It was at the Ramsar Convention Conference of the Parties in Switzerland in
1990. On the excursion boat we took around the lake, I was wearing a light jacket
given to me by Tsuji Atsuo of the Save Fujimae Association. It had "SAV E THE
FUJIMAE" written in large letters across the back. One of the Italian delegation
sneeringly asked me, "Is something wrong with Mt. Fuji?" Satisfied with his
little joke, he did not bother to wait for my answer. I think that, i f he was
at the 1999 Conference of the Parties in Costa Rica, he finally learn ed that
Fujimae is not Mt. Fuji. This is because Mr. Tsuji delivered a statement to
the Plenary Session on behalf, not only of Japanese NGOs, but of all grass-roots
NGOs at the conference. Such a thing was completely unthinkable at the 1990
CoP.
The ways used by the movement to save Fujimae tidal flat to appeal to the international
community can be roughly divided into two categories; direct appeals to individuals,
NGOs, professionals and governments overseas, and appeals through existing international
forums such as the Ramsar Convention an d Earth Day.
The basis for these appeals can also be roughly divided into two categories.
First, the migratory birds that come to Fujimae and other tidal flat wetlands
in Japan don't live in a particular country, but over the year live in any number
of countries. The Ramsar Convention (and bilateral migratory bird agreements)
were originally created to protect migratory birds. Second, the process of environmental
impact assessment is pursued all over the world. Although there are no clear
cut international "standards" for EIA, there exist some guidelines as well as
expert opinion. One of the particularities of the Fujimae landfill plan was
that, with respect to migratory birds and EIA as well, the situation was obviously
horrendous.
Even the results of the study of migratory shorebirds published in 1998 by the
Environment Agency confirmed that, after Isahaya Bay, which had been cut off
from the sea the year before, Fujimae tidal flat hosted more shorebirds than
any other site in the nation. Anybody with even rudimentary knowledge of migratory
birds and the value of wetlands could easily understand that it was absurd to
use the site as a garbage landfill. With respect to the EIA as well, anybody
with even a passing familiarity with EIA could see that the Fujimae EIA, which
failed to gather necessary data, ignored local people's opinion, wa s full of
mistakes and misrepresentations, and was in any event performed and evaluated
by the developer, was a terrible piece of work. The only difficult thing to
explain to people overseas was why Nagoya City clung so tenaciously t o what
was obviously an inappropriate plan.
These things, as well as the overall situation of Ise Bay, where landfill has
wiped out the overwhelming majority of tidal flats, was clearly explained in
English-language information created and constantly updated by the Save Fujima
e Association.
Let's look at a few examples in more specific terms.
The first Earth Day was held in 1970, and at present Earth Day awareness-raising events are held all over the world. Earth Day took hold in Japan around 1990. Among the citizens' groups that put together Earth Day in Nagoya, groups interested in problems of waste and recycling as well as Fujima e tidal flat protection groups were active. As a result, the Fujimae issue bec ame familiar to groups and individuals interested in environmental issues in Nagoya. At the same time, Nagoya's Earth Day events were enlivened.
In response to plans to hold the 1993 Ramsar Convention Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Kushiro, Hokkaido, tidal flat protection groups from Isahaya, Hakata and Tokyo joined with Fujimae and Shiokawa tidal flat protection groups , which had been pursuing cooperation on the national and international level since the 1970s, and formed Japan Wetlands Action Network (JAWAN) in 1991.
Tsuji Atsuo of Save Fujimae Association even now joins Yamashita Hirofumi of Isahaya as JAWAN's co-representative. JAWAN joined forces with WWF-Japan, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan, the Wild Bird Society of Japan and the Nature Conservation Society of Hokkaido to form the "Wetland Coalition" in order to deal with matters relating to the 1993 Ramsar CoP.
One result was that awareness in Japan of wetlands and of the Ramsar Convention increased exponentially. And, I believe the Convention itself was also influenced. Unlike other international conventions concerned with environmenta l issues, up until Kushiro, the Ramsar CoP did not enjoy the presence of grass-roots citizens' and nature conservation groups. Even now, international specialist organizations still dominate at the CoPs, but grass-roots groups have taken an increasingly active role.
As a result of lobbying by NGOs from Japan and Hong Kong at the Kushiro CoP, arecommendation was adopted that called for better protection of wetlands along the East Asian route of migratory birds. From this point, the Environment Agency became more active in pursuit of migratory bird protection. At the 1996 CoP in Brisbane, Australia, the Conference adopted a set of guidelines for wetland EIA. At that time Japan was drawing up its new EIA law. Without lobbying from Japanese NGOs, the Ramsar EIA guidelines would probably not have been adopted. It was very clear that the Fujimae EIA did not meet those Ramsar
EIA guidelines! And, at the 1999 CoP in Costa Rica, Japanese NGOs joined Korean NGOs to successfully lobby for a resolution on the protection of tidal flat wetlands.
The Ramsar Secretariat has also continued to take an interest in Fujimae, Isahaya and other Japanese wetlands, and has dispatched several letters to the Japanese government asking for information.