Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
# Example 2 Development of a Recycling System and Indication Methods for Recycling Costs by Trade Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association that has a membership comprising almost all manufacturers of product B, a consumable item. Product B is sold to consumers through retail distributors. Product B has been disposed of after use by consumers as non-combustible garbage, but awareness of environmental problems is rising and it has been pointed out that the recycling of product B should be promoted. In response, Association A is looking into establishing a recycling facility for product B, setting up collection boxes at individual retail distributors to collect the disposed product, and commissioning a collecting company to collect the disposed products from retail distributors on a regular basis. In addition, the costs required for collection and recycling of the disposed product (hereinafter referred to as “recycling costs”) are split between the individual members of the association according to the number of their products collected. Since there is also a need to get users to bear the burden of the costs involved in order to improve recycling effectiveness, association A is currently considering making a form concerning an indication method to display the recycling costs (e.g. indicating on the packaging of product B that “recycling costs: XXX JPY).

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

(1) The recycling system in this example is undertaken by the association made up of manufacturers of product B, and joint operations are being applied from the collection of waste to their recycling. Unless the proportion of costs required for recycling, etc. undertaken as a joint operation to the price of product B does become large, it is generally considered to have little influence on competition in the product market.

In addition, even if the recycling system in this example is currently the only system in the industry for this product, in the case that a joint operation is required and there are no alternative means, unless Association A does unjustly restrict the use of the recycling system by entrepreneurs other than association members and does unjustly restrict the independent development of a recycling system by members, it is considered to have little influence on competition in the recycling market.

(2) In addition, in order for Association A's recycling to be efficient, even if the association makes a form concerning an indication method to display recycling costs, unless it forces to comply with this form, it would not present problem under the Antimonopoly Act. However, the deciding of a specific recycling charge fee would present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8(1) (i) of the Antimonopoly Act).
## Example 3 Development of Recycling System by a Trade Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association that has a membership comprising the great majority of manufacturers of product B, a chemical product. In order to deal with environmental problems, Association A is looking into establishing a recycling center and recycling waste from product B.

Specifically, the recycling center will be commissioned to an industrial waste processing operator, which will collect, sort and grind the waste produced by entrepreneurs, and commission another recycling business to conduct recycling.

On the other hand, although the association has no choice but to request that entrepreneurs that use product B bear the operating costs, etc. of the recycling center, since it is difficult to collect such costs directly from each entrepreneur at the time of waste collection, due to product B's qualities, association A is currently considering procuring operation costs, etc. for the recycling center by adding on a fixed amount to the selling price of product B shipped by manufacturers of product B and collecting this fixed amount from the manufacturers of product B.

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

(1) The recycling system in this example is undertaken with the participation of the great majority of domestic manufacturers of product B, and joint operations are being applied from the collection of waste to their recycling. Unless the proportion of costs required for recycling, etc. undertaken as a joint operation to the price of product B does become large, it is generally considered to have little influence on competition in the market for product B.

In addition, even if the recycling system in this example is currently the only system in the industry of this product, in the case that a joint operation is required and there are no alternative means, unless Association A does unjustly restrict the use of the recycling system by entrepreneurs other than association members and does unjustly restrict the independent development of a recycling system by members, it is considered to have little influence on competition in the recycling market.

(2) In addition, with regard to the decision to add on a fixed amount to the selling price of product B as a means of procuring operations costs, this action would result in selling price rise for product B and would cause a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8(1)(i) of the Antimonopoly Act) as a price restriction by an association.
## Example 4 Development of a Recycling System by Manufacturers

### 1. Overview

Multiple manufacturers including company A (hereinafter referred to as “company A, etc.”) produce machinery product B for entrepreneurs, accounting for an approximate 80% share in the market for product B.

When users replace product B with a new model, the manufacturers of product B collect the old products and by commissioning a recycling entrepreneurs recycle the components of the product. However, there are many cases in which users of product B use products from multiple manufacturers and the old products that are collected by the manufacturer are not necessarily the product of the company collecting it. Therefore, in order to proceed with recycling, it is necessary for each manufacturer, after collecting old products, to sort out the products made by other companies and exchange these products for their own products that are collected by other manufacturers as old products. This causes a backlog in recycling due to the complexity in the sorting process of old products.

Therefore, in order to promote recycling of old products, company A, etc. is looking into developing the following recycling system:

(i) To establish a jointly financed separation center to undertake the work of sorting out the old products according to manufacturers.

(ii) Each manufacturer will forward the old products they have collected to a separation center, and in addition to commissioning the job of sorting out the products by manufacturers, will take receipt of their own products that have been sorted out at the center, and recycle the components.

(iii) The costs for the separation center will be paid by each manufacturer in accordance with the number of products received by each company.

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

The recycling system in this example is participated by approximately 80% of all manufacturers of product B. However, joint operations are being limited to the sorting by manufacturer of old products that have been collected, and it is generally considered to have little influence on competition in the product market. However, in the case that the company A, etc. act jointly to deny or restrict use of the recycling system by other manufacturers of product B without rational reason, this would present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (General Designation 1 (Concerted Refusal to Deal)).
# Example 5 Development of a Recycling System and Collection Method for Recycling Costs by an Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association of home appliance retailers in city X, having a membership comprising the great majority of home appliance retailers in that city. The Home Appliance Recycling Law obliges home appliance retailers to take back from four specified kinds of home appliances that have been disposed of and to deliver them to the manufacturer.

Association A is looking into the following method for the efficient collection and transportation of disposed home appliances.

(i) To establish a temporary storage facility for disposed home appliances in city X, and to bring in disposed of home appliances that have been taken back by the retailers from users.

(ii) The transportation from the temporary storage facility to designated collection sites of each manufacturer would be commissioned to a transportation company in a joint operation by Association A.

(iii) The costs required for transportation will be collected uniformly by Association A from each of the home appliance retailers, who will cover their collection and transportation costs by charging a take-back fee to the users.

In addition, with regard to the take-back fee that would be an additional cost charged by the home appliance retailers in city X, if some member of the association does not charge consumers for this cost it would be difficult for other members to charge and therefore there is a concern that it would not be possible to implement collection and transportation with certainty.

Therefore, in order to ensure that collection of the take-back fee is implemented, Association A is considering making payment of the take-back fee in monetary form a direct requirement to users (i.e. not allowing a free take-back).

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

(1) The recycling system in this example is participated by the great majority of home appliance retailers in city X. However, joint operations are limited to the establishment of a temporary storage facility and transportation of disposed home appliances to designated collection sites, and it is generally considered to have little influence on competition in the product market. However, if specified members were unjustly denied use of the facility, this would present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8-1-4 of the Antimonopoly Act).

(2) The Home Appliance Recycling Law stipulates that home appliance retailers can charge users a take-back fee and in order to ensure that recycling activities are implemented, even if Association A made the payment of the take-back fee in monetary form a direct requirement, unless its compliance is enforced, it would not present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act. However, deciding on a specific take-back fee would present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8(1)(i) of the Antimonopoly Act).
## Example 6 Collection Method of Recycling Costs by an Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association of manufacturers of a product made using material B (hereinafter referred to as “product C”), having a membership of more than 90% of manufacturers of product C.

To date, with sales of new products to users (entrepreneurs) manufacturers of product C have taken back product C free of charge once disposed, then recycled it, and sold material B.

However, in recent years in addition to the market price of material B falling due to stagnant economic conditions, environmental concerns are increasing about the practice in which “other wastes” produced in the process of collecting material B from disposed product C have been used as landfill, and now an appropriate alternative method of disposal is being required instead of landfill. This leads to the situation in which the costs required for collection and recycling of waste (hereinafter referred to as “recycling costs”) have risen to three or four times the previous levels.

Because recycling costs to date have been able to be covered by profits on selling off material B from collected disposed product C, collection of disposed product C had been undertaken free of charge. However, due to the above-mentioned circumstances this policy is now in difficulty.

Association A is therefore looking into charging a recycling fee separate to the price of product C itself when collecting disposed product C.

Under law there is no obligation to recycle product C.

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

This example is one in which the sale of the product and the taking back of waste are being integrated and by covering recycling costs through profits of selling off of recycled material B, the costs have not been passed on to users.

However, in the case that, in accordance with changes in the environment surrounding product C, if it becomes a certainty that new costs pertaining to recycling will arise, in order to promote effective recycling, it is deemed inevitable that the costs of recycling will be passed on to the user, and there is a strong social expectation that recycling will be undertaken, even if Association A collects a recycling fee separate to the price of product C itself, unless its compliance is enforced, it would not present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act. However, deciding on a specific recycling fee would present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8(1)(i) of the Antimonopoly Act).
## Example 7 Development of a Deposit System by an Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association comprising manufacturers, distributors and retailers of product B, a consumable item, having a membership of the great majority of companies engaged in this business. From the perspective of promoting recycling and in order to increase the collection ratio for disposed products, Association A is considering developing the following deposit system.

(i) To establish a management and operating Company B for a deposit system.

(ii) To set a figure of 10 JPY as a deposit for product B to be levied by manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Consumers can receive their deposit back for product B at any retailer, not just where they purchased it.

(iii) Retailers will pass the disposed products that have been taken back from consumers to Company B, and will receive the returned deposits and a commission that has been borne by the retailers from Company B. Company B will decide the amount of the commission.

(iv) Company B will, once having paid the costs, pass the disposed products to a recycling contractor. The monies paid by Company B to the retailers and the costs of recycling, and management costs of the disposed products will be billed to each manufacturer, depending on the number of their products collected.

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

From the perspective of promoting recycling, in the case that Association A establishes Company B as a management and operating company for a deposit system, and develops a deposit system in itself, it is not considered to have an influence on competition in the market of product B. In addition, the setting of a deposit figure of 10 JPY would not generally restrict the competitive practices of entrepreneurs, to the extent that the figure returned is the same as that received as a deposit, and it would not generally present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act.
## Example 8 Development of a Deposit System by an Association

### 1. Overview

Association A is a trade association of retailers of product B, a consumable item, in city X, having a membership of the great majority of retailers of product B in city X. In order to actively tackle recycling of the containers of product B, and to increase the collection ratio of these containers, Association A is considering introducing the following deposit system.

(i) In addition to attaching labels to containers as stipulated by Association A, retailers add a deposit of 10 JPY and a commission of 5 JPY to the selling price of product B.

(ii) Association A is responsible for management of the deposits paid by consumers.

(iii) Within the limits of city X, consumers can receive a return on their deposit from any retailer, not just the one from which they bought product B, as long as the label is attached to the container.

(iv) The retailers who pay the deposit to the consumer receive the equivalent sum from Association A.

### 2. Views under the Antimonopoly Act

Even if an association of retailers introduces a deposit system and decides to collect a fixed deposit sum, only when the sum returned is the same as that received as a deposit, it would not generally present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act.

However, the problem of degree to which consumers should bear the retailers' commissions (recycling costs) arising from the introduction of a deposit system should be left to the independent decision of retailers, and if Association A were to set a commission of 5 JPY, this could lead to an increase in the selling price of product B and would therefore present a problem under the Antimonopoly Act (Section 8(1)(i) of the Antimonopoly Act).
Note: Real GDP is at 1990 prices.

Sources: Compiled from Data from China’s Ministry of Communications and China Statistical Yearbook for the total expressway length.

Compiled from U.N., National Accounts Main Aggregates Database for real GDP.

Planned length (target year)	Network to be formed	Current length
Rep.Korea	6,160km(2020)	Network involving 7 north-south roads and 9 east-west roads	2,778km(2003)
China	approx. 85,000km(2030)	Network involving 7 radial roads from Beijing as well as 9 north-south roads and 18 east-west roads	34,200km(2004)

Source: Compiled from data from the national governments.

(Unit: kilometers)
Japan	Indonesia	Rep.Korea	Singapore	Thailand	China	Philippines	Malaysia	Taiwan
1980	2,860	47	1,225	-	-	-	127	-	373
1990	5,074	287	1,551	104	27	522	127	942	382
2000	7,843	530	2,131	150	331	16,285	151	1,195	608
2003	8,540	*	2,778	150	331	29,745	173	1,228	872

Notes:1. Japan: Arterial high-standard highways (total length at the end of each fiscal year), except for the figure for 1980, which represents the total length of national expressways, as the arterial high-standard highway network plan was formulated in 1987.

2. Indonesia: Toll Road.

3. Rep.Korea: National Expressway.

4. Singapore: Expressway. First put into operation in 1981 (54 kilometers).

5. Thailand: Intercity Motorways, Expressway, Concession Highways. First put into operation in 1981 (9 kilometers)

6. China: Expressway. First put into operation in 1988 (174 kilometers).

7. Philippines: North Luzon Expressway, South Luzon Expressway, R-1 Expressway, Metro Manila Skyway, Southern Tagalog Arterial Road, Subic-Tipo Expressway.

8. Malaysia: Toll Road. First put into operation in 1982.

9. Taiwan: National Highway.

Sources: Compiled from statistics and national governments of the countries, IRF, World Road Statistics, and others.
治 水 勘 定

平 成 25 年 度 建 設 事 業 計 画 表

区 分	事業費(千円)(業務取撥費を含む)	左 の 財 源 内 訳	備 考
一般会計より受入(千円)	東日本大震災復興特別会計より受入(千円)	地方公共団体工事費負担金収入(千円)	電気事業者等工事費負担金収入(千円)	前年度剩余金受入等(千円)
都市水環境整備事業費	29,408,000	20,160,000	0	9,248,000	0	0	1 事業費には、業務勘定(項)業務取撥費のうち90,067,622千円を含む2 事業費及び一般会計より受入には、一般会計内閣府所管(組織)沖縄総合事務局(項)沖縄治水事業工事諸費に計上の824,167千円、国土交通省所管(組織)北海道開発局(項)北海道治水海岸事業工事諸費に計上の9,526,000千円及び(項)北海道都市環境整備事業工事諸費に計上の162,000千円を含む3 一般会計より受入には、災害復旧事業等の人件費及び事務費並びに消費税相当額3,376,888千円を除いてある4 東日本大震災復興特別会計より受入には、災害復旧事業の人件費及び事務費相当額362,312千円を除いてある5 一般会計より受入及び地方公共団体工事費負担金収入には、業務勘定(項)業務取撥費のうちの精算還付金等国庫負担額1,687,992千円及び地方公共団体負担額386,765千円を除いてある6 前年度剩余金受入等には、「特別会計に関する法律」第8条第1項の規定による前年度剩余金受入13,400,000千円のほか雑収入2,764,000千円並びに業務勘定に計上の同条の規定による前年度剩余金受入のうち1,000千円及び雑収入のうち1,525,000千円を含む
北海道都市水環境整備事業費	997,000	585,000	0	412,000	0	0
河川整備事業費	474,555,948	382,028,466	0	68,431,486	12,005,996	12,090,000
東日本大震災復興河川整備事業費	26,020,622	0	19,204,209	6,758,742	57,671	0
北海道河川整備事業費	72,185,922	62,815,000	0	8,483,654	887,268	0
離島河川整備事業費	430,000	430,000	0	0	0	0
沖縄河川整備事業費	3,113,342	1,434,000	0	0	1,679,342	0
砂防事業費	90,501,287	67,311,600	0	20,828,687	0	2,361,000
東日本大震災復興砂防事業費	2,094,630	0	1,464,791	629,839	0	0
北海道砂防事業費	4,084,277	3,169,000	0	915,277	0	0
離島砂防事業費	1,324,000	1,324,000	0	0	0	0
沖縄砂防事業費	37,000	37,000	0	0	0	0
多目的ダム建設事業費	58,583,052	38,316,012	0	10,480,219	6,547,821	3,239,000
北海道多目的ダム建設事業費	9,499,261	8,066,329	0	1,329,671	103,261	0
区 分	事 業 費 (千円) (業務取扱費を含む)	左 の 財 源 内 訳	備 考
一般会計より受入 (千円)	東日本大震災復興特別会計より受入 (千円)	地方公共団体工事費負担金収入 (千円)	電気事業者等工事費負担金収入 (千円)	前年度剩余金受入 等 (千円)
沖縄多目的ダム建設事業費	2,488,559	1,595,000	0	67,982	825,577	0	7 建設事業には、受託工事、予備費等を含まない8 多目的ダム建設事業費、北海道多目的ダム建設事業費及び沖縄多目的ダム建設事業費に係る工事別区分の整理については多目的ダム建設事業計画表に掲記する
総合流域防災事業費	8,899,201	8,899,201	0	0	0	0
北海道総合流域防災事業費	760,000	760,000	0	0	0	0
合 計	784,982,101	596,930,608	20,669,000	127,585,557	22,106,936	17,690,000
多目的ダム建設事業計画表
河川名	ダム名	事業費(千円)(業務取扱費を含む)	左の財源内訳	備考
一般会計より受入(千円)	地方公共団体工事費負担金収入(千円)	電気事業者等工事費負担金収入(千円)	前年度剩余金受入等(千円)
(建設事業等)
利根川	八ツ場	9,752,320	4,965,648	1,353,794	3,432,878	0	1事業費には、業務勘定(項)業務取扱費のうち5,426,637千円を含む2事業費及び一般会計より受入には、一般会計内閣府所管(組織)沖縄総合事務局(項)沖縄治水事業工事諸費に計上の447,193千円及び国土交通省所管(組織)北海道開発局(項)北海道治水海岸事業工事諸費に計上の758,178千円を含む3一般会計より受入及び地方公共団体工事費負担金収入には、業務勘定(項)業務取扱費のうちの精算還付金等国庫負担額1,656,774千円及び地方公共団体負担額386,765千円を除いてある4前年度剩余金受入等には、「特別会計に関する法律」第8条第1項の規定による前年度剩余金受入3,239,000千円を含む5建設事業には、受託工事及び予備費を含まない
渡川	中筋川総合開発	1,644,810	1,466,352	162,010	16,448	0
木曽川	新丸山	1,114,330	868,137	232,821	13,372	0
大分川	大分川	4,526,189	3,280,142	726,807	519,240	0
北上川	胆沢	5,483,253	4,266,692	899,629	316,932	0
淀川	天ヶ瀬ダム再開発	5,541,820	3,558,819	1,378,943	604,058	0
岩木川	津軽	15,104,164	8,875,523	2,538,026	451,615	3,239,000
庄川	利賀	1,836,103	1,409,722	414,263	12,118	0
本明川	本明川	134,870	119,833	15,037	0	0
雄物川	成瀬	3,734,378	3,100,252	525,082	109,044	0
豊川	設楽	8,778,996	5,540,961	2,173,143	1,064,892	0
沙流川	沙流川総合開発	3,371,872	2,880,183	491,689	0	0
石狩川	幾春別川総合開発	3,081,106	2,586,617	414,380	80,109	0
天塩川	サンル	3,046,283	2,599,529	423,602	23,152	0
沖縄東部河川	沖縄東部河川総合開発	2,488,559	1,595,000	67,982	825,577	0
球磨川	川辺川	427,444	397,903	22,317	7,224	0
小計	70,066,497	47,511,313	11,839,525	7,476,659	3,239,000
(実施計画調査)
鴻瀬川	鴻瀬川総合開発	247,117	224,181	22,936	0	0
子吉川	鳥海	257,258	241,847	15,411	0	0
河川名	ダム名	事業費(千円)(業務取扱貿を含む)	左の財源内訳	備考
一般会計より受入(千円)	地方公共団体工事費負担金収入(千円)	電気事業者等工事費負担金収入(千円)	前年度剰余金受入等(千円)
小計	504,375	466,028	38,347	0	0
合計	計	70,570,872	47,977,341	11,877,872	7,476,659	3,239,000