95

Idea of Nature Restoration
Hirosi ONODERA1,Tsunao WATANABE2 and Reiji KAMEZAWA2*
1

Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Science, The University of Tokyo
1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan
2
Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8975, Japane-mail: REIJI_KAMEZAWA@env.go.jp*corresponding author

Abstract
Through the post-war economic miracle, Japan has experienced exceptional growth and remarkable
improvement in its living standards. During this period of rapid economic growth, a short time in the eyes ofthe long history of the country, Japan’s nature, which was once diverse and rich, has been significantly
transformed. Sandy beaches and tidal lands have been lost, coastal reclamation has steered people awayfrom the sea, riverbanks and irrigation ditches have been reinforced with concrete and even the once abundant and familiar medaka, Japanese rice-fish, are now endangered. The Japanese, who once felt the changing seasons of nature now recognize them only by looking at the calendar. The idea of society co-existingwith nature was advocated by Prime Minister Koizumi, the first prime minister of 21st century of Japan, in
his policy speech. This idea prompted a movement for nature restoration and bore fruit in the Law for the
Promotion of Nature Restoration. The freshness or innovative visions of this law can be seen in its purposeof restoring natural ecosystems that have been lost, its bottom-up system that allows local councils makedecisions on planning, and its prerequisite of adaptive management that supports project implementation
with learn-by-doing methods. Since the law is innovative, it possesses some discrepancies which mightcause difficulties in its implementation. Possible difficulties may occur in:– setting simple objectives, because natural restoration addresses the layered structure of time frame andspatial scale,– focusing on ecosystems which are complicated and sensitive when conducting a specific project, and– building a consensus by reconciling different values or opinions through open discussions of a committee.
On the other hand, some advantages have been demonstrated convincingly through projects conducted
over the last five years after the law came into effect. They include:– A committee system which is effective at dealing with the layered structure of time frame and spatial
scale.
– A stepwise approach which is reasonable for setting and achieving objectives.
– A learn-by-doing method which helps to develop technologies for nature restoration.
This paper examines the difficulties and advantages mentioned above by clarifying the concept ofnature restoration, giving a background/overview of the law and analyzing the case of the Kushiro Wetland.
Key words: adaptive management, biodiversity, national land, nature restoration, water basin zone

1. Introduction
In December 2002, the Law for the Promotion of
Nature Restoration initiated by lawmakers was approved.
One of the prominent characteristics of this law was its
purpose of restoring lost ecosystems. From the viewpoint of this purpose, the keywords for natural environment conservation, “society co-existing with nature”
took the first explicit step forward toward acceptance bysociety. The approval of this law indicates growing demand for nature and a rising level of need for it. However, an innovative approach of this sort often faces
Global Environmental Research
11: 95-111 (2007)
printed in Japanvarious problems in practice. This paper introduces the
background and gives an overview of the law, giving
examples of specific initiatives for nature restoration
being implemented in Japan. It also analyzes these
initiatives, points out their challenges and indicates the
future direction of nature restoration.

2. What is Nature Restoration?
2.1 Why is nature restoration discussed now?
2.1.1 Outline and characteristics of nature in Japan
Japan is an island country surrounded by sea located©2007 AIRIES

96

H. ONODERA et al.

in a hot-humid monsoon climate region. It covers a wide
range of latitudes from northern Hokkaido to southern
Okinawa and the Ogasawara Islands. Most of the Japanese archipelago lies on a volcano belt and has ayounger soil foundation compared to those in Europe or
America due to active volcanoes. The Japanese national
land consists mostly of mountains or hills, with few
plains. This landscape has had a significant impact on
the formation of the biota, making it considerably
diversified. The geography and climate have contributed
to a higher rate of forestation that promotes a robust
natural environment in Japan. Since the national land
became detached and isolated from the Eurasian continent in ancient times, Japan hosts both northern andsouthern and even eco-tone habitats for plants as well asanimals. A large number of species exist in Japan because they escaped extinction during the glacial age.
Currently, an estimated 90,000 known species and over
300,000 unknown species are living in Japan (Table 1)(Kajihara, 2004).
Table 2, “Vegetation Status Map” indicates thecondition of the natural environment in Japan in termsof different types of vegetation and land use. The degreeof the naturalness is rated on a scale of one to ten. The
table can be summarized as follows:– Levels 9 and 10, which indicate vegetation scarcely
affected by human activities, account only for 19% of
the entire territory of the country.
– Secondary forests and so called satoyama1, the condi-tion of which has been maintained through humaninterference, account for 24%.
– Japan’s forestation rate of 67% is quite high comparedto the world average of 30%, though its grassland ratio
is below 4%.
– Japanese forests, which constitute 25% of the country(i.e., 10 million ha) largely consist of plantations orforests planted mainly with cedar tress.
– About a quarter, more precisely 23%, of the country is
farmland.
– If you add up secondary forests (24%), farmland(23%) and plantations (25%), Japan appears to be covered with abundant greenery, but actually, 70% of theentire country consists of nature altered by humanactivities.
– Urban areas dominate less than 5% of the country.
This indicates that human populations and industries
are concentrated in extremely limited areas.
2.1.2 Changes in nature
As indicated in Table 2, most of Japan’s nature has
been affected by human activities. Even so, rich forests
still remain. This is attributable to the human population
being concentrated only on the limited plains and theinherent power of the land that enables vital production.
On the other hand, Japan’s nature has been interferedwith by human activities. Activities in conjunction withmodernization, especially development during the period of rapid economic growth after the war had thegreatest impact on it. Japan’s population, which was

Table 1 Animal/Plant Species in East Asia. (WRI, 2001)◆East Asian Countries（Countries with closer geohistory/geology relations with Japan or large number of species are selected. ）Mammals

CountryLand(10,000 k㎡）

ForestSpecies

Birds

Endemic Rate

Breeding
Species

ReptilesEndemic Rate

Species

Vascular Plants

Endemic Rate

Species

Endemic Rate

Japan

37

68%

188

22%

250

8%

61

74%

5,565

36%

Indonesia

182

60%

457

49%

1,530

27%

285

40%

29,37560%

Malaysia

33

45%

300

12%

508

4%

189

37%

15,50023%

Philippines

30

23%

158

65%

196

95%

92

79%

8,931

39%

China

933

14%

400

21%

1,103

6%

290

54%

32,200

56%

India

297

22%

316

14%

926

6%

209

58%

16,000

31%

Korea

10

80%

49

0%

112

0%

14

0%

2,898

8%

1%

◆（FYI） European Countries
UK

24

8%

50

0%

230

0%

7

0%

1,623

Finland

30

67%

60

0%

248

0%

5

0%

1,102

France

55

27%

93

0%

269

0%

32

9%

4,630

3%

Germany

35

31%

76

0%

239

0%

20

0%

2,632

0%

●East Asia has a richer biota●A larger number of species arecompared to Europe. This is
attributable to the various
climate zones covered andspecies that escaped extinction
during the Ice Age in this region.

recorded in Indonesia, whichsituated in the tropical climatezone and consists of manyislands; and China and India
which dominate huge land areasand include various environments.

●The Japanese biota is marked by higher rates

of endemic species, especially amphibians, 74%
of which are endemic species.
Japan has more differentiated species and plentyof relict species because:－ it is an island country－ it experienced land attach/detachment to/fromthe continent, and－ It has a complicated, mountainous/hilly
geography that covers a wide range of altitudes.

Idea of Nature Restoration

35 million in the early Meiji era, tripled in the course of
140 years. The expanded population inevitably brought
increased demand for further development of the country and contributed to the loss of nature. The naturalenvironment was damaged the most in the two decades
between the late 1940s and the beginning of the 1970s.
Figure 1 indicates the rates of conversion of farmland to industrial plants or housing plots. The greatest
conversion occurred between 1967 and 1975 according
to this figure. During those eight years, tens of thousands of hectares of farmland were converted each year.
The significance of this rate can be seen if it is comTable 2

97pared to the conversion rate during the Heisei bubble
period which was less than half as high. Figure 1 also
implies that a higher conversion rate of farmland followed, slightly lagging, the economic growth rate of thattime, which was 5%-8%.
Clear-cutting and planting of trees also rapidly increased during that period. Plantations or planted forests,
which dominated 4.97 million ha in 1951, expanded to10.36 million ha in 2002 (Forestry Agency, 2004). As
plantations expanded at the expense of natural forests,
the destruction of nature was tremendous. Coastal andnear shore regions were the most affected parts of theCurrent status of terrestrial ecosystems.

Vegetation Naturalness Map (2001)
Degreeof

Vegetation

Ratio (%)

Naturalness

10

Natural Grasslands

1.1

9Natural Forests

17.9

8

Secondary Forests(almost natural forest)

5.3

7

Secondary Forests

18.6

6

Plantations

24.8

5

Secondary Grasslands(tall grass)

1.5

4

Secondary Grasslands(short grass)

2.1

3

Farmland(perennial crops)

1.8

2

Farmland(rice or arable crops)
Residential Land with LushGreenery

21.1

1

Urban Areas
Reclaimed Land, etc.

4.3

Others(water surface, etc.)

1.5

Total

area（ha）●This table shows how Japanese vegetation is affected byhuman interference using a ten-grade scale. It indicates thecurrent status of the natural environment which has been
formed through the long history of nature-human relations.
●Natural Forests/Grasslands are located mainly in areas whichhumans can not access easily such as steep mountains,
peninsulas or isolated islands. Those places are very limitedparts of the country.
●A sharp decline in Natural/Secondary Forests occurred during
the mid 50-70s but has slowed lately. Every forest hasdeteriorated and the fragmentation of habitats has increased.
Degradation of wildlife habitats is a concern.

●Grasslands include Natural Grasslands of alpine/subalpine/
aquatic zones, and secondary grasslands which have been
maintained by intentional burning. Due to less use and lessmanagement, ecological succession has advanced in most of
the Secondary Grasslands as well as Secondary Forests.

●The natural environment is poor in both quality and quantity

in urban areas where housing is being built or reclamation istaking place. Initiatives to improve the quality of biodiversity bybiotopes have recently been developed in some areas.

●Efforts need to be made to improve vegetation quality,

focusing on biodiversity by elevating the degree of naturalness
throughout the nation’s land.

100

(%)

60000

1515

50000

1010

40000

5 5

工業用
industrial
地
use

30000

0 0

住宅用
地
housing

20000

－5
-5

実質経
real economic
済成長
growth率rate

10000

－10
-10
－15
-15

0
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Fig. 1 Land-use change of farmland. (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, 1967-2001)

その他
others 施設用
地
公共用
public 地use

98

H. ONODERA et al.

country after the war. Since high economic growth was
brought about by the development of heavy and chemical industries, nature in shallow marine areas or otherplaces which were suitable for building industrial plants
or for reclamation were devastated. About 870 ha oftidal land was reclaimed every year between 1945 and1978, and 40% of all the tidal land was gone 50 years
after the war (Fig. 2).
In 1955, the urban population exceeded the rural one
for the first time (Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunication, 2005). Now, 85% of the population isconcentrated in urban areas and urbanization is almost
complete.
The three facts mentioned above are symbolic of thephysical changes in postwar Japan. Along with thesechanges, deterioration or degradation of the naturalenvironment and degraded satoyama due to a loweredlevel of management for example, has increased. As
specified in the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan
formulated by the Japanese government in 2002, nature
in Japan faces “three crises” as follows:
Crisis #1:
Impacts of decline and extinction of species, and destruction and fragmentation of ecosystems.
Crisis #2:
Alterations of nature due to decreased human contributions (e.g., transformed/declined satoyama or silvergrass fields).
Crisis #3:
Decline of endemic species due to increased alien
species, chemicals (e.g., endocrine disputers) or crossbreeding.
These three crises are tangible effects revealed
clearly in the natural environment or land of Japan.
However if intangible impacts (e.g., the damage causedby postwar construction works, massive extraction ofriver gravel, or concrete-lined stream channels or agricultural ditches) are included, the impact on Japan’snature is enormous. The consequences of postwar development or land conversion have just come to the surface now after 30-50 years. Furthermore, some mammals such as deer have rapidly increased these days.
Japan’s nature is now suffering from disorder caused bydegraded nature and this disorder incurs such random
reactions.
2.2 Nature restoration
2.2.1 What is nature restoration?
Nature restoration is an activity to rehabilitate, regain
and literally restore nature that has been degradedthrough historical experiences. In other words, to improve the quality of ecosystems of the land represents
the biggest objective of nature restoration. The problems
caused by degraded land can be categorized into several
types. They include:1) Devastated ecosystems and extinctions of species
2) Reduced level of safety due to degraded ecosystems
3) Disorder or devastated landscapes or living environments
4) Loss of regional resources
To address these problems, countermeasures need to
be developed for each type of problem. More importantly, a targeted time and space must be adequately
determined for each project. This means determining
whether tackling only an immediate problem in a limited area in certain years, or addressing a problem over alarger area (i.e., national/regional) in increments of decades will achieve a soft landing from the problems.
According to the theory of ecological succession,
satoyama, for example, change into a natural forest in
100 years. In this process, addressing obstacles whichhinder succession (e.g., incursion of bamboo or illegally●Japan has an indented coastline with a total length ofapprox. 32,800 km. The shallow areas, mainly innerbays, consist of tidal flats, seaweed beds and coral reefs.
Filling
Currently, tidal flats cover approx. 51,500 ha; natural
Reclamation coastline, approx. 18,100 km; seaweed beds, approx.
201,200 ha and coral reefs, approx. 34,700 ha. They
Dredging
constitute the coastal biodiversity.
OthersChanging Size of Tidal Flatsarea (ha)

90000

80000

Remaining

70000

60000

●Tidal flats are mostly located along the coasts of the
Pacific and Seto Inland Sea, or around Kyushu. They
are important feeding places for coastal fish and birds
such as snipe or plover.
●Seaweed beds are communities of sea grasses,
including eelgrass, and seaweed including laminaria.
They are also spawning or alevin-raising places for the
fish.

50000
40000

●Coral reefs are distributed mainly in the Tokara
Islands or further south. The biggest coral reef in Japan
exists in the Yaeyama Islands, and its surrounding sea
is world famous for hermatypic varieties.

30000
20000
10000

1945

1978
Decreased by about 40%

1994●Shallow sea ecosystems are affected directly by
artificial coastlines, landfills and polluted water.
Significant impact occurred during the postwar rapid
economic growth period. Currently, natural coastlines
account for less than 50% of the main island, Honshu,
and 40% of the tidal flats are gone.
●Though reclamation has been decreasing, landfills
are continuing to grow in areas adjacent to tidal flats.

Fig. 2 Current Status of Shallow Sea Ecosystems. (Ministry of the Environment, 1980; 1994)
Based on the 2nd and 4th Basic Research on Natural Environment Conservation (1980-1994).

Idea of Nature Restoration

dumped waste) would be the challenge. More basically,
though optimal countermeasures should be developed tofacilitate the smooth succession of satoyama into naturalforests and to avoid causing confusion or disorder tolocal communities (Table 3).
From all the events mentioned above, we recognizethat natural restoration has two different definitions,broad and narrow. The broad version of nature restoration includes conservation of remaining ecosystems andrehabilitation and restoration of destroyed ecosystems as
an emergency treatment. A nationwide effort to restore
ecosystems as mentioned above regarding satoyama isalso included. Narrowly defined restoration means helping destroyed ecosystems with their recovery by accelerating the speed of recovery. When conducting a wetland restoration project for example, all the activities
required such as preventing the incursion of polluted
water that disturbs the wetland’s recovery, elevating thewater level and transplanting of wetland plants are included in the narrow version of restoration. “Broad” or“narrow” as described here does not necessarily represent the physical size of a target area. Besides, the sizeof the area is not always proportional to the time required for its restoration. These two definitions are often
closely related to each other and sometimes overlap in areal project. For the Kushiro Wetland case, the restoration target is a downstream area of 20,000 ha. A specificcause of erosion or degradation of the wetland, such as
accumulated sediment or incoming polluted water isusually tackled in a limited concerned area, but all theevents or activities taking place across the 250,000 ha of
the wetland also closely related to the specific cause.
Therefore, it takes a long time to restore the wetland.
2.2.2 Nature restoration ― five key points
Attention to certain key points or viewpoints is required in order to clarify the concept of nature restoration which involves a long period of time and broad area,
and to gain a social consensus. The five key points,
Table 3“spatial scale,” “time frame,” “values,” “awareness,”(social awareness) and “planning and technology” areconsidered critical, judging from lessons of the past.
“Spatial scale” is the targeted region of a project. It
could be referred to as the “area” as well. In short, spatial scale indicates both the damaged area to be restored
and its surroundings that affect the damaged area. In thecase of Kushiro mentioned above, the damaged area isthe wetland of 20,000 ha, and its surroundings are thehydrological basin of 250,000 ha. To launch a restoration project, it would be reasonable and realistic to startwith the damaged wetland, but to complete the project,silt basins would need to be created around the wetland
to prevent sedimentation, and the present land-use forthe entire basin that allows sediment accumulation
would have to be reviewed as well. There are two kindsof causal relations, direct and indirect, and neither canbe ignored in nature restoration. However, in terms ofestablishing objectives, short-term and long-term goals
should be considered separately.
With “time frame” issues, relationships can be explained more clearly. Both long-term and short-term
objectives are essential to a nature restoration project,but in order to improve the land-use across the basin to
make it well balanced and to reduce the impact on thewetland to nearly zero, a broad social consensus (e.g., aconsensus on the feasibility of conducting a project oron lifestyle/production rights of local residents) shouldbe essentially built up. Therefore, taking the broader
surrounding area into account is necessary when launching a specific project. The causal relationship between
the condition of a wetland and factors of its surrounding
basin may be easier to understand, but when it comes tothe bigger theme of restoration of degraded ecosystems
throughout the country, step-by-step approaches will beneeded. For example, satoyama issues should be tackled
in a specific area or a specific forest based on the theoryof ecological succession and social necessity. One-size-

Secondary Forests in Satochi/Satoyama - four types and status of each. (MOE, 2003)●Secondary Forests, whichconstitute the main part of thesatoyama cover approx. 7.7 m. ha
and account for 20％ of thenational land. They are categorized
into four types.

●Each type has totally different

natural characteristics and issues.
The biodiversity of the Quercus
serrata forest and red pine forest
would be affected most among
these four types if the forest
were abandoned.

●Solutions for these problems
should be consistent with thenatural characteristics or thecauses of the problems.

99①Quercus mongolica forest (1.8 m. ha): Distributed mainly innorthern Japan. Receiving less human interference comparedto others. Possibly changing to the natural forest of Quercus
crispula or beech by ecological succession if abandoned.
② Quercus serrata forest (2.3 m. ha): Distributed mainly innorthern Japan, and in the Chugoku Regions on the Sea ofJapan side as well. Actively used for fuel. Ecologicalsuccession will be interrupted by invasion of bamboo thickets
if abandoned. If ecological succession occurs, it will become
evergreen forest and some species (e.g. Japanese dogtooth
violet) will be lost.
③Red Pine forest (2.3 m. ha): Distributed mainly in westernJapan. Broadly used for fuel. Replaced by bushes withdecreased biodiversity after the pine trees die.
④Castanopsis, Quercus and Lithocarpus forest (0.8 m ha):Distributed mainly in southern Japan. Receiving less humandisturbance comparatively. Possibly succeeded by naturalindeciduous broad-leaf tree forest if left undisturbed.

100

H. ONODERA et al.

fits-all countermeasures are not effective at solving the
problems. A system designed to soft-land the issues of
the whole country or a specific block area, or to improveland-use over a 50-year or longer span of time will benecessary.
“Value” represents human interference or relations
with the natural environment, which exist in complexity
or overlapped each other. The Kushiro Wetland can be
simply considered a national value as it is a nationalpark of Japan and a registered wetland under the Ramsar
Convention. The pasture land surrounding the wetland,
however, is not only a public resources for the dairy
farming conducted there, but also private land supporting individual lives. This is not a problem of a superior-inferior relationship between these two values. The
problem is there are two different values that contradict
each other existing in adjacent areas. One demands ahigher water level for the wetland and the other requires
a lower water level for the pasture. The solutions to thisconflict are “technology” to adjust the water level, and a“plan” to improve the land use by creating a buffer area,for example. As a prerequisite, the different values
should be reconciled to balance wetland conservation
and agricultural activities.
“Awareness” (social awareness) is a prerequisite forreconciling different values. It also affects conservation
target levels. Targeted conservation levels of the naturalenvironment, which local people or national citizens set,change over time. The demand level for conserved
nature has almost always risen in both the private andpublic sectors throughout the postwar years, and is expected to increase even more in the future.
The issue of “planning and technology” is inherently
unique in its ability to handle nature and ecosystems. A
nature restoration project starts with removing manmade obstacles that affect ecosystems, but whether thenature will recover sufficiently afterward can only be
judged by observing its changes. This series of processes, scientifically attempting different methods of removing man-made obstacles, observing the progress andevaluating results while improving the methods themselves if necessary, is so-called “adaptive management.”
Adaptive management is an essential technique for implementing a project. It is also considered a mind-set or
philosophy for nature restoration in terms of a basic
recognition or attitude towards the nature.
One of the proposals the Law for the Promotion of
Nature Restoration has suggested is a “local committee”
system. Its purpose would be to achieve a consensus
through sufficient discussions by an open public committee consisting of local people, NPOs, experts andstakeholders; as opposed to a closed-door meeting with
only experts and government officials participating.
Normally, discussions are often tangled, full of sudden
reversals and time consuming, but it is important toachieve satisfactory results taking sufficient time andwaiting until methods or participants have become
ready.
The five key points mentioned above are related toeach other through a double or multiple structure whichis contained in each key point as well. This contributes
to the complexity of nature restoration and its innovative
theme. Therefore, every relationship or process engagedin nature restoration must be treated as “adaptive.”

3. Background of the Law for the Promotionof Nature Restoration
3.1 General backgroundIn 2001, the first year of the 21st century, “The Conference on the Creation of “Wa-no-kuni” – an EcoSociety through Partnership – in the 21st Century” washeld aimed at creating an eco-society that would coexist in harmony with the global environment. “Creatinga society co-existing with nature” was incorporated into
then Prime Minister Koizumi’s inaugural address in
May 2001, and active efforts were recognized as necessary for restoring nature which had been degraded andachieving this goal. At the same conference, held in July,an active public works project for nature restoration
using adaptive management, in other words “a publicproject to restore nature,” was suggested for promoting(Kamesawa, 2003).
After this proposal, the Ministry of the Environment,
the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, andthe Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport tried
to allocate a public works budget for a nature restoration
project. At the same time, they began drafting a bill. In
the New National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan, approved in March 2002, “nature restoration” is emphasized as one of the three major directions of the policy
to be developed in the future, along with “enhancementof conservation” and “sustainable use.”
3.2 Background of lawmaker-initiated legislation
There were concerns that by only allocating a budget
this proposal might end up a one-time trial. Legal endorsement was recognized as required to make a nature
restoration project a solid movement for years to come.
Under these circumstances, the Law for the Promotionof Nature Restoration was formed as a lawmakerinitiated piece of legislation.
In October 2001, at a meeting of the project teamconcerning environmental policies, which consisted of
the three ruling parties, the Liberal Democratic Party(LDP), Komeito and the Conservation Party at that time,
Komeito suggested that they should consider the formulation of a bill to promote nature restoration projects.
In late January 2002, Komeito drafted an independent
proposal for the bill. In February 2002, a team for promoting nature restoration projects was established by
the LDP and they started discussions on the bill. In May
2002, the integrated proposal of the ruling parties wascompiled.
This integrated proposal specifies the Ministry of theEnvironment as the main body that drafted the basic
policy for nature restoration, as opposed to the three
ministries (i.e., the Ministry of the Environment, theIdea of Nature Restoration

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, and theMinistry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) described in the LDP proposal. It also defines the Ministerof the Environment as one of the competent ministers,
and stresses the necessity of a Nature Restoration
Promotion Conference composed of relevant ministries
to be formed. Overall, the proposal acknowledges theenhanced authority of the Ministry of the Environment
and ensures cooperation among relevant ministries.
After that, some opinions from various lobbies
including NGOs were delivered, and some actions weretaken by opposition parties including inspection of the
Asaza (or floating heart) project at Kasumigaura by the
Democratic Party. Then the bill was partially revised
based on the suggestions from the debate among the
Democratic Party and ruling parties. As a result, thedescription of “securing biodiversity” was incorporated
into the purpose, definition and principles of the bill; aNature Restoration Expert Panel was determined to beestablished; and a clause for “revision after five years”
was added to the supplementary provisions. The bill was
submitted to the House of Representatives on July 24
when the 154th regular Diet session was approaching its
end, and carried over into the next session.
3.3 Diet deliberation
During the 155th extraordinary Diet session started
on October 18, 2002, the reasons for the proposal wereexplained in the House of Representatives’ Committeeof the Environment on November 8 and deliberation of
the bill began. There was a question-and-answer session,
and witnesses including NGOs delivered their opinions.
Through this deliberation process, the bill was partiallyrevised as requested by the Liberal Party. The revised
version specifies that the competent ministers “musthear,” instead of “may hear,” the opinions of an expert
panel. After the revision, the bill was approved by amajority, and passed by the House of Representatives on
November 19. After an on-site inspection conducted by
the Committee of the Environment on the same day, theHouse of Councilors went through sessions for explanation of reasons and delivery of witnesses’ opinions. On
December 3, the Committee of the Environment held aquestion-and-answer session and approved the bill by amajority. On the following day, December 4, the bill
was approved by the House of Councilors and enacted,
then proclaimed as Law #148 on December 11.
In the Committee of the Environment of the Houseof Councilors, supplementary resolutions were adopted.
They included:– Confirming the purposes of the nature restoration project,– Reconfirming the importance of the objective and ascientific-knowledge-orientated evaluation, and thenecessity of an investigation by experts,– Optimally organizing and operating a nature restoration committee, and– Ensuring transparency of the Nature Restoration Promotion Conference and Nature Restoration Expert Panel.

101

In the deliberation, there were some concerns raised
as follows:– A pledge to ensure the conservation of remaining
nature should be made prior to conducting a nature
restoration project.
– The reclamation of Isahaya Bay and the Awase tidal
flat had been developed by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Now the same ministries werestarting a nature restoration project. This might be justone of their public projects like those they had conducted so far, which destroyed nature.
– Leaving restoration projects up to local independentbodies might result in a series of inconsistent projects
for nature restoration. There was no grand design toindicate how the nature of the country should be restored overall.
These concerns were supported by the SDP andCommunist Party in opposition.

4. Outline of the Law for the Promotion of
Nature Restoration and Ministry-specified
Initiatives
4.1 Outline of the law
The required procedures to launch a project for
nature restoration are as follows. These procedures also
comprise a rough flow of the legal processes involved(Fig. 3) (Kamesawa, 2003).
– Setting up a nature restoration committee,– Generating a grand design,– Developing an implementation plan and submitting itto the competent ministers, and– Executing a project and initiating its monitoring.
The outline of the law is as follows:
Purpose (Article 1)
The purpose is to promote the comprehensive implementation of countermeasures for nature restoration, inorder to realize a society co-existing with nature by
securing biodiversity, and to contribute to the conservation of the global environment.
Definition (Article 2)“Nature restoration” in this law stipulates the conservation, rehabilitation, creation and preservation of thenatural environment with the participation of relevant
government agencies or municipal governments, local
residents, NPOs, experts and other various local entities
aiming to restore ecosystems or other natural environments which were destroyed in the past.
Principle (Article 3)
The basic principles of nature restoration include:
1) Realizing a society co-existing with nature by securing biodiversity;2) Enhancing cooperation among local entities, ensuring transparency, and stimulating active and selfmotivated initiatives;
3) Basing all efforts on science with an understandingof the characteristics of the natural environment in
the region, the resilience of nature, and the fine bal-

102

H. ONODERA et al.

Fig. 3 Outline of the Law for the Promotion of Nature Restoration.

ance among and within ecosystems;4) Monitoring the nature restoration status using adaptive management, adding scientific evaluation to theresults, and providing feedback to the project; and
5) Using the case for educating citizens on the naturalenvironment.
Project effecter’s responsibilities (Articles 4 and 5)
These articles stipulate that the national/local governments should cooperate with private organizations intheir nature restoration projects by providing advice etc.,
on the projects in a self-initiated manner.
Coordination with other public interests (Article 6)This generally stipulates the alignment of nature
restoration projects with other public interests, disasterprevention for example. The Natural Parks Law also
includes a similar provision. How they are aligned depends on the specific status or location of each actual
case. This is not to prioritize nature restoration overpublic interests or vice versa.

Nature restoration basic policy (Article 7)
The Japanese Government should formulate a basic
policy for comprehensive promotion of nature restoration measures. The Minister of the Environment should
draft this policy consulting with ministers from the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and theMinistry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, while
listening to public opinions at large; and call for Cabinet
approval.
The basic policy provides for: 1) basic items regarding nature restoration, 2) a nature restoration committee,
3) a grand design and implementation plan and4) promotion of natural environmental education. The
basic policy is stipulated to be reviewed on a cycle ofabout five years.
Nature Restoration Committee (Article 8)
The effecter of a nature restoration project should organize a committee composed of local residents, NPOs,
experts and government agencies prior to conducting a
project in a specific region. The administrative tasks ofIdea of Nature Restoration

the committee are: 1) generating the grand design,2) discussing a draft of the implementation plans and3) communicating the required details for project implementation. Being compatible with the basic policy, thegrand design specified in #1 above stipulates a target
area, objectives and participants of the committee andtheir roles. Requirements for organizing and operating
the committee are determined by the committee.
Implementation Plan of the Nature Restoration
Project (Article 9)
The project effecter should generate an Implementing Plan of the Nature Restoration Project based on thebasic policy. The plan specifies the names of the effecter
and committee, the target area and project description,and the relationship with surrounding areas. Also, theplan must be generated based on sufficient discussionsof the committee and consistent with the grand design ofthe project. The effecter should submit a copy of theplan to the competent ministers and relevant governors
with the grand design attached. The competent ministers
or relevant governors may provide necessary advices.
The competent ministers must listen to the opinions of
the Nature Restoration Expert Panel prior to providing
advice.
Agreement (Article 10)
As it is important to continue long-term maintenanceincluding monitoring, the effecter who operates maintenance may need to make an agreement with a landowner. The agreement is just for general purposes and is
not binding.
Consultation support system (Article 11)
This requests the competent ministers to set up a
consultation support system available for effecters.
Considerations for smooth implementation (Article 12)
When the national or local governments are requested for their permission regarding a nature restoration project, they should respond with proper considerations to enable the smooth and speedy implementationof the project. Relaxing regulations or omitting procedures is not intended.
Announcements and reports (Articles 13 and 14)
The competent ministers must announce every year
the status of each nature restoration project and theimplementation plans and grand designs of projects theyreceived. Prior to the announcement, the competent
ministers may ask the effecter to report on the progressof the implementation plan if needed.
Required measures (Articles 15 and 16)
This provides requests to the national or local
governments. It suggests they should:– Support each nature restoration project financially,– Promote or enhance educational or PR activities on thenatural environment,– Facilitate provision of information on nature restoration,– Promote scientific technologies, and– Develop agriculture/forestry/fisheries industries which
are compatible with the local environment.
The financial item includes just general matters and103

does not support the idea of increasing the budget or
grants.
Nature Restoration Promotion Conference and Nature
Restoration Expert Panel (Article 17)
The Japanese government shall establish a Nature
Restoration Promotion Conference composed of officials from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministryof Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and the Ministryof Land, Infrastructure and Transport, to facilitatecommunication for comprehensive, effective and efficient implementation of nature restoration. These three
ministries should create an expert panel as well to provide the Nature Restoration Promotion Conference withexperts’ opinions.
Competent ministers (Article 18)
The Minister of the Environment, the Minister ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the Minister ofLand, Infrastructure and Transport, are defined as thecompetent ministers.
4.2 Implementation status of the Law for the Promotion of Nature Restoration and ministryspecified initiatives
4.2.1 Implementation status of the law
The Law for Promotion of Nature Restoration was
enforced from January 1, 2003 and was actually put into
practice after its basic policy was approved by the Cabinet on April 1, 2003. In July 2003 the Arakawa
Taroemon district, where an old stream channel area inwhich the acidification had become serious after thechannel was bypassed, volunteered to hold the firstcommittee for wetland restoration. This led to establishment of a nature restoration committee for the Kushiro
Wetland in November, 2003. Eighteen committees havebeen formed throughout Japan as of February 2007. For
the Kushiro Wetland and the Aso Grassland, large committees with over 100 members were formed (Table 4).
The committee for the Yanbaru River/Beach nature
restoration, which was established in June 2004, wasdissolved in January 2007 because they could not reacha consensus on the target area or project contents nor
could they generate a grand design. This shows that theparticipation of various entities is encouraging on one
hand, but might make it more difficult to reconcile
different opinions on the other hand.
The Nature Restoration Expert Panel consists of
12 members with a wide range of expertise including
the zoology, botany, green architecture, aquatic biology,
conservation ecology and so on. The Panel held meetings five times through 2006. Since the natural restoration committees have some experts participating intheir respective meetings, competent ministers provide
no advice on specific implementation plans based on
opinions from the Expert Panel.
4.2.2 Ministry-specified initiatives and overseas
study cases
Besides nature restoration committees stipulated in
the law, relevant ministries have been developing various initiatives including projects launched before the

104

H. ONODERA et al.

Table 4 Status of Nature Restoration Committees.
Currently, 18 committees are operated to generate grand designs or implementation plans throughout Japan (As of March 2007).
Committee Name

Prefecture

Arakawa Taroemon Area
1 Nature Restoration
Committee

Saitama2

Kushiro Wetland Nature
Restoration Committee

Asahata Retarding Basin,
Tomoe River Basin Area
Nature Restoration
Committee
Tama River headstream
4 Nature Restoration
Committee
3

Bodies Engaged
ArakawaｰJoryu River Management Office;Kanto Region Development Bureau, MLIT

Date
Formulated

Activities

Members

Date Grand
DesignGenerated

Date Implementation
Plan Submitted

2003/7/5

Discussed conservation and restoration of an old channel area
where aridification has proceeded.

67

2004/3/31
Revised on:
2006/5/28−

Kushiro Nature Conservation Office,Kushiro Development and Construction
Department,
Kushiro Wetland Forest Environment
Hokkaido
Conservation Center,
Kushiro District Public Works Management
Office,Kushiro Sub-prefectural Office

2003/11/15

Discussed restoration of the Kushiro wetland where aridification
has proceeded due to incoming gravel, dirt, etc.

123

2005/3/31

2006/2/28 (Takkobu)
2006/1/31 (Minami
Shibecha)
2006/1/31 (Setsuri,
Hororo)2006/8/1(Kayanuma)
2006/8/1(Kuchorogawa River)

Shizuoka Public Works Office, Shizuoka
Shizuoka Prefecture;
Shizuoka Construction Office, City of Shizuoka

2004/1/29

Discussed conservation and restoration of the naturalenvironment including recovery of vegetation at the original
Asahata Swamp in the Asahata retarding basin and other topics
of concern.

57

2007/3/1−

Kosuge Village
Tama River Genryu Research Institution

2004/3/5

Discussed restoration of the forests, river-scenery and othertopics for all of Kosuge Village, Yamanashi Prefecture.

39

−

−

Yamanashi

Konoyama Conservation and5 Utilization Promotion
Committee

Osaka

Environment Conservation Division, Kishiwada
City

2004/5/25

Discussed restoration of deciduous-tree forests with mainly
Quercus serrata and/or Quercus acutissima , or evergreen trees
with mainly Castanopsis or Quercus around Mt. Konoyama
where bamboo thickets are spreading.

39

2004/10/21

2005/6/1

Kashibaru Wetland Area
6 Nature Restoration
Committee

Saga

Environment Division, Saga Prefecture

2004/7/4

Discussed restoraration of the wetland which has been degraded
due to ecological succession that is causing emergence of
certain vesigations or piles of dead vegetation.

42

2005/1/26

2005/3/31

Fushinogawa Debouchure
7 Area, Tidal Flat Nature
Restoration Committee

Yamaguchi

Environmental Policy Division, Fisheries
Promotion Division, Port and Harbor Division
and River Division, Yamguchi Prefecture;
Forestry and Fisheries Division andEnvironment Conservation Division, YamaguchiCity

2004/8/1

Discussed restoration and maintenance of nature on the tidal
flat at the Fushinogawa debouchure.

57

2005/3/31−

Kasumigaura Tamura Okijuku
8 Tosaki Nature Restoration
Committee

IbarakiKasumigaura River Office, Kanto Region
Development Bureau, MLIT

2004/10/31

Discussed restoraiton of the lakefront at the head of
Kasumigaura.

66

2005/11/27 2006/11/27 (Ａ zone)

9

Kunugiyama Nature
Restoration Committee

Saitama

Saitama Prefecture, Kawagoe City, Tokorozawa
City, Sayama City, Miyoshi Town, NGOs, others

2004/11/6

Discussed inheritance of historical/cultural/environmental
values from the lowland forest, "Kunugi yama area" inMusashino, which covers Kawagoe, Tokorozawa, Sayama, andMiyoshi Cities.

78

2005/3/12−

10

Yawata Wetland Nature
Restoration Committee

2004/11/7

Discussed restoration of the Yawata wetland in the Garyu
Mountain area.

36

2006/3/31

2006/10/30

53

2006/2/2

2006/7/13

11

Kami Sarobetsu Nature
Restoration Committee

Nogawa 1st/2nd Retarding
12 Basin Nature Restoration
Committee

Geihoku Regional Office and Nature
Hiroshima Conservation Office, Hiroshima Prefecture;othersHokkaido Regional Environmental Office;
Wakkanai Development and Construction
Department;
Hokkaido Kushiro District Public Works Management
Office;Soya Sub-prefectural Office, Toyotomi Town;
NPO Sarobetsu Eco Network

Discussed restoration of Toyotomi Town in Hokkaido where theSarobetsu Wetland in the national park coexists with adjacent
farmland.
2005/1/19

Tokyo

Construction Division#2, Kitatama Nanbu
Construction Office, Bureau of Construction,
Tokyo Metropolitan Government

2005/3/28

Discussed restoration of a diverse river environment which waslargely damaged due to changed land use.

58

2006/92006/10/16

Gamoh Tidal Flat Nature
13
Restoration Committee

MiyagiTohoku Regional Environmental Office; Nature
Conservation Division, Miyagi Prefecture;
Environment Management Department, City of
Sendai;Gamo Conservation Society;Wild Bird Society of Japan, Miyagi Prefecture
Branch2005/6/19

Discussed conservation and/or restoraiton of a valuable tidalflat environment which is an imporatant habitat for migrant birds(e.g. snipes or plovers) and costitutes an important source ofbenthos.

26

2006/9/16−

Moriyoshi Sanroku Plateau
14 Nature Restoration
Committee

Akita

Nature Conservation Division and Forest
Environment Office, Akita Prefecture

2005/7/19

Discussed restoration of the broad-leafed forest in theMoriyoshi Mountain area, which was once developed to makegrassland, along with conservation of its surrounding
environment.

21

2006/3/31

2006/10/20

Takegashima Marine Park
15 Nature Restoration
Committee

Tokushima Environment Department, Kaiyo Town

2005/9/9

Discussed restoration of marine ecosystems, mainly corals.

49

2006/3/31−

16

Aso Grassland Nature
Restoration Committee

Kumamoto Kyushu Regional Environment Office

2005/12/2

Discussed maintainance/conservation/restoration of the Aso
grassland.

124

2007/3/7−

17

Sekiseishoko Nature
Restoration Committee

Naha Natural Environment Office;Okinawa Development and Construction Department,
Okinawa General Bureau

2006/2/27

Discussed restoration of coral-reef ecosystems through a
project to restore the coral community, and an initiative to
reduce the load on coastal land areas by preventing red soil
runoff as well as protecting the well-developed coral reef.

95

−

−

18

Tatsukushi Nature
Restoration Committee

Kochi

2006/9/9

Discussed reducing burdens on the coastal environment by
removing sediment from the sea bottom, preventing runoff fromforests or rivers, and reducing influx of gravel/dirt or sewage
water in order to restore the coral reef in Tatsukushi Bay.

71

−

−

Chugoku-Shikoku Region Environmental Office,
Kochi Prefecture;
Tosashimizu City

law. At the Ministry of the Environment, despite thedecline in the overall budget for natural parks and otherprojects from 14.7 billion yen in 2002 to 12.2 billion
yen in 2006, its partial budget for nature restoration has
increased to 1.7 billion yen from 0.9 billion yen during
the same period. The Ministry of the Environment havebeen conducting nature restoration projects at naturalparks and national wildlife protection areas in 23 districts across Japan, with twelve committees for nature
restoration involved (Fig. 4).
At the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisher-ies or the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport,
nature restoration projects have been conducted as a partof public works such as a farmland consolidation andriver/harbor projects. In the fourth review meeting for
the New Biodiversity Strategy in 2006, 144 projects
were nominated for nature restoration research or projects by the three ministries. These 144 projects included
projects related to 18 committees, excluding some local
independent projects.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
has proceeded with the river/harbor projects aligned

Idea of Nature Restoration

105

National Parks- conducted under MOE (the Ministry of the Environment)- 7 areas- 100% national-treasury financed

Projects Sites 2007
Sarobetsu

Quasi-National Parks/
National Wildlife Protection Areas ※(wetland restoration)Moriyoshi Sanroku Kogen Plateau- financed by Natural Environment Improvement Subsidies(forest restoration)）- 12 areas- subsidy rate: 45%

Kushiro Wetland

Lake Biwa(wetland restoration)(reed field restoration, satelite lakes restoration)

Other areas (FYI)- subsidies provided to projects launched before 2006
- 5 areas

旧地区名：臥竜山麓湿原
YawataWetland

Izunuma, Uchinuma

Kosado East

Hyonosen Sanroku(wetland restoration,
grassland protection)(lake ecosystem restoration)(Ibis feedingarea protection)

Gamoh Tidal Flat(tidal flat restoration)

Harima Reservoirs※(aquatic ecosystem restoration)

Kunugiyama※(lowland forest restoration)

former Garyusanroku Wetland(wetland restoration)
Fushinogawa Tidal Flat※(tidal flat restoration)

Sanbanse(tidal flat restoration)

Kashibaru Wetland※(wetland restoration)
Odaigahara(forest ecosystem restoration)Aso(second grassland restoration)

Utsukushigahara

Takegashima(coral community restoration)※ Projects launched in anational wildlife protection
area before FY2007 arecovered by the Natural
Environment Improvement
Subsidy.

Tanzawa Daisen(forest restoration)(grassland restoration)

Tatsukushi(coral community restoration)
Manko ※
(tidal flat restoration)

Amami Islands(coral community restoration,
coastal vegetation restoration)

Ogasawara(alien species control): MOE project: Subsidy financed

Sekiseishoko(coral community restoration)※: Others(100% prefecture-financed, etc.)

Fig. 4 Ongoing nature restoration projects.

with the social capital improvement plan approved by
the Cabinet in October, 2003. Specifically, they are
restoring nature along rivers, creating multi-naturerivers and constructing beaches, using rates of restoration of lost nature along waterfronts, i.e., rivers or
beaches, as the criteria. For wetlands or tidal flats, they
are conducting initiatives using the similar criteria.
Outside of Japan, European countries and the UnitedStates are promoting advanced initiatives in nature
restoration. For example, the formally straightened
channel of the Kissimmee Stream in Florida in the U.S.
was restored to its original meandering shape in an attempt to rehabilitate the Everglades wetland. In
Denmark, a tidal flat and forest on a reclaimed island in
the Waden Sea was restored. In Seoul, South Korea, aconduit-cover over the Cheonggyecheon River, on
which a highway once ran, was removed and the urban
area regained waterfront scenery. This urban riverrestoration project along with a review of transportation
policies has brought more customers to the hotels on thebanks of the Cheonggyecheon River and attracted business-complex tenants back to the river sides.

5. Case Studies
As a specific case, a nature restoration project for theKushiro Wetland will be examined here with a description of its background, process, concept, implementation
status and issues.
5.1 Deterioration and loss of the Kushiro Wetland
The Kushiro Wetland situated in eastern Hokkaido is
the largest wetland in Japan, with an area of approxi-

mately 20,000 ha. In 1980, it was the first to be
inscribed in Japan as a wetland under the Ramsar Convention, and its was designated as a national park ofJapan in 1987.
The hydrological basin area surrounding the wetland
stretches for about 250,000 ha, more than ten times aslarge as the wetland itself. The basin has towns and villages, the total population of which is approximately
240,000. The wetland is located in the downstream partof the basin (Fig. 5). After World War II, the population
around Kushiro City grew and a city of 200,000 residents was built by developing the southern part of thewetland. Since there was a policy for promoting thedairy industry in 1960, agricultural land (meadow or
pasture) was rapidly developed. Peat bogs were drainedby constructing straight bypass channels for the
meandering river or creating covered/open ditches, andthe farm land was expanded. The hills surrounding thewetland were rapidly deforested, and plantations oflarch, Sachalin Fir and so on spread. This land development eroded over 20% of the wetland in the 50 years
after the war. In addition to those construction works,
other changes occurred such as lowered groundwaterlevels, decreased submerging frequency and increased
dirt/nutrient inflow due to development. As a result, asignificant influence was revealed clearly in the rapid
increase in alder/withy groves in the wetland (whichgrew by 2.4 times in the 20 years since 1970), especiallyafter 1980 (Ministry of Environment, 2004).
Due to the loss or degradation of the wetland,
the habitat of the Japanese huchen Ssalamandrella
keyserligii, symbolic of Kushiro Wetland wildlife, has
deteriorated. The endangered Blakiston’s fish owl has

106

H. ONODERA et al.

Fig. 5 Kushiro Wetland and its Water Basin.
The nature restoration project targets the whole basin. Pilot projects are conductedin the area surrounding the wetland.

not been found around the wetland since 1970. Its
ecosystems, which involved the wetland, rivers and forests, have been destroyed, affected by the environmentof whole basin area (Ministry of Environment, 2004).
5.2 Progress of wetland restoration initiatives
Strong concern about the deteriorated wetland triggered the gathering of a review committee suggested by
the Rivers Department of the Hokkaido Regional
Development Bureau. In 2001, the committee compiled
a proposal to halt degradation of the wetland throughconservation of the river environment. The committee
chose restoring the wetland condition to its level at thetime of Ramsar registration, when the wetland had notexperienced major changes yet as a long-term objective
and regaining and maintaining its status of the year 2000
as a short-term objective. In order to maintain its current

status, they recognized the necessity of reducing sediment accumulation and nitrogen effusion load to thesame level as 20 years ago. Consequently, the concrete
countermeasures they proposed consisted of twelve
items, including dirt-inflow control using waterside
trees or silt basins, tree planting for deteriorated hilly
areas, restoration of the wetland and reuse of theoriginal meandering stream channel. The Ministry of theEnvironment launched a nature restoration project for
the Kushiro Wetland in 2002 based on their policy offurther enhancing the conservation of national parks andwildlife management. A working-level meeting to discuss projects organized the concept and procedures ofnature restoration for the wetland, compiling them as theKushiro Method. The Kushiro Method was used as the
grand design, which they generated later.
After the Law for the Promotion of Nature Restora-Idea of Nature Restoration

tion was approved, a nature restoration committee wasformed in 2003. Though the committee was based on
the existing discussion system framework, various
administrative sectors including agriculture, forestry andeducation were also newly added. Moreover, participants with various backgrounds, such as experts fromvarious fields, citizens groups, relevant entities ofagriculture, forestry and fisheries, local residents,and land owners, also joined the committee (currently,
123 members). After the grand design was compiled in
2005, five implementation plans for forest restoration,
river restoration and dirt-inflow prevention were developed and implemented.
5.3 Principles, scope and objectives of the project
The grand design provides ten principles which areimportant when initiating a nature restoration project.
They include:
1) A broad vision to cover the entire water basin,
2) Passive restoration,– Conservation of remaining nature first– Facilitating resilience of nature
3) Executing adaptive management,
4) Maintaining an effective balance between nature
restoration and local industries or riparian work,5) Disclosing information,and others.
A heated argument was provoked in the committee
over the scope of the project, i.e., whether the agricultural land in the water basin should be included in thetarget areas of the nature restoration project. They
agreed to target the whole basin area the ecosystems ofwhich affect the wetland, and to emphasize the Kushiro
Wetland as the first priority for conservation activities.
Regarding objectives for nature restoration, thevision of the closest future they determined to aim at
was: “a wetland, where the Blakiston’s fish owl andJapanese huchen can live without the danger of extinction and which brings sustainable benefits to people,
with the state of its nature that prior to Ramsar.” As theobjectives for entire basin, they selected the following
items:
1) Restoring ecosystems of the wetland in terms of both
quality and quantity.
– Sustaining the current size of the wetland.
– Improving the quality and quantity of rivers andforests in the basin.
– Preventing the extinction of species.
2) Recovering the circulation that helps maintain theecosystems of the wetland.
– Regaining healthy physical circulation.
– Reducing sediment accumulation and incoming
polluted water.
3) Creating a society that facilitates people’s sustainablecommitment to the wetland.
– Enhancing understanding and participation of theresidents in the basin area.
– Promoting environment-friendly industries andlifestyles.

107

The committee also agreed to set numerical targets inthe future based on the accumulated information andtheir discussions in an attempt to separately evaluate thechanges that might have occurred in the basin area notrelated to any specific project (Kushiro Wetland Nature
Restoration Committee, 2003).
5.4 Implementation status and issues of ongoingprojects
To achieve the above objectives, the following sector-specific measures were chosen:
1) Conserving and restoring ecosystems and habitats ofrare wildlife in the wetland.
2) Conserving and restoring the stream environment.
3) Conserving and restoring forests.
4) Restoring water and physical circulation patterns.
5) Preventing sediment accumulation.
6) Promoting sustainable use and environmental education.
The implementation plan and the assessment/inspection method of the project were discussed in a sectorspecific subcommittee formed under the nature restoration committee. The implementation status and issues ofongoing projects are described in the following section.
5.4.1 Conservation and restoration of the wetland
In the Hirosato area located at the southeastern endof the Kushiro wetland, the Ministry of the Environment
is conducting research and a project in cooperation withexperts and NPOs aimed at restoring the wetland after
farming. The goal is to establish a series of proceduresfrom target setting to monitoring and evaluation, and todevelop technologies for wetland restoration. (The target
area is approximately 260 ha including about 80 ha ofold farmland). The state of the wetland in the late 1960s,
when the land had not yet been developed for agricultural purpose, was chosen as the target level. Therefore,
current vegetation which has remained the closest in
state to that of the 60s’ was designated a reference site to
be a target of the restoration (Fig. 6). As a result of adetailed scientific investigation, the factors hinderingvegetation recovery in former farmland were identified
as lowered groundwater levels and wider fluctuation inwater levels. To address these issues, an experiment was
conducted creating a plot in former farmland. The
experiment involved digging about 20-40 cm in the soilof the plot to elevate the groundwater level to the surface, and observing the rehabilitation progress of thewetland vegetation. The research and projects werealways conducted with the closest attention to notaffecting the natural environment. For example, whenobserving red-crowned cranes, adequate distance was
kept carefully. We intend to develop effective measuresfor nature restoration based on the results of own
monitoring of water levels and vegetation. As we focus
on passive restoration, it is desirable to restore vegetation by raising the water level of the old Setsuri Riverthat runs through the greenery for farming. For this adjacent farmland, the increased water level is inconvenient
and this is a problem to be tackled (Nakamura et al.,108

H. ONODERA et al.

Fig. 6 Hirosato Area overview.
Divided into seven areas based on the findings of detailed research. Pilot plots were created on old farmland.
Reference plots were designated in Carex lasiocarpa reed community.

2003).
The upstream farmland, including the Minamishibecha area, has a problem of stagnant pools caused byuneven settlement of peat soil. Disaster-prevention
actions have been taken to improve farming drainages in
an attempt to revitalize the farmland. Among theseactions, creating and maintaining grit tanks to reduce
sediment accumulation are conducted as part of nature
restoration projects (Ministry of Land, 2006a).
In the future, a technology integrating ecology andcivil engineering will be required for solving problems,a common ground can be reached with trade-offs onwater levels, for example. More fundamentally, a betterbalance among different values should be pursued. Thebalance between the protected area of the wetland andthe area to be developed for farming should be reviewed
to meet changes in the social economy or people’s
awareness in the region.
5.4.2 Reuse of the original meandering stream
channelSlowly meandering rivers characterize the Kushiro
Wetland. In order to reuse the original stream channel
which has not been used since the straight bypass channel was constructed, the Kayanuma area, where themain stream of Kushiro flows into the Kushiro Wetland,

Fig. 7 A Pilot Plot for Restoring the Old Channel in the
Kayanuma Area.

The straight bypass channel will be filled so the whole amountof water will flow through the old channel. Surplus soil fromthe bypass construction work remaining on the right riberbank
will be removed. (photograph by Kushiro Wetland River
Environment Conservation Committee, 2001)

was designated as a priority site of the project. The
project’s implementation plan was discussed and developed by the Hokkaido Development Agency (Fig. 7).
This plan includes:
1) Reducing sediment accumulation in the central partof the wetland.

Idea of Nature Restoration

2) Restoring riparian habitats of the wetland.
3) Restoring riparian vegetation of the wetland by rehabilitating floodplains.
4) Reusing the original meandering stream channel byscouring sediment from it and sending the full flowof the water through the old channel in an attempt torestore the original landscape (Ministry of Land,2006b).
(The length of pilot channel was extended by 2.1 km).
Various opinions arose over reusing the old channel.
Lectures were organized for the local residents in response to their concerns for stagnant pools which mightoccur in surrounding farmland. The possible impact on
the riparian animals or plants in the ox-bow lake of theold channel area was also discussed. Consequently, mostof the original-channel area, except for some parts
which were closely related to farmland and rare plants
upstream, was designated a pilot area in an attempt torestore the original stream channel. What could berestored or lost by conducting a restoration projectneeded to be clarified in order to achieve agreement on
objectives and implementation methods. Different opinions discussed were:– More weight should be put on the entire basin because
the target under consideration is currently limited tothe project implementation area.
– A method should be developed that makes the most of
the resilience of nature.
As a result of the discussions, the plan was revised asfollows:

109– Filling up the straight bypass stream channel, which
was going to remain as it was, but without water in theprevious plan, after use of the old channel has commenced again; and restoring the groundwater level andwetland vegetation.
– Removing the mounds of surplus soil from the bypass
construction and submerging the area more broadly
and frequently.
Alignment with basin-wide maintenance was also
specified in the revised plan.
5.4.3 Conservation and restoration of the forests
In the Takkobu area, in the eastern part of theKushiro Wetland, a local NPO and the Ministry of theEnvironment have jointly developed a model case fornatural forest restoration. First, the following areas wereselected as targets:– Areas with nature preferable for conservation.
– Areas where forest restoration needs to come first inorder to prevent runoff and improve ecosystem
sustainability.
Selections were made based on geological andvegetation data with a view of the entire basin (approximately 4,200 ha) as a target area, as this initiative
focuses on the entire basin area (Fig. 8). A forest withwilder nature existing in the area (a broad-leaved
deciduous forest including oak trees) was designated asa restoration model to be aimed for. Then, experiments
on natural forest restoration were launched at several
pilot spots with different conditions in the forest-restoration prioritized area. The NPO proceeded with grow-Fig. 8 Conservation/Restoration priorities in the Takkobu Area.
Catchment basin is targeted. Conservation priority (1) andrestoration priorities (2)-(4) are shown.

110

H. ONODERA et al.

ing native-bred seedlings and tree planting experimentswith local residents aiming at restoration of naturalforests in the area including bamboo thickets anddeteriorated land designated by a local trust. The Ministry of the Environment started an ecological succession
project in the larch-planted forest adjacent to the wetland in an attempt to transform it to the original natural
native forest, using the seeds of broad-leaved trees
remaining in the area (the target area is 150 ha andincludes a 100 ha larch-plantation). Obstacles that hinder a young broad-leaved tree from establishment or
growth (e.g., expanded bamboo thickets or deer browsing on them) were alleviated to facilitate restoration.
Another experiment to investigate how specific efforts,such as cutting bamboo, disturbing the land surface, setting up a deer-proof fence or thinning trees, could help
the establishment and growth of broad-leaved trees isalso being conducted. Monitoring using trees or forest
animals as indicators has started as well. An effort isbeing made to optimize those sites so that they can beutilized for environmental education (Ministry of theEnvironment, 2006).
Most of the hilly areas surrounding the Kushiro wetland are private land. On private land, larch trees areoften planted while broad-leaved trees which are beneficial for timber industry are logged. Some major forest
owners are trying to change their plantation forests tomixed or broad-leaved forests. Therefore it is a challenge to consider how a joint effort with an NPO could
be expanded to a basin-wide initiative to restore naturalforests.
The three initiatives mentioned above are the precedents. It is important to provide the knowledge andknow-how gained from these initiatives to the planningand implementation of future projects, and to upgrade
these initiatives to basin-wide efforts. To realize this,different government organizations involved in a projectneed to recognize that the basin hosts different ecosystems that are closely related to each other. Then, theyshould get a firm understanding of how all the measureare connected and make efforts to enhance the connection among them. In this process, it is useful to convert
all the information concerning the basin into geographic
data using GIS, and compile a natural environment
information map. This way, the current status and issuesof the wetland can be shared among all entities involved.
Currently, the nature restoration initiatives for theKushiro Wetland have not been broadly communicatedto the local residents. Each individual living in the basinshould be proud of the wetland and consider the conservation and restoration projects as their own responsibility. They also need to review their lifestyles to improvethem. Otherwise the nature restoration projects will
never be accomplished successfully. It is essential toaccumulate visible accomplishments from the first projects launched in the area surrounding the wetland andto establish a commitment system that promotes active
participation of the local people and allows them toappreciate fully the gifts from the wetland. Also, it isimportant to ensure sharing or disclosure of information
by forming committees, holding local meetings andtaking other opportunities; to reconcile differing values
patiently; and to build up a local consensus to protect
the wetland.

6. Future Direction of Nature Restoration
As described above, the nature restoration project isstill in the learn-by-doing stage, and further experience,
especially on-site trials will need to be accomplished inorder to improve restoration technologies and planningsystems. Here are some focal points for this procedure.
6.1 Land restructuring to adapt it to a society with adeclining population
According to some estimates, the population in Japan
will drop below 100 million in the next half century anddecrease to 40 million in a century. Since population
decline and urbanization usually occur simultaneously,
the population of rural areas where people are forced tolead an inconvenient lifestyle will sharply decline. How
can we manage to maintain and conserve uninhabited
forests that account for 70%-80% of the country?
Japan’s land will have to be rearranged based on thefollowing major categories: okuyama areas (where natural ecological succession is prioritized), rural areas(where minimal human support is needed for a softlanding) and urban areas (where lost nature should berestored). Then, we will need to use the land more effectively by making the best use of ecosystems just as they
are with minimal human interference. These steps are
essential regarding public finance distribution as well.
6.2 Responding to affluent society
Economic affluence elevates the demand level forthe environment and nature. Nature or natural environments are sought for a better living environment inurban areas (though tourism in urban areas is also
important in view of recent tourism trends), and forrecreation or other purposes in okuyama or mountainous
areas. Most of the nature in urban areas is already gone
and the bigger the city, the bigger the loss. To respond to
this issue, strategic measures for restoring are needed.
For example, it is important to consider steps for restoring hydrophilic nature or biodiversity focusing on
aquatic ecosystems, including beaches, rivers or retarding basins, when deploying strategic measures for restoration. “Strategic” restoration means restoring urban
nature in line with basic knowledge on urban ecosystems. In Europe, nature restoration activities, which takeplace mainly on urban rivers, are significant measuresboosting up domestic consumption as well. This should
be noteworthy to the Japanese when we consider structural change in public projects.
6.3 A concept of nature conservation expanded overtime as another aspect of affluent society
Before the mid 60s, the pressing issue was conserva-

Idea of Nature Restoration

tion of virgin forests, which had rapidly disappeared due
to development of the country. Apart from the argument
over whether the total remaining natural forest thatcovers 20% of the country is adequate, current social
awareness of nature restoration is growing and extending across to new issues: how to manage the satoyama,
planted forests and buffer belts between them. Because
the satoyama where over half of all threatened species
live is an important area in terms of the conservation or
restoration of the country’s ecosystems, buffer belts
adjacent to satoyama and planted forests are importantto the restoration of urban nature.
6.4 Social roles of engineers and experts
As clarified in the Law for the Promotion of Nature
Restoration and among local committees, restorationmust be planned based on the theory of nature. Therefore, experts in biology and ecosystems have a significant role to play. At the same time, the role of engineers
who implement actual restoration activities may be evenmore significant. For adaptive management and its
activities, continuous observation and adequate corrections are required when conducting a project. The
restored ecosystem corridor in the Netherlands gives agood example. Its success is attributed to the thicklayered, middle-class experts in forestry. The future
vision of any local area should be created based on deep
consideration of broad information provided by experts.
This process is essential in implementing a comprehensive, socially accepted project for nature restoration.

7. Conclusion
Among opposing viewpoints which arose in discussions for drafting the Law for the Promotion of Nature
Restoration, the biggest argument was that nature
restoration was just another public project with a different name. As public projects have played the main rolein destroying the nature until now, it is natural for opponents to be skeptical about nature restoration projects.
To alleviate this skepticism, it is important to accomplish nature restoration projects one-by-one, paying
close attention, and to comply with two principles:
firstly, natural ecosystems should be focused on as thebasis of all development or planning practices; and secondly, restoration of degraded nature should be pursued
on a country-wide or block-specified level, and relevant
ministries or the state government should present it as
having the objective of nature restoration.

111

References
Forestry Agency, Annual Report on Trends in Forestry (FY1993)
Annual Report on Trends in Forests and Forestry (FY2004)
Kajihara, H. (2004) Japanese Biota Species Number Survey,
carrying out by the Union of Japanese Societies for Systematic
Biology. Seibutsukagaku (Bioscience), 55; (2).
Kamezawa R. (2003) Shimin to Gyosei no kyodo ni yoru Shizen
Saisei Jigyo no Kisochishiki. In: I. Washitani and H. Kusakari,eds., Shizen Saisei Jigyo – Seibutsutayosei no Kaifuku womezashite, Tsukiji-shokan, 324-350
Kushiro Wetland Nature Restoration Committee (2003) Kushiro
Shitsugen Shizen Saisei Zentaikoso (Grand Design for nature
restoration in the Kushiro Wetland) – Miraino Kodomotachi notameni, 5-12.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (1967-2001)
Nouchi no Ido to Tenyou.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Final Report on
the 2000 Population Census, The 2005 Population Census.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Hokkaido Regional Development Bureau, Kushiro Development and Construction Department; Shibecha Town; Minami-Shibecha
Drainage Maintenance Association (2006a) Kushiro Wetland
Nature Restoration Project, Implementation Plan (Minami
Shibecha Region) of Measures against sediment inflow (settling basin for sand).
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Hokkaido Regional Development Bureau, Kushiro Development and Construction Department (2006b) Kushiro Wetland Nature Restoration Project, Implementation plan of Former River Restoration
Plan in the Kayanuma area.
Ministry of the Environment (1980, 1994) Shizen Kankyo Hozen
Kiso Chosa (Second in 1980, Forth in 1994).
Ministry of the Environment (2003) Satochi Shizen no Hozen
Housaku Sakutei Chosa Hokokusho (FY2002).
Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation Bureau (2004)
Shizen Saisei – Kushiro kara Hajimaru. Natural Environment
Coexistence Technology Association (ed.), 61-76.
Ministry of the Environment, Hokkaido Regional Environment
Office, Kushiro Nature Environment Office (2006) Implementation Plan of Nature Restoration Project in the Takkobu area,
Kushiro Wetland.
Nakamura F., T. Namamura, O. Watanabe, H. Yamada, Y.
Nakagawa, M. Kaneko, N. Yoshimura and T. Watanabe (2003)
Kushiro Shitsugen no Genjo to Shizen Saisei Jigyo no Gaiyo(The current status of the Kushiro Wetland and the outline ofnature restoration projects), Hozen Seitaigaku Kenkyu (Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology), 8, 129-143.
WRI (2001) World Resources 2000-2001.

Notes:
1

Satoyama is the term for a rural area where moderate disturbances associated with human activities contribute to the formation and maintenance of a unique environment. These are vitalto biodiversity conservation because they host crucial habitats
for various species.
(Received 19 December 2007, Accepted 26 March 2008)