recent movement of strategic environmental assessment in japan n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Recent Movement of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Japan PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Recent Movement of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Japan

Recent Movement of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Japan

236 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Recent Movement of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Japan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. IAIA07, Seoul, June 3-9, 2007 Recent Movement of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Japan Sachihiko Harashina Tokyo Institute of Technology

  2. New York Tokyo Land Use of the Central Business Districts (by Harashina,2004)

  3. Tokyo New York Land Use, 10km from the CBD (by Harashina,2004)

  4. Tokyo New York Land Use, 20km from the CBD (by Harashina,2004)

  5. We Need Growth Management

  6. SEA/EIA Movement in Japan: Summary1/2 • 1972 Cabinet Agreement of introducing EIA • 1973 Ministries started to make their own EIA systems • 1976 First local legislative EIA system in Kawasaki City Environ. Agency tried to send a bill to the Diet (failed) • Around 1980 JEA Studies on SEA • 1981 Local EIA Systems in Kanagawa Pref. and Tokyo Met. • 1983 EIA bill was abolished in the Diet • 1984 EIA under Administrative Guidelines • 1993 Basic Environment Law • 1994 Env. Study System (Quasi SEA) of Kawasaki City Basic Environmental Plan (national level) • 1997 EIA Act was established

  7. National Level EIA Systems: Japan and the US EIA Act NEPA Before EIA Act (1969) (since Jun 1999) (until Jun 1999) Proposal of Project Proposal of Project Proposal of Project, Program, Policy Screening Class 1 Project Class 2 Project Screening Screening by the List of Project EA Houhou-sho (Scoping) Scoping Junbi-sho (DEIS) Junbi-sho (DEIS) DEIS Hyoka-sho (FEIS) Hyoka-sho (FEIS) FEIS Referral by CEQ Permit Permit Permit Process with Public participation/ Public Involvement

  8. SEA/EIA Movement in Japan: Summary 2/2 • 1998 SEA Case of Road Planning in Yokohama City JEA started a study committee on SEA (still working) • 1999 Fujimae tidal flat was protected by EIA process EIA Act was fully implemented • 2001 Information Disclosure Act was implemented SEA Case of Nagano Pref. started (meeting-based way) • 2002 SEA Local Ordinance of Saitama Pref. (First one) Plan EIA of Tokyo Metropolitan Gov. JBIC Guideline for EIA • 2003 First Case of SEA by Saitama Pref. • 2004 JICA Guideline for EIA (including SEA) • 2006 Introduction of an SEA system was specified in the 3rd Environmental Basic Plan (as an important item) • 2007 National Level Common SEA guideline by MOE

  9. Towards Sustainable Development:Strategic Environmental Assessment • Most EIAs are applied at project level: It is too late for controlling human activities. • EIA should be applied at much earlier stages of decision-making (strategic stages). Policy, Plan or Program (Three Ps) • The real way for sustainable development: Needs Analysis, Mitigating Cumulative Impacts

  10. A Panel Survey on SEA in Japanese Local Governments-between 2002 and 2006- • To compare the state of introduction of SEA systems into governments • To analyze the change of factors for/against institutionalization • To analyze the change of opinions of officers in charge of EIA/SEA

  11. SEA and Quasi SEA SEA: (A) Applied to the strategic decision-making stages (B) A wide range of scope of environmental, economic and social aspects to be reviewed (C) Transparent procedure by public involvement Quasi-SEA: (A) Applied to the strategic decision-making stages (B’) Reviewed by external bodies (C’) Publication of the result of the review

  12. Present Status of Institutionalization of SEA and quasi SEA as of 2006(47 Prefectures & 13 Ordinance-designated cities) Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

  13. Classification of SEA Systems Institutionalized by L. Gov. as of 2006 Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

  14. Comparison of the Introduction of SEA Systems, 2002 & 2006 2006 2002 *) Saitama city is excluded as it did not exist in 2002. Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

  15. Factors for Institutionalization (@ L.Gov.institutlzd/under study) 2002 (by Quantification method III): 2006: Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

  16. Change of Factors against Institutionalization(@L.Gov.introduced/under study) * *) Quantification method III Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

  17. Summary of the Results: Local Governments 1. Introduction of SEA : “More Polarized!” Both progressions and retrogressions were identified. 2. Change of factors for introduction: ‘Opinions from experts’ (2006) ‘Influence by media reports’ (2002) 3. Change of factors againstintroduction: Elements of more realistic issues which are likely to be emerged at the stage of introducing SEA systems concretely such as ‘Insufficient capacity building’, ‘SEA Methodology’ is a more common factor. Most local governments are expecting to have the national level guideline

  18. National Level SEA Guideline:Common SEA Guideline, MOE Japan, 2007 SEA↓ The Common GL by MOE is applied to the program level* (Site location and Size decision)…………………………………………………………. ↓ Project EIA *Among projects applied to the EIA Act, only power plants are cut out Policy Plan or Program Project

  19. Common SEA Guideline, MOE Japan, 2007Characteristics • Applied to the programming level of big projects: site location and size decision making stage • Among the 13 kinds of projects applied to the EIA Act, only power plants are cut out • Alternatives analysis is required: Including a no action alternative is preferred • Review by the environmental sections: MOE, Environmental sections of local governments

  20. International Herald Tribune

  21. The Next Stage of the Guideline • Individual GL for each project should be made based on the common GL cf. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation started the study committee in March, before the guideline was published • Power plants should be included into the GL • The GL was also sent to local governments as a reference GL: from Program Level to Plan Level

  22. Five Levels Model of Public Participation* (1) Informing (Informing**) (2) Hearing (Consultation**) (3) Formal reply only (Placation**) (4) Meaningful reply (5) Partnership (Partnership**) * Harashina (1994-2001)、 feedback process for meaningful discussions conducted in public space. ** Comparable levels of Arnstein’s eight ladders model of participation (1969)