Presentation given by Aileen Mioko Smith, Executive Director, Green Action (Japan), at the International Symposium:“Energy Policy Shift and the Creation of Public Spheres: Learning From Germany’s Experience” (8 December 2013,
Hosei University, Japan)

ABSTRACTThe Potential of Japan’s Anti-Nuclear Citizens’ Movement to End Nuclear Powerand Implement Change in Japan’s Energy Policy
What Needs to be Undertaken to Meet this Challenge
Aileen Mioko Smith
Executive Director, Green Action
Japanese civil society today has been given the greatest opportunity it has ever had to
end nuclear power and create a new energy policy in Japan.
The citizen movement working on energy policy change, and the anti-nuclear power
movement in particular, faces possibly its greatest challenge to ensure that we do notrepeat another disaster like the Fukushima Daiichi accident, to facilitate civil society
debate on nuclear power in particular and energy policy in general, and to convince
Japanese society that there is a better way.
Here is a list of tasks that I believe we need to undertake in order to meet thisopportunity and challenge:
l

l
l
l

l
l
l

Prevent and delay restart of nuclear power reactors. This will provide a favorable
environment for civil society discussion on ending nuclear power and implementing
energy policy change
Show the fallaciousness of electric utility and government arguments for restarting
nuclear power
Address the undemocratic nature of the Abe government’s process for deliberating
nuclear power and energy policy
Show how we can end nuclear power. Show how nuclear power is getting in theway—i.e. show we cannot have both nuclear power and a new energy policy which
would provide distributive energy services based upon civil society participation,community empowerment, conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy
Offer a new path that is more attractive to civil society
Work to create a civil society public arena discussion on which path is best to take
Convince the public through that discussion that stopping nuclear power
immediately and taking a new path is the best solution

Japanese society is today in a psychic frenzy about losing economic dominance. It isscrambling for a new vision. Political leaders are clinging to what is “safe”, attempting tosomehow create a sequel to the country’s past rapid economic growth.

1

It is crucial that the NGO community presents a clear, concrete analysis that ending
nuclear power right now is good for the economy, good for creation of jobs, good for thehealth of communities, good for farmers, good for young people—that it’s the betterway.
For this, a holistic approach is essential. People want happiness. Healthy communities
and a fair society. Jobs and a future for young people. People cannot eat “kilowatt
hours.” People are seeking what good energy services will provide. And because of that,
we must convince the public that Japan needs to end nuclear power now and change its“top-down” energy policy. We need to show that this discussion is not about scientificexpertise but is actually about citizen participation, jobs, new work, creating healthy
communities, futures for young people, an environment where people can seek theirhappiness.
We cannot do this on our own. We need to think about what kind of capacity-building
will be necessary. We need to be able to facilitate involvement by a wide range of civilsociety. We need a more creative, interactive approach to learning from other civilsocieties like Germany. We need to build our capacity, especially in language ability, inorder to communicate effectively outside Japan’s national boundaries. We need tofurther develop our strategic thinking on the process for attaining a new energy policy.
We can learn about fundraising and that it is not just about money but that the process
is about a wider range of civil society involvement.
Civil society is interested in implementation, not wonderful papers about an ideal world.
They want us to show them how it can concretely be done. For that we need to show
them the data. For that we need to learn enough about economics and local/regional
government planning including how appropriations are made in order to work withexperts in these fields.
Working to reform the electric power system and promoting the role of local renewableenergy initiatives is vital. It needs to be exciting. The emphasis should be on municipal
planning and how it will help people and communities rather than hardware.
We should think more artistically, more creatively to facilitate citizen participation. If
people can’t wait to be involved, we have won their hearts. They too will become
pro-active.
We should actively spell out the process for fair civil society public debate and bepro-active in negotiating its terms. If the discussion becomes too city-oriented, has age
and gender imbalance, and excludes those facing physical challenges, we will get thewrong answers. One of the biggest lessons learned from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,
and Fukushima accidents is that civil society did not sufficiently listen to people’s direct
experiences.

2

Nuclear power is the foundation of Japan’s top-down energy policy, in spite of the fact it
only provides electricity. By ending nuclear power, we can facilitate change in Japan’s
energy policy, opening the path to better energy services and thus a better society forpeople living in Japan.

FULL TEXTThe Potential of Japan’s Anti-Nuclear Citizens’
Movement to End Nuclear Power and Implement
Change in Japan’s Energy Policy
What Needs to be Undertaken to Meet this Challenge
Aileen Mioko Smith, Executive Director, Green Action

The Challenge Before Us
Japanese civil society today has been given the greatest opportunity it has ever had to
end nuclear power in Japan and create a new energy policy. We stand at thecrossroads with a clear decision to be made -- will we continue as usual with nuclear
power and its “top-down” energy policy in spite of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant accident, or, turn away and move on to a new path? We cannot take thisopportunity lightly, for it has been given to us at the cost of all the suffering caused by
the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Today, the Japanese citizens’ movement, and specifically the anti-nuclear movement,
faces possibly its greatest challenge in order to ensure that we do not allow anothernuclear disaster, that we facilitate civil society debate on nuclear power and energy
policy, and convince Japanese society that we need to end nuclear power now.
Today in Japan, zero kilowatts of electricity are being produced by nuclear power. The
challenge for the Japanese anti-nuclear movement is to keep it that way. Unlike
Germany, which, although it still has 9 nuclear power plants operating, has a legallybinding phase-out policy for ending nuclear power, Japan’s current Abe government isvigorously pushing restart of nuclear power in Japan and actively promoting the exportof nuclear reactor technology.
At the time of writing this, five utilities have submitted a total of 14 nuclear power plantrestart applications to the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), and the NRA is3

reviewing these applications with the aim of restarting nuclear power. How to prevent
this restart is the key issue. This is the moment for effective NGO action. If we aresuccessful, Japan can end nuclear power and serve as a role model for the world.
Historically, the Japanese anti-nuclear movement is considered not very effective byJapanese civil society. But in fact, it has been effective and the proof is in the results it
has produced. There would be no current debate on whether we can and should end
nuclear power, were it not for the tireless work of local farmers, fisherfolk, citizens, andothers in the countryside areas targeted for nuclear reactors, citizen groups andindividual citizens in the cities, professionals such as nuclear physicists/chemists,
lawyers, doctors, writers, artists---all the citizens of Japan who worked tenaciously fromthe mid-1960s to the present to prevent the siting of nuclear power plants and/or
addressed safety issues after the reactors were built.
Because they did what they did, only one-quarter1 of Japan’s electricity was being
produced by nuclear power when the Fukushima Daiichi accident occurred on March 11,
2011. If they had not made such efforts, Japan’s dependence on nuclear power would
have been so great that ending nuclear power immediately or even in the near futurewould have been unthinkable. They made this discussion possible. This is truly a great
accomplishment. It should be recognized as such.
So, the issue is not how the anti-nuclear power movement can really be effective, but
how it can complete its job. And that is not an easy task!

A Listing of Tasks In Order To Meet the Challenge
Here is a list of tasks, that I believe the Japanese citizens’ movement and theanti-nuclear movement in particular needs to undertake in order to meet this opportunityand challenge:
l

l
l
l

1

Prevent and delay restart of nuclear power reactors, thus providing a favorable
environment for civil society discussion on ending nuclear power and implementing
energy policy change
Show the fallaciousness of electric utility and government arguments for restarting
nuclear power
Address the undemocratic nature of the Abe government’s process for deliberating
nuclear power and energy policy
Show how we can end nuclear power. Show how nuclear power is getting in theway—i.e. show we cannot have both nuclear power and a new energy policy which

If independent producers are included, it is one-quarter. If not, then one-third.

4

l
l
l

would provide distributive energy services based upon civil society participation,community empowerment, conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy
Offer a new path that is more attractive to civil society
Work to create a civil society public arena discussion on which path is best to take
Convince the public through that discussion that stopping nuclear power
immediately and taking a new path is the best solution

Activism, including anti-nuclear activism, is an art. Like shiatsu, judo, and aikido, it isabout finding the right pressure point at the right timing, and knowing how to use whatcomes at us, including the other side’s strength. All the work listed above needs to bedone simultaneously, synergistically, creatively working with the circumstances given tous.
In order to implement the above, we need to undertake various actions. To do this, weneed to capacity-build the movement. Exchanges with other civil society movements
working to end nuclear power and creating a new path in other countries, including
Germany, is essential.

What Is Being Undertaken / What Is Yet to be Undertaken
Below I elaborate on each item, giving examples of work being undertaken or work to beundertaken in each area. Media are being addressed, legislators lobbied, information
released via the internet, and study sessions and public meetings are being held for allof these items.
lContinue to prevent and delay restart of nuclear power, thus allowing afavorable environment for civil society discussion on policy change
Some examples of work currently being undertaken are:Being a citizen watchdog2 of the newly-formed Nuclear Regulation Authority(NRA), working to make it publicly accountable for its actions
Networking of NGOs in areas of all sites in Japan targeted for restart in order tostrategize and address common issues
Holding frequent meetings (broadcast via U-stream) concerning pertinent restart
issues with the Nuclear Regulation Agency and METI’s Agency for Natural
Resources and Energy (ANRE) at Diet office building auditoriums and conference
rooms
Targeting earthquake faults under and near reactors that have restart applications

2

For example a coalition of Tokyo groups have formed The Nuclear Regulation Authority Citizen
Watchdog（原子力規制を監視する市民の会）

5Addressing technical issues, including extended deadlines for implementation ofsafety facilities to be put in place as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima
accident
Addressing the inadequacy of nuclear accident emergency planning
Addressing Fukushima accident issues both on site and concerning relief to victimsof the accident, reminding society that the accident is continuing and the Abegovernment should concentrate on dealing with the accident, not pushing forward
a restart
Going to towns where nuclear power plants are slated for restart, meeting withtown/city/prefectural officials to address safety issues and going door-to-door tomeet townspeople
All of the above is being done with considerable research, networking between
Tokyo and the regions, bringing together regional cities with citizens of prefectures
where nuclear power plants are located.
lShow the fallaciousness of electric utility and government arguments forrestarting nuclear power
This area needs to be worked on in depth. It requires an economic analysis of fuelcosts, and know-how on how a revamp of the major utilities would be undertaken,
etc. We would need to build capacity to gain enough expertise to locate and obtaincooperation of experts/professionals in order to undertake this properly. We need
to work on this comprehensively.

l

Address how undemocratic the current Abe government’s process fordeliberating nuclear power and energy policy isThis work is centered around Tokyo NGOs although all groups nationwide are
addressing this issue. e-shift3, a network of Tokyo and national/regional groups
works on this issue, is pointing out how the current deliberation process by the Abegovernment is a big step backward compared to the much more democratic
process undertaken during the summer of 2012 by the then Democratic Party
administration.
There are attempts to spell out how a democratic process should look, but
extensive work in this area is yet to be undertaken. We need more know-how
about democratic policy deliberation process methods.

l

3Show how we can end nuclear power. Show how nuclear power is getting in
the way—i.e. that we cannot have both

http://e-shift.org/

6

There is yet no extensive analysis of this important area.4 Most anti-nuclear NGOs
have their hands full concentrating on stopping restart and addressing the
Fukushima accident (onsite issues and victim relief.) Also, we lack know-how aswell as interest. The anti-nuclear power movement historically does not include
economists and people with extensive hands-on government management
expertise. We in the anti-nuclear power movement have tended to think more on
the lines of safety rather than administrative issues concerning implementationsuch as budget allocation. Concretely showing how we can end nuclear power andhow nuclear power is getting in the way of creating necessary energy policychange is a crucial area that needs to be addressed.
l

Offer a new path that is more attractive to civil society
This area is being worked on by various NGOs working on renewable energy suchas the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP)5. What is vitally important isthat we present a holistic, attractive approach (to be elaborated below.) Much workneeds to be undertaken in this extremely important area.

lWork to create a civil society public arena discussion on which path is best
to takeBoth e-shift and the Citizens’ Commission on Nuclear Energy (CCNE)6 and NGOs
working on renewable energy issues are working in this area. Although crucial for
deliberating the ending of nuclear energy, this area is only beginning to beaddressed and urgently needs more work and more people.
We should actively spell out what the process would be for a fair debate. We
should persistently demand that this debate be undertaken. We should be
pro-active in negotiating its terms. The deliberative poll is one method. Methods
designed to facilitate a fair hearing of all the sides should be actively proposed.
This would consist of forums where, for example, a full range of expert views are
publicly debated, but where non-experts are the ones being addressed, and these
non-experts have the opportunity to respond and give their verdict. Lay people
should be given the tools to make informed judgments, and the final decision
should be out of the hands of experts.
We should encourage universities and newspapers, and lobby for a steeringcommittee organized by a full range of stakeholders to organize such forums.
There should be multiple forums. No one “event” should dictate.

4This includes at this point, the Citizens’ Commission on Nuclear Energy (CCNE)
http://www.isep.or.jp/
6
http://www.ccnejapan.com/
57

During this time we urge for these forums to be created, we need to get as much
publicity as possible for the informed views of ordinary citizens. And, we need toget as much publicity as possible for our arguments.
lConvince the public that stopping nuclear power immediately is the bestsolution
This is the big challenge. We need to be able to say, “We should end nuclear
power right away. Here are the reasons and the facts to back this up. Ending
nuclear power right away can be implemented, in this way. We propose and will
promote a civil society debate on all the various views. If we can’t convince you weare right, we can’t have our views implemented!”

Exclusion of Women
A recent all night TV debate broadcast live nationally on Asahi TV7 about nuclear power
selected 10 debaters. Nine of them were men, and the MC was male. Apart from thisbeing blatant inequality, it shows how the media sets up discussion and what it thinks
are the issues that should be addressed.
Government meetings on nuclear power are wall-to-wall with men--- committee
members, advisors, and the audience, filled with utility people, is over 95 per cent if not
100% men.
I have attended Kansai Electric shareholder meetings for nearly 25 years as one of theanti-nuclear shareholders. Every year, it is identical. The stage is lined with rows androws of gray-suited male company directors. Apparently there are one or two women
directors in the back row somewhere.
In comparison, the anti-nuclear movement, whether in the countryside or cities, hasfrom decades back had a healthy balance of men and women. Both women and men
have played a key role.
Surely, this gender imbalance in the pro-nuclear world has had something to do with thecreation and continuation of nuclear power in Japanese society. Therefore, correcting
this imbalance is crucial for ending nuclear power in Japan.
We ourselves must be careful. The more we in the anti-nuclear movement start todiscuss policy, the more we are in the danger of becoming “man-like” and the more the7

26 October 2013.「激論！止まらない汚染水 ド〜する？！原発」テレビ朝日系列 朝まで生テレビ
26 October 2013, “Heated Discussion! Radioactive Discharges Which Don’t Stop / What Should We Do!
Nuclear Power”, Asa Made Nama Terebi, Asahi TV, (This is an all night live, debate-style program.)

8

way we set-up our own committees or the way we discuss issues, in other words theprocess, becomes similar to the way the pro-nuclear side conducts its business. We
mirror the image we are trying to change. We need to be conscious of this and check inorder not to have this happen.

The Importance of Including a Wide Range of Society
The problem is not only that women have been shut out. If we have an age imbalanceskewed to too few young people, don’t include those facing physical challenges, or
become too city-oriented, we will get the wrong answers. We must keep in mind that thediscussion changes depending on who are the discussants.

To Convince Society, We Need to Holistically Address Why We Need
to End Nuclear PowerThe 2012 national Lower House elections saw a blossoming of new political parties.
Many had an anti-nuclear stand. But a vital, crucial policy and political mistake wasmade. When nuclear power was discussed, it was discussed as a stand-alone issue.
Instead, the analysis political parties should have presented, was, “If you are reallyconcerned about Japan’s economy, if you really want to create jobs for young people, if
you really want healthy communities in the countryside and in cities, then, we need to
end nuclear power.”
But the political parties did not do this. So the public chose the economy over ending
nuclear power even though a large majority wanted to end nuclear power. No doubt theline of thinking of much of the public was, “I really want nuclear power to end. But theeconomy is in such a slump right now. It’s unfortunate but ending nuclear power will justhave to wait.”
It is crucial that the NGO community presents a clear analysis that ending nuclear
power right now is good for the economy, good for creation of jobs, good for the healthof communities, good for farmers, good for young people—that it’s the better way.
People’s happiness, civil society, is damaged by “top-down” energy policy. We haveattained wealth but not true happiness. What we need is to offer a plan so exciting thatpeople will jump at it.
We are poised at a turning point to create a new society. For that, we need to know
where we want to be headed, have the necessary coalition of people and undertake thenecessary analysis.
For this we need to raise protest to the level of culture. We need to develop more style,convey values, add humor, involve artistic criticism, mixing it with top-level economic
analysis, professionals who are conscious of government budgets, top-level know-how
on how to actually implement the change in local and regional government as well as

9national. We can’t do this all on our own. For this, we need to involve people who know
about these areas. Our role is to be a catalyst and facilitate this kind of action by thesepeople.
What we need is to address nuclear power in a more socially holistic way. We need tomake it attractive to the mainstream in Japan. And for that we have to address the howjust as much as the why on ending nuclear power. We need to change that process.
We ourselves need to have a clear vision of how ending nuclear power now is vitally
important for creating a better, happier society.
The Fukushima Daiichi accident was decades in the making. A wider civil society’s lackof participation, stakeholders being shut-out of decision-making processes, in short, thelack of a functioning democracy, resulted in the accident.
One of the biggest lessons learned from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima
accidents is that civil society did not sufficiently listen to people’s direct experiences.

The Japanese Political Leadership’s Closed World — And How It
Harms Japan
Here are a few examples from my own experience which illustrate this.
I recall meeting Naoto Kan in 2002 at Democratic Party headquarters when he washead of the party. When I addressed nuclear power, he turned to me looking a little
perplexed as though he had never heard of any of the arguments said, “What’s wrong
with nuclear power?” Less than a decade later, he as prime minister was to face theearthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima Daiichi accident crisis totally unprepared.
In April 2009 the Democratic Party which was then in government asked NGOs to comeand brief them on climate change. Goshi Hosono, who was then head of the Democratic
Party chaired the meeting but was in and out. When we talked briefly afterwards, heapologized for his absence from the meeting and said, “I want to learn about nuclear
power from you and other NGOs.” (There was no budget to even pay for ourtransportation that day.) Nothing happened after that. Then, 3.11 occurred and he foundhimself as Nuclear Disaster Minister of Japan. The Democratic Party probably still has
no budget for briefings from civil society.
This is not just the Democratic Party and not just for NGOs but for outside experts fromcivil society as well. It appears Diet members and political parties have no budget forlearning from civil society. And when we provide them with briefings (payed for
ourselves), Diet members listen, say what was discussed was very important, and thatis the end of it.

10

Listening to NGOs or not pro-nuclear experts has been and still is “extracurricular.” It’s
not considered a possible lifeline for preventing another nuclear disaster or making abetter society in Japan.
The problem with the Japanese leadership is not only that they are conservative andpro-nuclear, but that their sources of information are severely limited.

What We Can Do — Implementation is the Key and Getting Others
Involved Essential
We can’t change this situation right away, but we can do the following.
The anti-nuclear movement, in my view, needs to be more aware that the technicalarguments that lead to the main part of the movement in the cities and which factuallyback up the movement come from a tradition of primarily nuclear physicists andchemists who began to question the use of nuclear power. They have been our primaryteachers. Their arguments against nuclear power were primarily about safety.
Anti-nuclear arguments were not from economists who said it was bad for the economy
and job creation. Even issues about the health of communities or ethical issues
regarding nuclear power were usually considered by the movement to be “in addition” tothe main technical safety issues.
We need to compensate for this weakness and actively figure out a way to seek out andinvolve economists, people who have experience with implementing local and regional
policy including budgets or dealing with local/regional crises such as evacuation, andother types of professionals. Getting different people involved will lead to asking
much-needed different questions in order to critique the issues and create solutions. We
need to think about what is missing and go out and get it.
For it is finally the nitty-gritty situation in local areas dependent on nuclear power, or, thefinancial situation of the electric utilities, etc. that will decide the day. Intellectualarguments about how ending nuclear power makes sense will not finish the job.
We try to go it alone too much. Yes, we work very hard. Yes, it’s important to be diligent
and persistent. But we need to be aware that no matter how hard we work, nuclear
power will not stop unless there is a broad section of society that realizes it can end andthat ending it right away is the best way. Essential to this is for people to be able to see
how ending nuclear power can be implemented.
By making changes in our actions, we can help move the process forward.

11

For example, when we meet with the Union of Kansai8 Governments about region-wide
nuclear emergency evacuation plans, submitting pertinent questions is vital. But equallyimportant is who we invite to hear this exchange, professionals who would be in chargeof evacuating their association’s facilities or those in charge of moving or accepting
evacuees, as well as legislators and local/regional media. Seeing for themselves thecomplete unpreparedness of the Kansai governments they would become alarmed andraise their own concerns.
Another example would be when an important international symposium on current
nuclear power issues or the Fukushima accident is held at Tokyo University or somemajor university, the key issue would be not just what we discuss there but who we get
to attend and how to follow-up after. Inviting other professionals, or making the
symposium free for that university’s students, cheap for other students, and attractive
for key new stakeholders is essential.
The universities need to blossom as a place of debate and discussion on nuclear power.
Yes, there are many meetings and symposia on nuclear power issues held atuniversities, but most of them are either pro-nuclear events, or, anti-nuclear events. For
example, one still cannot organize a series of real debate and discussion between
pro-nuclear experts and those opposed to nuclear power at Kyoto University, located in
my own city, one of the most prestigious universities in Japan. It is still taboo! What is
the status of academia if there is no mechanism for disagreeing publicly or discussing
controversial issues constructively at universities?
Another example is the Fukushima accident victims’ negotiations with the government.
The Fukushima parents should not have to worry about getting other people there when
they are pleading with the government to help protect their children, and the core NGO
activists supporting them have their hands full. We need other people beside the corepeople, to help get other people to see how unfair and terrible the current situation is
including the lack of government budget and help get the word out both domesticallyand internationally. We can pound the table about the injustices but without sufficientbudget allocated to the issue, things will not improve.
Right now, many of us know, from meeting with the government, that we may well beheaded for another Fukushima disaster. But we can’t explain it to others because they
haven’t seen the dire situation first-hand.
In other words, whatever we do, only part of the work is the issue itself, but also an
important part of it is how we sell it and who we get involved. We must be assertive
about implementing this or it just will not happen. The CCNE website showing a public

8

http://kouiki-kansai.jp/

12

symposium CCNE organized should be visually so exciting that people would say,
“Wow! I am missing out. I’ve got to go to the next meeting!” There is nothing wrong inmaking things fun and attractive. In fact, it is really important.
We continue to only pay lip-service about “getting young people involved.” We have to
get serious about this. For that, we need young people to do the planning. It is easy to
say and difficult to do, but important, and we need to move this forward.

National Isolation Has Not Ended — The Importance ofBilingual/Multi-Lingual Capability
In my view, by far the biggest problem is the fact that so much of what is going on in
Japan regarding the ongoing Fukushima accident crisis and what is going on regarding
the Abe government’s attempt to restart nuclear power is that, in spite of international
media reports, it is still mostly unknown to the outside world because of the language
barrier. Almost no Japanese activists or technical experts critical of what is going on arecommunicating directly in English. As a result, a consistent exchange does not exist
between the domestic work in Japan and NGOs, professionals, and media abroad.
The real lessons of Fukushima are not being communicated sufficiently abroad.
Because of the lack of transparency regarding what is going on in Japan, Fukushima
accident victims and Japanese NGOs are cut off from getting the support, information,and stimulation from abroad to help the situation in Japan. Today, our bilingual capacity
is so limited that we cannot even properly service the international journalist requests
that come to us.
So many opportunities are being missed because of severely limited bilingual capacity.
99Here are some examples of opportunities that will be or are being missed because of severely limited
bilingual capacity:
The UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur Anand Grover issued an important interim report
9on Fukushima on 2 May 2013, which was arrogantly dismissed by the Japanese government. Our work on
this issue is severely limited because of lack of language capability.
The world is looking to Japanese experts’ and NGO proposals, appeals, briefing materials, etc.
regarding the Fukushima accident and technical issues on nuclear power in Japan. Concerned experts
outside of Japan and Japanese experts critical of nuclear power need to be in communication with eachother. At present Japanese experts virtually never communicates in English and proposals from abroad
either do not reach Japan or are not deliberated in Japan.
The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation’s report issued 5
July 2012 stated that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power accident was, " a profoundly man-made disaster-- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by amore effective human response." NGOs could work on maximizing this content domestically andinternationally. One example is addressing the cozy relationship between the Japanese committee
members of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the electric utilities which

13Figuring out how to increase our language capability, for a start bilingual
Japanese/English capability such as working with concerned young bilingual people
and bilingual professionals is vital, so that this barrier can be broken. It would be an
extremely effective tool for stopping nuclear power in Japan. And stopping nuclear
power in Japan can greatly help make it happen abroad.

What We Do Best And Why This is Important
Because the Abe government regressed to a more undemocratic process than the
Democratic Party administration, an important part of NGO work is to work even moreemphatically in our classic role. In other words, national policy can be very pro-nuclear,but if we can concretely prevent nuclear power plants from restarting by reacting togovernment actions and agendas, we can have de facto no nuclear power and fromthere we can work on national policy change to reflect the de facto situation. Working tostop restart of nuclear power plants is not just reactive but actually about working tochange policy in Japan.
At the same time, the work of other NGOs to reform the electric power system andpromote the role of local renewable energy initiatives is a vital parallel campaign. If
these are implemented, the economic case for nuclear power will become notably
worse. This will build a constituency which says we should get out of nuclear power.
There will be more public participation. The more practical vision we have for analternative economy and society, the worse it will look to remain in nuclear power.

Capacity Building Through Fundraising — Creating Greater Civil
Society Support
One of the key areas that would benefit from more international exchange is supportand empowerment of the all-too-few funders (they can be counted on one hand without
using all the fingers!) in Japan who support anti-nuclear NGOs, and increasing thefunding pie in Japan. This is important not just for monetary reasons but for helping to
involve a wider civil society in Japan.
Rather than this handful of Japanese funders continuing to go through the excruciatingprocess of trying to decide which NGO to give 200,000 yen ($2000. equivalent) to, itwould be important if they could get the support to be able to spend more time on
pay their airfares to ICRP meetings and relay this information abroad.
Japanese nuclear regulation has not learned the lessons of the Fukushima accident. The new Nuclear
Regulation Authority (NRA) takes a strong stance toward electric utilities at first, but after closed-door
meetings, it does an about-face. This situation is getting worse but is not receiving sufficient coverageabroad. For example, the NRA does not even follow its own regulations regarding earthquake faults undernuclear power plants.
In 2012, Japanese NGOs organized two extensive international conferences, Nuclear Free Now--Global
Conference for a Nuclear Power Free World (http://npfree.jp/english.html), but cannot follow up because oflack of bilingual capacity.

14

increasing the pie. It’s true that Japan does not have a tradition of philanthropy, and yes,Japan is in an economic slump, but nevertheless, it is still the third largest economy in
the world. The increase in media coverage of nuclear issues has grown exponentiallysince 3.11 but with absolutely no corollary of wider financial support to end nuclear
power. In order to change this situation, some people need to be thinking about this in aconsistent, concerted manner. Surely, there is more money out there for financially
supporting these funders, and creating additional funding sources.
A big part of the problem why this does not happen is that the handful of funders andNGOs don’t have the capacity to be working on this investment for NGO work.
Everyone is over-extended. Another part of the problem is that not only NGOs but manyof the funders come from the perspective of campaigning. The funders are on the mostpart not made up of people whose primary interest is in creating money.
What we need are additional people, new kinds of people to be involved. We have to
make a breakthrough.
Learning and bringing in influence from Germany on this, or more broadly, Europe, or
broader yet, the world out there which has a developed tradition of philanthropy is an
important area to develop. Of course there are cultural and financial, and societal
differences, but the “glamour” factor that this interest is from abroad could help
jump-start more Japanese philanthropy for anti-nuclear work. For that we first need towork in Japan and locate a a broader spectrum of interest. Meetings and public
seminars should involve new people who are interested and have access to resources
and can act on it, and separately but equally importantly, we need to hold seminars withalready committed funders on how to increase the pie, for example techniques to
conduct matching fund programs, etc.
Japanese NGOs also need to work themselves on capacity building to reach morepotential supporters. The “average” anti-nuclear NGO seems to have around 300
supporters who each contribute 3000 yen a year, coming to a grand total of 900,000 yen
annually. A broader civil society supporting each NGO would help not only to raise more
funds but give broader support to anti-nuclear activism.
In order for these changes to happen, we Japanese NGOs have to allot more attention
to these matters. We have to force ourselves to at least spend a little of our precious
time on capacity building and educating ourselves in this area we have little expertise in.
We need to invest in this so that we can work more effectively. But it is a tightrope
because now is the time to go all out in doing what we do best, i.e. opposing restart.

Importance of General Capacity Building
Capacity building is important for many areas, especially learning how to be more
effective with media, increasing our ability to reach the younger generation, and,15

improving our technique for attaining our campaign goals---learning how government
budgets work, or how regional government decision-making is done, about theeconomics of nuclear power, enough about these issues to be able to address themeffectively and find the right people to address them professionally. Capacity buildingmeans investing in our movement.

Learning from Germany and Other Civil Societies“Learning from Germany” or “learning from abroad” is not a one-way street. I believe
the exchange will bear fruit if it is helpful for both sides. For that, we need to not just talkabout facts and results, but process. We need to emphasize process.

Needed: A Vision — Communicating Values
Japanese society is now in a psychic frenzy about losing economic dominance andeverything that comes with it. It is scrambling for a new vision. Political leaders areclinging to what is “safe”, attempting to somehow create a sequel to the country’s past
rapid economic growth. Now is the time for action. We must talk about the 20 years
Japan has “lost”, and how ending nuclear power right away will help us “catch up.”
We need to further develop the vision we are proposing.
One of Aesop’s fables says we resist having our coat blown off by the wind, but are
happy to take it off when the sun shines. Ending nuclear power should not be about“taking away” but about enriching: creating a healthier economy, creating healthiercommunities, happier people, more jobs into the future for young people as well as
preventing a second Fukushima disaster.
We must say loudly and clearly that because Japan wants a healthier economy, a more
attractive, elegant, artistic, happier society which is good for jobs, that’s why we need to
end nuclear power. It’s showing to the Japanese public and politicians that nuclear
power is getting in the way to a better world. We need to do the economic analysis anddevelop the language in order to send out this message. It’s not as much about giving
up something, but gaining something. But for us to convince the Japanese public, weneed to approach it as hard-nosed economists and urban and countryside town
planners. We must learn from the mistakes of the political parties in the 2012 Lower
House elections.

What Civil Society Wants to be Shown — How to Implement the Endof Nuclear Power in JapanI believe what the public is seeking is to be shown how a rapid end to nuclear power inJapan can actually be implemented. For example, there is no way that prefectures16

dependent on nuclear power will give it up unless they can see direct benefits. We need
the help of people who can see the situation through local eyes.
Perhaps a good way to start is to take CCNE’s interim report and ask the question, “So
how can we actually get this implemented? What are the types of people we can go to inorder to look at each part of this puzzle?” We need to take this to a wide range ofexperts, stakeholders, and the public, and ask many questions and get their input. A
starting point is the public forum discussions with civil society which CCNE is planning.

Conclusion
Seventy percent of Japanese society wants to end nuclear power. The public wants toknow if and how this can be done. The Japanese citizens’ movement and specificallythe anti-nuclear movement’s challenge is to prevent restart of nuclear reactors in Japanin order to provide the environment in which this discussion and debate can beundertaken, show how nuclear power is getting in the way of better energy policy, andoffer a new path that is more attractive. Most importantly, we must facilitate theblossoming of civil society public arena discussion, and through it convince the publicthat ending nuclear power is the better way and that it can be implemented.
In order to do the above, we need to develop our capacity. We need communication
with Germany and other civil societies who have and are undergoing the same debate.
We need many others to become involved. At the end of the day, it is the public that will
end nuclear power and thus change Japan’s “top-down” energy policy. Our job is to be
the catalyst.10

Aileen Mioko Smith
Executive Director
Green Action
Suite 103, 22-75 Tanaka Sekiden-cho
Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8203 Japan
Tel: +81-75-701-7223
Fax: +81-75-702-1952
Cell:+81-90-3620-9251
email: amsmith@gol.com
URL: http://www.greenaction-japan.org/

10

29 September 2013. Aileen Mioko Smith TEDx Kyoto presentation on how to end nuclear power inJapan (in Japanese) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa1Os5o5xU4

17

Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of
the Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University
International Symposium:“Energy Policy Shift and the Creation of Public Spheres:
Learning From Germany’s Experience”

The accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima No.1
Nuclear Power Plant on March 11, 2011 was the largest nuclear disastersince the Chernobyl accident of 1986.

Even now, the restoration of theplant is far from over, and there is no prospect at all of decommissioning it.
Worse yet, radioactive material continues to be released from the plant.
The air dose rate remains high (as of May 7, 2013, the highest level is 29.671
μ ㏜ /h measured at the Ottozawa District #3 in the town of Okuma,
Fukushima prefecture). Most of all, the land, houses, forests, rivers andseas are still widely contaminated, forcing more than 150,000 residents tolive in shelters.
We take this severe accident very seriously, and thus believe that Japan
should phase out power production by nuclear power plants as soon as
possible and switch to more geographically distributed and citizen-involved
energy production based on renewable energy sources. Moreover, many
among the general public are opposed to restarting the nuclear plant andthe movement calling for immediate nuclear phase-out has continued
across the nation.

A recent opinion poll shows that 71% of the public

supports the abandonment of nuclear power generation (Feb. 17, 2013,
Asahi Shimbun).
However, nuclear reactor manufacturers, electric power companies, andthe central government have planned a quick restart of the nuclear plant,
and are also actively proceeding with the construction of nuclear power

plants in foreign countries.
In order to advance an “energy shift including nuclear phase-out,” it is
crucial to reach both a social and political consensus for that goal. To dothat, first and foremost, citizens and experts must meet to jointly exchange
opinions, develop the discussion and then reach a consensus; next, basedon that, a political debate must be conducted, a consensus must be formed,
and then a policy must be formulated.
We believe that in order to implement Japan’s energy policy shift, it isparticularly important and beneficial to learn from Germany’s experience inenergy policy shift. This is because the Fukushima nuclear disaster was a
direct and decisive turning point before the country launched a policy of“energy shift including nuclear phase-out.”

Germany, in the process,conducted political deliberations and policymaking sessions based on thediscussions and recommendations of three committees of experts, as well as
dialogues with the general public.

Particularly, in two committees ofexperts and a public dialogue, the pros and cons of nuclear power
generation were exchanged and debated on an equal footing. Furthermore,in the dialogue, representatives of corporations such as electric powercompanies and aluminum manufacturers as well as NGO representatives
including environmental protection groups also participated and expressed
their positions.
In the background of this policy shift were the following facts: from the late1960s, along with the anti-nuclear peace movement and the environmental
protection

movement,theanti-nuclear

movement

began

to

grow.

Denuclearization increasingly gained majority support among the generalpublic, especially after the Chernobyl disaster. Consequently, in 2000, thefederal government and electric power companies both agreed to abandon
nuclear power, leading to the enactment of a law to prioritize renewableenergy.
Based on Germany’s experience, we wish to learn more about thefollowing key points and jointly consider and help clarify the prerequisites
for realizing an energy policy shift in Japan:

Date : December 8, 2013
Place : Hosei University(Tama Campus),Tokyo, Japan
Program : 9:20~18:00
Greeting(9:50~):Prof.Dr.Toshio Masuda(President of Hosei University)
Prof.Yuhko

Tanaka(Dean

of

the

FacultyofSocialSciences,Hosei University)
First Session(10:00~12:00): Energy Shift in Germany
1Prof. Dr. Peter Hennicke (Former President of the Wuppertal
Institute and Principal Advisor of the bigEE Project, Fomer Prof. ofDarmstadt University)

2

Ms.Chikako Yamamoto(Former Journalist in Germany)

Second Session(13:15~15:15): Energy Shift in Japan
1 Prof.Dr.Koichi Kitazawa(President of Independent Investigation
Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, President ofTokyo City University, Former President of Japan Science andTechnology Agency,Prof. emeritus of Tokyo University)
2

Ms. Aileen Mioko Smith (Representative of Green Action, Kyoto)

Third Session(15:30~17:30): Process of Policy Making and Regenaration of
Local Society
1Prof. Harutoshi Funabashi (Hosei University,Tokyo,Chairpersonof Citizens’

2

Commission on Nuclear Energy )Prof. Dr. Raupach Sumiya Jorg (Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto)

General Session(17:30~18:00):Prof.Dr.Peter Hennicke
Prof.Harutoshi Funabashi

n

Q & A / Discussion＊A Visit to Fukushima: December 7,2013

Sponsors:
・Institute for Sustainability Research, Hosei University(President:Prof.Dr.Yoshiro

Fukuda)・Research Project “The Formation of a Sustainable Society Based on the
Public Sphere,” the Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University(Representative: Prof. Harutoshi Funabashi, Chairperson of Citizens’
Commission on Nuclear Energy)
Executive Office:c/o the Archives of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University
phone: 0081-42-783-2367
fax: 0081-42-783-2370
Prof. Masami Jufuku:mjfk@hosei.ac.jp
Associate Prof. Munenori Suzuki:munenori@hosei.ac.jp