- Email: [email protected]
Lessons from Japan …
Comment Lessons from Japan.
. .
Michael Clark
This article comments on the preceding article by B.F.D. Barrett and R.B. Therivel, entitled ‘EIA in Japan: environmental protection Y economic growth’ (pp 217-231 of this issue of Land Use Policy). Dr Clark feels the experience of Japan should be put in a wider context and outlines some implications of Japan’s experience for the adoption of formal systems of Environmental Assessment in the UK and the rest of the European Community. Dr Michael Clark is a Senior Lecturer in Geography in the School of Applied Biology at .Lancashire Polytechnic; Preston, PRl 2TQ, UK.
‘B.F.D. Barrett and Ft. Therivel, ‘EIA in Japan: Environmental protection v economic growth’, Land Use Policy, Vol 6, No 3, July 1989, pp 217-231. ‘E. Bichard and S. Frost, ‘EIA in the UK planning system’, Land Use Policy, Vol 5, No 4, October 1988, pp 362-364.
232
The preceding article by Barrett and Therivel provides a cautious account of the benefits that have come from Japan’s lh-year experience with various forms of EIA. It has important implications for the, much later, adoption of formal systems of Environmental Assessment in the UK and the rest of the European Community.’ Japan’s experience suggests a universal tendency for politicians and bureaucrats to stress the site-specific, project evaluation USC of EIA and to thwart its awkward implications for policy or strategy. One should not perhaps be too critical of the way that Japanese circumstances have limited EIA to consideration of minor details of schemes which have obtained considerable political momentum (p 219). EIA is clearly part of the process of legitimization (or legitimation) and this imposes varying obligations on government and other key decision makers. These reflect different political and social conventions. Although the UK may be regarded as having a more pluralist, less respectful political climate than Japan, the same priorities are dominant: economic growth, international competitiveness and ‘progress’ defined in material terms. Environmental quality is still widely seen as a luxury that must be earned. UK ministries show similar political inequality to that reported to exist in Japan: industrial, defence, agrichemical and road transport interests are well represented; public health, education and environmental protection are weak, despite very public affirmations of their virtue. In recognizing the parallels between Japan’s experience and the likely role of EIA in the UK, Barrett and Therivel’s Table 3 has particular significance (p 227). It shows that, despite a relatively difficult context and limited role, Japanese EIA has found regular application in a far wider range of situations than anticipated or intended by the UK’s Department of the Environment (DOE).’ While it is possible that municipal or provincial use of EIA ordinances or guidelines in Japan may have been an attempt to compensate for a weak system of land designation or development control, the examples listed as subject to
0264-8377/89/03232-03$03.00
0 1989 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
EIA in Tokyo or Kanagawa are very ordinary. If equivalent procedures become the norm in Europe, then any volume housing scheme, industrial project or estate, urban expressway or railway, sewage works or boating lake will require the applicant to submit an Environmental Assessment. This would be no bad thing. It would conform to the spirit of the European Commission initiative which eventually led to the UK cautiously adopting a minimal form of EIA. Arguments against such a multiplicity of studies and reports include the risk that they will be part of a meaningless procedural ritual: a pretence of concern and public accountability where the evidence and argument have little influence on decisions, and where there is no real consideration of alternatives or full audit of impact. More positively, if the system of Town and Country Planning is working properly, then most of the functions performed by EIA will already have been carried out, or will be unnecessary because other, better, safeguards are in place. Unfortunately, the recent demotion of UK planning to a facilitating and responsive framework for developers’ speculation, and the rubbishing of public sector initiative and most attempts at integrated or positive planning, mean that we are likely to depend increasingly on site-specific environmental assessments. We must hope that they impose some degree of environmental discipline on prospective developers, and that the political system reads them correctly. It will be interesting to see if UK local authorities can compensate for some of their recent losses by requiring EIA for a wider range and smaller scale of development proposals than government intends. If Japan’s experience of EIA has lessons for Europe, other parallels may also apply. The article reports that Green politics is weakly developed in Japan, but acknowledges some shift in decision makers’ response to environmental issues. Its advanced industrial economy, with high material living standards and a population accustomed to growth in real disposable income, is likely to become increasingly sensitive to matters of amenity. Qualitative, rather than quantitative, objectives may acquire political and economic purpose. Negative externalities may be increasingly recognized as an economic drain. We may expect important adjustments to the criteria which govern economic planning. One outcome may be increased ‘pollution export’ - a growing dependence on overseas supplies of products whose manufacture damages the environment. Undesirable nuclear and chemical wastes may also be sent overseas. This is hardly an adoption of the ‘New Economics’ and is likely to be part of long-term economic restructuring aimed at maximizing high value added, ‘knowledge intensive’ activity. However, if qualitative economic goals have become more important, this may give better prospects for environmental improvement than the paper suggests. Japan might embarrass Europe by incorporating ‘Green Capitalism’ or even ‘New Economics’ with the same skill as has recently been applied to matters of technology and product development. EIA is a step in this direction, even if Japanese decision makers share UK politicians’ reluctance to accept that environmental damage must be put firmly on the cost side of the national accounts. Barrett and Therivel reinforce the popular image of Japan as a country which has sacrificed amenity and natural beauty in pursuit of material progress and economic power: a perspective that clashes with the raw, pure landscapes and aesthetic simplicity of Japanese film and
LAND USE POLICY July 1989
233
art. Perhaps their rather dismal conclusions might be tempered by a heroic question. If Japan’s exceptional economic progress since the 189Os, and especially after 1946, can be attributed to a single-minded pursuit of economic growth. then why shouldn’t the qualitative elements necessary for further growth be respected? There is little point in being wealthy if the surroundings which result threaten your existence, are unpleasant to live in and require costly compensation.
234
LAND USE POLICY July 1989
. .
Michael Clark
This article comments on the preceding article by B.F.D. Barrett and R.B. Therivel, entitled ‘EIA in Japan: environmental protection Y economic growth’ (pp 217-231 of this issue of Land Use Policy). Dr Clark feels the experience of Japan should be put in a wider context and outlines some implications of Japan’s experience for the adoption of formal systems of Environmental Assessment in the UK and the rest of the European Community. Dr Michael Clark is a Senior Lecturer in Geography in the School of Applied Biology at .Lancashire Polytechnic; Preston, PRl 2TQ, UK.
‘B.F.D. Barrett and Ft. Therivel, ‘EIA in Japan: Environmental protection v economic growth’, Land Use Policy, Vol 6, No 3, July 1989, pp 217-231. ‘E. Bichard and S. Frost, ‘EIA in the UK planning system’, Land Use Policy, Vol 5, No 4, October 1988, pp 362-364.
232
The preceding article by Barrett and Therivel provides a cautious account of the benefits that have come from Japan’s lh-year experience with various forms of EIA. It has important implications for the, much later, adoption of formal systems of Environmental Assessment in the UK and the rest of the European Community.’ Japan’s experience suggests a universal tendency for politicians and bureaucrats to stress the site-specific, project evaluation USC of EIA and to thwart its awkward implications for policy or strategy. One should not perhaps be too critical of the way that Japanese circumstances have limited EIA to consideration of minor details of schemes which have obtained considerable political momentum (p 219). EIA is clearly part of the process of legitimization (or legitimation) and this imposes varying obligations on government and other key decision makers. These reflect different political and social conventions. Although the UK may be regarded as having a more pluralist, less respectful political climate than Japan, the same priorities are dominant: economic growth, international competitiveness and ‘progress’ defined in material terms. Environmental quality is still widely seen as a luxury that must be earned. UK ministries show similar political inequality to that reported to exist in Japan: industrial, defence, agrichemical and road transport interests are well represented; public health, education and environmental protection are weak, despite very public affirmations of their virtue. In recognizing the parallels between Japan’s experience and the likely role of EIA in the UK, Barrett and Therivel’s Table 3 has particular significance (p 227). It shows that, despite a relatively difficult context and limited role, Japanese EIA has found regular application in a far wider range of situations than anticipated or intended by the UK’s Department of the Environment (DOE).’ While it is possible that municipal or provincial use of EIA ordinances or guidelines in Japan may have been an attempt to compensate for a weak system of land designation or development control, the examples listed as subject to
0264-8377/89/03232-03$03.00
0 1989 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
EIA in Tokyo or Kanagawa are very ordinary. If equivalent procedures become the norm in Europe, then any volume housing scheme, industrial project or estate, urban expressway or railway, sewage works or boating lake will require the applicant to submit an Environmental Assessment. This would be no bad thing. It would conform to the spirit of the European Commission initiative which eventually led to the UK cautiously adopting a minimal form of EIA. Arguments against such a multiplicity of studies and reports include the risk that they will be part of a meaningless procedural ritual: a pretence of concern and public accountability where the evidence and argument have little influence on decisions, and where there is no real consideration of alternatives or full audit of impact. More positively, if the system of Town and Country Planning is working properly, then most of the functions performed by EIA will already have been carried out, or will be unnecessary because other, better, safeguards are in place. Unfortunately, the recent demotion of UK planning to a facilitating and responsive framework for developers’ speculation, and the rubbishing of public sector initiative and most attempts at integrated or positive planning, mean that we are likely to depend increasingly on site-specific environmental assessments. We must hope that they impose some degree of environmental discipline on prospective developers, and that the political system reads them correctly. It will be interesting to see if UK local authorities can compensate for some of their recent losses by requiring EIA for a wider range and smaller scale of development proposals than government intends. If Japan’s experience of EIA has lessons for Europe, other parallels may also apply. The article reports that Green politics is weakly developed in Japan, but acknowledges some shift in decision makers’ response to environmental issues. Its advanced industrial economy, with high material living standards and a population accustomed to growth in real disposable income, is likely to become increasingly sensitive to matters of amenity. Qualitative, rather than quantitative, objectives may acquire political and economic purpose. Negative externalities may be increasingly recognized as an economic drain. We may expect important adjustments to the criteria which govern economic planning. One outcome may be increased ‘pollution export’ - a growing dependence on overseas supplies of products whose manufacture damages the environment. Undesirable nuclear and chemical wastes may also be sent overseas. This is hardly an adoption of the ‘New Economics’ and is likely to be part of long-term economic restructuring aimed at maximizing high value added, ‘knowledge intensive’ activity. However, if qualitative economic goals have become more important, this may give better prospects for environmental improvement than the paper suggests. Japan might embarrass Europe by incorporating ‘Green Capitalism’ or even ‘New Economics’ with the same skill as has recently been applied to matters of technology and product development. EIA is a step in this direction, even if Japanese decision makers share UK politicians’ reluctance to accept that environmental damage must be put firmly on the cost side of the national accounts. Barrett and Therivel reinforce the popular image of Japan as a country which has sacrificed amenity and natural beauty in pursuit of material progress and economic power: a perspective that clashes with the raw, pure landscapes and aesthetic simplicity of Japanese film and
LAND USE POLICY July 1989
233
art. Perhaps their rather dismal conclusions might be tempered by a heroic question. If Japan’s exceptional economic progress since the 189Os, and especially after 1946, can be attributed to a single-minded pursuit of economic growth. then why shouldn’t the qualitative elements necessary for further growth be respected? There is little point in being wealthy if the surroundings which result threaten your existence, are unpleasant to live in and require costly compensation.
234
LAND USE POLICY July 1989