Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16 December 2017		
The Association for Northeast Asian Regional Studies Japan

1

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis
Satomi KOHYAMA*

Abstract
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is dedicated to promoting
sustainable development through implementing the principles of Agenda 21.
However, even as we attempt to conserve our natural resources and biologicaldiversity, the natural world is in crisis. Because wildlife is so diverse andsuch creatures are constantly on the move, if we are to preserve them we mustcooperate on a broader scale.
Japan and China ratified the Convention in 1993. I examined and summarizedeach country’s localization process for the CBD through a series of analysesof certain aspects of Japanese and Chinese society: legislation for conserving
biological diversity, legal systems, environmental education, and environmental
business (including Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, known as the Nagoya Protocol). I also considered how these various
sectors interact in the development of biodiversity law and policy.
Although differences exist in the two countries’ legal systems, lawsuits, social
culture, etc., it is evident that the CBD is being implemented domestically in both
China and Japan. I am confident that these differences will not hinder cooperation
between China and Japan; therefore, it is possible to advance the argument forbroader East-Asia-area cooperation in international environmental circles.

1. Introduction
Although Japan is a small island country of about 378 thousand km2, it is considered
to have a particularly rich biota (United Nations CBD Secretariat, “Country Profiles:
Japan”). Excessive human activity (over-use) and neglect of the environment (nonperformancefor requiring cares by people: under-use) are having deleterious effects on precious natural
resources in Japan recently. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is one of a few “mega-* University of Toyama, Toyama 930-8555, Japan kohyama@eco.u-toyama.ac.jp

2

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

biodiversity” countries where over 20 percent of its total land area is covered by forest thatharbors various forms of wildlife (United Nations CBD Secretariat, “Country Profiles:
China”). The main threats are accelerated urbanization and industrialization. Although bothcountries have abundant natural resources and biodiversity, their biological diversity has
been threatened.
Japan and China are situated next to each other across the Sea of Japan. Bothcountries have recent histories of being antagonists during war (e.g., the Japan-China War
and the Second World War), but they also share a history of exchange and intermingling interms of politics, economics, and culture. In 1978, both countries signed the Japan-China
Peace and Friendship Treaty. Therefore, the basic diplomatic relationship between Japan and
China has been formed politically, economically, and culturally.
Because of this shared history, I think Japan and China need to cooperate with eachother in the objective of conserving biological diversity. One of the main reasons for thisis that there are complex connections between the two countries’ ecosystems. Consider
the conservation of migratory birds, for example: Though we protect migratory birds herein Japan, this is not enough. Migratory birds move through many countries, and it is notpossible to draw borders across the ecosystem. If we would like to preserve the sustainable
existence of migratory birds, we must cooperate with many neighboring countries on
migratory bird habitats.
There are many differences between Japan and China when it comes to politicalsystems, economic mechanisms, legal models, etc. I hope I will be able to clarify bothcountries’ localized approaches to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in order tounderstand how they cooperate with each other.
In this short paper I will therefore examine and summarize the localization processof the CBD in each country using analyses of the following aspects of Japanese andChinese society: (1) legislation for conserving biological diversity; (2) legal systems; (3)environmental education about biological diversity; and (4) environmental business (including
Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising fromtheir Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, i.e., the Nagoya Protocol). The
term “localization” in this paper refers to the domestic process and legal policy measures/
methods of implementing and enforcing international Norm CBD and “biodiversity
protections” in each country. I will also consider the interaction of these various sectors in
the development of biodiversity law and policy, and argue for the potential for constructing
a broader East Asia cooperation area (similar to the Natura 2000 program in the EU) ininternational environmental circles. Some of the analyses related to Japan are drawn frommy previous work (Kohyama et al., 2015, 29–56).

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis

3

2. CBD Legislation(1) Japan’s CBD Legislation(i) Japan’s Ratification of the CBD
The environmental degradation and destruction that has occurred in Japan has also
taken place in other countries. Starting in the 1960s, and gathering momentum in the 1970s,
the issue of environmental destruction and concern over the local, national, and global
effects of environmental destruction became a global issue. This activity was furthered on
an international level by various initiatives undertaken by the United Nations (UN).
A significant addition to these international efforts was the CBD, which waspresented at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The CBD was the first global agreement toadvocate both the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the sustainable useof biological resources, as well as seeking to achieve a fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising from the use of genetic resources.1 Parties to the CBD committed to pursuing theseobjectives in accordance with the Convention’s operative provisions,2 and to developing
national strategies, plans, and programs that reflect these provisions.3
Japan signed the CBD in 1992 and ratified it in 1993 (Ministry of Foreign Affairsof Japan, “The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)”). Prior to the CBD, serious
concerns had been raised about the accelerating extinction of wildlife species, the reduction
and destruction of wildlife habitats, and the deterioration of the biological ecosystems.
Against this backdrop, the Japanese government signed the Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar Convention) (1971) (Ibid., “The Ramsar Convention”),
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) (1973) (Ibid., 2016), two international treaties designed to conserve and provide
for the sustainable use of wetlands. However, these more particular conventions failed toprovide a holistic framework to preserve biodiversity. As such, in order to create a truly
international framework, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) establishedan expert group that sought to develop a general framework and accompanying institutionsin 1987. After 1990, the work of these expert groups was complemented by further
intergovernmental treaty negotiations.
(ii) The Basic Act on Biodiversity (BAB) and Japan’s Hosting of the COP10
Despite the relatively quick ratification process of the CBD in Japan and efforts toinclude consideration for biological diversity in domestic legislation, it has taken some time
to implement biodiversity legislation that reflects the obligations imposed by the Convention.

1 The Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 1.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid., Article 6(a).

4Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

Not until 2008 were the main provisions of the CBD formally implemented in Japaneselegislation. Under increasing pressure from environmental NGOs such as WWF Japan (theJapanese branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature) and the Japan Committee of IUCN (theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature) (Kusakari, 2009, 162–163), the Japanese
Government established the Basic Act on Biodiversity 4 (Act No. 58) in 2008. An additional
impact on this legislative process was the Tenth CBD Conference of the Parties (COP10)
held in Japan in 2010 (Kusakari, 2009, 159).
(iii) The Philosophy of Norm Localization and the National Biological Diversity
Strategy
Japan has expanded its natural environmental policy purview from “precious
natural protection” (Nature Protection) to “interaction with familiar nature” (Biodiversity
Conservation and the Satoyama Initiative).5 Japan had traditionally been passive in terms ofenvironmental initiative, often simply incorporating overseas policy and law when the needarose. However, this passive stance changed rather dramatically with the introduction of the
CBD and the biodiversity initiative.
A major trigger in this process was the hosting of the COP10 in Japan. In 2007 theJapanese government felt that the publicity and media exposure brought by the COP10
would provide political and policy impetus for the “21st Century Environment National
Strategy” (Ministry of the Environment of Japan, 2007). This national strategy identified
three main environmental challenges: “The Threat of Climate Change,” “Threats Resulting
from Unsustainable Use of Resources,” and “Threats to Ecosystems.” These environmental
challenges were to be addressed in light of more general normative goals that were seen as
desirable for the Japanese people and global standards of living: “A Low-Carbon Society,” “ASociety in Harmony with Nature,” and “A Sound Material-Cycle Society.”
The second of these challenges, which focuses on the conservation of biodiversity
configured as the theme of this paper, held up the Satoyama Initiative as a model ofdevelopment and conservation for other countries to pursue in order to build a society thatis in harmony with nature. The Initiative aims to conserve ecosystems to create a socialand ecological framework that enriches the biodiversity of the common places that are notfamous scenic spots, etc., through the traditional and sustainable use of natural resources. It
focuses on preserving biodiversity and encourages conducting socioeconomic activities in
4 Unless otherwise noted, all translations of the titles of Japanese and Chinese laws are the officialtranslations published by the government.
5 Satoyama is often called Satochi-Satoyama, and envisions that biodiversity can be maintained, forinstance, in a countryside where natural woodland coexists with a nearby populated area. It envisions aharmonious coexistence between nature and human beings.
The Satoyama Initiative was approved by the Cabinet as a part of the “Twenty-first Century Environment
Nation Strategy” in June 2007.

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis

5harmony with nature by recommending that agricultural, forestry, and fishery operations
follow natural cycles. It also creates various opportunities and venues for individuals toexperience and enjoy the natural environment. The environment is conceived of as forming
the basis of human existence, and the Initiative is understood as developing a “society inharmony with nature” so that humans can enjoy the benefits of nature for generations tocome.
Following this national strategy, the second challenge, “A Society in Harmony with
Nature,” was proposed (Takeuchi & Watanabe, 2014, i) and sought to promote humanity’s
harmonious coexistence with nature. Japan is now engaged in its Fifth National Biodiversity
Strategy, the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2012–2020 (MOE Japan, 2012),
which was passed by the Cabinet on September 28, 2012 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofJapan, 2012). This strategy, based on the BAB, sets national targets in line with the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets, which constitute a part of the X/2.Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 adopted at the COP10 to the CBD as a new set of global targets for 2011 onward.
(iv) The “Environmentalization” of Laws related to Biological Diversity
Over the last decade, there has been a more general “environmentalization” of thelaws and policies that may affect biodiversity.6 Environmentalization (Oikawa, 2010, 60–70)
means that laws whose main purpose is promoting development and industrial upgrading
should include environmental considerations and biodiversity conservation. In other words,
such laws have recently begun to combine the elements of environmentally friendly or (assuggested by Kitamura) “greening” methods (Kitamura, 2017, 24).
There are two patterns of environmentalization processes (Figure 1). Pattern 1
presents cases where large-scale revisions that take environmental considerations into
account are made to existing laws.7 This is the process that was used when the Agricultural
Basic Act (Act No. 127 of 1961) was significantly revised into the Food, Agriculture, andRural Areas Basic Act (Act No. 106 of 1999). In terms of policy issues, “conservation of
the natural environment” and the promotion system of multiple functions of farmland
6 According to Professor Hiroki Oikawa of Yokohama National University, Japan, “after the CBD was
adopted in 1992, and especially after the first National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan was decided in
October 1995, we often confirm that the ‘environmentalization’ of laws means that they are related tobiodiversity and ecosystem friendly” (Oikawa, 2010, 63).
7 Pattern 1 includes the River Act, revised in 1997 (Act No.167 of 1964); the Seacoast Law, revised in 1999
(Law No.101 of 1956); the Forest and Forestry Basic Act, significantly revised in 2001 (Act No.161 of
1964); the Land Improvement Act, revised in 2001 (Act No.195 of 1949); the Natural Park Act, revisedin 2002 (Act No. 161 of 1957); the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Management Law, revised in 2002
(Law No. 88 of 2002); the Forest Act, revised in 2004 (Act No.249 of 1951); the Law for the Protectionof Cultural Properties, revised in 2004 (Law No.214 of 1950); the Natural Park Act, revised in 2009
(Act No.161 of 1957); the Nature Conservation Act, revised in 2009 (Law No.85 of 1972); the Act on theConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (ACES), revised in 2013 (Act No.75 of 1992);
etc. (Kohyama et al., 2015, 44–46).

6

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

were added (Article 3). Pattern 2 comprises cases where new laws designed to be moreenvironmentally friendly are enacted,8 such as the Invasive Alien Species Act (Act No.78 of
2004).

Acts Are Developed
Ｐａｔｔｅｒｎ ２：
New Aｃｔ
enactedＰａｔｔｅｒｎ ２
New Aｃｔ enacted e.g.,
Invasive Alien Species
Act was enacted in
2004

The Act is alteredatoreflect conc
cern for
The environ
nment.
Pattern 1:
Revised Aｃｔ

Ｐａｔｔｅｒｎ １：
In 9999
the Agricultural Basic
Act was reviced to theFood, Agriculture, andRural Areas Basic Act

Act Grou
up forDevelopm
ment

Figure 1. The Environmentalization of Laws Related to Biological Diversity(v) The Socialization Process in Local Governments (Municipalities) and Social Sectors
The Japanese government is seemingly trying to establish the country as a “model
state” in terms of preserving biological diversity in the international community. As such,it has continued to implement the objectives and legislative framework set forth in the
BAB as a means of enhancing its leadership under the CBD. This regional aspect of the
BAB is evident in Article 4, which outlines each state’s individual responsibility to protect
biodiversity but recognizes that the efforts have broader regional, domestic, and international
implications. The Act on the Promotion of Activities for Biodiversity Conservation throughCooperation among Regional Diversified Actors (also known as the Act on the Promotion ofRegional Cooperation for Biodiversity) enacted in 2010 (Act No.72 of 2010) was designed toensure that the BAB is concretely implemented (see Figure 2). These efforts were given even
8 Pattern 2 includes the Fisheries Basic Act enacted in 2001 (Act No.89 of 2001), the Law for the Promotionof Nature Restoration enacted in 2002 (Law No.148 of 2002), the Act on the Promotion of Environmental
Conservation Activities through Environmental Education, etc. (Environmental Education Promotion Act)
enacted in 2003 (Act. No.130 of 2003), the Landscape Act enacted in 2004 (Act No.110 of 2004), the Act
on the Promotion of Activities for Biodiversity Conservation through the Cooperation among Regional
Diversified Actors (Act on Promotion of Regional Cooperation for Biodiversity) enacted in 2010 (Act No.72
of 2010), etc. (Kohyama et al., 2015, 44–46).

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis

7

more urgency by the need to reconstruct the ecosystems affected by the 2011 Great EasternJapan Earthquake.9 The objective has been a more comprehensive environmentalization of
the policy process, where biodiversity consciousness is embedded within the process in amanner that necessarily engages various interested parties without always resorting the lessflexible formal or top-down regulatory processes.

The BAB (Act No. 65, 2008)
Preamble
General Provisions : Article 1-10
Responsibility
Article 4 -State (National) Government
Article 5 -Local (Municipal) Government
Article 6 -Business
Article 7 -Citizens and Private Organizations
Article 9 -Consideration of the OrganicgCoordination of Policies

Biodiversity Strategy : Articles 11-13
Basic Policies : Articles 14-27
National Government Policies:
Articles 14-26
Local Government Policies:
Article27

The Act on Promotion of Regional
Cooperation for Biodiversity (The Act on
the Promotion of Activities for
Biodiversity Conservation through the
Cooperation among Regional
Diversified Actors)(Act No.72 of 2010)
Articles 3-5
Development of plans for regional
cooperative conservation activities
・Citizens, Private Organizations, andBusiness・Local (Municipal) Government
・State (National) Government
Framework of conservation activities
among regional diversified actors
System for matching among actors

Figure 2. The Mechanism for Collaboration in the BAB and the Act on the Promotion ofRegional Cooperation for Biological Diversity(vi) The Nagoya Protocol and ABS10
The Nagoya Protocol was adopted at the COP10. The purpose of the Protocol isto provide a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of “genetic
resources”—Article 2 of the CBD stipulates that “genetic resources” means genetic materialof actual or potential value—through the appropriate access to genetic resources, the transfer
of related technologies, the provision of funds for the conservation of biological diversity,and the sustainable use of the Nagoya Protocol’s constituent parts. Because Japan has faced
opposition from the industry (particularly regarding pharmaceutical plants and seedlings)
and from some academic circles, and because domestic legislation has not been completed, it
took a long time to ratify the Protocol. The Japanese government made a Cabinet decision to
ratify the Protocol in May 2017 and submitted a ratification document to the United Nations
9 The official translation of the name given to the 2011 Japanese earthquake, known in Japanese as Higashi
Nihon Dai-shinsai.
10 Article 15 of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol prescribe ABS (Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair
and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization).

8

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

Headquarters. In August 2017, it became the 99th contracting party / region.
Among the various measures included in the Nagoya Protocol, Japan’s domestic
measures concerning the use of genetic resources (ABS) are as follows.
First of all, Japan is an importer of genetic resources. Therefore, in May 2017, theMinistry of Finance, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology,
the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fisheries, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, and the Ministry of theEnvironment jointly issued the so-called “ABS Guidelines: The Guidelines for Fair andEquitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Opportunities to Acquire Genetic Resources
and their Use” (Ministry of Finance et al., 2017). As this is a set of guidelines (a technicalsuggestion of the government) rather than law, the business sector will carry out theprocedure concerning ABS relying on advice and guidance that lacks legal grounds.
Secondly, the ABS guidelines issued by the Japanese government are notenforceable., The Japanese government is instead presenting good examples and informing
business operators of procedural information that must be accounted for in importing
genetic resources from each country. As represented by the ABS guidelines, the Japanese
government is working to prevent Japanese companies from engaging in illegal activities
unintentionally. The method is not based on the regulatory authority, but presents good
examples and recommends awareness and promotion by through information provision.
(vii) Features of Japan’s Legal Policy on Biodiversity
I have three observations about Japan’s CBD legislation. First, the establishmentof basic laws to conserve biological diversity, referred to as the BAB, has proven to be asignificant contribution. The success of COP 10, which won the invitation by advertising theenactment of the BAB to other countries, has also promoted the growing appreciation forbiological diversity conservation in Japan.
Second, the Japanese government is trying to implement CBD domestically byenvironmentalizing laws for the conservation of biological diversity (including species,
genetic, and ecosystem components).
Third, regarding the promotion of conservation of biodiversity under the BAB,
although it is not a regulatory method, collaboration and cooperation (including promotion
and recommendation) are its central execution methods.
Forth, as represented by the ABS guidelines, the Japanese government does not
act as a regulatory authority, but presents good examples and recommends awareness andpromotion through providing information.
(2) China’s CBD Legislation(i) China’s Ratification of the CBD
China committed to the CBD early on: It was one of the first states and the first

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis

9member of the UN Security Council to ratify the Convention. China also signed “theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000” as a party to these two multilateral environmental
legal agreements, and has adopted a number of positive compliance measures, making
positive progress in biodiversity conservation. In addition, China ratified and accepted
the Nagoya Protocol in 2016 (United Nations CBD Secretariat, ““Parties to the Nagoya
Protocol”).
(ii) No Single Statute, but a Group of Laws (Acts and Regulations) Loosely Related to
Biological Diversity Conservation
There is no basic or fundamental law on biodiversity in China as there is in Japaneselaw; instead, there is a set of loosely related laws, statutes, rules, and normative documents
concerning natural resources. Most of China’s biological diversity conservation legislation ispresented in the form of rules and normative documents, especially notices issued from thecentral national mechanism, such as those published by politicians’ aides.
The laws concerning biological diversity include not only those related to protecting
wildlife species but also those designed to preserve wildlife habitats (e.g., pollution
prevention, ecosystem conservation, and conservation of natural resources (natural capital)).
These laws include (Wenxuan, 2015, 242–243):
the PRC Environmental Protection Law (1989, revised in 2014)
the PRC Forest Law (1984, revised in 1998)
the PRC Marine Environmental Protection Law (1982, revised in 1999)
the PRC Agriculture Law (1993, revised in 2013)
the PRC Water Law (1988, revised in 2002)
the PRC Land Management Law (2004)
the PRC Wild Animal Protection Law (1988, revised in 2004)
the PRC Fisheries Law (1986, revised in 2000 and 2004)
the PRC Seed Law (2004, revised in 2013)
the PRC Patent Law (2000)
the PRC Law on Prevention and Control of Desertification (2001)
the PRC Animal Epidemic Prevention Law (2007)
the PRC Grassland Law (1985, revised in 2002)
the Law on the Entry and Exit Animal and Plant Quarantine (revised 2009)
the PRC Soil and Water Conservation Law (1991, revised in 2010)

10

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

Biological diversity-related regulations include (Wenxuan, 2015, 243):
Regulations on Nature Reserves (1994)
Regulations on Aquatic Resources Reproduction Protection (1979)
Administrative Regulations on Wild Medical Materials Resources (1987)
Implementing Regulations of Fisheries Law (1987)
Regulations on Prevention and Control of Forest Diseases and Insect Pests (1989)
Regulations on City Greening (1992)
Regulations on the Protection of Terrestrial Wild Animals (1992)
Regulations on the Protection of Aquatic Wild Animals (1993)
Regulations on the Implementation of Water and Soil Conservation Law (1993)
Regulations on the Protection of Traditional Chinese Medicine Varieties (1992)
Administrative Regulations on Breeding Stock and Poultry (1994)
Regulations on Wild Plant Protection (1996)
Regulations on the Implementation of Law on Entry and Exit Animal and Plant
Quarantine (1996)
Regulations on New Plant Species Conservation (1997, revised in 2013)
Regulations on Basic Farmland Protection (1998)
Regulations on the Implementation of Forest Law (2000)
Administrative Regulations on Agricultural GMOs Biosafety (2001)
Regulations on the Implementation of Patent Law (2010)
Of these laws and regulations, three in particular (the PRC Wild Animal Protection
Law 1988, revised in 2004; Regulations on Nature Reserves 1994; and the Regulation on
Wild Plant Protection 1996) are driving the biological diversity conservation administration
to implement the BAB.
(iii) Normative Documents
I will now outline the current plan for China’s conservation of biological diversity.
This plan is an administrative and executory as well as a normative document, and it is stillin development. It is called the “China Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan
(2011–2030)” (PRC-MOE, 2010). Because it is so broad a plan, the fields and projects that
China is prioritizing are listed in order below. It can be seen that China is implementing
various approaches.

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 11

The Priority Fields include:
1
2

Improving the policy and legal system for the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity.
Integrating biological diversity conservation into sectoral and regional planning topromote sustainable use.

3

Conducting a biodiversity survey, assessment, and monitoring.

4

Strengthening in situ conservation of biological diversity.

5

Promoting scientific research to carry out biological diversity conservation.

6
7
8
9
10

Promoting the rational use and benefit-sharing of biological genetic resources andassociated traditional knowledge.
Strengthening the management of invasive alien species and genetically modified
organisms.
Improving resilience to climate change.
Strengthening scientific research and personnel training in the field of biologicaldiversity.
Establishing public participation mechanisms and partnerships for biologicaldiversity conservation.
Priority Field 1 consists of the following three Actions: Action 1 – Develop policies

to promote biological diversity conservation and sustainable use; Action 2 – Improve thelegal system for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; and Action 3– Establish and improve biological diversity conservation and management institutions toimprove cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms.
The Priority Projects include:
Project 1

Establishing biological diversity protection and encouragement measures forsustainable use.

Project 2

Establishing impact assessment guidelines for large construction projects on
biological diversity.

Project 3

Revising and improving legal regulations related to biological diversity
protection.

Project 4

Accessing biological genetic resources and establishing a profit-distribution
system.

Project 5Creating a biological diversity protection plan and model projects for land use.

Project 6

Creating a biological diversity conservation and utilization plan and model
project in the urban rural construction field.

12

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

Project 7

Incorporating biodiversity conservation into economic and social development
planning model projects.

Project 8

Conducting priority area surveys and cataloging biological diversity.

Project 9Surveying and cataloging aquatic organism resources in major rivers andlakes.

Project 10

Surveying and cataloging biological resources to conserve them “ex situ”(according to Article 2 of the CBD, “Ex-situ conservation” means theconservation of components of biological diversity outside their natural
habitats) at city zoos (wild zoos), aquariums, botanical gardens (arboretums),
etc.

Project 11

Investigating and cataloging the traditional knowledge of ethnic minorities.

Project 12 Building a biodiversity monitoring network and model project.
Project 13 Constructing monitoring and warning systems at agricultural wild plant
protection points.
Project 14

Constructing a model for wetland protection and recovery and a monitoring
system for important wetlands.

Project 15 Evaluating the influence of the sources of infectious diseases and animal
epidemics and the impact of such epidemics on biological diversity.
Project 16

Constructing a national biological diversity division management system.

Project 17

Maintaining and managing a cross-border wildlife nature reserves model.

Project 18

Undertaking typical ecological protection and ecological restoration projects
in coastal regions and other areas near water.

Project 19 Undertaking a nature reserve maintenance management project.
Project 20 Undertaking a mangrove ecosystem restoration project.
Project 21

Implementing an ecosystem consideration recovery model project in a typicalcoal mining district.

Project 22 Improving the ecological protection zones of typical desert ecosystems andundertaking an ecological restoration project.
Project 23 Developing a model project in the community around nature reserves.
Project 24 Using an alternative livelihood model (for agricultural pasture) in the fragile
northwest ecological area as a business model.
Project 25 Constructing a system for ex situ conservation of species habitats andresources.
Project 26 Collecting and preserving germplasm resources for agricultural crops.
Project 27 Rescuing endangered wildlife species.
Project 28 Rescuing and preserving the habitats of endangered wild plant species.

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 13

Project 29 Appraising, evaluating, developing, and utilizing the genetic resources of
livestock and poultry.
Project 30 Appraising, evaluating, developing, and utilizing crop germplasm resources.
Project 31

Introducing and acclimatizing rare wild medicinal species of endangered
species and developing substitutes.

Project 32 Maintaining biological species resource identification technology systems andplatforms.
Project 33 Constructing an immigration control system for species resources.
Project 34 Monitoring foreign invasive species and constructing forecasting andemergency systems.
Project 35 Monitoring and managing the influence of genetically modified pest-resistantcotton on biological diversity.
Project 36 Monitoring and managing the impact of genetically modified timber on
biological diversity.
Project 37 Evaluating and taking measures for the impact of climate change on
biodiversity.
Project 38 Undertaking a public relations project on biological diversity protection.
Project 39 Establishing a mechanism and model to allow private organizations toparticipate in protecting biological diversity.
Projects 1 to 3 exemplify the necessity of legal policies to protect biologicaldiversity, and Project 5 exemplifies protection plan and model projects. The strange thingis that Project 4 involves handling ABS (biological genetic resources). In Project 4, thesecuring of profits by ABS relates to Project 7, which also covers economic development.
This demonstrates that China considers CBD and biological diversity protection as a factor
directly linked to economic profits.
(iv) China’s Performance Status
China has, for the most part, achieved and continues to implement Projects 1–6
domestically and has presented some success examples on the following subjects (funds andtechnology transfers).
China’s compliance actions include the following (World Environment, 2015, 60–61):1) Establishing a coordination mechanism for biodiversity conservation and a national
committee on biodiversity conservation in China, consisting of 25 departments;
2) Issuing more than 50 relevant laws and regulations and plans, and beginning theestablishment of a biodiversity conservation regulatory system;
3) Making significant achievements in on-site and ex situ conservation of biologicaldiversity. As of the end of 2014, China had established 2,729 nature reserves, of which 428
were national nature reserves. The total area of the nature reserves is 1.47 million km 2,

14

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

accounting for 14.84 percent of China’s land area, exceeding the average of 12.7 percent
around the world;
4) Emphasizing the importance of the construction, protection, and restoration of
ecosystems, organizing a number of national and regional surveys, and monitoring
important species resources;
5) Organizing a series of publicity and educational activities to raise awareness of public
biodiversity conservation and participation; and
6) Engaging in international cooperation and exchanges with a number of countries andinternational organizations.
Successful examples of the conservation of biodiversity include the protection of theSiberian Tiger Forest and the protection of the giant panda (in cooperation with the World
Wide Fund for Nature, or WWF, and the National Forestry Bureau) as a flagship protection
project; protection of the finless porpoise in the Yangtze River wetland; and protection of
the snow leopard in mountainous regions (World Environment, 2013).
In accordance with the provisions of the CBD, the problem of funding has comeinto stronger focus. As part of their commitment to the CBD, developed countries should be
providing new and additional funding to developing country signatories to enable them tofulfill their obligations under the Convention and also to provide a funding mechanism. Fora long time, however, developed countries have not really fulfilled their commitments, andfunding provided to developing countries has been scarce.
At the COP10 in 2010, developing countries once again called on developed
countries to honor their commitments and stated that they could not implement the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity without adequate financial support; however, developed
states responded negatively. The Eleventh Conference of the Parties convened in 2012
made progress on funding issues, and it was decided at that meeting to double the flow ofbiological-diversity-related international financial resources to developing countries until
2015.
However, at the Twelfth Conference of the Parties convened in 2014, a number ofdeveloped countries attempted to renege on this promise. They demanded that the target be
postponed for five years until 2020, but that developing countries adhere to the goals definedin 2015. The final decision adopted by the General Assembly was to double the amount offunds provided to developing countries until 2015.
The developing countries demanded that the decision be written as “the ultimate
goal,” but they were opposed by the developed countries, who used the word “target.” This
leaves room for future renegotiation on this issue. Lack of funds is an important reason
many developing countries cannot fulfill their obligations under the Convention (World
Environment, 2015, 61).

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 15

Technology transfer is also a problem with compliance. The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development decided that developed countries should
provide developing countries with the technology needed to protect the global environment
on concessional terms.
The Convention provides for the establishment of specialized technology transfer
and scientific and technical cooperation programs in support of compliance. On this issue,
however, there has been a major divergence between developed and developing countries:
Developed countries stress that technology transfers should be achieved through market
mechanisms and emphasize the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. There
has always been a negative attitude towards transferring technology to developing countries
for the conservation of biological diversity; there are also divergent views on the transfer of
traditional knowledge on how to conserve biological diversity (discussion related to ABS)
(Kohyama, forthcoming), and some countries fear that this will not guarantee the effective
protection of biological diversity.
There is also a difference when it comes to who is leading the technology transfer.
The COP10 discussed the establishment of a biodiversity technology program. With
regard to the Secretariat of the program, the African Group voted for the Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, while the European Union wanted the United Nations
Environment Program. As a result of these differences and the ensuing arguments, thetechnology transfer goal established by the Convention was never really achieved. Many
developing countries are unable to fulfill their obligations under the Convention and theProtocol because they lack the relevant technologies (World Environment, 2015, 61).
(v) The Nagoya Protocol and ABS
China is the birthplace of traditional Chinese medicine, and it is the leading exporterof the resources needed to create and synthesize such treatments. The proportion of
producers to total use of traditional Chinese medicinal herbs was 12.2 percent in Japan, 83
percent in China, and 4.8 percent in other countries (Japan Kampo Medicines Manufacturers
Association (JKMA), 2011, 2).
In China, there is a strong movement to protect intellectual property rights related togenetic resources. Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Chinese Patent Law provides for “inventions
contrary to public order and morals” and Article 26 paragraph 5 “documents of patentapplication.” The genetic resources in Article 26 paragraph 5 are intended for genetic
resources originating from all countries, and the applicant is supposed to describe concrete
information on the direct source and original sources of such material.
In January 2010 the detailed law on implementation of the patent law was also
revised with the addition of Article 26. Definitions related to “genetic resources” and“invention creation dependent on genetic resources” in the Patent Law were added. Where16

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

an invention was completed using genetic resources, it was also stated that the applicant
must explain so in the request and fill in the form prescribed by the National Council Patent
Administration. On September 9, 2011, the Code of Biological Genetic Resources TechnicalNorms was enacted.
A list of wild medicines that the country intends to protect (catalog) was also
created (1987). The local regulations of the Administrative Regulations on Wild Medical
Materials Resources (1987) are also being examined. Especially in Heilongjiang Provinceand Inner Mongolia, damage such as stealing is serious when it involves the deterioration of
biodiversity. As mentioned above, the Seed Law was revised and tightened in 2013; the newplant variety protections and ordinances, including detailed bylaws, were also revised thatyear.
Regarding the legislation of domestic localization, the “Draft on acquisition andbenefit sharing of biological genetic resources (biological resource access and benefit sharing
management regulations / draft)” was released in March 2017 (PRC-MOE, 2017). Publiccomments were invited for one month, from March 23 to April 22. It is currently under
scrutiny internally based on the public comments made. In the draft, not only “biologicalgenetic resources” but also “traditional knowledge on biological genetic resources” and“derivatives (the genetic record of biological genetic resources)” are mentioned. It also
stipulates that anyone violating these rules must bear criminal responsibility therefor andwill be subject to environmental public interest lawsuits.
These examples demonstrate the seriousness of securing profits generated fromsecuring ABS in China and protecting biological diversity.
(vi) Features of China’s Legal Policy on Biodiversity
Although China did not establish the BAB, it has implemented the conservationof biodiversity by combining the development of laws and regulations for conservation ofnatural resources, ecosystems (including habitats), ABS (genetic resources), etc. The Chinese
government is considering conservation thoroughly, not only in terms of endangered species
but also ecosystems (including habitats). It also emphasizes biological diversity protection asa factor directly linked to economic profits.
Policy documents and enforceable administrative plans play a greater role than laws
and regulations due to the nature of the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship. In thisrespect numerous normative and aimed targets (targets) have been indicated for the short-,
medium-, and long-term, also promotion of personnel appointment to achieve these targets(including dismissal) will be implemented promptly.
3．Using lawsuits to conserve biological diversity
In organizing environmental lawsuits to conserve biological diversity, I will highlight

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 17

two perspectives. One seeks to expand the right to live in a better environment (including
enjoying the natural environment), while the other seeks to expand the right of the public toparticipate in environmental lawsuits. I will examine environmental lawsuits in Japan and
China from the following viewpoints.
(1) Japan’s Environmental Lawsuits(i) The Environmental Right, the Nature Privilege Right, and Environmental Public
WelfareThe Basic Environment Law (BEL) (Law No. 91 of 1993)11 defines some of thebasic principles related to the environment. Article 3 of the BEL provides the following
two important legal basic principles concerning biodiversity: 1) a healthy ecosystem (i.e.,
the natural environment), being the basis for the survival of human beings and wildlife,
is essential for human health and cultural life; and 2) it must therefore be sustainably
maintained for future generations. Article 3 of the BAB specifies that the BEL’s Article 3
will be implemented more concretely to minimize the impact on biodiversity as much as
possible.
In this way, there is a provision that a rich ecosystem (the natural environment) isessential for human beings, but environmental rights are not stated in the law. Therefore, theidea of “environmental rights” was proposed by the Bar Association in 1970 (Hatakeyama,
2013, 82). This is a right possessed by every individual, and it is a development-suppressive
characteristic that developers can exclude development using this environmental right.
Therefore, it was used as a basis for the Civilian Injunction lawsuit in a lot of lawsuits
seeking for the development control and nature conservation.
This environmental right was not accepted by all of the court. This was why thelegal rights were vague and why it was not clear how far the rights of other people should
be restricted due to specific people’s environmental rights. This was also the underpinningof the idea that the right to enjoy nature should not be limited only to those who live ina particular area, but should be encouraged for a wider area, as pollution became more
serious in the 1970s and 1980s. This environmental right was then constituted as the“nature privilege right” (an individual right). This right was confirmed to be held by a wider
range of people than were environmental rights (Kitamura, 2015, 51). However, the nature
privilege right was not accepted by the court because it was stipulated by its definition as thecondition of standing that it is its extensive, a so-called “anyone’s right.”
The next attempt to codify environmental protection as a law was to reconstruct
it as a public right, i.e., part of the “environmental public welfare.” These rights are notheld by individuals, but belong to the people as a common benefit (Kitamura, 2015, 51).
11 This is the official translation of the title of the Japanese law Kankyō Kihon Hō.

18

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

Environmentalization is also relevant to this. Establishing cooperative profitability to protect
the environment and a natural monetary valuation that is the shared property of everyone
will give momentum to establishing environmental public welfare.
(ii) Civilian Injunction Lawsuits, Administrative Case Litigation, and Class Actions by Citizens
Japan has civil and criminal courts, but its administrative court was abolishedafter the Second World War. Some courts can handle specific matters, such as intellectual
property rights, etc., but there are no courts specifically designated to handle environmental
cases. As mentioned above, “civil injunction lawsuits” are a common form of environmental
lawsuit, which often provoke discussions of environmental rights, natural privilege rights,
etc., in court. In terms of public participation, many people can participate, but plaintiffs’
standings to sue are often not accepted.
The Administrative Case Litigation Act (Act No. 139 of 1962)12 was revised in 2004.
Article 9 paragraph 2 states as follows:…the court shall not rely only on the language of the provisions of the laws andregulations which give a basis for the original administrative disposition or administrative
disposition on appeal, but shall consider the purposes and objectives of the laws andregulations as well as the content and nature of the interest that should be taken into
consideration in making the original administrative disposition…the court shall take into
consideration the purposes and objectives of any related laws and regulations.13
Therefore, the following two things can be said. First, concerning biodiversity, theBEL, the BAB, and other laws and regulations concerning ecology and its development shallbe taken into consideration. However, the extent of such consideration is left to the discretionof the judge in each case. The other is that it became possible to grasp the related laws
and regulations in order to examine the interest and the content and nature thereof; it also
expanded plaintiffs’ standing to sue. I think that a consequence of all this was the expansionof public participation (Kohyama, 2015, 8–9).
In addition to these changes, the Class Action by Citizen Lawsuit prescribed in
Article 242-2 of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No.67 of 1947)14 was also raised. In this case,the illegality of public money expenditure is often questioned, and the monetary evaluationof biodiversity, which is an important asset for residents of ecologically fragile areas, isbeginning to be cited in lawsuits.

12 Official translation of the title of the Japanese law, Gyōsē Jiken Sosyo Hō.
13 Ministry of Justice, Official translation of Administrative Case Litigation Act, Law number: Act No. 139
of 1962, Amendment Act No. 109 of 2007.
14 The title of this law in the original Japanese is Chihō Jichi Hō; I have translated it into English for thesake of convenience.

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 19(iii) The Direct Application of CBD in Court
One particularly notable court case, a class action concerning road construction,
was heard by the Sapporo District Court on September 19, 2013 (LEX/DB Literature No.
25502559). The court showed that it was possible to apply the CBD directly, without the
BAB and/or the Act on the Convention of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (ActNo. 75, 1992, ACES)15 (Kohyama, 2014, 309–312).
(2) China’s Environmental Lawsuits(i) Civil Lawsuits and Civil Law Revisions
Civil litigation involving development injunctions and claims for damages iscommon, so establishing monetary assessments of the natural environment is important if
courts and governments (administrations) are to assess the value of the natural environment
and award appropriate damages.
Chinese scholars have been studying the concept of Payments for Ecosystem
Services (PES) for some time (Qin & Wang, 2013). The Chinese government and the public
are focusing a great deal of attention on this matter due to its inclusion in the Eleventh FiveYear Plan for National Economic and Social Development (2006–2010). A pilot project on
eco-compensation has already begun. Work also began in May 2016 on amending the Civil
Code Law to include statements related to the environment in the General rule of the Civil
Code Law.
(ii) Public Benefit Lawsuits (Class Actions)
A characteristic aspect of China’s recent environmental litigation was the creation of
the public benefit lawsuit, which gave public participation in the legal process a significant
boost (Wang, 2015, 62–63).
In July 2014, the Supreme People’s Court promulgated two opinions that they would
enrich the judicial measures concerning the environment and started a trial experiment of
the environmental civil service public interest lawsuits in five provinces (Jiangsu Province,
Fujian Province, Yunnan Province, Hainan Province, and Guizhou Province). By December
2014, there were 65 cases concerning various types of environmental public interest lawsuits
received by each class of People’s Courts (PRC People’s Court, 2016, 14).
As mentioned earlier, there is no biodiversity protection law in China. The
Environmental Protection Law (EPL) (1989)16 is the center of the country’s environmental
law, and prescribes many environmental proceedings. It was last revised in 2015.
Article 58 of EPL 2015 reads as follows:

15 Official translation of the title of the Japanese law Syu no Hozon Hō.
16 Official translation of the title of the Chinese law 中国人民共和国环境保护法 . The law had a ten-year
trial implementation (1979–1989) prior to its official implementation.

20

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

For activities that cause environmental pollution, ecological damage and public
interest harm, social organizations that meet the following conditions may file litigation
to the people’s courts: (1) Have their registration at the civil affair departments of people’s
governments at or above municipal level with sub-districts in accordance with the law; (2)Specialize in environmental protection public interest activities for five consecutive years
or more, and have no law violation records. Courts shall accept the litigations field by socialorganizations that meet the above criteria. The social organizations that file the litigation
shall not seek economic benefits from the litigation. (Schulze, 2016, 18)
Between 2002 and 2011, 118,779 criminal, civil, and administrative cases involving
environmental resources were heard by the People’s Court nationwide; judgments werehanded down in 116,687 of these cases. Between January 2012 and June 2016, 575,777
criminal, civil, and administrative cases involving environmental resources were heard by
the People’s Court nationwide; judgments were handed down in 55,138 of these cases (PRC
People’s Court, 2016, 2). These data indicate that environmental lawsuits are on the rise, and
it is also apparent that the Chinese government has strengthened its legal system to handle
such cases.
From January 2015 to June 2016, the People’s Court heard 116 environmental publicbenefit lawsuits nationwide and handed down judgments in 61 of these cases. Of thesecases, 104 were environmental civil and public benefit cases, while 12 cases concerned
environmental administrative public benefit lawsuits (Ibid., 14). During the same period, thePeople’s Court heard 93 environmental civil service public prosecution lawsuits nationwide,
brought by social organizations such as environmental NGOs and NPOs; judgments werehanded down in 50 of these cases (Ibid., 15).
The Supreme People’s Court appointed a People’s Jury and founded a Talent Data
Bank of Experts on Environmental Resources and a Tribunal. Judgments results andjudgment contents were made public through this network; the remedy of environmental
public benefit cases, a public notice system for mediation statuses, and a guarantee of the
public’s right to know the results of environmental cases were also implemented. In addition,
court hearings dealing with serious incidents are broadcast live, and environmental resource
referee information is released promptly (Ibid., 4).
The number of citizens bringing environmental lawsuits has also increased (Ibid., 1).
Although the Chinese government founded a public benefit litigation system, it is unlikelythat this was intended to promote public participation. Public benefit lawsuits brought bycitizens can be dismissed, and therefore, even with environmental public benefit lawsuits,
Chinese residents’ dissatisfaction with the environment cannot be fully relieved. Publicdissatisfaction has become so severe that it cannot be suppressed, and the Communist Partyof China wants to avoid a confrontation with the people. Therefore, the Communist Party

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 21

has devised a scheme wherein a prosecuting agency is now able to pursue environmental
public benefit litigation and related administrative litigation to ameliorate and mitigate
people’s frustration about the environment. That is, prosecuting agencies are now appealing
to companies, provinces, etc.
Between January and June 2015, a prosecution agency accepted by the People’s
Court filed two environmental administrative public benefit lawsuits, but between July
2015 and June 2016, the number of such cases rose to 21; of these, 11 were environmental
civil and public benefit lawsuits, three of the 11 cases were judged, 10 were environmental
administration public benefit litigation cases (one of these dealt with environmental
administrative public interest law incidental to civil utility lawsuits), and six of the 10 cases
resulted in judgments (Ibid., 15–16).
The reason the Chinese government makes prosecutors bring environmental public
interest litigation is because it is difficult to control the people, but it can control how
such cases are prosecuted. It is significant for the Chinese government to take the posturethoroughly preserving the environment through the prosecutors' investigation of illegal
development activities and the like.
(iii) The Environmental Court
In June 2014, the Supreme People’s Court set up an environmental resource trial
court and instructed the environmental resource referee organization for each category ofcase to offer more detailed guidance on such litigation. By June 2016, each class of people’s
courts established a total of 558 environmental resource trials, councils, and patrol tribunals(Ibid., 2).
Since 2014, the Supreme People’s Court has successfully conducted three sessionsof the Nationwide People’s Court Environmental Resource Trial Job Training Course,and systematized specialized training for more than 600 judges nationwide (Ibid., 2).
The Supreme People’s Court has strengthened the top-down policy enforcement design
and implemented policy guidance frequently as necessary. In November 2015, the first
Nationwide Juristic Environment Resource Referee Business Conference was held in Furuna
Prefecture, Fujian Province. After that, various opinions, interpretations, regulations, andtypical cases were promulgated (Ibid., 2).
Below, I present an outline of the environmental lawsuits filed between January
2014 and June 2016. Many of these were civil lawsuits (see Figure 3) (Ibid., 5), the majorityof which were conflict cases concerning the development and use of natural resources (seeFigure 4) (Ibid., 9). Because criminal cases are handled in the courtroom (see Figure 5) (Ibid.,7) and PRC administrative case law has no regulations dealing with the environment, thesecases were characteristically handled as administrative cases (Figure 6) (Ibid., 11–12).

22

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

250,000

227,690

195,141

200,000

150,000

100,000

68,48957,73850,00039,594

37,2160
Criminal Cases

Civil Cases
Acceptance

Administrative Cases

Judgement

Figure 3. PRC First-Trial Environmental Resource Cases (January 2014 – June 2016) (PRC
People’s Court, 2016).

Other（3,232 Cases）－2%

Damages Relating toEnvironmental
Contamination（5,589 Cases）－3%

Resource Use Rights such as
Mining, Land Use, etc.(189,353
Cases)－95%

Figure 4. PRC Environmental Resource Cases: First-Trial Civil Cases (January 2014 – June2016) (PRC People’s Court, 2016)

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 23

Smuggling Animals andPlants (254 Cases)-1%272People

Other (3,232 Cases)-9%5,246People

Destruction of Natural
Resources（33,728 Cases)-91%
41,569People

Figure 5. PRC Environmental Resource Cases: First-Trial Criminal Cases (January 2014 –June 2016) (PRC People’s Court, 2016)

Other（2,028
Cases）－2%

Environmental Pollution（2,246 Cases）－3%

Natural Resources （Land, Minerals, Forestry,
Glasslands, etc.）（53,464 Cases）－95%

Figure 6. PRC Environmental Resource Cases: First-Trial Administrative Cases (January
2014 – June 2016) (PRC People’s Court, 2016)

24

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16(3) Observations
Both countries are making efforts to preserve and improve the environment throughenvironmental lawsuits. However, Japan has no environmental court. Although it would
cause little inconvenience, as senses of unevenness compared with the legal system of othercountries are gradually disappearing, it is not yet possible for environmental NPOs andNGOs to file lawsuits in Japan. Scholars are required to develop new theories—to expand
public participation as examples of NPOs, NGOs, etc.—on the assumption that these will
benefit the environmental public interest.
It is apparent that China is working to resolve the environmental lawsuits currently
in progress by creating a specialized environmental court. It is also excellent news that
China is trying to establish a system of examination and compensation based on the unique
viewpoint of environmental problems, which will be called the PES. There are many casesthat could be handled in such a court; even lawsuits brought by small groups and individuals
could be heard. In order to contribute to the litigation economy and to deal with serious
problems, it is necessary to establish a framework for ecological litigation that is appropriate
for each country.
4．The Correspondence between Environmental Education and Culture(1) The Correspondence between Environmental Education and Culture in Japan(i) Cultural Correspondence
COP10 adopted the Nagoya Protocol following difficult negotiations. Three issues
were particularly difficult for the participants to agree upon in establishing global rules: theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Living Modified Organisms, or LMOs), post-2010 targets,and access and benefit sharing (the Nagoya Protocol).
How the keyword “biological diversity” has been introduced and become well known
to the public shows the important role the mass media has played. The word biologicaldiversity has the natural scientific meaning and the political, economic, and diplomatic
meanings. It is necessary to trace how the government, researchers, and the mass media (inparticular, reporting and broadcasting) introduced them to Japan.
When it was announced that the COP10 would be held in Japan, an analysis was
conducted of the ensuing media reports (Kōsaka, 2015, 293–294). It was found that up to
one month before the COP10, an ease of understanding and approachability to daily life had
been achieved. For example, some of the keywords used were “various creatures” ,“foodchain in ecosystem” , “beautiful natural scenery” and “nature protection” COP10—thenreferred to as the “Kokuren Chikyu Ikimono Kaigi” (the image that many creatures on Earthgather for the meeting under the United Nations)—was discussed frequently relying more
often on certain easily understood terms when explaining the planned meeting in terms of a

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 25

media campaign, but when the conference actually began much of its coverage in the press
was negative and started to inspire tension (for example, the more common keywords at thispoint were North-South conflict, benefit sharing (with the resource-providing countries),and exploitations of biological resources (biopiracy)). For many Japanese, the term “biologicaldiversity” was a politically charged phrase.
In order to reduce the destruction of biodiversity, it is necessary for more people
to be aware of the meaning of the term “biological diversity” and to take the concept into
account when making decisions and taking actions in their everyday lives. The first of the
20 individual Aichi Biodiversity Targets adopted at COP10 is that “People [must] becomeaware of actions for the value and conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use” (MOEof Japan, 2012). According to a public opinion survey conducted by the Cabinet Office ofJapan (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2012), the national degree of public awarenessof biodiversity (the percentage of people who have heard the term or know what it means)
is increasing, but it nevertheless remains relatively low. While the percentage of informed
individuals increased dramatically following COP10, the percentage of individual awareness(in particular, “Full understanding group” + “Familiar with the term but not its meaninggroup”) later dropped from 55.7 percent (19.4+36.3(%)) in 2012 to 46.4 percent (16.7+29.7(%)) in 2014 (see Figure 7).

％

70

61.5
60

52.4
50

41.4
40

36.3
29.7
30

23.6
19.4
20

16.7
12.8
10

2.9
2.1
1.2
0
Has a full understanding of thetermFamiliar with the term but not its
meaning
Jun.2009

Not familiar with the term

Jun.2012

Has never heard of the term

Jun.2014

Figure 7. Degree of Awareness of the Term “Biological Diversity” in Japan. (Image uses
data from Cabinet Office, Government of Japan)

26

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16(ii) The Business Sector
Corporations and other businesses entities are playing an important role in broadly
providing the benefits of biological diversity at the social level through products andservices. In addition, industrial activities affect and benefit from biodiversity in various
ways (Adachi, 2010, 323–346).
The Japan Business and Biodiversity Partnership was established by the Nippon
Keidanren [the Japan Business Federation], the Japanese Chamber of Commerce andIndustry, and the Kēzai Dōyūkai [The Japanese Association of Corporate Executives], incollaboration with the Ministries of the Environment, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Economy, and Trade and Industry, and the IUCN Japan Project Office. The Japan Businessand Biodiversity Partnership was inaugurated in October 2010 during the COP10 (Sawada,2011).
The Japan Business and Biodiversity Partnership is one of the economic associations
willing to support these business actions that has also been welcomed to join the nationwide
Partnership by the related existing affiliates promoting biological diversity. As a multistakeholder framework, participation on the part of NPOs/NGOs, academia, and local
governments that are active in supporting business efforts toward biological diversity
conservation is encouraged.
(2) The Correspondence between Environmental Education and Culture in China(i) Cultural Correspondence (Education)
The Chinese government is responding to the criticism that the United States is nota signatory to the CBD. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s Publicity
and Education Center and the Chinese Academy of Environmental Sciences have formed
and designed the China-EU Biodiversity Program to promote environmental education.
One of the aims of this program is to translate English-language books related to biologicaldiversity into Chinese. One of these books, A Short Way to Get Close to Nature, was editedby the China-EU Biodiversity Program (2012). This book does not just show the image ofemotional nature; it also provides realistic science and business information. It provides
clear knowledge about biological diversity, including the fact that almost every industry is
to some degree associated with biological diversity and must prepare to assess the risks that
the World Bank has proposed. This shows that ecological education is for children, young
people, and business persons.
(ii) Chinese Businesses and Biological Diversity (e.g., the Nagoya Protocol)
The Foreign Economic Cooperation Office (FECO) has taken the lead in
administrating the China Business and Biodiversity Partnership. The FECO is affiliatedwith the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the leading ministry for the
CBD in China, and also the leading member of the National Committee for Biodiversity

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 27

Conservation, the top decision-making body on biological diversity in China. The
Committee is comprised of 26 ministries and is chaired by the Vice Premier of China (FECO,
2016).
The China Business and Biodiversity Partnership aims to work with a numberof associations in China that deal directly with biodiversity-related issues. These include
associations that deal with the extractive industry, liquor (wineries), Chinese herbal
medicine, and cosmetics. There is a push to expand the Partnership to include moresignificant local governments such as Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, etc. They share someof the NGO specializations in sustainability and CSR issues, and are welcome to join thePartnership.
In terms of relations with Japan, pressing matters of concern are the issue of
ratifying the Nagoya Protocol and enacting the domestic implementation of a law to enforce
it. Japan is a country that imports genetic resources, whereas China exports them.17 China
has a considerable history of many resources being exported both lawfully and illegally, so
it is currently studying how to establish laws and regulations to protect its domestic genetic
resources.
The Chinese government is therefore trying to protect genetic resources at thenational level. In 2010, the State Council approved the publication of the aforementioned“China Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (2011–2030)” (PRC-MOE,2010), which establishes the strategic tasks and priorities for the access and benefit-sharingof biological genetic resources. To implement the China Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
and Action Plan and the international convention (in view of China’s current efforts toprotect its biogenetic resources and manage the weak links), and in order to strengthen
China’s ability to conserve and manage its biological genetic resources and promote thesharing of benefits, the PRC-MOE has compiled the National Program of Work on theStrengthening of Biological Genetic Resources Management (2014–2020) (Ibid., 2014). The
laws and regulations included in the Program are as follows: the PRC Patent Law (2000);the Administrative Regulations on Wild Medical Materials Resource (1987); Regulations on
the Protection of Traditional Chinese Medicine Varieties (1992); Regulations on New Plant
Species Conservation (1997, revised in 2013); Regulations on the Implementation of Patent
Law (2010) (Ibid., 2016, 17), and the Law on Traditional Chinese Medicine and Cultural
Property. Three of the issues covered by the Program are particularly important: the revisionof Regulations on New Plant Species Conservation in 2013; the further discussion on
17 Yunnan Province has rich ecosystems, Guizhou Province has a highland area, Fujian Province is richin greenery, and all have many genetic resources. Therefore, these regional governments are wary ofoverseas companies because they often do not comply with laws and regulations, such as the prohibition onmountain climbing.

28

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

revising the Administrative Regulations on Wild Medical Material Resources (1987); andthe additional discussion over whether the Regulations on Biological Genetic Resources
Access and Benefit Sharing Management should be enacted.
(3) Observations
China’s nascent efforts to understand and protect its biodiversity are more realistic
than Japan’s. There are two reasons for this: First, Japan tends to regard nature with awe andrespect, such as in the slogan “harmony with nature”; second, China is trying to incorporate
scientific and utilitarian views in its cooperation with the EU. I believe that the differencein these characteristics is due to the differences in both the citizens’ view of nature andgeographical factors.
Regarding the two countries’ respective approaches to the Business Sector, though
Japan has enacted a promotion law that means it is not a law requiring regulation, theenforcement of the law is left to the autonomy of the business sector, and the company’s
subjective activities have been quite successful; the Chinese government is enforcing thelaw itself. The Chinese government is conscious that the Nagoya Protocol is in the national
interest, and they are reforming their domestic system in accordance with that. It seems that
China is doing more to support biological diversity as a serious matter and the governmentis leading efforts to safeguard the national interest.
5．Conclusion
As described above, I have examined and summarized each country’s localization
process for the CBD through the style to extract characteristic points and a series ofanalyses of certain aspects of Japanese and Chinese society. Although differences can beseen in terms of the two countries’ legal systems, lawsuits, social culture, etc., it is evident
that the CBD is being implemented domestically in both China and Japan. Regarding law
maintenance, there are basic laws in Japan, but not in China. Regarding how regulations are
implemented, while the Japanese government adopts recommendations and enlightenment/ promotion methods, the Chinese government has enforcement power. Regarding thelitigation system, environmental lawsuits and public benefit lawsuits that are not found inJapan are beginning to function. Culturally, there is a glimpse of China’s attitude towards
national interests and profits, compared to Japan, which is the view of religion (animism,
feel awe and respect) and the aesthetics of rich and diverse natural world.
I am confident that these differences are not a reason that China and Japan should
not be able to cooperate. These two countries share a long history of proof that it is possible
to collaborate on independent cultural areas and research ecosystem conservation in theregion between the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea in Northeast Asia (e.g., “the Japan

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 29

Sea Rim”). Because wild creatures live a highly mobile existence, if we are to preserve them
we must institutionally design a mechanism to conserve biodiversity in a wider area, such as“the Natura 2000 program” in the EU.
Even if the processes of Norm Localization practiced in the two countries differ,by working toward this common goal, each region is striving to become self-reliant
and achieve the subjective international standard of CBD. As an example, there is thepromotion of the joint Japan-China Japanese Crested Ibis (Nipponia Nippon)18 Protection
Plan (Ministry of the Environment, 2003). This project was concluded at the national leveland promoted at each specialized institution and in each local area. In each region, we
promote: (1) exchange and breeding cooperation between individuals from Japan and China;(2) technical assistance from Japan for the Japanese crested ibises protection project inChina; (3) technology / research exchange on Japanese crested ibises protection; and (4) the
promotion of information exchange. These things cannot be promoted and achieved without
cooperation between the implementers of the two countries’ workshops.
We must pay attention to concerted efforts made by neighboring countries such as
Japan and China. We are required to understand each other’s practices and laws more deeply
if we are to cooperate effectively to ensure the global enforcement of CBD.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Mitsui & Co. Ltd., and I would like to offer mygreatest appreciation to Professor Dr. Wang Jin (Peking University Law School), Professor
Dr. Wang Canfa (University of Political Science and Law), Professor Dr. Qin Tianbao(Wuhan University Research Institute of Environmental Law), Mr. Naomi Inoue (Economic
Section – Environment, Embassy of Japan in China), and Mr. Kenji Someno (The SinoJapan Friendship Center for Environmental Protection) for their help with my field survey inChina.
References
Adachi, Naoki. “Kigyō ni yoru Jisyuteki na Sēbutsu-tayōsē Hozen no Ugoki” [Movementof Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation by Business], in Sēbutsu-tayōsē Sētaikē
to Kēzai no Kisochishiki [Biodiversity, Basic Knowledge of the Ecosystem and theEconomy], Hayashi, Kīchirō, ed., pp. 323–346. Tokyo: Chūōhōki-Syuppan, 2010.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. “Kankyō Mondai ni kansuru Seron Cyōsa” [“Public
opinion poll on environmental issues”]. Tokyo, 2012. http://survey.gov-online.go.jp/

18 The Japanese crested ibis (Nipponia Nippon) an endangered bird species that lives only in Japan and
China and is likely to soon go extinct globally.

30

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16

index.html (Accessed February 17, 2017).
China-EU Biodiversity Program, ed. 亲近自然的一条捷径 —— 向你推荐《生物多样性知识 达 人手册》[A Short Way to Get Close to Nature]. Beijing: World Environment,
2012.
Foreign Economic Cooperation Office (China). “First GEF Project to be Implemented
by FECO Approved.” FECO Website. March 22, 2016. http://en.mepfeco.org.cn/(Accessed February 17, 2017).
Hatakeyama, Takemichi. Kangaenagara Manabu Kankyō Hō [Learning Environmental Law
with Thinking]. Tokyo: Sansēdō, 2013.
Japan Kampo Medicines Manufacturers Association (JKMA), Genryō Syōyaku Shiyōryō tou
Chōsa Hōkoku-syo［Survey report on raw material crude drug usage, etc.]. Tokyo:
JKMA, 2011.
Kitamura, Yoshinobu. Environmental Law. 4rd ed. Tokyo: Kōbundō, 2017.
Kōsaka, Ryō. “COP10・Sēbutsu-tayōsē no Hōdō wo furikaeru” [The Review of the Media
Report of Biodiversity], in Kankyo Hōdō no Kanōsē to ha(wa) [The Potential ofEnvironmental Reporting], Naoya Sekiya and Shiro Segawa, eds., pp. 292–315.
Tokyo: Mineruba-Shobō, 2015.
Kohyama, Satomi. “Kitami Dōro Jiken [The Kitami Road Incident] (LEX/DB Literature
No. 25502559)”, Shin Hanrē Kaisetsu Watch [New Case Commentary Watch] Vol.15(2014), pp. 309–312.
———. “Hanrē ni arawareta Kankyo Kihon Hō” [The Basic Environment Law on
the Cases: The Purpose of this Law is Qualifiedly and Sustainably to Promote
Policies for Environmental Conservation], Chiiki Sēkatsugaku Kenkyu [Journal forInterdisciplinary Research on Community Life] vol. 6 (2015), pp. 1–10.
———.“Iden-Shigen eno Akusesu to Rieki-Haibun (ABS)” [“Access to Genetic Resources
and Benefit Sharing (ABS)―The latest issue trends and the Nagoya Protocol ofJapan Domestic Institutionalization”], Kokusai-Torihiki-Hō Gakkai [The Japanese
Association of International Business Law] Vol. 3, 2018 (forthcoming).
Kohyama, Satomi, Xiang Gao, and Guy Charlton. “Norm Localization in Domestic
Practices: An Analysis on Implementing Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)in Japan,” Frontiers of North East Asian Studies, Vol. 15 (2015), pp. 29–56.
Kusakari, Hidenori. “2010nen Sēbutsu-tayōsē Jyōyaku tēyakukoku Kaigi to Sēbutsu-tayōsē
Kihonhō” [The Basic Act on Biodiversity and the Tenth Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity], Honyūrui Kagaku [Mammalian Science]49(1), 2009, pp. 159–165.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) of Japan. The “Niccyū Kyōdō Toki Hogo Kēkaku” [“TheJoint Japan-China Japanese Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon) Protection Plan”]. Tokyo,

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 31

2003. https://www.env.go.jp/nature/toki/press/031027.html (Accessed October 30,2017).
———. “Nijyū-isseiki Kankyō Rikkoku Senryaku” [“21st Century Environment National
Strategy”]. Tokyo, 2007. http://www.env.go. jp/guide/info/21c_ens/ (Accessed
February 17, 2017).
———. “Sēbutsu-tayōsē Kokka Senryaku Nisen-jyūni-Nisen-nijyū (2012–2020)” [“TheNational Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2012–2020.”] Tokyo, 2012. https://www.
env.go.jp/press/files/en/528.pdf (Accessed February 17, 2017).
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China, the. (PRC-MOE).
关于印发《中国生物多样性保护战略与行动计划》(2011–2030 年 ) 的通知 [“China
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (2011–2030).”] 环发 [2010] 106
号 http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201009/
t20100921_194841.htm (Accessed February 21, 2017).
———. 关于印发《 加强生物遗传资源管理国家工作方案 (2014–2020 年 ) [“Notice of
the Issuance of the National Program of Work to Strengthen the Management of
Biological Genetic Resources (2014–2020)”]. 的通知 , 环发 [2014] 193 号 ). http://
www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201606/t20160601_352975.htm (Accessed February
21, 2017).
———. 全国生态保护 ” 十三五 “ 规则纲要 [“National Archives of the Thirteenth FiveYear Plan for Ecological Protection”]. 2016. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/
201611/W020161102409694045765.pdf (Accessed February 17, 2017).
———. 生物 遗传资源 获取与惠益分享管 理 条 例（ 草案）》 编制说明 [“Draft on the
Acquisition and Benefit-Sharing of Biological Genetic Resources (Biological
Resource Access and Benefit-Sharing Management Regulations / Draft)]. 2017. http://
sts.mep.gov.cn/swdyx_1/swdyxxz/201703/W020170323537476385060.pdf(Accessed October 30, 2017).
Ministry of Finance of Japan, the, et al. “Iden-shigen no Syutoku no Kikai oyobi sonoriyō kara syōzuru Rieki no Kōsē katsu Kōhē na Haibun ni kansuru Shishin” [“ABSGuidelines (ABS Shishin): Guidelines for the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits
Arising from Opportunities to Acquire Genetic Resources and their Use”]. Tokyo,
2017. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic-abs/pdf_04/4-1.pdf (Accessed November 11,2017).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, the. “Cabinet Decision on the Fifth National
Biodiversity Strategy of Japan.” Tokyo, 2012. https://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/
1989.html (Accessed February 17, 2017).
———. “The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).” Foreign Policy: Environment.
December 8, 2015. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kankyo/jyoyaku/bio.html

32

Frontiers of North East Asian Studies Vol. 16(Accessed February 17, 2017).
———. “The Ramsar Convention.” Foreign Policy: Environment. December 8, 2015. http://
www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kankyo/jyoyaku/rmsl.html (Accessed February 17,2017).
———. “The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES).” Foreign Policy: Environment. October 20, 2016. http://www.
mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kankyo/jyoyaku/wasntn.html (Accessed February 17, 2017).
Oikawa, Hiroki. The Logic of Biodiversity—Quiet Revolution in Japanese Environmental
Law. Tokyo: Kēsō-Shobō, 2010.
People’s Republic of China People’s Court, the. 中国环境资源审判 [China Environmental
Resource Trial] Beijing: People’s Republic of China People’s Court, 2016.
Qin, Yucai, and Jin Wang. 中国生态补偿立法 路在前方 [Developing Eco-Compensation
Regulations in China: The Way Forward]. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2013.
Sawada, Sumiko, and the Secretariat of the “Japan Business and Biodiversity Partnership.”“Activities of Japan Business and Biodiversity Partnership.” Paper presented on
December 15, 2011), http://www.bd-partner.org/wp-content/
uploads/Session1_Japan1.pdf (Accessed February 17, 2017).
Schulze, Sebastian. China Environmental Law – Sourcebook 2016. Middletown: Scienceand Law Publishers, 2016.
Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, and Tsunao Watanabe. Nippon no Shizen Kankyō Sēsaku [Japan’s
Natural Environment Policy]. Tokyo: Tokyo-Daigaku-Syuppankai, 2014.
United Nations CBD Secretariat. “Country Profiles: China.” Convention on Biological
Diversity [Website]. n.d. https://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=cn (Accessed
February 15, 2017)———. “Country Profiles: Japan.” Convention on Biological Diversity [Website]. n.d.
https://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=jp (Accessed February 15, 2017).
———. “Parties to the Nagoya Protocol.” Convention on Biological Diversity [Website]. n.d.
https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/ (Accessed February 21, 2017).
Wang, Jin. “The Significance of China’s Newly Revised Environmental Protection Law in2014 and the Provisions Pertinent to Public Participation,” Kankyō to Kōgai [Research
on Environmental Disruption] 45(1), 2015, pp. 58–64.
Wenxuan, Yu. “Biodiversity Conservation Law.” In Research Handbook on Chinese
Environmental Law. Qin Tinbao, ed. pp. 234–254. Cheltenham and Northampton:
Edward Elgar, 2015.
World Environment. 为了生机勃勃的地球 ——WWF 和生物多样性保护 [“For the Vitalityof the Earth—WFF, Biodiversity Conservation.”] 作者单位 : 世界自然基金会中国媒体关系经理 [WWF China Media Relations Manager]. 2013. http://www.wem.org.

The Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan and China: A Comparative Analysis 33

cn/news/view.asp?id=1638&cataid=11 (Accessed February 21, 2017).
———. 世 界 环 境 • 热 点 关 注 [“Twenty-Three Years of the Convention on Biological
Diversity”]. ( 生 物 多 样 性 公 约 23 年 ) 文、 图 / 夏 堃 堡 [Director, UNEP
Representative in China], pp. 57–61. 2015. http://www.wem.org.cn/news/news/admin/
upload/day_150917/201509171524492014.pdf (Accessed February 21, 2017).