Revised on March 10 and April 19, 2000
Takahiro Kohama (Japan Tropical Forest Action Network)
Yoji Natori (Japan Wildlife Research Center)
Yoichi Kuroda (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies)
Toshihiko Yagi (Tottori University)
Views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and not necessarily reflect the views of the organization the authors are affiliated.
The purpose of this project is to identify the level of progress Japan has achieved in implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action. At the Third Session of the IFF (May 1999), a group of environmental NGOs and indigenous peoples' organizations (IPOs) announced their commitment to "initiate a monitoring and review of the implementation, by selected countries in different regions, of the IPF Proposals for Action, and to report the findings at IFF 4." An independent international review has begun monitoring of the progress made by twenty selected countries, including Japan, in their implementation of an important forest policy agreement they made in 1997. The primary mechanism for this monitoring and review project is the seven-question questionnaire distributed to and responded by the relevant government agencies. NGOs involved in the forest issues conducted a third-person review on the government responses to the questionnaire.
Forest covers almost 70% of Japan's land base, however much of the original vegetation has been lost, due to more than 1500 years of exploitation. In particular, mechanized clearcut logging wiped out large tracts of native hardwood forests and converted them into monocultural plantation of softwood (now 40% in the total forest land) during the last several decades. In addition to the replacement to plantation, natural forests are much reduced and degraded by construction of road (especially so-called large-scale forestry road), dam, resort and golf course, etc. Recently primary forest has remarkably been reduced. These situations caused serious habitat loss of remaining animals and plants. Some animals such as bears and monkeys appear around human settlements due to their difficulties to find food in the degraded forests and plantation areas.
As for plantation area, mainly due to the low price on the world market, forest management is stalemated in Japan. For example, large area of plantation is remained not to be thinned being unprofitable, causing slow growth and being fragile to strong wind and heavy rain. This situation also causes short of workers and old age. Nowadays Japan heavily relies on forest resources from all over the world. It imports 80 percent (nearly 90 million cubic meters) of its domestic wood demand annually from the US, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Conservation and proper use of world's forest is tightly linked to Japan, and Japan shares the responsibility of the proper management of forest worldwide.
At home, forests are used for variety of purposes, such as wood production, watershed protection, conservation, as well as recreational activities. Striking a balance among multiple interests is one important issue. In this aspect, coordination and cooperation among related ministries and agencies, as well as all the interest groups and stakeholders, are exceedingly important. Proper management of planted forests is another issue that deserves serious attention. Planted forests should be managed for continuing wood production and securing other functions. Values of forests besides timber is discussed much, but actions seem inadequate.
Proposals for Action of the IPF are without doubt necessary steps for proper management of the valuable natural resources in Japan.
Our questionnaire was submitted to the International Forestry Cooperation Office in the Planning Division of the Forestry Agency. The Forestry Agency coordinated to make answers with other divisions within the Forestry Agency, Environment Agency, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are quite cooperative in conducting this assessment, in spite of short term of answering.
The government admitted that comprehensive analysis of the policies, including a comparative analysis of the existing policies and programs against the IPF-PA has just started in Japan. Nonetheless, Japan has taken into account relevant policies and programs in the IPF-PA in its forest management strategies.
The Forestry Agency is a de facto focal point of IPF PfA implementation, review and, reporting. Stakeholder participation was encouraged during the formulation of forest and forestry related plans and projects. Model forest workshops also help stakeholder identification. Policy analysis and prioritization in relation to the IPF PfA is limited, but the spirits of the IPF PfA is considered in forest management strategies. Some of the concrete actions initiated to implement IPF PfA are Continuous Forest Inventory Project and international workshops on model forests.
Since there has been only less than three years since the agreement on the IPF PfA, and given that interagency coordination often takes time, it is not unthinkable that the government has just started implementing various parts of IPF PfA. However, it is important to remember that the world's forest is being lost or poorly managed while the government overcome its own administrative inertia. The additional momentum is desirable to take the mission forward.
Forest issue encompass subjects beyond single agency's jurisdiction. Therefore, interagency coordination and collaboration, as well as active participation of stakeholders, are important to fully address forest-related issues. Underlying causes of forest related problem has to do with people's lifestyle. Measures that go deep into society need to be taken to alleviate logging pressure. And it is needed to introduce fundamental changes of our forest product use, consumption and related industrial development policies and direction of our society.
Our questionnaire, which is identical to those being used in other monitors in other countries, was submitted to International Forestry Cooperation Office, Planning Division, Forestry Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries and the Environment Agency on December 14, 1999. International Forestry Cooperation Office coordinated to make answers with other offices of Planning Division, other divisions of Forestry Agency, Environment Agency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The response from the government was received on January 7, 2000.
The following are the government sections that were involved in this questionnaire survey:
- Private Forest Department
- Planning Division
- Research and Extension Division
- Forestry Infrastructure Division
- Forest Policy Planning Department
- Policy Planning Division
- Wood Distribution Division
- National Forest Department
- National Forest Planning Division
- Planning and Coordination Bureau
- Global Environment Department
- Nature Conservation Bureau
- Air Quality Bureau
- Foreign Policy Bureau
- Multilateral Cooperation Department
The questionnaire was submitted in English, and the answers were also made in English. The original government responses are reported below.
Process, Participation and Transparency
1 - Has your government identified a focal point within the government at the national level, as well as other responsible parties, agencies, and/or departments, to lead the implementation process on the IPF Proposals for Action? If so, please list these parties and the nature of their responsibilities. Also, because many of the Proposals for Action are cross-sectoral in nature, cooperation across agencies and sectors is essential for effective implementation. Please describe how inter-agency and inter-sectoral coordination is being facilitated in your country.
A. To formulate and introduce various policy measures, including integrating the IPF Proposals for Action (hereinafter referred to as "the IPF-PA"), the Government of Japan has been practicing consulting processes among all the relevant ministries and agencies. Given the above-mentioned governmental system, no focal point is explicitly identified, noting that "many of the Proposals for Action are cross-sectoral in nature" as mentioned in the questionnaire; however, the Forestry Agency has taken a lead role in the process of implementing the IPF-PA.
For instance, the original drafts of the forest management plans such as the Basic Plan for Forest Resources, which is an integral part of our national forest programme, are developed by the Forestry Agency with consideration for consistency with other national policies and long-term plans related to the environment, land use such as the Basic Environment Plan, and the like. The contents of the plans are also elaborated by the Forestry Agency through consultations with relevant governmental agencies and once agreement is reached among all concerned parties, the Cabinet decides the plan.
2 - Has your government developed a step-by-step timetable for implementation, review, and reporting? If so, please describe this process.
A. Although no concrete "step-by-step" timetable for implementation, review and reporting has been developed, in implementing the IPF-PA, Japan has been taking three major steps toward sustainable forest management since the adoption of the IPF-PA in UNCSD and UNGASS: (1) application of criteria and indicators, (2) amendment of the Forest Law, and (3) formulation of a consultative group to review and examine the existing forest policies and programs.
Firstly, Japan has been one of the most active participating members of the Montreal Process. Japan has promoted developing and applying of national criteria and indicators for the forest management practices and regimes in collaboration with the Montreal Process. Since April 1999, monitoring on domestic forests in statistically designed permanent plots has been implemented considering some of the criteria and indicators identified in the Montreal Process. Moreover, by financing the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) activities and projects, the Government of Japan has contributed to ITTO producer countries' efforts toward the Year 2000 Objective, for example, through development of a manual for application of the ITTO's criteria and indicators, improvement of forest fire management, dissemination of reduced-impact logging practice, and enhancement of statistical functions and network.
Secondly, based on the 1998 amendment of the Forest Law, any concerned party can make comments on draft plans for forest management at the local government level. At the same time, the amended Forest Law requires local governments to publicize the summary of the public comments and the summarized consultation process. In addition, as a result of this amendment, municipalities are authorized to make and to implement forest management plans except with regard to national forests within their jurisdiction, which are managed by the Forestry Agency and its branch offices directly. This results in an increase of autonomy in local governments, while the national government advices them as appropriate. Consequently, participation and engagement of stakeholders have been encouraged, which meets the IPF-PA that emphasizes "the need for appropriate participatory mechanisms to involve all interested parties."
Lastly, recognizing the rapidly-increasing public need for the environmental, social and other services provided by forests, and the economic difficulties prevailing in the forestry sector, the Director-General of the Forestry Agency formed a consultative group to review and analyze the existing forest policies and programs, forest management strategies and the overall national forest programme. The consultative group consisted of forestry business owners, academics, and other related professionals. Through a series of meetings, it discussed the fundamental problems and constraints currently facing in forest management and forestry businesses and identified substantive policy issues to be tackled. Its report was opened to the public for comments through the Agency's website. Based on the report, the Forestry Agency has started a comprehensive review and restructuring of the forest and forestry-related policies.
3 - Has your government established a process to identify and involve all relevant stakeholders and their institutions in the implementation of the Proposals for Action? If so, please describe this process, list the stakeholders that have been and are currently involved, and describe the basic nature of their involvement (e.g., have they been provided information, participated in meetings, submitted written comments, engaged in implementation programs in the forest, etc.).
A. Japan has been promoting a participatory process in formulating forest and forestry-related plans and projects. Some forest and forestry-related information is provided to the public though the Forestry Agency's website.
For instance, based on the 1998 amendment of the Forest Law, anyone concerned can make comments on draft forest management plans at the local government level. At the same time, the amended Forest Law requires local governments to publicize the summary of the public comments and the summarized consultation process. Thus, introducing a way to further reflect the public opinion into forest management plans, participation and engagement of stakeholders has been encouraged in the course of forest management planning.
Furthermore, Japan has been hosting a series of international workshop for promotion of model forests as a field-level application of sustainable forest management. In addition to encouraging model forest activities at the international level, especially in the Asian region, at the national level, the workshop accelerates stakeholder identification and its engagement and partnership formulation among them in line with the IPF-PA. That is, the workshop offers an opportunity to those who are interested in model forests and/or sustainable forest management, which is relevant to the IPF-PA, to get together and to discuss methodologies and processes to realize their common interest in sustainable forest management at the real field where case studies are conducted in Japan. It also helps stakeholders create a network which contributes to foster relevant stakeholders' involvement.
Progress on the Proposals for Action
4 - Has your government done a comparison of existing government policies and programs, directly or indirectly related to forests, against the IPF Proposals for Action, to identify any gaps in effective implementation, and possible contradictions between the IPF proposals and existing government programs? If so, please describe the status of this gap analysis process.
A. As explained in the answer to the question 2, a comprehensive analysis of the policies, including a comparative analysis of the existing policies and programs against the IPF-PA has just started in Japan. Nonetheless, Japan has taken into account relevant policies and programs in the IPF-PA in its forest management strategies.
For instance, current legislation relevant to the national forest programme, which were established before the development of the IPF-PA and amended as appropriate, meet most of the requirements suggested by the IPF-PA; in accordance with the Basic Plan for Forest Resources, the national government establishes the Nation-wide Forest Plan, on the basis of which local governments also establish the Regional Forest Plans. This planning system is in line with the national forest programme suggested by the IPF-PA.
Furthermore, as also indicated in the answer to the question 3, Japan internationally advocates the development of locally-fit participatory and transparent decision-making in forest management planning processes.
5 - Has your government identified specific IPF Proposals for Action that it considers priorities for implementation in your country? If so, please list them and list the criteria used for selecting these priorities. In particular, does your country have a national strategy for addressing the underlying causes of deforestation, and was this used as a means of prioritizing the Proposals for Action?
A. As suggested in the answer to the question 4, in the course of formulating forest management policies and projects, Japan has conducted a limited policy analysis in relation to the IPF-PA. However, as also previously indicated, even with a limited direct reference to the IPF-PA, Japan makes forest management strategies in accordance with the IPF-PA's spirits toward sustainable forest management.
The major threat facing to the management of Japan's forests is the decrease in investment of plantation forests which cover approximately 40% of the total forest cover in Japan and the resulted concern not to meet the public need for multiple functions from such forests. One of the underlying causes of such decrease in investment, which is considered to be increasingly prevailing, is the severe economic difficulties partly due to the depression in timber prices and rising management and production costs. Recognizing the rapidly expanding public need for forests and the contrarily shrinking investment for well-managed forests, the Forestry Agency of Japan has started a comprehensive review and restructuring of forest policies and programs, forest management strategies, and the overall national forest programme in relation to the (underlying) causes of the threats facing to Japan's forests (see the answer to the question 2).
Moreover, Japan has just started the Continuous Forest Inventory Project under the criteria and indicator method for policy development, which monitors changes in quality and quantity for forests on a nation-wide scale considering some criteria and indicators identified in the Montreal Process.
6 - Please describe briefly the concrete action(s) your government has taken to implement specific IPF Proposals for Action in your country. This should consist primarily of a description of any NEW programs that have been initiated, as well as the potential need to revise existing policies, to achieve the effective implementation of the IPF proposals, and a clear plan and timetable for initiating such new programs.
A. As mentioned above, in 1999 Japan launched a new nationwide Continuous Forest Inventory Project to monitor the forest resources and their dynamics using the nationally unified methodologies. Considering the compatibility with the Criteria and Indicators of the Montreal Process, this approach was designed from multi-faceted perspectives including the biodiversity, the productivity, the ecosystem health, the conservation of water resources and the global carbon cycles.
Also as mentioned earlier, Japan has been hosting a series of international workshops for promotion of model forests, which substantially advocates the IPF-PA. The workshop series is designed to answer a crucial questionﾑHow can broad international policies be translated into practical field applications?ﾑconsidering the natural, cultural, and social differences existing among various nations and regions. The series eventually aims to develop and propose ways of feeding back the results of model forest projects to the overall land-use policy planning process in each country.
Japan also initiated "the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET)" to promote regional cooperation on acid deposition monitoring in East Asian countries and to prevent or reduce adverse impacts on the environment due to acid deposition. From April 1998, the preparatory-phase activities of EANET started. Ten countries in East Asia participate in the preparatory-phase activities. The Network is intended to be established formally in 2000 by the Second Intergovernmental Meeting, taking into account the results of the preparatory-phase activities.
Furthermore, Japan established the Biodiversity Center of Japan (BiodiC-J) in April 1998. BiodiC-J plans and carries out basic surveys (the National Survey on the Natural Environment (The Green Census)) of fauna, flora, etc. to examine the present status and long-term discernible change of natural environment including forests in Japan. Based on the results of the Green Census and other information, BiodiC-J provides the database about natural environment and biological diversity, which is to be shared widely through the Internet.
Implementation of Related Agreements
7 - Have your country's efforts to implement the IPF Proposals for Action been closely coordinated with its efforts to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity, International Tropical Timber Agreement (and its Objective Year 2000 goal), Framework Convention on Climate Change (and Kyoto Protocol), and (where relevant) Criteria and Indicators initiatives, the G-8 Forest Action Programme, or any regional forest-related agreements? If so, please describe how.
A. Our efforts to implement programs relevant to the IPF-PA have been coordinated with the Conventions and initiatives mentioned above.
For instance, the Government of Japan has been conducting various forest-related activities relevant to the G8 Action Programme, which is closely related to the IPF-PA.
As already mentioned, the new nation-wide forest resources monitoring project, the Continuous Forest Inventory Program, was launched in 1999 to monitor and assess the forest resources and their dynamics using the nationally unified methodologies, considering the compatibility with some of the Criteria and Indicators of the Montreal Process.
Moreover, Japan has been surveying the state of its forest resources basically every five years in order to contribute to the development of appropriate forest management plans and to their smooth implementation. The most recent survey indicated information of the state of forest resources in each of 44 expanded watershed areas around the country.
In October 1998, Japan reviewed and amended the relevant laws including the Forest Law with a view to contributing to the promotion of sustainable forest management nation-wide. As a result of this amendment, Japan introduced a system to make available the draft plans, such as forest management plans (e.g. Regional Forest Plans for private and national forests) and the Basic Plan for Administration and Management of National Forests, to the public for comments in order to reflect wide range of opinions. Japan also expanded substantial roles of local municipalities in the forest management planning system.
Another example is Japan's support for the International Tropical Timber Agreement. The Government of Japan has been financing some ITTO projects, which are also in line with the IPF-PA, e.g. studying on certification & labeling and on the international wood-products market, and creating a forest and forestry statistical database.
Japanese government has just started a comprehensive analysis of the policies, including a comparative analysis of the existing policies and programs against the IPF-PA. Progress has been made in starting the Continuous Forest Inventory Project which monitors changes in quality and quantity for forests under the criteria and indicator method, not only volume of the wood. And the government amended the Forestry Law and made forest management plans.
There has been short time period since IPF/PfA were agreed upon, but the government should have made effective policies based on the IPF/PfA. For example, legislation process of basic laws, which would be the grounds of basic policies on forest and forestry, was not transparent nor participatory and people's participation. Therefore, until recently basic future direction of Japanese forestry policies are not clear, so that it was difficult to evaluate new policies. Since clear direction of the basic forestry law is not clarified or articulated even now, it could be estimated from the changes of agricultural policies though, these problems have not been solved. The new forestry policy should address to set a clear goal to reduce overseas wood dependency and increase domestic self-sufficiency, as the new agriculcural policy set a new goal to increase percent of food self-sufficiency.
Accordingly, Japanese government is requested to actively make the course of the basic forestry law clear, and give an answer to the possibility on the implementation of IPF/PfA. Especially, answers to the forest degradation in Japan and the propriety of Japanese timber trade from overseas countries, which is the primary underlying cause of deforestation and forest degradation, are requested.
The Forestry Agency is serving as the de facto focal point of the IPF PfA in Japan, which is reasonable given the nature of the agency's mission. However, forest issues encompass subjects beyond single agency's jurisdiction. Many issues that need to be addressed as an integral part, e.g., forest ecosystem and biodiversity, are currently handled by separate agencies. The reform of the central government next year does not seem to resolve this problem as far as the natural resource management is concerned. Forests do not see jurisdictional boundaries the government agencies do. If the jurisdictional boundaries are not easy to remove, interagency coordination is exceedingly important; this is based on the premise that each agency fulfills their responsibilities to the fullest extent possible. The Environment Agency, for instance, should take more active responsibilities in biodiversity conservation in forests. Also, the consultation and negotiation processes among government ministries and agencies and all the stakeholders should be constructive. Efficient and constructive coordination and collaboration could be one of the most important of the IPF PfA for Japan.
For long time in the modern Japan's history, industrial development, militarization, consequent urbanization and related wood production had been given the first priority, and biodiversity and wildlife habitat protection were given the least. The central underlying causes of such phenomenon is excessive industrialization, in particular, wasteful production and consumption of the key materials and products such as steel, cement, plastics as well as automobile and other machines. In order to maintain such industrial system, government has been spent some hundreds of billions of dollars every year for construction and civil engineering project which resulted quite short lives of houses and buildings that stimulate natural resources consumption, including wood. Unless we will address this central dilemma of material consumption, we will not be able to reduce heavy logging pressures to relevant overseas forests.
IPF PfA報告書の全体 | 資料室 | ホームページ
© 1999-2004 熱帯林行動ネットワーク(JATAN)