The harm inflicted by Minamata disease increased in Japan’s era of high economic growth. At that time, Chisso produced acetaldehyde, a material used for plastics and other plasticizers, and Chisso’s production of acetaldehyde was the largest in Japan. In addition, Chisso Minamata plant played an important role in the local economy with regard to job opportunities and tax revenue.

In around November 1959, the government should have recognized (even though it could not conclude with certainty) that Chisso was highly likely to be discharging organomercury compounds, the causal substance of Minamata disease. However, the government failed to prevent the incidence of Minamata disease from increasing. This was probably because policymakers at that time were worried about the possible negative impacts on Minamata's local economy and Japan's high economic growth. Due to the social conditions at the time, the government failed to prevent harmful impacts on human health from increasing because it did not take strict measures against the responsible companies for a long time. This historical background still provides valuable lessons today, because it shows how important it is to take countermeasures quickly as well as how preventive countermeasures should be taken even when there is scientific uncertainty over the cause of the problem.

### Section 3. Remedies for the Harm Caused by Minamata Disease

The following relief programs are applicable to Minamata disease victims.

## 1 ) Statutory Patient Certification Program and Compensation Agreement

In 1973, the responsible companies and the victims entered into a compensation agreement that provides consolation money (lump-sum compensation), medical expenses, pensions and some other benefits for victims. All patients with certified victim status in accordance with LCPPHD have chosen from the options provided by this compensation agreement.

## 2 ) Political Settlement in 1995

As a lot of Minamata disease victims were denied LCPPHD’s certified victim status and filed lawsuits, conflicts and confusion surrounding Minamata disease remained unsolved. With the intention of bringing about an amicable settlement between the parties concerned, in September 1995, the three ruling parties (Liberal Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party of Japan, and New Party Sakigake) made a proposal for a full and final settlement. Under this framework, the parties concerned agreed to settle the dispute. This framework provides a lump-sum payment, a medical treatment certificate, medical expenses, a medical care allowance and some other benefits to Minamata disease victims who satisfy certain criteria, such as peripheral limb dominant sensory disturbance specific to Minamata disease. Some victims are not

entitled to receive the medical treatment certificate, but they are able to receive a health care treatment certificate and some medical expenses as long as they suffer certain neurological symptoms.

## 3 ) Judicial Damage Compensation

After the August 1985 high court judgment on the $ 2^{nd} $ Kumamoto Minamata disease lawsuit and the 1995 political settlement, there was only one dispute unsettled: the Minamata disease Kansai lawsuit. According to the October 2004 Supreme Court judgment on this lawsuit, the victims without certified victim status in accordance with the LCPPHD are entitled to damage compensation based on different criteria from the requirements stated in the LCPPHD.

## 4 ) Future Minamata Disease Countermeasures

When the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Minamata disease Kansai lawsuit on October 15, 2004, the Minister of the Environment released her statement, saying “We really feel sorry because we failed to prevent damage increasing....I would