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

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

TokyoNew York Land Use ， 10 ｋｍ from the CBD (by Harashina,2004)

TokyoNew York Land Use ， 20 ｋｍ from the CBD (by Harashina,2004)

We Need Growth Management

SEA/EIA Movement in Japan: Summary1/ 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 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

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

SEA/EIA Movement in Japan: Summary 2/ 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 JICA Guideline for EIA (including SEA) 2006 Introduction of an SEA system was specified in the 3 rd Environmental Basic Plan (as an important item) 2007 National Level Common SEA guideline by MOE

Towards Sustainable Development: Ｓｔｒａｔｅｇｉｃ Ｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍ ｅｎｔａｌ 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

A Panel Survey on SEA in Japanese Local Governments - between 2002 and To compare the state of introduction of SEA systems into governments 2.To analyze the change of factors for/against institutionalization 3.To analyze the change of opinions of officers in charge of EIA/SEA

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

Present Status of Institutionalization of SEA and quasi SEA as of 2006 (47 Prefectures & 13 Ordinance-designated cities) Current StatusThe # of L.Gov. Already institutionalized 8 Currently under study 8 Plan to study institutionalization Necessary 14 Not necessary 4 No plans to study institutionalization Necessary 11 Not necessary 15 Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

Classification of SEA Systems Institutionalized by L. Gov. as of 2006 ClassesLocal GovernmentsEnactment#of L.G. SEA System Saitama Pref Hiroshima city Quasi-SEA System Tokyo met. gov Kyoto city Kawasaki city Internal adjustment Yokohama city Mie Pref Kanagawa Pref Total # of Local Governments 8 Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006

Comparison of the Introduction of SEA Systems, 2002 & 2006 Intro- duced Under study Plan to study No plans to study Total Introduced Under study Plan to study No plans to study Total * Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, *) Saitama city is excluded as it did not exist in 2002.

Factors for Institutionalization L.Gov.institutlzd/under study) AxesAttributes The 1st axisDecision by primary stakeholders The 2nd axisInfluence by media reports The 3rd axisRespect for the residents’ will 2002 (by Quantification method III ): 2006: Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006 ItemsThe # of coments ① Env. sector realized the limitations of EIA. 11 ② Opinions from experts 5 ③ Direction from the head of a L.Gov. 2 ④ The residents pointed out the limitation of EIA. 3 ⑤ Problems occurred between proponent 0 ⑥ Needs of the project was discussed in media. 0

The 1st axis (a) Put emphasis on other available systems (b’) Secure capable persons who have skills/knowledge of the method of SEA The 2nd axis (b) Lack of experiences of env. consideration systems (c’) Sorting out the subject and the method of the SEA system The 3rd axis (c) Sorting out the systems concerning the plans subject to SEA (c) Relationship with other systems Change of Factors against Institutionalization study) Harashina, Sugimoto & Shimizutani, 2006 *) Quantification method III *

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 against introduction: 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

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

Common SEA Guideline, MOE Japan, 2007 Characteristics 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

International Herald Tribune

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

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