms (as outlined in section 2).

No. In order to use a GMO
commercially, an approval of thecompetent minister is required withevidences to prove that the GMO
does not affect biological diversity.
There are researches on geneticallymodified forestry trees (such as low
level pollen or no pollen trees),
however, these researches have
not reached to the stage of practicalapplication yet.
No

Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act (Act no. 89, Established on May 22, 1970.)
http://hourei.hounavi.jp/hourei/S45/S45HO089.php
This does not specifically mention about GMOs, however, it regulates obligations andrestrictions for seed producers about tree species to use, places of collecting seeds,
nursing places as well as distribution areas.
Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations
on the Use of Living Modified Organisms Article 4 stipulates that a person who wish to
use GMOs must follow the regulation and obtain an approval of the competent minister.
The competent minister differs for different types of application. For example, application
for research purpose in closed laboratory is approved by the Minister of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and application for the purpose of breed
improvement of crops is approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

List of GMOs approved is available from the following webpage of the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan:
http://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/nouan/carta/torikumi/
As of October 14, 2016, a list of approved genetically modified trees shows only one
species, Populus alba, as under Type 1 use, which means that it can be used without
specific measures to prevent spread. But the approval was given specifically for the use
in an isolated nursery.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 153 of 175 –45Is there any commercial use of GM
trees in the country or region?
Are there any trials of GM trees in the
country or region?

Research with Genetically Engineered trees advances in Asia
(http://wrm.org.uy/uncategorized/research-with-genetically-engineered-trees-advancesin-asia/) mentions about field trials on GM eucalyptus and Japanese cedar.
The website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House(www.biodic.go.jp/bch/english/e_index.html) has a search function of all approved
projects. According to the search results, following results were found:
Eucalyptus tree containing cold tolerance inducing gene des9 derived from
Cyanobacteria by University of Tsukuba.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/download/en_lmo/H25.8.30_English1.pdf)
Pollen-free Cryptomeria japonica by Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/lmo/OpenDocDownload.do?info_id=1701&ref_no=1)
They are both field trial in confined field.
See above

No
Yes. As an on-going research of
2018, Forestry and Forest Products
Research Institute is investigating
using Cryptomeria japonica. It is
expected to take at least another 10
years before it can be usedcommercially.

According to the website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House(www.biodic.go.jp/bch/english/e_index.html), Populus alba is approved as under Type 1
research (www.biodic.go.jp/bch/download/en_lmo/trg300_1enUR.pdf). The application
period was until December 31, 2011. The latest Eucalyptus tree research by Universityof Tsukuba was applied until September 30, 2017. The only on-going research is thePollen-free Cryptomeria japonica by Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(until March 31, 2018)
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute is investigating using Cryptomeria
japonica. On March 21, 2013, they announced that they have successfully created apollen-free Cryptomeria japonica using GM techniques. They installed into a cell in
culture a gene which breaks the cell layer that is important for pollen development. They
going to check the effectiveness and safety for at least 10 more years before they makeit commercially available.
https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/press/2013/documents/20130321sugi.pdf
According to the website of Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 81
genetically modified male sterile Cryptomeria japonica is grown in an isolated nursery asof April 2015.
https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/ftbc/business/sinhijnnsyu/idennsikumikaesugikakurihojyo.html
A person in charge in the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute was consulted
in August 2016. In addition to the announced genetically modified Cryptomeria japonica,
the institute is trying to create another genetically modified tree with new genome

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 154 of 175 –modification techniques. However, it is likely to take at least 10 years before it can becommercially available.

6

Are licenses required for commercial
use of GM trees?

7

Are there any licenses issued for GM
trees relevant for the area underassessment? (If so, in what regions,for what species and to which
entities?)
What GM ‘species’ are used?

89

Can it be clearly determined in which
MUs the GM trees are used?

Yes. An approval of the competent
minister is required based on Act on
the Conservation and Sustainable
Use of Biological Diversity throughRegulations on the Use of Living
Modified Organisms (Act no. 97,
Established on June 18, 2005.)
No

World Rainforest Movement information sheet on GE tree research (Japan) webpage
also confirms about the field trials of aforementioned eucalyptus and poplar as well as
the research on Cryptomeria japonica.
Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations
on the Use of Living Modified Organisms Article 4 stipulates that a person who wish to
use GMOs must follow the regulation and obtain an approval of the competent minister.

N/A
N/A

Control measures
N/A

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 155 of 175 –Annex C1 List of information sources
Category 1:
No.

Source of information

1

Outline of the first proceedings of civil suits: http://www.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/20522003.pdf

22016 Annual Report on Trends in Forests and Forestry: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.html

3

Forestland Development Permission System: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/tisan/con_4.html

45Prosecution statistics 2015 >Processing status and acceptance of criminal cases＞Crime category
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001157683
Forestland Development Permission System: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/tisan/con_4.html

6

Forest Road provision: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/seibi/sagyoudo/pdf/kitei.pdf#search

7

Ordinance for Enforcement of Forest Act: http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26SE276.html

8

Forest Act Enforcement Rule: http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S26/S26F00601000054.html

910

Conrad Totman. 1998. The Green Archipelago: Forestry in Pre-industrial Japan. Ohio University Press.
http://www.ohioswallow.com/book/The+Green+Archipelago
Forestry Agency. Forest and Forestry White Paper 2015.: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/27hakusyo/index.html

11

Forestry Agency Forest Reserve System: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html

12

Ministry of the Environment: A website introducing the Red Data Book http://www.biodic.go.jp/rdb/rdb_f.html

13

Controlled Wood National Risk Assessment of Japan.
(FSC-CW-RA-017-JP) : https://ic.fsc.org/en/document-center/id/132
Ministry of the Environment: Annual Report on the Environment, the Sound Material-Cycle Society and the Biodiversity in Japan
http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/2013/index.html
Present vegetation map created by the Ministry of the Environment: http://www.biodic.go.jp/vg_map/vg_html/jp/html/vg_map_frm.html

14
15
16

19

Maps of protected areas under Natural Park Law and other laws.
(GIS data provided by the National Land Information Division, National Spatial Planning and Regional Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism of Japan):
http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/gmlold/meta/ksjshpgml-A10.html
The Nature Conservation Society of Japan. 2013. “Protected Area Atlas of Japan”.
https://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/shizenmon/mxjy1cvrkn.html?sc_i=shp_pc_search_itemlist_shsr_title
Ministry of the Environment : A webpage on Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds::
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/kisho/global/migratory.html
About Ramsar Sites (Ministry of the Environment): https://www.env.go.jp/nature/ramsar/conv/2-1.html

20World Natural Heritage in Japan (Ministry of the Environment): http://www.env.go.jp/nature/isan/worldheritage/info/index.html

17
18

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 156 of 175 –Corresponding indicator
1.1 Land tenure andmanagement rights
1.3 Management andharvesting planning
1.4 Harvesting permits

1.8 Timber harvesting
regulations

1.9 Protected sites andspecies21

Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index: https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

22

24

The International Labour Organization. Health and Safety in Forestry Work.: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--safework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_107793.pdf
Information System on International Labour Standards. Ratification by Country.: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:::NO:::
Industrial Safety and Health Act: http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S47/S47HO057.html
Japan International Center of Occupational Health and Safety: http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicosh-old/japanese/country/japan/index.html

25

Website of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: http://www.maff.go.jp/j/nouyaku/n_sizai/houritu_ihan.html

26

28

Fukushima Prefecture Forest Maintenance Division. Guideline on discharge of logged trees from private forests in Fukushima Prefecture, December
17, 2014.
https://www.slideshare.net/ssuser85528e/ss-61357908
Fukushima Prefecture Timber Cooperative Association. “Lumber from Fukushima Prefecture Undergo Voluntary Inspection on Radiation Dose.”
Letter to the Press
http://www.fmokuren.jp/publics/download/?file=/files/content_type/type019/27/201211130004058867.pdf
Labor Union Basic Survey 2015: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/itiran/roudou/roushi/kiso/15/

1.12 Legal employment

29

Nakatsugawa City's website: http://www.city.nakatsugawa.gifu.jp/

1.13 Customary rights30

1.15 Indigenous peoples rights

31

CW NRA of Japan (old NRA, FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0)
https://ic.fsc.org/en/document-center/id/132
Court precedents of Nibudani Dam case: http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Suzuran/5596/

32

Court precedents of Ainu peoples' common property.: http://www.dogyousei.gr.jp/ainu/kousaihanketu.doc

33

Outline for Quarantine of Imported Wood: www.pps.go.jp/law_active/Notification/basis/8/55/html/55.html

1.17 Trade and transport

34

5-year Summary of violation of the Foreign Exchange Act in export and import: http://www.sigma-support.com/category/1278178.html#TOPICS1

35

Original news of violation of the Foreign Exchange Act in export and import: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/index.html

1.18 Offshore trading andtransfer pricing

36

http://www.eoi-tax.org/jurisdictions/JP#agreements

37

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2012: http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/2012_international_transfer_pricing.pdf

38

CITES: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/external_economy/trade_control/boekikanri/cites/

23

27

1.11 Health and safety

1.20 CITES

Category 2:
No.
1

Source of information

2

World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators - the WGIs report aggregate and individual governance indicators for 215 countries (most recently for
1996–2012), for six dimensions of governance: Voice and Accountability; Political Stability and Absence of Violence; Government Effectiveness;
Regulatory Quality; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
World Bank Harmonized List of Fragile Situations: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations

3

Committee to Protect Journalists: Impunity Index

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 157 of 175 –Corresponding indicator
Detailed analysis

4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12

CPJ's Impunity Index calculates the number of unsolved journalist murders as a percentage of each country's population. For this index, CPJ
examined journalist murders that occurred between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2016, and that remain unsolved. Only those nations with five or
more unsolved cases are included on this index.: https://www.cpj.org/reports/2016/10/impunity-index-getting-away-with-murder-killed-justice.php
Carleton University: Country Indicators for Foreign Policy: the Failed and Fragile States project of Carleton University examines state fragility using a
combination of structural data and current event monitoring: http://www4.carleton.ca/cifp/ffs.htm

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org
US AID: www.usaid.gov
Search on website for [country] + ‘human rights’ ‘conflicts’ ‘conflict timber’
For Africa and Asia also use:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnact462.pdf
Global Witness: www.globalwitness.org
Search on website for [country] +‘human rights’ ‘conflicts’ ‘conflict timber’
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_forests/deforestation/forest_illegal_logging/Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index: http://www.transparency.org/
Chattam House Illegal Logging Portal: http://www.illegal-logging.info
Trade statistics of Japan: http://www.customs.go.jp/toukei/srch/index.htm
Amnesty International Annual Report: The state of the world’s human rights -information on key human rights issues, including:
freedom of expression; international justice; corporate accountability; the death penalty; and reproductive rights
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/japan/report-japan/

13

17

Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/
Reporters without Borders: Press Freedom Index (Japan’s score): https://rsf.org/en/japan
Fund for Peace - Failed States Index of Highest Alert - the Fund for Peace is a US-based non-profit research and educationalorganization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote security. The Failed States Index is an annual ranking, first publishedin 2005, of 177 nations based on their levels of stability and capacity
In 2014 the FFP changed the name of the Failed State Index to the Fragile State Index: http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/
The Global Peace Index. Published by the Institute for Economics & Peace, This index is the world's leading measure of national
peacefulness. It ranks 163 nations according to their absence of violence. It's made up of 23 indicators, ranging from a nation's levelof military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights.
Source: The Guardian: http://economicsandpeace.org/research/iep-indices-data/global-peace-index
Human Rights Risk Index 2016 Q4 produced by Maplecroft.: https://maplecroft.com/map-of-the-week/18

national CW RA: FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1.0

19

Compendium of United Nations Security Council Sanctions Lists http://www.un.org/sc/committees/list_compend.shtml

20

US AID: www.usaid.gov

21

Global Witness: www.globalwitness.org

22

www.usaid.gov
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnact462.pdf
Conflict Timber is defined by US AID as:- conflict financed or sustained through the harvest and sale of timber (Type 1),

14
15

16

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 158 of 175 –Indicator 2.1. The forest sector
is not associated with violent
armed conflict, including thatwhich threatens national orregional security and/or linked
to military control.

23- conflict emerging as a result of competition over timber or other forest resources (Type 2)
Also check overlap with indicator 2.3
www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/environment/forests

24

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/

25

30

World Resources Institute: Governance of Forests Initiative Indicator Framework (Version 1)
http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/gfi_tenure_indicators_sep09.pdf
http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/governance-forests-initiative
Now: PROFOR http://www.profor.info/node/1998
Global Forest Watch
http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/JPN
Amnesty International Annual Report: The state of the world’s human rights -information on key human rights issues, including: freedom of
expression; international justice; corporate accountability; the death penalty; and reproductive rights
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/japan/report-japan/
World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators - the WGIs report aggregate and individual governanceindicators for 213 economies, for six dimensions of governance: Voiceand Accountability; Political Stability and Absence of Violence; Government Effectiveness; Regulatory
Quality; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
Use indicator 'Political stability and Absence of violence' specific for indicator 2.1
Greenpeace: www.greenpeace.org
Search for 'conflict timber [country]'
CIFOR: http://www.cifor.org/; http://www.cifor.org/publications/Corporate/FactSheet/forests_conflict.htm

31

Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms or in combination 'conflict timber', 'illegal logging'

32

34

Status of ratification of fundamental ILO conventions: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:0::NO::or use: ILO Core Conventions Database: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm
C29 Forced Labour Convention, 1930
C87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
C98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
C100 Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
C105 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957
C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
C138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973
C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999
Ratification as such should be checked under Category 1. In Cat. 2 we take that outcome into consideration. Refer to it.
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Country reports.: http://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm
Source of several reports. Search for 'racial discrimination', 'child labour', 'forced labour', 'gender equality', ‘freedom of association’ILO Child Labour Country Dashboard: http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Regionsandcountries/lang--en/index.htm

35

Global March Against Child Labour: http://www.globalmarch.org/

36

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Committee on Rights of the Child:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx
ILO Helpdesk for Business on International Labour Standards: http://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/business-helpdesk/lang--en/index.htm

26
27

28

29

33

37

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 159 of 175 –Indicator 2.2. Labour rights arerespected including rights as
specified in ILO Fundamental
Principles and Rights at work.

38

39
40

41
42

43
44
45

46
47

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx(Use the link to ‘Key documents’ on the left hand side. Go to “observations’ and search for country.) (Refer to CW Cat. 1)
Or:
Right top select country click on CEDAW treaty, click on latest reporting period and select concluding observations
Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
Child Labour Index 2014 produced by Maplecroft.
http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/10/15/child-labour-risks-increase-china-and-russia-most-progress-shown-south-americamaplecroft-index/
http://www.verite.org/Commodities/Timber(useful, specific on timber)
The ITUC Global Rights Index depicts the world’s worst countries for workers by rating 139 countries on a scale from 1-5 based on the degree ofrespect for workers’ rights. Workers’ rights are absent in countries with the rating 5 and violations occur on an irregular basis in countries with therating 1. http://survey.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Rights-Index.html?lang=en
Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/
Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms 'violation of labour rights', 'child labour', 'forced labour', 'slave labour', 'discrimination', 'gender
gap labour', 'violation of labour union rights' ‘violation of freedom of association and collective bargaining’
World Economic Forum: The Global Gender Gap Index
The Global Gender Gap Index 2015 ranks 145 economies according to how well they are leveraging their female talent pool, based on economic,
educational, health-based and political indicators.
Additional general sources

51

Feedback from FSC Japan on discrimination of women in labour market
Input made by FSC Japan. Hence no link to the information source.
Additional information from FSC Japan on discrimination of Burakumin in labor market
Input made by FSC Japan. Hence no link to the information source.
Additional information from FSC Japan on discrimination of persons with disabilities in the labour market
Input made by FSC Japan. Hence no link to the information source.
Additional information on the rights of foreign workers in the labour market
Input made by FSC Japan. Hence no link to the information source.
Forestry Agency. “Forestry work at a glance: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/routai/koyou/pdf/hitome.pdf

52

2014 Forestry White Paper: www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/26hakusyo/index.html

53

56

Forestry Girls’ change the forests? Construction Knowledge Builders no.19 winter 2014. P. 114-115
http://xknowledge-books.jp/ipscs-book/BooksApp?act=book&isbn=9784767818672
Mechanization and female operators”. Mechanization Forestry. 1996. 516: 15-16
Shigeru Iida. 2005. Gender disparity in forestry wage. Journal of Kyushu University.86:121-132
http://www.forest.kyushu-u.ac.jp/pdf/bkuf_086/bkuf_086_121-132_iida.pdf
http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/CHOUSA/2014/04/DATA/60o48100.pdf

57

http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000024991720

58

Dadashi Kudoh (2008) "Employment status of people with disabilities and challenges" The monthly journal of the Japan Institute of Labour. No.578.
p.1-13. 2008.09: http://www.jil.go.jp/institute/zassi/backnumber/2008/09/pdf/004-016.pdf
OECD (2003) Transforming Disability into Ability: Policies to Promote Work and Income Security for Disabled People

48
49
50

54
55

59

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 160 of 175 –60

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/koyou/shougaisha/04.html

61

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. Agriculture and Forestry Census 2010. World Census of Agriculture and Forestry Definite Report
vol.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Management Survey Report - Summary Edition 2013 Forest and Forestry White Paper Part I Chapter IV

62
63

2012 Forestry Association Statistics. Summary Table (Fiscal year 2011 and 2012) Employed worker relations. 4-2 Number of employees by wage
payment system. http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000027248656

64

The press release of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare published in November 2015:
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/0000105446.html

65

67

Result of employment statistics of the disabled in 2016. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-Houdouhappyou-11704000Shokugyouanteikyokukoureishougaikoyoutaisakubu-shougaishakoyoutaisakuka/0000106111.pdf
ILO Core Conventions Database http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/docs/declworld.htm- ILO Convention 169
Survival International: http://www.survivalinternational.org/

68

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/

69

Amnesty International http://amnesty.org

70

Minority Rights

71

The Indigenous World http://www.iwgia.org/regions

72

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples:
http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/ipeoples/srindigenouspeoples/pages/sripeoplesindex.aspx
UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentation.aspx

66

73
74

75
76
77
78

79

http://minorityrights.org

UN Human Rights Committee: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx
search for country
Also check: UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/CERDIndex.aspx
Intercontinental Cry http://intercontinentalcry.org/
Forest Peoples Programme: www.forestpeoples.org
FPP’s focus is on Africa, Asia/Pacific and South and Central America.
Society for Threatened Peoples: http://www.gfbv.de/index.php?change_lang=english
Regional human rights courts and commissions:- Inter-American Court of Human Rights http://www.corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/indigenous/- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights- African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights- European Court of Human Rights
Data provided by National Indigenous Peoples’, Traditional Peoples organizations;
The Ainu Association of Hokkaido
http://www.ainu-assn.or.jp/english/eabout01.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 161 of 175 –Indicator 2.3. The rights ofIndigenous and Traditional
Peoples are upheld.

80

81

82
83

84

85

86

87

Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR) http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-21stsession_Militarization-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Data provided by Governmental institutions in charge of Indigenous Peoples affairs;
Council for Ainu Policy Promotion
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/index_e.html
Data provided by National NGOs; NGO documentation of cases of IP and TP conflicts (historic or ongoing);
International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-20th-session_Indigenous-Peoples-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
National land bureau tenure records, maps, titles and registration (Google)
No maps, titles or registration of indigenous peoples’ territories found. Hence no link to information source.
Relevant census data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Minorities
http://www.refworld.org/docid/49749cfe23.html
http://www.tofugu.com/2013/11/08/the-ainu-reviving-the-indigenous-spirit-of-japan/
http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/en/study/eng01.html- Evidence of participation in decision making;- Evidence of IPs refusing to participate (e.g. on the basis of an unfair process, etc.);
Council for Ainu Policy Promotion
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/index_e.html
Concluding observations on the combined seventh to ninth periodic reports of Japan
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/CERD_C_JPN_CO_7-9_18106_E.pdf
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICERD (2014)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CERD_NGO_JPN_17538_E.pdf
National/regional records of claims on lands, negotiations in progress or concluded etc.
International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-20th-session_Indigenous-Peoples-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR) http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-21stsession_Militarization-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICERD (2014)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CERD_NGO_JPN_17538_E.pdf
IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2014 JAPANhttp://www.iwgia.org/images/stories/sections/regions/asia/documents/IW2014/JapanIW2014.pdf
Cases of IP and TP conflicts (historic or ongoing) Data about land use conflicts, and disputes (historical / outstanding grievances and legal disputes)
International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-20th-session_Indigenous-Peoples-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR) http://imadr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Written-Statement_HRC-21stsession_Militarization-in-Okinawa-2012.pdf
Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICERD (2014)
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CERD_NGO_JPN_17538_E.pdf
IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2014 JAPANhttp://www.iwgia.org/images/stories/sections/regions/asia/documents/IW2014/JapanIW2014.pdf
Social Responsibility Contracts (Cahier des Charges) established according to FPIC (Free Prior Informed Consent) principles where available
Not applicable in Japan. Hence no link to information sources.

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 162 of 175 –

88
89
90
91
92
93
94

95

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106

107

Google the terms '[country]' and one of following terms 'indigenous peoples organizations', 'traditional peoples organizations', 'land registration office','land office', 'indigenous peoples', 'traditional peoples', '[name of IPs]', 'indigenous peoples + conflict', 'indigenous peoples + land rights'
Equality and non-discrimination at work in East and South-East Asia - Exercise and tool book for trainers (2011)
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_178417.pdf
Eiji Oguma (1998) "Boundaries of the Japanese - From the colonial occupation of Okinawa, Ainu, Taiwan and Korea to their retrocession movement"
Shiyosha Publishing. p.540
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%90%89%E7%90%83%E7%8B%AC%E7%AB%8B%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95#cite_note-10
Security guarantees of Okinawa after 40 years from returning to Japan - From the civilian survey and national attitude survey"
https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/summary/research/report/2012_07/20120701.pdf
Yuei Nakama (2011) "A study on history of forestry policy in Okinawa" Media Express p.108
Except for Kadena and Yomitan, those lands were returned to original land owners after the war during the reign of the American military. Regarding
the state owned land in Kadena base, land owners brought it the court in 1977 to claim ownership of the land, but lost by the Supreme court decisionin 1995. Land used for airport in Yomitan was finally returned in 2006.
Yuei Nakama. 2012. “Forest and Culture of the Island Society”. In the survey, 43% of people answered that they go to forest to enjoy the landscapeand scenery, 42% go to forest to relax in nature, and 41% go to forest to refresh their mind.
http://iss.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I023629167-00
Office of Ainu Measures Promotion: Policy for improving welfare of Ainu Peoples.
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/new_suisin.htm
A list of Ainu Policy Promotion Council Members.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/meibo.pdf

HOKKAIDOU Regional Forest Office: About an agreement with Ainu Peoples on re-establishing forests for promoting Ainu Culture.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/hokkaido/press/kikaku/130410.html
Hokkaido Office: Workshop on sustainable use of Ulmus laciniata. (January 21, 2014)
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/dyr/20140121siryo.pdf
Hokkaido Office: Workshop on sustainable use of Ulmus laciniata. (March 19, 2014)
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/dyr/20140319siryo.pdf
Ainu Culture Promotion Policy Council: Basic idea on re-establishment of traditional life space of Ainu Peoples.
http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000015024.pdf
Office of Ainu Measures Promotion: Project on re-establishment of traditional life space of Ainu Peoples.
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/new_iorusuisin1.htm
Shiraoi Town: Ainu Policy of Shiraoi Town.
http://www.town.shiraoi.hokkaido.jp/docs/2013012300233/
Survey Report on Ainu Peoples’ Actual Life Condition2009. p.42 http://www.cais.hokudai.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ainu_report2L_3saigo.pdf
According to the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages, less than ten people can speak Ainu language at present:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/nasia_report.html#Ainu
As a project of culture preservation, The Ainu Ethnic Museum, established by Shiraoi Ethnic Culture Heritage Foundation in 1976, has developed the
Ainu Language Archive, which provides an online platform to hear Ainu folktales spoken in Ainu language.
http://ainugo.ainu-museum.or.jp/
The 2013 survey by Hokkaido Prefecture Department of Environment and Life shows that only 7.2 people answered “able to speak the Ainu
language” or “able to speak the language a little”
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/ainu_living_conditions_survey.pdf

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 163 of 175 –

108
109
110
111
112

HOKKAIDO GOVERNMENT BOARD OF EDUCATION: A document on history and culture of Ainu Peoples.
http://www.dokyoi.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/hk/gky/pizara.htm
City of Sapporo: Education on Ainu Peoples.
http://www.city.sapporo.jp/kyoiku/top/education/ainu/ainu_minzoku.html
Ministry of Justice: statistics on human rights violations
http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_jinken.html
Takeshi Murota and Manabu Mitsumata. 2004. Iriai Forests and the Commons. Nippon Hyoryon-sha.
https://www.nippyo.co.jp/shop/book/2273.html
Hidetoshi Nakao and Takehiko Ebuchi, 2015, Commons court cases and environmental conservation – at the court case in respect to commonage(Horitsu Bunka Corporation).
https://www.hou-bun.com/cgi-bin/search/detail.cgi?c=ISBN978-4-589-03716-9

Category 3:
No.

Source of information

Relevant HCV category andindicator

1

Ministry of the Environment: Natural Environmental Investigation results (http://www.biodic.go.jp/ne_research.html)

Overview

2

Forestry Agency: Forest cover, plantation cover of each prefecture. (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/genkyou/h24/1.html)

Overview

3

Overview

4

Convention on Biological Diversity. Japan – Country Profile.
https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=jp
Forestry Agency: Forest and Forestry statistics 2015. (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/toukei/youran_mokuzi.html)

5

CBD Fifth National Report (https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/jp/jp-nr-05-en.pdf)

Overview, HCV 1, HCV 3

6Forestry Agency: Trend of NTFPs production (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/press/tokuyou/pdf/150929-01.pdf)

Overview

7
8
9
10
11
12

Forestry Agency: Shiitake production (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tokuyou/tokusan/megurujoukyou/pdf/2-2-1shiitake.pdf)
Transparency International’s website (https://www.transparency.org/)
Ramsar sites in Japan: http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/japan

Overview
Overview
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

THREE FUNCTIONS & THREE ZONES: http://www.watertonbiosphere.com/biosphere-reserves/three-functions-three-zones/

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

Biosphere Reserves World Map: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002343/234319M.pdf

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

14

Biosphere Reserve designation Criteria:
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/06/03/1341691_05.pdf
Ministry of the Environment: Nature Conservation Areas: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/hozen/about.html

15

Forestry Agency: Protected forest System of the State Forest: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

1618Japanese Properties inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/jp

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2, HCV 3

Ministry of the Environment: World Natural Heritage in Japan (http://www.env.go.jp/nature/isan/worldheritage/info/index.html)

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2, HCV
3, HCV 6

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 164 of 175 –Overview

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

A list of Natural Monument Protection Areas:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E7%84%B6%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E5%8C%BA%E5%9F%9F%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7
List of National and Quasi-national Parks: https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/parks_list.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1

Ministry of the Environment: Activities which permission or notification is needed to conduct in National parks:
http://www.env.go.jp/park/apply/basic/01.html
Wilderness Areas and Nature Conservation Areas: https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/wanca.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 2

25
26

A list of Natural Habitat Protection Areas: http://www.env.go.jp/nature/kisho/hogoku/list.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV1, HCV 3

Ministry of the Environment: Protection under Natural Habitat Protection Areas

Table 1, 3.0, HCV1, HCV3

28

Overview of wildlife sanctuary system: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/area/area1.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2, HCV 3

29
30

Ministry of the Environment: About wildlife sanctuary: https://www.env.go.jp/nature/choju/area/area1.html
Protected Forest: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2, HCV 3
Table 1, 3.0, HCV 3

32

Map of designated areas (one example of Kagoshima Prefecture): http://www.kago-kengi-cals.jp/sabomap/map.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4

33
35
38

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: About Designated area for Erosion Control

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4

Map of designated areas (one example of Kagoshima Prefecture): http://www.kago-kengi-cals.jp/sabomap/map.html

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 4

Agency for Cultural Affairs: Cultural Properties: http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 6

39

Cultural Properties database: http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.html

Table 1, 3.0

40

Cultural heritage online: http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/163318

Table 1, 3.0

4142

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3
3.0, HCV 1, HCV 343

CW NRA approved by FSC on 4th August 2014 (FSC-CW-RA-017-JP V1-0)
Prosecutorial Statistics 2010＞Situation of cases received and treated＞ Sorted by violation name: http://www.estat.
go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001078043
Biodiversity assessment maps http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/list.html

46

KBA map of Japan: http://kba.conservation.or.jp/map.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

47

Forestry Agency: Forest Management Plan (s). http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/sinrin_keikaku/con_6.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

48

Mitigation measures implemented by the Ministry of the Environment: http://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/4control/bojokankyo.html

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

49

Municipal Forest Maintenance Plan: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/ken_sidou/forester/pdf/05_3.pdf

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

51

Consideration on alien trees: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kensyuu/pdf/satou.pdf

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

52

Results of Research to develop a policy on greening plan use: http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=7857

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

53

Japan overview on CI website: http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Asia-Pacific/Pages/Japan.aspx

HCV 1, HCV 3

54

Red list database in Japan: http://www.jpnrdb.com/

HCV 1, HCV 3

55

Guidance for developing biodiversity regional strategy:
http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/local_gov/local/files/biodiversity_local_guide_2014.pdf

HCV 1, HCV 3

20
21
22
23

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 165 of 175 –Table 1, 3.0, HCV2

Table 1, 3.0, HCV 1, HCV 2

3.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

56

HCV 1, HCV 3

57

Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests from WWF global 200 website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/nanseishoto_archipelago_forests.cfm
WWF Nansei Islands living organisms map’ project: http://www.wwf.or.jp/activities/nature/cat1153/cat1187/wwf/

58

Values of Amami-Ryukyu World Natural Heritage: https://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/data/m_5/1st/131217bg.pdf

HCV 1, HCV 3

59

Amami-Ryukyu recommendation framework: http://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/data/m_5/h26-1/210.pdf

HCV 1, HCV 3

60

Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests from WWF global 200 website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/nanseishoto_archipelago_forests.cfm
Ministry of the Environment: White paper on environment. (https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/honbun.php3?kid=212&serial=12127&bflg=1)

Overview, HCV 1, HCV 3

Important Bird Areas in Japan: http://www.wbsj.org/nature/hogo/others/iba/about/index.html
About the Wild Bird Society of Japan: http://www.wbsj.org/about-us/summary/about/
Coverage of IBAs by protection sites under legislative regulation: http://www.wbsj.org/nature/hogo/others/iba/hogo/hogo01.html

HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

66

Biodiversity National Strategy 2012 – 2020: http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/about/Global Biodiversity Outlook 4: https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
Ministry of the Environment. Press Release. October 11, 2011. On important area Information by land category for biodiversity conservation.
http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=2908
Ministry of the Environment. List of biodiversity assessment maps. http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/list.html

67

Naha Nature Environmental Office’s website. (http://kyushu.env.go.jp/naha/nature/mat/m_5.html)

HCV 1, HCV 3

68

Ministry of the Environment: Press release. About expansion of Iriomote-Ishigaki National Park. (https://www.env.go.jp/press/102401-print.html)

HCV 1, HCV 3

69

Ministry of the Environment: “Yanbaru National Park was born!” http://www.env.go.jp/nature/np/yambaru.html

HCV 1, HCV 370

IFL Map: http://intactforests.org/world.webmap.html
GFW IFL Maps: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/7/42.80/145.93/JPN/grayscale/loss,forestgain/607?tab=countries-tab&begin=2001-0101&end=2015-01-01&threshold=30&dont_analyze=true

HCV 2

71

Ministry of the Environment: White paper on environment. (https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/honbun.php3?kid=212&serial=12127&bflg=1)

HCV 1, HCV 3

72

Selected top 100 headwater forests: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/suigen/hyakusen/index.html

HCV 4

73

Forest fire occurrence: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/hogo/yamakaji/con_5.html

HCV 4

74

Water quality survey results of first grade rivers in Japan: http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/toukei_chousa/kankyo/kankyou/suisitu/h26_suisitu.html
Public water quality survey results 2014: http://www.env.go.jp/water/suiiki/h26/h26-1.pdf

HCV 4

75

Overview of reported fires in 2015 published by FDMA: http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/houdou/h28/02/280218_houdou_1.pdf
White paper on fire prevention 2015: http://www.fdma.go.jp/html/hakusho/h27/h27/index2.html#part1

HCV 4

76

Cultural Properties database: http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/db/
Buried cultural properties: http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/shokai/maizo.html

HCV 6

77

List of designated cultural properties: http://www.dokyoi.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/hk/bnh/bun-hogo-bunkagaiyo.htm

HCV 6

78

Prosecutorial Statistics 2014＞Situation of cases received and treated＞ Sorted by violation name: http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001137864

HCV 6

61
62
63
64
65

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN2018– 166 of 175 –HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3
HCV 1, HCV 3

HCV 1, HCV 3

82

A Map and GIS data of ‘Areas with natural ecosystems that characterizes Japanese lands’ developed by the Ministry of the Environment:
http://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/map01/index.html
Nature Conservation Society of Japan. 2013. Nature Conservation Society of Japan Collection of Documents No.51. Japan Atlas ofConservation Areas
Ministry of the Environment. The Gap between protected areas and areas with natural ecosystem that characterizes Japanese land
https://www.biodic.go.jp/biodiversity/activity/policy/map/map21/index.html
Ministry of the Environment. “Amami Gunto National Park was Established”. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/np/amamigunto.html

83

Survey and Analysis of Japanese woodland (Satoyama) https://www.env.go.jp/nature/satoyama/chukan.html

HCV1, 384

HCV1, 3

87

Ministry of the Environment. Result of Survey by the Ministry of the Environment on plants for greening.
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/6document/files/h22_IAS_Act/mat03-6.pdf
Okinawa Prefecture. Forest and Forestry of Okinawa 2015.
http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/norin/shinrin/sinnrin.html
Kagoshima Prefecture Forest and Forestry Statistics 2016. https://www.pref.kagoshima.jp/ad01/sangyorodo/rinsui/tokei/shinrin/27toukei_151201.html
Nankai Nichinichi Shimbun (Newspaper article). October 4, 2016.

88

World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators; http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home

HCV 2

89

The Forestry Agency. Area of Protected Forests by Category. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/tisan/con_2_2_1.html

HCV4

90

The Forestry Agency. White Paper on Forest and Forestry 2016. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.html

3.0, HCV4

91

Ainu Museum. History and Culture of Ainu. http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/nyumon/rekishibunka/

3.0, HCV6

92

Hokkaido University Disclosed Documents Research Group. On Litigation for Returning Remains. http://hmjk.world.coocan.jp/trial/trial.html

HCV6

93

Ainu Association of Hokkaido, Japan Society of Anthropology, Japan Association of Archeology. 2016. Roundtable on studies and research on
Ainu peoples’ bones and burial accessories. http://archaeology.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dc163de9d75c26bfb9452b3db6526dfe.pdf
About corporate forest of Iwasaki Industry
http://amamimori.exblog.jp/8589222/
The Forestry Agency: Protecting biodiversity in the forests.
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/24hakusyo_h/all/a36.html
Rontai Co., Ltd (a private greening company) website as an example: http://www.rontai.co.jp/combination/

HCV6

News article of Daily Industrial News on Jan, 13, 2018 “Interview to the Director-General of Forestry Agency.
https://newswitch.jp/p/11649

3.0

79
80
81

85
86

94
95
96
97

HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3

HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3
HCV1, 3

HCV1, 3
HCV1, 33.0, HCV 1, HCV 3

Category 4:
No.

Source of information

1

Forestry Agency Forest Reserve System: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kokuyu_rinya/sizen_kankyo/hogorin.html

2

Forestland Development Permission System: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/tisan/tisan/con_4.html

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 167 of 175 –Corresponding indicator
4.1. Conversion of naturalforests to plantations or non-3

The Forestry Agency. White Paper on Forest and Forestry 2016. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/zenbun.html

4News article of Daily Industrial News on Jan, 13, 2018 “Interview to the Director-General of Forestry Agency. https://newswitch.jp/p/11649

5World Bank World Wide Governance Indicators. 2015.: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators

6
7

Vegetation Survey under the 4th and 5th National Survey on the Natural Environment Conservation:
http://www.biodic.go.jp/reports2/5th/vgtmesh/vgtmesh.html
Global Forest Resources Assessments Japan Country Report: www.fao.org/3/a-az247e.pdf

8Forest Resource Status Survey data provided by the Forestry Agency of Japan: www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/genkyou/h24/

9Forest Ecosystem Diversity Basic Survey of Forestry Agency of Japan: www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/tayouseichousa/

10

National Survey on the Natural Environment of Ministry of the Environment: www.biodic.go.jp/kiso/fnd_list_h.html

11

Forestry Agency Transition of timber price: www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/27hakusyo_h/all/chap4_3.html

12
13
14

Forestry Agency “About forests in Japan”: http://www.maff.go.jp/hakusyo/rin/h06/html/SB1.3.1.htm
Forestry Agency FAQ: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/sinrin_keikaku/situmon.html
1994 White Paper on the Environment (Ministry of the Environment): https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/h06/8691.html

forest use in the area underassessment is less than
0.02% or 5000 hectares
average net annual loss forthe past 5 years (whichever isless),OR
Conversion is illegal at thenational or regional level on
public and private landCategory 5:
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

7

8

Source of information

Corresponding indicator

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan Web page on “Approval and confirmation of genetically modified organisms”.
http://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/nouan/carta/torikumi/
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute Press Release “Technology to suppress cedar pollen formation developed by genetic engineering:https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/press/2013/20130321.html
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute “On the isolated field test of genetically modified Sugi (sterile male Sugi)”
https://www.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/ftbc/business/sinhijnnsyu/idennsikumikaesugikakurihojyo.html
Research with Genetically Engineered trees advances in Asia: http://wrm.org.uy/uncategorized/research-with-genetically-engineered-treesadvances-in-asia/
The website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House: www.biodic.go.jp/bch/english/e_index.html

5.1. There is no commercial
use of genetically modified
trees

The search results of the website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House for approved projects:
Eucalyptus tree containing cold tolerance inducing gene des9 derived from Cyanobacteria by University of Tsukuba.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/download/en_lmo/H25.8.30_English1.pdf)
The search results of the website of Japan Biosafety Clearing House for approved projects:
Pollen-free Cryptomeria japonica by Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute.
(http://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/lmo/OpenDocDownload.do?info_id=1701&ref_no=1)
World Rainforest Movement information sheet on GE tree research (Japan): wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-information/japan-wrm-information-sheet-onge-tree-research/

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 168 of 175 –Annex C2

Identification of applicable legislation

Legal rights to harvest

1.1 Land tenure andmanagement rights•

1.2 Concession licenses

Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896, Last amended on June 2, 2017) Article 92,
206, 207, 263, 265-269, 294• Real Property Registration Act (Act No. 123 of 2004, Last amended on June2, 2017)• Commercial Registration Act (Act No. 125 of 1963, Last amended on May 27,
2016)• Forestry Cooperative Act (Act No. 36 of 1978, Last amended on May 20, 2016)• Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of 1947, Last amended on June 23, 2017)
Article 238• Act Concerning Revision of Rights for Common-Forest Use (Act No. 126 of
1966, Last amended on September 4, 2015)• Act Concerning Utilization of National Forest Land (Act No. 246 of 1951, Last
amended on June 27, 2012)• Act on Utilization of National Forests (Act No. 108 of 1971, Last amended on
September 4, 2015)• Act on Special Measures concerning Shared Forest (Act No. 57 of 1958, Last
amended on May 27, 2016)• Compulsory Purchase of Land Act (Act No. 219 of 1951, Last amended onJune 2, 2017)
Not applicable. No concession license is issued in Japan.

1.3 Management andharvesting planning••

Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)
Forest and Forestry Basic Act (Act No. 161 of 1964, Last amended on May
23, 2008)
Act Concerning Utilization of National Forest Land (Act No. 246 of 1951, Last
amended on June 27, 2012)
Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)
Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Act No. 81 of 1997, Last amended
on June 4, 2014)
Act on Special Measures concerning Assurance of Stable Supply of Timber(Act No. 47 of 1996, Last amended on May 20, 2016)
Act on Special Measures concerning Advancement of Implementation ofForest Thinning, etc. (Act No. 32 of 2008, Last amended on April 26, 2017)•
1.4 Harvesting permits

•
•
•
•

Taxes and fees

1.5 Payment of royalties andharvesting fees

Not applicable. There is no tax or fee specifically levied on forest operation.

1.6 Value added taxes andother sales taxes
1.7 Income and profit taxes•

Consumption Tax Act (Act No. 108 of 1988, Last amended on June 23, 2017)•

Income Tax Act (Act No. 33 of March 31, 1965, Last amended on June 23,
2017)•
Corporation Tax Act (Act No. 34 of March 31, 1965, Last amended on June23, 2017)
Income Tax Act, Corporation Tax Act, and Consumption Tax Act are generally
applicable to Japanese organizations, but they do not have provisions specific toforest products and forest* management.

Timber harvesting activities

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 169 of 175 –1.8 Timber harvesting
regulations

•
•
•
•
•
•

1.9 Protected sites andspecies

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

1.10 Environmental
requirements

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

1.11 Health and safety

Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)
Ordinance for Enforcement of Forest Act (Government Ordinance No. 276 of1946, Last amended on February 26, 2016)
Forest Act Enforcement Rule (Ordinance of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries No. 54 of 1946, Last amended on July 26, 2017)
Natural Parks Act (Act No. 161 of 1957, Last amended on June 13, 2014)
Act on Special Measures concerning Assurance of Stable Supply of Timber(Act No. 47 of 1996, Last amended on May 20, 2016)
Act on Special Measures concerning Advancement of Implementation ofForest Thinning, etc. (Act No. 32 of 2008, Last amended on May 20, 2016)
Natural Parks Act (Act No. 161 of 1957, Last amended on June 13, 2014)
Article 20, 21
Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 85 of 1972, Last amended on June 13,
2014)
Wildlife Protection and Proper Hunting Act (Act No. 88 of 2002, Last amended
on March 31, 2015) Article 29
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species and Wild Fauna and Flora (Act75 of 1992, Last amended on June 13, 2014) Article 1 and 10
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014) Article 109
Landscapes Act (Act 110 of 2004, Last amended on May 12, 2017) Article
28-35
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (The World Heritage Convention)
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (Ramsar Convention)
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Japan-US, Japan-RussianFederation, Japan-Australia, Japan-China)
Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017) Article 102, Article 25
Ordinance for Enforcement of Forest Act Annex 3 about EIA of forest road
(Ordinance of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 24 of 2008,
Last amended on June 1, 2015)
Basic Act on Biodiversity (Act No. 58 of 2008)
Invasive Alien Species Act (Act No. 78 of 2004, Last amended on June 13,
2014)
Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Act No. 81 of 1997, Last amended
on June 4, 2014)
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act (Act No. 82 of 1948, Last amended onJune 13, 2014)
River Act (Act No. 167 of 1964. Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Act on Special Measures concerning Improvement of Public Health Functionof Forests (Act No. 71 of 1989, Last amended on May 20, 2016)
Forest Pest Control Act (Act No. 53 of 1950, Last amended on May 20, 2016)
Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity throughRegulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (Act No. 97 of 2003,
Last amended on April 21, 2017)
Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act (Act No. 89 of 1970, Last amended on May
20, 2016)
Basic Environment Act (Act No. 91 of 1993, Last amended on May 30, 2014)
Forest Road Rules (Notification of Forestry Agency No. 107, April 1, 1973)•

Convention on Biological Diversity (including Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya
Protocol)•Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of 1947, Last amended on May 29, 2015)
Article 75
Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Act No. 50 of 1947, Last
amended on June 2, 2017) Article 1•

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 170 of 175 –

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

1.12 Legal employment

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Industrial Safety and Health Act (Act No. 57 of 1972, Last amended on May
31, 2017) Article 1, 10, 14, 24, 59
Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health (Ordinance of the Ministry ofLabour No. 32 of September 30, 1972, Last amended on November 27, 2017)
Agricultural Chemicals Control Act (Act 82 of 1948, Last amended on June
13, 2014)
Ordinance for Enforcement of Agricultural Chemicals Control Act (Ordinanceof the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 21 of 1951, Last amended on
October 31, 2016)
Ministerial Ordinance to Provide for Standards to be Complied by Agricultural
Chemical Users (Established on March 7, 2003, Last amended on May 20,
2005)
Act on Prevention of Radiation Disease Due to Radioisotopes, etc. (Act No.
167 of 1957, Last amended on May 31, 2017)
Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing Radiation Hazards (Ministry of Labour
Ordinance No. 41 of 1972, Last amended on March 29, 2017)
Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing Radiation in relating to works etc. todecontaminate the soil etc. contaminated by radioactive materials generated
by the Great East Japan Earthquake (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
Ordinance No. 152 of 2011, Last amended on March 29, 2017)
ILO C115 - Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No.115)
Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of 1947, Last amended on May 29, 2015)
Labor Union Act (Act No. 174 of 1949, Last amended on June 13, 2014)
Labor Contracts Act (Act No. 128 of 2007, Last amended on August 10, 2012)
Industrial Safety and Health Act (Act No. 57 of 1972, Last amended on May
31, 2017)
Minimum Wage Act (Act No. 137 of 1959, Last amended on April 6, 2012)
Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and
Women in Employment (Act No. 113 of 1972, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Act on Employment Promotion etc. of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 123
of 1960, Last amended on June 26, 2013)
Health Insurance Act (Act No. 70 of 1922, Last amended on May 29, 2015)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Act No. 50 of 1947, Last
amended on June 2, 2017)
Act on the Collection, etc. of Insurance Premiums of Labor Insurance (Act No.
84 of 1969, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Employees' Pension Insurance Act (Act No. 115 of 1954, Last amended onJune 2, 2017)
Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, Etc. to
Subcontractors (Act No. 120 of 1956, Last amended on June 10, 2009)
Act on Promoting the Resolution of Individual Labor-Related Disputes (ActNo. 112 of 2001, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Act on Special Measures for Improvement of Working Hours Arrangements(Act No. 90 of 1992, Last amended on April 6, 2012)
Act on Childcare Leave, Caregiver Leave, and Other Measures for the
Welfare of Workers Caring for Children or Other Family Members (Act No. 76
of 1991, Last amended on March 31, 2017)
Act on the Succession to Labor Contracts upon Company Split (Act No. 103
of 2000, Last amended on June 27, 2014)
Act on Ensuring Wage Payment (Act No. 34 of 1976, Last amended on June2, 2017)
Act for Securing the Proper Operation of Worker Dispatching Undertakings
and Improved Working Conditions for Dispatched Workers (Act No. 88 of
1985)
Act on Improvement, etc. of Employment Management for Part-Time Workers(Act No. 76 of June 18, 1993, Last amended on April 23, 2014)
Act of Promotion of Women's Participation and Advancement in Workplace(Act No.64 of 2015, Last amended on March 31, 2017)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 171 of 175 –

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ILO C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ILO C087 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
ILO C098 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
(No. 98)
ILO C100 - Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
ILO C105 – Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) (Notratified* by Japan)
ILO C111 - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111) (Not ratified* by Japan)
ILO C138 - Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
ILO C182 - Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)

Third parties’ rights
1.13 Customary rights

•
•
•
•
•

1.14 Free Prior and Informed
Consent•••

1.15 Indigenous Peoples’
rights

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Act on General Rules for Application of Laws (Act No. 78 of 2006) Article 3
Act Concerning Revision of Rights for Common-Forest Use (Act No. 126 of
1966, Last amended on September 4, 2015) Article 19
Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896, Last amended on June 2, 2017) Article 92,263, 294
Act Concerning Utilization of National Forest Land (Act No. 246 of 1951, Last
amended on June 27, 2012) Article 18-24
Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of 1947, Last amended on June 23, 2017)
Article 238-6
ILO C169 - Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (Notratified* by Japan)
United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Convention on Biological Diversity COP10 Nagoya Protocol(2010)
International Covenants on Human Rights
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014) Chapter 1 General Provisions, Article 109, 134
Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture, and Dissemination and Enlightenmentof Knowledge about Ainu Tradition, etc. (Act No. 52 of 1997, Last amended
on June 24, 2011)
The Nibutani Dam Judgement (Sapporo District Court, March 1997)
International Bill of Human Rights (1966) Article 1, International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights Article 26, 27
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1969) General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous
Peoples (1997, CERD)
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO No. 169) (Notratified* by Japan)
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)

Trade and transport
NOTE: This section covers requirements for forest* management operations as well as processing and trade.
1.16 Classification of species,
quantities, qualities•

Commercial Code (Act No. 48 of 1899. Last amended on May 30, 2014)
Article 526

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 172 of 175 –1.17 Trade and transport

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

1.18 Offshore trading andtransfer pricing•••

Road Transportation Act (Act No. 183 of 1951, Last amended on June 2,
2017)
Customs Act (Act No. 61 of 1954, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Motor Truck Transportation Business Act (Act No. 83 of 1989, Last
amended on December 16, 2016)
Motor Truck Transportation Business Safety Regulation (Ministry ofTransport Ordinance No. 22 of 1990, Last amended on July 18, 2017)
Consigned Freight Forwarding Business Act (Act No. 187 of 1949, Last
amended on June 2, 2017)
Outline for Quarantine of Imported Wood
Convention on International Trade of Endangered Flora and Fauna
Customs Act (Act No. 61 of 1954, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (Act No. 228 of 1949, Last
amended on May 24, 2017)
Act on Special Measures Concerning Taxation (Act No. 26 of 1957, Last
amended on March 31, 2017)1.19 Custom regulations•

Customs Act (Act No. 61 of 1954, Last amended on June 2, 2017)1.20 CITES•Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (Act No. 228 of 1949, Last
amended on May 24, 2017)
Export Trade Control Order (Cabinet Order No. 378 of 1949, La) Article 2
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species and Wild Fauna and Flora (Act75 of 1992, Last amended on June 13, 2014)•••
Due diligence/ due care
1.21 Legislation requiring due
diligence/due care procedures••

Act on Promotion of Use and Distribution of Legally-Harvested Wood andWood Products (Act no. 48 of 2016).
Act on Promotion of Procurement of Eco-Friendly Goods and Services by theState and Other Entities (Act No. 100 of May 31, 2000, Last amended on
September 11, 2015)

Neither of the acts above obligate due diligence. Therefore precisely speaking,there are not applicable laws in this context

Wood harvested in violation of traditional and human rights
Detailed analysis
2.2. Labour rights arerespected including rights as
specified in ILO Fundamental
Principles and Rights at work.

2.3. The rights of Indigenous
and Traditional Peoples areupheld.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets (Act No. 108 of 2013)
Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)
Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of 1947, Last amended on May 29, 2015)
Act on Employment Promotion etc. of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 123
of 1960, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men
and Women in Employment (Act No. 113 of July 1, 1972, Last amended onJune 2, 2017)
Act on the Promotion of Ainu Culture, and Dissemination and Enlightenmentof Knowledge about Ainu Tradition, etc. (Act No. 52 of 1997, Last amended
on June 24, 2011)
Act on Special Measures for the Promotion and Development of Okinawa(Act No. 14 of 2002, Last amended on Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)
Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896, Last amended on June 2, 2017)
Real Property Registration Act (Act No. 123 of 2004, Last amended on June2, 2017)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 173 of 175 –•

Civil Conciliation Act (Act No. 222 of June 9, 1951
25, 2011)•

Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 85 of 1972, Last amended on June 13,
2014)
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014)
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (ActNo. 75 of June 5, 1992)
Wildlife Protection Act (Act No. 88 of 2002. Last amended on March 31,
2015)
Basic Act on Biodiversity (Act No. 58 of 2008)
Invasive Alien Species Act (Act No. 78 of 2004, Last amended on June
13, 2014)
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014)
Wildlife Protection Act (Act No. 88 of 2002. Last amended on March 31,
2015)
Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 85 of 1972, Last amended on June 13,
2014)
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014)
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (ActNo. 75 of June 5, 1992)
Wildlife Protection Act (Act No. 88 of 2002. Last amended on March 31,
2015)
Basic Act on Biodiversity (Act No. 58 of 2008)
Invasive Alien Species Act (Act No. 78 of 2004, Last amended on June
13, 2014)
Erosion Control Act (Act No. 29 of 1897. Last amended on November 22,
2013)
Act on Prevention of Disasters Caused by Steep Slope Failure (Act No. 57
of 1969. Last amended on July 6, 2005)
Landslide Prevention Act (Act No. 30 of 1958. Last amended on June 13,
2014)

Last amended on May

High Conservation Values
3.1 HCV1•••••
3.2 HCV2••

3.3 HCV3

•
•
•
•
•
•

3.4 HCV4•••

Conversion of Natural Forests
4.1 Conversion of naturalforests to plantations

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Natural Parks Act (Act No. 161 of 1957, Last amended on June 13, 2014)
Nature Conservation Act (Act No. 85 of 1972, Last amended on June 13,
2014)
Act on Protection of Cultural Properties (Act 214 of 1950, Last amended onJune 13, 2014)
Wildlife Protection and Proper Hunting Act (Act No. 88 of 2002, Last
amended on March 31, 2015)
Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Act No. 81 of 1997, Last amended
on June 4, 2014)
Act on Conservation of Endangered Species and Wild Fauna and Flora(Act No. 75 of June 5, 1992)
Forest Act (Act No. 249 of 1951, Last amended on April 26, 2017)

Genetically Modified Organisms

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 174 of 175 –5.1 There is no commercial
use of genetically modified
trees.

••Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity throughRegulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (Act No. 97 of 2003,
Last amended on April 21, 2017)
Forestry Seeds and Seedlings Act (Act No. 89 of 1970, Last amended on
May 20, 2016)

FSC-NRA-JP V1-0
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR JAPAN
2018– 175 of 175 –