We recently have more and more lawsuits which mainly focus on protection of nature and ecosystem. Among them, lawsuits named the right of nature are famous in Japan. In this type of lawsuits, the right of nature is commonly advocated and wild lives are named as a part of plaintiffs.In Amamis right of nature lawsuit, an Amamis black rabbit is presented as an plaintiff and in another case, a bird called Ohisikui has become a plaintiff. These lawsuits followed precedences in the USA where wild lives were named as plaintiffs. By making wild lives parties in the lawsuits, we try to attract public attentions and let public clearly know what kind of risks are occurring upon wild animals.
We also aim at introducing a new legal theory for a policy of protection of nature by claiming a wide range of new issues from substantive law to legal philosophy. The notion of the right of nature itself was developed in the USA but the Japanese version of the right of nature lawsuits present substantially different aspects from the original one.
There are several other important lawsuits including injunctions, and a tax payers suit. Even though the types and facts of cases are different, there are several common difficult issues lawyers are facing.
The questions are, for example, what kind of actions can be judged to be an illegal offense against ecosystem, and why we can assert that conduct is illegal. We utilize domestic laws regarding protection of wild lives but in addition, we are now considering to resort to international treaties like the Treaty on Bio-diversity.
It is an urgent political agenda in Japan to reform the public works system. The government widely spreads propaganda that development projects are the best tools for gaining economic interests, and is carrying out unbelievably wasteful development projects all over Japan.Isahaya Bay is a very fertile wet land located in Nagasaki Prefecture. Many migrant birds come to the wet land every year and it is also well known for its various kinds of lives living in muds. Especially, a fish called Mutsugoro is favored by many Japanese for its comical figure.
The Japanese government has closed this bay and is reclaiming it in order to make a new agricultural land. More than 3000 ha of a wide wet land has rapidly disappeared. The lost land constitutes about 6% of the total wet land in Japan. The government explains that this project is for creation of farm land and prevention of natural disaster but it has been already proved that it does not work for preventing natural disaster.
In addition, there is already a plenty of vacant farm land created by reclamation around Isahaya Bay area without any new farmers to use the land. The important issue is rather how we can activate the agriculture already exists, not creation of new farm land. It only increases the burden of agricultural budget. The government says it will spend more than 2 billion dollars for the project but the total amount will be estimated to reach 10 billion dollars.
As the tax is spent for public works, the investment should be more careful and tax should not be wasted. Whether the project has enough benefit compared to cost of the investment should be strictly examined and reviewed. If we cannot expect enough cost-performance, the expenditure should be regarded as illegal. This idea is quite reasonable but the reason of illegality is not theoretically well discussed in Japan. We also do not have any legal system to stop clearly wasteful public works in Japan.
In Shiga prefecture, an administrative lawsuit has been filed to rescind the permit to construct Eigenji dam. While the dam will cause adverse effect upon ecosystem as well as the historic view, the main issue is the illegality of the construction plan as this plan is a typical wasteful public work. A lawsuit focusing on a cost-performance of public expenditure is maybe the first case in Japan.