Advertisement
Advertisement
Environmental activists give a performance calling for Japan to call off its decision to release treated waste water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power station into the sea, during a rally in Seoul, South Korea, on February 28. Photo: EPA-EFE
Opinion
Francisco José Leandro
Francisco José Leandro

Japan needs to rethink the dumping of Fukushima nuclear plant’s waste water into the sea

  • Given the potentially serious environmental fallout and its legal obligations against marine pollution, Japan should pause, consult its neighbours – and consider being safe rather than sorry
Japan plans to start releasing the 1.3 million cubic metres of contaminated water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea sometime this spring or summer, according to recent statements by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno.

Although the government has said it would not proceed before receiving a comprehensive report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are four important arguments why it should mull over this dumping of waste water and consider revoking its plan.

First, there is the argument for precaution. Environmentally risky activity should be avoided, even when there is a lack of scientific certainty over the serious or irreversible damage it could cause.

This precautionary principle is part of several international legal instruments and a pillar of environmental law. It is enshrined in principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Second, there is the argument that Japan should consult its neighbours on its release plan. The Rio Declaration clearly states that international cooperation is needed to discourage and prevent one state from moving to another state substances that may cause severe environmental degradation or are harmful to human health.

It also makes clear that where an activity may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect, potentially affected states should be notified, given plenty of information and be consulted “at an early stage and in good faith”.

So far, South Korea, China, several Pacific Island nations and even Japanese fishing communities have objected to the planned release of the Fukushima nuclear plant’s waste water. Henry Puna, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum, has criticised Japan for a lack of transparency, for example.
Third, there is the argument over the legality of dumping at sea. Since 1996, Japan has been a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which makes abundantly clear that member states are obliged to protect and preserve the marine environment. This includes taking measures to ensure that any pollution from their activities does not spread to other states or beyond their jurisdiction.

Specifically, states must take measures to “minimise to the fullest possible extent” the release of “toxic, harmful or noxious substances [ …] by dumping” and any “pollution from other installations and devices operating in the marine environment, in particular measures for preventing accidents and dealing with emergencies, ensuring the safety of operations at sea, and regulating the design, construction, equipment, operation and manning of such installations or devices.”

04:30

‘It’s not over’: 12 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster

‘It’s not over’: 12 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster

Japan is also a party to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters and its 1996 London Protocol, with 2006 amendments. The 1972 convention, also known as the London Convention, was one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities.

Japan should bear in mind that the London Convention’s main objective is to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution, not only from vessels, and to take all practicable steps to prevent sea pollution via the dumping of waste and other material.

It defines dumping as any deliberate disposal at sea of waste or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea – and specifically prohibits this. There is a “reverse list” of exceptions – permissible waste which may be considered for dumping at sea – but, in the spirit of marine protection, this continues to get shorter.

Last year, parties to both the London Convention and London Protocol adopted an amendment to take sewage sludge off that list, ensuring that its dumping at sea would be prohibited worldwide. In the same spirit, several states including Australia strictly regulate even the disposal of dredged or excavated material at sea, for fear of contamination and damage to marine ecosystems.

02:07

Activists protest Japan’s decision to dump Fukushima waste water into sea

Activists protest Japan’s decision to dump Fukushima waste water into sea

Japan has a similar legal obligation and moral responsibility to ensure that it does not release contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea.

Finally, there is the argument that it is better to be safe than sorry. Japan continues to live with the consequences of the regrettable actions taken by imperial leaders during the second world war, the shadow of which continues to dog relations with its closest neighbours China and South Korea.
More recently, when Japan insisted on continuing its whale-killing programme after the International Court of Justice ordered an immediate cessation in 2014, it was criticised internationally. What Japan defends as a research programme has also been slammed by other countries, scientists and environmental organisations as unnecessary and lacking scientific merit, and described as a thinly disguised commercial whaling operation.

So here’s the question: is Japan ready to sacrifice its international reputation over the Fukushima waste water release issue, ready to put at stake its obligations as a responsible sovereign state, and risk causing severe environmental degradation and harm to human health? The answer is clear: it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Francisco José Leandro is an associate professor in international relations and associate dean at the Institute for Research on Portuguese-Speaking Countries, at the City University of Macau

9