Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## 2 災害への対応体制の強化等

（水道施設の耐震化・老朽化対策等の推進）

【25年度予算案263億円】

○ 災害時でも安全で良質な水道水を安定的に供給できるよう、地方公共団体が実施する水道施設の耐震化・老朽化対策等の推進に要する費用に対して補助

(参考) 【平成24年度補正予算案】

- 社会福祉施設の耐震化等整備の推進

(社会福祉施設等耐震化等臨時特例基金の積み増し・延長)

- 自力避難が困難な障害者や児童の入所施設の耐震化などの防災対策を推進するとともに、被災地において福祉サービスの提供や地域コミュニティの再生を支援する共生型福祉施設を整備するため、社会福祉施設等耐震化等臨時特例基金を積み増し、実施期限を1年延長

(（独）福祉医療機構への政府出資金)

- 社会福祉施設や医療施設の耐震化等整備を推進するため、（独）福祉医療機構が低金利かつ長期の貸付を行うことにより設置者の自己負担を軽減できるよう、政府出資により同機構の財務基盤を強化
・最先端の技術の有効性と安全性を評価するためのガイドライン作成などの推進

（独）医薬品医療機器総合機構（PMDA）で、開発に見通しを与え迅速な実用化を促進するための薬事戦略相談の

日本発の革新的医薬品・医療機器の創出や、再生医療製品を国民に迅速かつ安全に提供するため、以下の取組みを

（審査・安全対策の充実・強化）

【25年度予算案17億円】

(参考) 【平成24年度補正予算案】

(臨床研究中核病院等の整備) 【24年度補正予算33億円】

・ 質の高い臨床研究を推進するため、臨床研究中核病院を新たに追加選定し、必要な設備整備等を行う。また、既に整備している臨床研究中核病院等についても、研究の進捗に伴い必要となる設備整備等を行う。

## 【25年度予算案59億円】

アカデミア等の優れた基礎研究の成果を確実に医薬品の実用化につなげるため、（独）医薬基盤研究所に創薬支援戦略室を設置し、創薬関連研究に対する目利き、出口戦略の策定助言、研究支援・知財管理支援、企業連携支援等の本部機能を担うとともに、バイオ医薬関連支援設備などの創薬スクリーニング設備の強化を図り、関係府省や（独）理化学研究所、（独）産業技術総合研究所や大学などの創薬関係機関で構成する「オールジャパンでの創薬支援体制」を構築

【25年度予算案 1 3 0 億円】

(民間投資を喚起する治験環境整備)

## （1） 医薬品・医療機器開発等に関する基盤整備

## (創薬支援機能の強化)

国民が安心して利用できる最新の医療環境を整備するとともに、日本のものづくり力を活かし、世界に先駆けて日本発の革新的医薬品・医療機器を開発するとともに再生医療を推進し、医療関連市場の活性化と我が国の経済成長を実現し、積極的に海外市場へ展開するため、以下の施策を推進

## 1 医療関連分野におけるイノベーションの一体的推進

## Ⅲ 成長による富の創出
(参考) 【平成24年度補正予算案】

(再生医療の臨床応用に向けた人材育成) 【24年度補正予算22億円】

・ 再生医療の臨床応用に向けて、研究者・医師がiPS細胞等の樹立・調製や人体への移植・投与を適切に実施する技術を習得するため、細胞培養加工等トレーニングセンターを東西2ヶ所の研究拠点に設置

（3）世界最先端の医療の実用化の推進

【25年度予算案33億円】

（再生医療の推進）

☐ 再生医療の実用化に向け、ヒト幹細胞の保存方法などの確立、ヒト幹細胞の腫瘍化リスクなどに対する安全性の確保、機能不全となった組織や臓器の治療方法の探索、iPS細胞を利用した創薬等のための研究を支援

## 【25年度予算案54億円】

## （２）医薬品・医療機器開発等に関する研究の推進

・中小・ベンチャー企業に対し、PMDAへの相談・承認申請にかかる手数料を軽減

○ 市販後安全対策を充実するため、電子カルテなどの医療情報を安全対策に利活用する取組みを推進
## 【25年度予算案 2 3 億円】

個別化医療の推進のためのバイオバンク等研究基盤の整備

国立高度専門医療研究センター（ナショナルセンター）が有する高度専門的な知見やネットワークを活用し、生体試料と臨床情報をバイオバンクとして整備するとともに、企業等と共同で研究開発の推進を図り、創薬及び個別化医療（患者一人ひとりの体質や病態にあった有効かつ副作用の少ない治療法や予防法）の実現を目指す

(個別化医療等の推進)

2 若者・女性の能力や地域の需要を成長の原動力に転化する雇用対策の推進等（再掲）

【25年度予算案2，198億円】

（若者の就職支援）（再掲）

【25年度予算案355億円】

（女性の活躍促進）（再掲）

【25年度予算案176億円】

（地域の雇用の創出）（再掲）

【25年度予算案41億円】

（職業訓練を通じた能力開発）（再掲）

【25年度予算案1，626億円】
other words, genetic diversity (difference) that exists between living organisms (individuals) is the source of evolution. Biodiversity we have now can be described as the direct result of genetic diversity.

Then, what benefits are we, humans, getting from biodiversity? We find a variety of benefits of the diversity of ecosystems in that forests generate oxygen through photosynthesis and develop water sources, that rivers bring bountiful soil, that tidal flats purity contaminated water and that coral reefs provide many fish species with places of spawning, growth and feeding, bringing the richness of fish and shellfish. Humans have evolved and built civilization under these environments. Humans benefitted from species diversity as they found ones they could utilize from among various living organisms and created methods to produce grains, vegetables, livestock and other foods in large quantities that made it easier to secure food. Furthermore, genetic diversity, which supports the “existence of biodiversity” as a whole, must be recognized as indispensable for all living organisms on the earth, including humans.

Let us look at the benefits we humans are receiving from ecosystems in more specific terms. Ecosystems have inherent mechanisms to reproduce animals and plants, and humans obtain food, water, lumber, fuels and other things necessary for subsistence thanks to these mechanisms. Ecosystems also have the regulating function to stabilize the habitat environments for living organisms, such as easing of climate change and flooding, water purification, and control of diseases and destructive insects. Moreover, ecological elements are deeply related to our mentality and cultures. Examples include our sense of awe for nature, appreciation of sceneries as recreation, observation of animals and plants, and use of natural things as objects of paintings and haiku. These various benefits of ecosystems humans are receiving are called “ecosystem services” as a whole.

Where do we see the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services it underpins? In the first place, most of what we eat and drink comes from living organisms such as plants and animals, with the only exceptions of water and salt. We may directly make use of living organisms in nature or we may clear off living organisms in nature to grow grains and raise livestock useful for humans. Not a few living organisms have lost their habitats because of environmental contamination by humans. In tandem with the population growth and changing lifestyles, their burdens on the environment have kept increasing and grown too heavy. For example, the area of forests on the earth has been halved by human activities from the level prior to the spread of the impact of human
Figure3-1-1 The Number and Ratio of Known Species of Animals and Plants

Source: Website of Tsukuba Botanical Garden, National Museum of Nature and Science

species of wild fauna and flora against overexploitation through international trade. The convention took effect in 1975, and Japan acceded to it in 1980. The number of parties to the convention increased from 18 in 1975 to 175 in February 2010 (Figure 3-1-4).

Degradation of biodiversity has become actually observable at various locations around the world. While nine subspecies of wild tigers are known, including Bengal tiger and Amur tiger, three subspecies have already become extinct (Photo 3-1-1). According to an investigation by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the population of tigers is estimated to have dwindled from 100,000 to about 3,400 to 5,100 in a period of 100 years to the 21st century. Main reasons behind the decline include poaching for beautiful furs and materials for Chinese medicine and habitat loss due to development of agricultural land.

In Japan, remarkable examples of biodiversity degradation include the decrease in coral cover degree in Okinawa, the changing dynamics of benthic fish and shellfish in Tokyo Bay, and the decrease in alpine plants due to feeding damage from deer in Oze. Coral reefs are exposed to a variety of stresses, including rising sea temperatures, a sharp increase in acanthasters, and the inflow of red soil and nutrient salt. An analysis of field surveys and aerial photos show that areas with high coral cover of 50% or over decreased to just about 18% in 2003 compared with the 1980 level (Figure 3-1-5).

In Tokyo Bay, the long-term monitoring of 20 fixed points in the inner bay area has been going on with the same method for over 30 years (from 1977 to present), resulting in the accumulation of valuable knowledge from a global viewpoint. The survey covers the population, weight and the number of species of benthic fish and shellfish communities as a whole in coastal sea areas heavily susceptible to human activities. The survey results show that both the population and weight tended to increase from the 1970s through the latter half of the 1980s due to water quality improvement in Tokyo Bay, the population and weight decreased sharply from the late 1980s to the 1990s. In the 2000s, while the population stayed at a low level, only the weight of fish species increased, with commonly observed species like squillas, marbled flounders and pennant coralfish.
declining and large-size fish species growing, bringing about changes in biota (Figure 3-1-6). Causes of these developments are unknown, but some changes in the propagation environment, such as the emergence of hypoxic water masses and the shrinkage of shallow sea areas, have been assumed, and resources are unlikely to recover unless these problems are solved.

In Oze National Park that came into being in 2007, since the inhabitation of Sika deer was confirmed in the mid-1990s, vegetation in wetlands has been disrupted by feeding damage. The population survey estimates that 305 Sika deer will have been living in the park in 2020, 3.4 times the population 10 years ago, which may give an irreparable impact on the ecosystem that has never been influenced by Sika deer before. Aside from the possibility that the ecosystem in the national park that has been established over a long period of history may be destroyed, it is also feared likely that the landscape and the cultural value as the object of academic investigations might be damaged or the deteriorating landscape could lead to a decline in the number of visitors to the national park to cause an economic loss to the local community.

Figure3-1-3 Number of Threatened Animal Species in the World by Taxonomic Group

Source: Prepared by Ministry of the Environment based on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Figure3-1-4 Changes in the Number of Contracting Parties to the Washington Convention

Source: Prepared by Ministry of the Environment based on the website of the Secretariat of the Washington Convention
Photo3-1-1 Bengal Tiger

Source: Hollingsworth, John and Karen/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Figure3-1-5 Changes in Coral Cover Degree in Sekisei Lagoon ■ Areas with the high degree of Acropora nobilis

Source: Ministry of the Environment

## 2 Linkages between biodiversity loss and our daily life

The U.N. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment carried out between 2001 and 2005 points out that large and irreversible change in biodiversity due to human activities has occurred in the past 50 years. It also points out that the degradation of ecosystem services would grow significantly worse during the first half of the 21st century and the risk of accelerating and irreversible changes could grow, concluding that coupled with the exacerbation of poverty, these problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.

The main drivers for the degradation of biodiversity include the decrease in forests and overexploitation of biological resources and the burden on biodiversity from either of them is known to be continuing or even growing. The area of forests in the world stood at 4,077.28 million hectares in 1990, but decreased by 8.90 million hectares (0.22%) per year in 1990-2000 and by 7.30 million hectares (0.18%) per year in 2000-2005. While the rate of decrease slowed, the decrease was the net change after deducting the increase from forest planting, vegetation restoration and natural expansion of forests. The continuation of the loss of forest area amounting to as large as about 7.30 million hectares per year presents a major problem (Figures 3-1-7 3-1-8). It is apparent that the decrease in forest area is showing no sign of halting particularly in Africa and Latin America.

On the other hand, global demand for timber is projected to grow at an annual rate of just over 1% in coming years (Figure 3-1-9). While any sharp tightening of timber supply and demand is seen unlikely in the long term in view of the expanding area of highly productive planted forests, it is necessary to continue with efforts for sustainable forest management.

Fisheries production, meanwhile, increased over six times in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, a rate of increase far greater than the population growth of about 2.4 times during the same period, with the rising proportion of overexploitation (Figures 3-1-10, 3-1-11).

As fish and shellfish resources necessary in the future are estimated to keep growing, unless the exploitation of these resources is held within the scope of resource recovery, our everyday life will likely be affected sooner or later (Table 3-1-1). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in December 2009 decided not to increase the number of vessels and days of operation for fishing bluefin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific from the 2002-2004 level, beginning in 2010. In November 2009, a decision was also taken to reduce caches of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean. These decisions mark the start of medium- and long-term efforts to conserve resources.
Figure3-1-6 Secular Change in Fish Catches (Population and Weight) and Number of Fish Species in Tokyo Bay

Source: Laboratory of Fisheries Biology, Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo; National Institute for Environmental Studies

Figure3-1-10 Changes in Global Fisheries Production

Note: Excludes marine plants, marine mammals and miscellaneous fishery products

Source: Prepared by Ministry of the Environment based on FAOSTAT database

Figure3-1-11 Global trends in the state of world marine stocks since 1974

Source: FAO, "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006"

Figure3-1-7 Trends in forest area by region 1990-2005

Source: Prepared by Ministry of the Environment based on FAO, "Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005"

Figure3-1-8 Net Annual Change in Forest Area (2000-2005) (%)

Source: Prepared by Ministry of the Environment based on FAO, "Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005"

Figure3-1-9 Actual and Projected Industrial Roundwood Demand (World Total) by Use

Note 1: Estimates based on actual demand for 1961-1999

2: Model-based calculated figures for 2000 onward

Source: Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Selection of Study Results in FY 2006 (2007)

Table3-1-1 Projected Future Demand for Fishery Products

Per-capita fish and shellfish consumption for food per year	World total demand A	World total production B	Demand - production A - B
1999/2001	16.1kg	133 million tons	129 million tons	- 4 million tons
2015	19.1kg	183 million tons	172 million tons	- 11 million tons

Note: World total demand and world total production include nonfood fish and shellfish.

Source: Materials provided by the Fisheries Agency
## 3 Economic losses from the degradation of ecosystem services

Efforts have been made to capture the economic value of ecosystem services in order to objectively capture the impact of biodiversity loss on our livelihood. There are various types of ecosystem services. It is difficult to make an economic valuation of some of them because of the characteristics of their services. Table 3-1-2 shows some examples of the estimation of the economic value of ecosystem services made to the extent that they can be converted into monetary value.

While active efforts are under way to capture the economic value of natural environment, there is no single identical natural environment subject to the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Since it is very difficult to evaluate ecosystem services by the use of a single yardstick, like pricing of carbon dioxide emissions in global warming countermeasures, full heed needs to be given to this in considering the economic valuation of ecosystem services.

One conceivable way of evaluating the economic value of natural environment is, given the diverse values of natural environment, to divide the economic value into use value and non-use value and subdivide them further into smaller categories. One example is the classification shown in Figure 3-1-12. But the evaluation needs to be

Table3-1-2 Examples of Monetary Value Assessed for Ecosystem Services

Item	Monetary value of ecosystem services	Estimator
Global ecosystem services	About $33 trillion per year	Dr. Robert Costanza, University of Maryland, U.S., 1997, Nature (U.K. science magazine)
Function of pollinating insects	About ¥24 trillion per year	French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), 2008, Ecological Economics (U.S. science magazine)
Rain forests	An annual average of about ¥540,000 per ha, about ¥982 trillion globally	International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), 2009
Degradation of forest ecosystem	An economic loss amounting to about ¥220-500 trillion expected by 2050	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), An Interim Report, 2008
Mangrove forest	Protection and planting of mangroves in Vietnam cost $1.1 million, but save annual expenditures on dike maintenance of $7.3 million	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), D1 (For Policy Makers), 2009
Conservation of global protected areas	Costs about $45 billion annually, but the functions of nature (absorption of carbon dioxide, preservation of drinking water, flood prevention, etc.) are worth $5 trillion per year	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), D1 (For Policy Makers), 2009

Figure3-1-2 Total Economic Value of Natural Environment and Attributes of Economic Values to Coral Reefs