Dialog among Policy Makers and Researchers for Better Water Environmental Governance in Asia,
WEPA Session, SEAWE 11, 2014.11.27

ROLES OF SCIENTISTS
IN POLICY MAKING PROCESSESFOR WATER ENVIRONMENT IN JAPAN---Proposal of new water quality standard
on bottom DO for estuarine environment---

Mitsumasa OKADA, Ph.D.
Professor, The Open University of Japan
Professor Emeritus, Hiroshima University
okada.mitsumasa@ouj.ac.jp

Water pollution by industrial wastewaters

1990 Restored bay

Ca. 1960s Dead sea
Dokai Bay, Kita-Kyushu

Environmental Water Quality Standards:
The Basic Law for Environment Administrative targets and criteria for promotion ofcomprehensive measures against water pollution
 Standard conditions to be achieved and maintained inpublic water bodies
 To protect human health To prevent health damages like Minamata and Itai-Itai diseases

 To conserve living environment
 To protect all the water uses closely related with daily human life
 To protect the living environment for plants/animals closely
related to human life

Environmental Water Quality Standards (EWQS)
for Estuaries
categoryA
B
C

water use
fishery class 1, bathing,conservation of naturalenvironment and uses B-C
fishery class 2, industrial waterand uses C
conservation of environment

pH

CODMn
(mg/l)

CG(100ml)NHE

7.8-8.3

2.0

1,000

ND

7.8-8.3

3.0

-

ND

7.0-8.3

8.0--

 Conservation of natural environment : Conservation of nature and natural resources.
 Fisheries: class 1 –for red sea bream, yellow tail, wakame (brown sea weed) and for class 2
 class 2 – for striped [gray] mullet, nori (laver) Conservation of living environment: tolerable in daily life including walking/running atcoast.

NATIONAL MINIMUM

EFFLUENT QUALITY STANDARDS
parameters
pH
BOD, CODSSn-hexane extract
phenols
copperzinc
dissolved Fe, Mn
chromiumfluorine
number of C.G.
nitrogenphosphorus

standard values (mg l-1 or less)5.8-8.6
160 (daily average = 120)
200 (daily average = 150)
5.0 (mineral oil), 30 (animal fat and vegetable oil)
5.0
3.0
5.0
10.0, 10.0
2.0
153,000 (ml-1 daily average)
120 (daily average = 60)
16 (daily average = 8)

Rigorous Local Standards : COD
prefecture

water areanew

operating

Kanagawa

Kou: protected lakes

5 (3)

20 (15)

Kou: other lakes

15(10)

25 (20)Otsu

25 (20)60 (50)marine25 (20)60 (50)15-12020-120Shiga
Hiroshima

first category

50 (40)second category

85 (65)third category

120 (90)

forth category

130 (100)

Kure area

15 (10)-40 (30)

15 (10)-125 (85)

Seto Inland Sea

15 (10)-50 (40)

15 (10)-130 (100)National minimum
 daily maximum (daily average) mg l-1 or less
 - ranges dependent on discharge volume and industries

160 (120)

PERCENT COMPLIANCE FOR EWQSON COD
100

Percent Compliance

Seto Inland Sea

80

Osaka Bay
Tokyo Bay60

Ise Bay

40
20
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Why cannot satisfy with the EWQS
on COD?
 EUTROPHICATION
 Increase in internal loading /phytoplankton production of COD
 EWQS for N/P, Effluent standards for N/P

 INCREASE IN TOTAL LOADING TMDLs: Total Maximum Daily Loads

 CONTRIBUTION OF NON-POINT SOURCES
 TMDLs

EWQS is not appropriate!
Parameter/value
ex. COD → TOC？

PERCENT COMPLIANCE FOR EWQS
ON T-N/T-P
Percent Compliance

100

Seto Inland Sea

80

Tokyo Bay
Osaka Bay60
Ise Bay

40
20
0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Red tide in Seto Inland Sea
350

250

reported number

70

number with fishery damage

60

amount of damage (M$)

50

200

40
150

30

100

20

50

10

0

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Amount of Damages (M$)

Number of Red tides

300

80

Fishery production (x1,000 t/year)

SeaweedShellfish
OthersTotal fish
T-N
T-P x10

1965

70

75

80

85

90

95

00

05

T-N, T-P x10 (mg/l)

Haul Catch in Seto Inland Sea and T-N, T-P

Haul Catch in Tokyo Bay

totalshellfish
seaweedfishWhy cannot satisfy with the EWQS
on COD?
 EUTROPHICATION
 Increase in internal loading /phytoplankton production of COD
 EWQS for N/P, Effluent standards for N/P

 INCREASE IN TOTAL LOADING TMDLs: Total Maximum Daily Loads

 CONTRIBUTION OF NON-POINT SOURCES
 TMDLs

EWQS is not appropriate!
Parameter/value
ex. COD → TOC？

Claims on EWQS on CODMn
 Satisfy with the EWQS?
 If the EWQS on COD is satisfied, the water environment issatisfactory?
 The current water quality is too clean to support fisheryproduction? “A clear stream is avoided by fish”

 The current EWQS is not appropriate for the current
issue on water environment?
 It was good to cope with the serious water pollution in mid 20th!

 CODMn is not a good parameter for organic pollution
 CODCr is common in the world
 TOC is a better parameter for organics

Scientific/Stakeholder’s advice？

Bottom DO as a new criteria/standard
Protection of fish/shellfish from dissolved oxygen deficit(hypoxia) is urgent need to restore estuarine environment
and to recover fisheries production
Criteria and EWQS in the future on Bottom DO for① Survival of fish and shellfish② Reproduction of fish and shellfish③ Survival of benthic organisms


feed for fish
minimum requirement
MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Advisory System
for the Japanese Ministry of Environment
The central environmental council

water environment

global environment

othersParameters on Living
Environment

Parameters on
Human Health

TMDLs andothersBottom DO and TR-

Sections

Expert committees
w. Public hearing
Working group or
Sub-committees-

Advisors = Stakeholders, Scientists

Advisory System
in Japanese Ministry of Environment
The central environmental council

Stakeholders

water environment
Sections

Publiccomments

Parameters on Living Environment

Expert committee
Draft bygovernmental
officer

Bottom DO and TR

Working group

Experts(Scientists)

Members of Working Group
nameorganization

specialty

岡田 光正

広島大学大学院工学研究科教授

Environmental
engineering

川井 浩史

神戸大学内海域環境教育研究センター教授

Marine biology

工藤 孝浩

神奈川県水産技術センター主任研究員

Fisheries science

木幡 邦男

国立環境研究所水土壌圏環境研究領域長

Coastal science鈴木 輝明

愛知県水産試験場場長

Fisheries science西村

東北大学大学院工学研究科教授

Environmental
engineering

風呂田利夫

東邦大学理学部生命圏環境科学科教授

Marine biology

堀口 敏宏

国立環境研究所環境リスク研究センター主席研究員 Fisheries science矢持大阪市立大学大学院工学研究科教授

修進Fisheries science

MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

How to define the targets on bottom DO?
1. Bottom DO when water environment was good?
 no/little records on DO, when was the environment good?

2. Bottom DO in other area with good water environment?
 the same DO does not necessary secure good environment
because environmental conditions are different？

3. Import EWQS on DO from advanced countries
4. DO tolerance of fish/shellfish to be protected?

MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Criteria
 Water Clarity – light for underwater Bay grasses
 Chlorophyll a – base of the Bay food chain
 Dissolved Oxygen – for fish, crabs and oysters

Together, these three criteria define the conditions necessary to protect thewide variety of the Bay’s living resources and their habitats.
Chesapeake Bay Program (2005) Restoring andProtecting Chesapeake Bay and River Water Quality

Chesapeake Bay DO Criteria
Migratory Spawning andNursery (Feb. – May)

6 mg/L (7-day mean)
5 mg/L (instantaneous minimum)

Shallow Water(SAV growing seasons)Same as open waterOpen Water(year round)

5.5 mg/L in lower salinity waters and 5 mg/L
in higher salinity waters (30-day mean)
4 mg/L (7-day mean)
3.2 mg/L (instantaneous min)Deep Water(June – Sept.)

3 mg/L (30-day mean)
2.3 mg/L (1-day mean)
1.7 mg/L (instantaneous minimum)

Deep Channel(June – Sept.)

1 mg/L (instantaneous minimum)
Chesapeake Bay Program (2005) Restoring andProtecting Chesapeake Bay and River Water Quality

Oxygen Requirements of Bay Species
Migratory Fish Spawning& Nursery Areas

6

Shallow and Open Water
Areas

5

Striped Bass: 5-6
American Shad: 5White Perch: 5
Yellow Perch: 5

4

Deep Water

Hard Clams: 5

2

Deep Channel

Alewife: 3.6310(mg/L)Bay Anchovy: 3

Crabs: 3
Spot: 2
Worms: 1

Chesapeake Bay Program (2005) Restoring and Protecting
Chesapeake Bay and River Water Quality

How to define the targets on bottom DO?
1. Bottom DO when water environment was good?
 no/little records on DO, when was the environment good?

2. Bottom DO in other area with good water environment?
 the same DO does not necessary secure good environment
because environmental conditions are different？

3. Import EWQS on DO from advanced countries
4. DO tolerance of fish/shellfish to be protected?

MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Steps to define bottom DO criteria①

Selection of designated species to be protected species that use bottom area at least one or more stages intheir life cycle②

Define criteria for survival and reproduction
 Derive bottom DO criteria based on laboratory experiments
 Confirm the criteria based on field observation③

Confirm the above bottom DO criteria compared tothat for bait species④

DO criteria of designated species > bait species

Additional estimation of criteria based on by-catchdata
MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Bottom DO criteria for flounders
Laboratory
Fieldexperiments observation
survival
マコガレイ（矢持ら,1998）
Flounder(Yamochi, 1998)100
90

adultsnone

2.8mg/L

juvenile

2.3 mg/L

2.8mg/L

none

none

reproduc
abnormaltion
behavior

DO濃度（mg/L）
Percent
survival

80
70
60

Available laboratory data = only forjuvenile!

y = 202.42Ln(x) - 70.452

50
40
30
20
10
0
1

10
生残率(%)
DO（mg/L)

DO = 3 mg/L

MOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Criteria for Other Designated Species?
 Laboratory studies were not enough to derive DO
criteria for most of designated species
 No DO criteria ⇒ little study on low DO tolerance Experimental procedures are different among studies
set-up, exposure time, water temperature, size and number offish, DO control, …

Additional Studies by the MOE (with advices from experts)
and by experts
 Unified protocol for low DO tolerance estimation
 New procedure to estimate effects of low DO on larvae

Environmental Science & Technology
Development under the Environmental Policy
Basic Law for Environment
Basic Environmental Plan
Strategy to Promote Environmental Science & Technology(The Central Environment Council)

Environment Science &Technology Development Fund
Competitive research fundResearch by the
National Institutefor Environmental
Studies

Other environmental
science & technology
development policies

Environment Science & Technology
Development Fund (ESTDF)


ESTDF is a competitive research fund for the science and technology
development witch contribute to the environmental policyThe funds are allocated based on the strategy to promote environmental
science and technology

Serious Decline of Japanese Littleneck Clam
Production (Asari Clam: Ruditapes philippinarum)

Annual Production (x 1000t)■ Yatsushiro Sea■ Ariake Sea

Seriouswater
pollutionclean up

Life Cycle of Japanese Littleneck Clam(Asari Clam)trochophoreegg

D-larvae

UmboveligerlarvaePediveliger
larvaeLow DO

Muddy/sandy
bottomjuvenile
Mature adult200 L
reservoir
DO=100 %PPPcontrol

Low DO 1

200 L
reservoir
DO=0 %

Low DO 2

Flow throughDifferent mixing ratio

P

Equal flow rate

Flow through incubator to evaluate
effects of low DO on fish and shellfish

Low DO3

Air

N2
By Dr. Horiguchi, The National Institute for Environmental Studies （2012）

Flow through incubator

LC5 for larvae and juvenile Japanese Little Neck
Ruditapes philippinarum = ca. 1 mg/L

Effects of Low DO on larvae and juvenile
Japanese Little Neck Clam (Asari Clam)

Sampler
100ml

JuvenileHigh
Low DOHigh salinity

High DOLow salinity
DO
High

Low
Mixer

Mixer

Pump

Column50 mm Φ800 mm H

Sinking and death of Japanese Littleneck
Clam larvae by low DO（アンボ期）
Anbo-type

100

100

100

(%)
%沈降率
sinking（フルグロウン期）
Full-grown

80

80

80

60

60

60

40

40

40

20

20

20

沈降中に占めるへい死率% died during sinking(%)（Ｄ状期）
D-type

0

0
5 6 0
100

0
5 6 0
100

100

0

1

2

3

4

1

ＬＣ5＝2.2mg/L

80

2

3

4

ＬＣ5＝3.1mg/L

80
60

60

40

40

40

20

20

20

0

0
6 0

0
6 0

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

DO (mg/L)

5

2

3

4

5

6

ＬＣ5＝2.5mg/L

80

60

0

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

Computer simulation to estimate effects of
low DO on the population of Asari larvae
Issiki Tidal Flat, Aichi,
Japan(July 2006)● floating● settled(230μm)● flow out● Sink by low DO but survived● Sink by low DO and died

Effects of low DO in the bottomon the population of Asari larvae (July 2007)% died by low DO

18.6 %

17.0 %% fate9.3 %Issiki Tidal Flat
Sink &
died

Atsumi Bay North

Sink &
survived

Settled

Fukue Bay
Flow out

Bottom DO to secure 95 % survival of Asarilarvae during floating% died by low DO

Issiki Tidal Flat, July 2006

Current
DO

DO

water
bottom

+0.5

+1.0

+1.5

+2.0

The Proposed EWQS on bottom DO
for the survival of fishes
category

designated use

DO criteriaaUses for adult and young species very sensitive for low DO anduses listed in b-d
Designated species：Tiger puffer (トラフグ)

5 mg/lb

Uses for adult and young species sensitive for low DO and uses
listed in c-d.
Designated species: Sea bass ( ス ズ キ ） , Japanese common sea
cucumber（マナマコ）

4 mg/lc

Uses for adult and young species less sensitive for low DO and uses
listed in d.
Designated species:：Marbled rockfish(カサゴ), Red sea bream （マダイ）, Dragonet （ハタタテヌメリ）, Flathead（ネズミゴチ）, Flounder （マコガレイ）, Japanese tiger prawn （クルマエビ）, Mantis Shrimp （シャコ）3 mg/ld

Uses for adult and young species not sensitive for low DO.
Designated species: Goby （マハゼ）, Offshore greasyback prawn （ヨシエビ）, Hardback Shrimp (サルエビ）, Japanese blue crab （ガザミ）

2 mg/lMOE （2009） Mid- and long-term visions of estuarine environment

Serious gap between policy makers and scientists
 Most of policy makers (governmental officers)
have little experience in scientific research Even if technical officers with BA/MS/(PhD) do notunderstand the interest of scientists

 Most of scientists are not interested in policy
making Little efforts to understand environmental policies,
laws, regulations

Broad scope in policy makers vs.
focused attention of scientists
 Policy makers
 Effects of low DO on fish/shellfish?

 Scientists
 What’s new (plenty of previous research), researchefficiency, fund, staff, …?
 What do they want?
 Effects

Lethal, behavior, growth, reproduction,…?

 Fish/shellfish
Adult, juvenile, larvae, egg,….?

Species, population, habitat, ecosystem, ….?

ROLES OF SCIENTISTS IN POLICYMAKING PROCESSES Communication between policy makers andscientists
 Communicator to interpret policy needs for scientists

 Specific research fund to promote policy
oriented study Communicator to identify research topics for policyneeds Different from JSPS or NSF fund aiming at basic
scientific research: bottom up, proposal fromscientists

Time for Q & A

The Seto Inland Sea
Akitsu, Higashi-Hiroshima