Welcome to　Isahaya Bay

　　　　EDITORIALS　　　　　　　Japan Times　　　　SEP 18, 2019

Isahaya Bay reclamation dispute continues

The Supreme Court decision last week to send a case concerning the government-run
reclamation project in Isahaya Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture, back to the Fukuoka
High Court leaves the judiciary divided over a dispute that has
pitted local governments as well as farmers and fishermen in the area
against each other for nearly two decades. The government should renew
its efforts to settle the case with the fishermen and put an end to the
dispute that has long divided the regional community.

Initiated in 1986 and completed in 2008, the \235 billion project reclaimed a tidal flat
in Isahaya Bay in the western part of the Ariake Sea ? a nearly
landlocked body of water encircled by Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Saga and
Fukuoka prefectures in Kyushu ? by closing off the area with a 7-km dike.
It created 670 hectares of farmland and a 2,600-hectare reservoir for
agricultural use.

But the project has divided the fishermen operating in the Ariake Sea and the farmers
cultivating the reclaimed land. The fishermen charge that the dike has
caused changes in currents and other sea conditions that have reduced
their catch, and are calling for opening the floodgates so research can
identify the project’s impact. The farmers fear that doing so would
damage their farmland. The national government, meanwhile, has been
caught between conflicting court decisions: one ordering it to open the
floodgates and the other ordering it to keep them closed.

The project was controversial from the very beginning when it came under criticism
for being a typical big public works project that can’t be halted once
it starts, but it went ahead despite concerns over the environmental
impact. While the reclamation was aimed at preventing flooding in
low-lying areas and creating more farmland ? its roots lie in a 1950s
plan by Nagasaki Prefecture to boost food output ? by the time the
project began the government had long embraced a policy of curbing rice
production acreage across the country as the nation relied increasingly
on food imports. Today, the farmers raise vegetables on the reclaimed
land.

Nagasaki Prefecture, which was able to increase its farmland through the project,
and other prefectures facing the Ariake Sea had differences over the
project. It was launched before the enactment of the law on
environmental assessment of large construction projects, and no legal
rules had been established for building consensus on such projects and
assessing their environmental impact. The conflicting interests of the
fishermen and farmers led to a series of lawsuits in which courts handed
down conflicting rulings.

In its 2010 ruling on a suit filed by fishermen, the Fukuoka High Court recognized
the causal relationship between the project and the poor catches, and
ordered the government to open the floodgates for five years to probe
the project’s impact. However, another court ruling on a suit filed by
the farmers subsequently ordered the government not to open the
floodgates.

Faced with the divided decision by the judiciary, the government opted to keep
the gates closed, saying that it was bound by conflicting legal
obligations ? and has paid the fishermen \1.2 billion in penalties for
not complying with the 2010 ruling. It filed a suit in 2014 seeking to
invalidate the 2010 court order on the grounds that the situation
surrounding the project has changed due to the divided court rulings.
Last year the Fukuoka High Court ruled in favor of the government to
determine that the 2010 court order was no longer valid. But last week
the Supreme Court overturned that decision and sent the case back to the
high court.

There are no established theories as to whether the poor catch in the Ariake Sea
is the result of the reclamation project. The government rejects the
assertion, while some experts say such a link can only be determined by
opening the gates and conducting research.

The government has taken steps to improve the environment in the Ariake Sea
and develop fishing grounds through special legislation introduced in
2002, but the fisheries catch and the output of nori seaweed, a local
speciality, remain unstable. There are views that a variety of factors,
including a rise in sea temperature linked to climate change, affect the
fisheries resources. Even as court battles continue over the project,
efforts should be continued to research and improve the environment in
the Ariake Sea.

An earlier attempt by the government to settle with the fishermen by creating a
\10 billion fund to promote local fisheries ? on condition that the
Isahaya floodgates would remain shut ? has failed. Although it’s
expected to take some more time for the judiciary to reach a conclusion,
the government needs to maintain its efforts to come to a settlement
with the fishermen so that the bitter divisions in the regional
community can heal.


　　　　　　Buck to The Toppage