Utilized Methods of Comparing Alternatives in Environmental Impact Assessment in Japan Sachihiko HARASHINA Yuki MIYASHITA *Nobuhiro HARA Tokyo Institute of Technology IAIA 2007 in Soul 1 Aim and Background of the Research *Background Though alternatives analysis should be the key of EIA, it has not been well conducted in Japan. While alternative analysis is obligatory in many countries, it doesn’t need there. However, it has been implemented gradually since the fully implementation of the national level EIA Act in 1999. It has also been influencing the implementation of the local level EIA. *The Aim and the View Point The actual situation of comparing alternatives in Japan has not yet been investigated. The paper conducted a survey to clarify the state of the art of methods utilized for comparing alternatives. 2 Issues in Japan *Study Committee on SEA (by the Japanese Ministry of the Environment) -Developing alternatives “As a rule, it is preferable that the examination of the most preferable idea is included from the viewpoint on environmental preservation after the idea that can be taken within the executable range is covered.” -Evaluating alternatives “In the international standard, it is general to do the overall judgment by making the matrix for looking at merits and demerits of each idea or by arranging importance degree of each element.” The stance of the research in alternatives analysis 1. method of developing alternatives --- create diverse alternatives 2. method of evaluating alternatives --- evaluate explicit difference of alternatives 3 Steps of the Research Step1) Questionnaire survey to local government (44 cases) Step2) Collecting EIA documents (37 cases) Step3) Analysis of the documents (37 cases 71 sets of alternatives) (i) Overview (ii) Methods of developing alternatives (iii) Utilized methods for evaluating alternatives (iv) Utilized methods for expressing alternatives 4 (i) Overview 1) Questionnaire * Coverage of Survey ・ The EIA conducted based on the EIA Act, local ordinances, and guidelines ・ Cases conducted from 1999（full implementation of EIA Act） to 2006-10-31 ・ EIA Documents （Scoping document，DEIS，FEIS etc.） witch has alternative plans written inside Term November 2006 Survey method E-mail or telephone to local government staff Coverage 47 prefectures and 15 ordinance-designated city Collection rate 100% Surveyed items - Project name - Name of the EIA document - The date of publication 5 (i) Overview Trend of Adopting Alternative Analysis 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sum With Alternative plans 1 3 5 8 7 8 6 6 44 Whole assessments 140 77 54 55 66 62 48 - (502) Rate 0.7 3.9 9.3 14.5 10.6 12.9 12.5 - - quantity 150 Whole assessments % With Alternative plans 50 rate 100 30 50 10 0 -10 1999 2001 2003 2005 Stabilized currently at the level of 10 % 6 (i) Overview Number of cases and categories ※EIA documents of 37 cases (out of 44) has been surveyed to grasp the content of alternatives , sorted by “category of projects.” Category of projects Wide complex development plan (1) Comprehensive regional development plan 1 Single plan (36) Waste treatment facility construction 7 Road construction 6 Railroad construction 3 Dam construction 2 Power plant construction 4 Land developing 2 Recreation facility construction 2 Large scale buildings and plants construction 5 Others 5 7 (i) Overview Detail categories Some of the collected 37 cases include multiple comparing investigation. And each of them has unique alternatives and ways, so they are be taken independent objects under analysis. As a result, 71 investigations out of 37 cases make out and whole of them are analyzed. Every investigation is sorted into 5 stages as the table below indicates. Stages of the alternatives Site location Site Scale Facilities location Facilities structure measure of protection 5 3 15 29 19 8 (ii) Methods of developing alternatives Process of developing Alternatives Simultaneous The process of developing alternatives can be sorted into 3groups. The project restriction affects this. Plan A restriction Plan B Plan C Modifying by reviewing Plan A Plan A’ restriction Plan A’’ Modifying according change of restriction restriction Plan A new restriction Plan B 9 (ii) Methods of developing alternatives Relation with planning maturity Correlation is found between the maturity of plan and the stages of the alternatives Stages of the alternatives low Site location undecided Site location decided Project scale decided Facilities location decided High Maturity of the plan Site location Facilities structure decided Site Scale Facilities location Facilities measure of structure protection 3 3 4 12 2 5 23 2 17 10 (ii) Method of developing alternatives Restriction of the project - Stage of “site location undecided” appears simultaneous only. - Type of reviewing appears relatively immature plan. low High Maturity of the plan Process of making alternatives Simultaneous[57] Modifying by reviewing[12] Modifying according change of restriction[2] Site location undecided [5] 5 - - Site location decided [10] 6 3 1 Project scale decided [14] 11 2 1 Facilities location decided[25] 19 6 - Facilities structure decided[17] 16 1 11 (ii) Method of developing alternatives No Action Alternative Some cases set the baseline plan of “not implementing the project.” These 4 cases are sorted as No Action Plans. No Action Alternative is also considered as an environment conservation measure. This is to compare multiple plans, including cases which environment conservation measures were taken, or not taken, in order to show the effectiveness of the environment conservation measure. Project name Category of projects Construction Project of Irahara Dam on Haraikawa water system Dam construction Construction Project of Koishiharagawa Dam on Chikugogawa water system Dam construction Construction Project of Usijima Redevelopment Building (tentative name) large scale buildings and plants construction Construction Project of (tentative name) Meieki4block-7section Joint Buiding large scale buildings and plants construction 12 (iii) Utilized methods for evaluating alternatives Selection of evaluation item - Improve the technical guideline of EA or set new original standard (39) - Constitute the technical committee and discuss new original standard (10) - Add social economic terms to the assessment technical guideline of EA (6) - Select from technical guideline of EA established by Ministry of the Environment (32) improve/ original standard 39 technical committee 10 social economic term 6 32 13 (iii) Utilized method for evaluating alternatives Effort to Get Better Evaluation *Care for another environmental plan (2 case) Both cases are conducted by Tokyo metropolitan government. They refer to Tokyo Metropolitan Environmental Master Plan. *Forecast Multiple points (3 case) Project name Frequencies Draft of New Basic Plan of Mutsu Ogawara Development planning short and middle range / long range Construction Project of Kokubunji Urban Planning Road, Number 3-3-8 FuchuTokorozawa Line estimate at 2015, 2025 Expantion Project of Sagami Industrial Quarry 3 points every 10 years construction 14 (iv) Utilized method for expressing alternatives Methods of Explaining the Results Format of the result of comprehensive evaluation Description of the individual evaluation Matrix type Summarizing (A) by symbols 3 - (B) by sentences 26 21 Combination of (A) and (B) 21 - *Other remarkable efforts - When the comprehensive evaluation is put out, the weight putting is done between items and explains about it. - It separately explains the trade-off between items. 15 Matrix type Alternate A Ａ 案 △ 大気 air Alternate B Ｂ 案 △ water △ waste … by symbols ◎・・・superior ○・・・same as others △・・・behind ○ 影響は○○で、他 影響は○○で、他 影響は○○で、他 の案と比して特に の案と比して影響 の案と比して影響 優れる が大きい は中程度である ○ 廃棄物 Ｃ 案 ○ 影響は○○で、他 影響は○○で、他 影響は○○で、他 の案と比して影響 の案と比して影響 の案と比して影響 が大きい が大きい は中程度である ◎ 水質 Alternate C ○ △ 影響は○○程度 影響は○○で、他 影響は○○で、他 で、他の案と比して の案と比して影響 の案と比して影響 影響は中程度 は中程度 が大きい － － － － － － By sentences Summarizing type Ａ 案 大気では他の案と比して影響が小さい。水質は他 Alternate A の案と比して影響が大きい。――。 Ｂ 案 大気では他の案と比して影響が大きい。水質は他 Alternate B の案と比して影響が大きい。――。 Ｃ 案 大気では他の案と比して中程度である。水質は他 Alternate C の案と比して影響が小さい。――。 16 Conclusion It was observed that 44 cases in which alternative analyses were conducted among 502 cases after the enforcement of EIA Act in 1999. The rate of cases conducting alternative analysis is currently stabilized at the level of 10% . It was found that 5 out of 71 sets of alternatives were developed on the planning stage of the project, where appropriate mitigation measure could be taken. "No Action Alternatives" were appeared on the latest planning stage of the project. They counts 4 and all of them were on the stage of considering the pollution mitigating measures. It was found that various approaches were taken even in such small number of cases. IAIA 2007 in Soul 17 Thank you for your attention ! 18
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
