Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
document to the appropriate government entities and includes a summary
of comments received and how they were addressed in the final document.
The law provides no guidance or requirements for the analyses, the infor-
mation to be gathered, treatment of alternatives, or structure of the assess-
ment. Instead, it relies on the project proponent, who knows most about the
project and the stakeholders, who have the greatest potential to be affected,
to develop an EIA scope on a project-specific basis. Once the scoping is
complete and the investigations and analyses called for during scoping are
completed, a draft EIA is produced and distributed to the public.
The project proponent then responds to all comments on the draft EIA and
redistributes the document to all stakeholders. This document includes sum-
maries of all comments on the draft and the project proponent's response to
the comments and suggestions. At this stage, the document is submitted to
the Minister of the Environment who then expresses an opinion on the proj-
ect and the results of the environmental analysis. The proponent cannot take
any action on the project until the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is completed and made public. Under this procedure, the decision on project
implementation and impact mitigation rests with the project proponent and
the authorizing agency, who are most often closely linked, but the law does
require the Ministry of Environment to comment on the project. This process
is somewhat analogous to the draft EIS, final EIS, and Record of Decision
(ROD) requirements under NEPA.
The Japanese approach to environmental analysis has both advantages
and disadvantages compared with NEPA. After several false starts, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Law requires extensive input and review
from local government entities and the public, and even allows them to be
heavily involved in the design of the environmental analysis. Similarly, the
input to two versions of the document (comparable to the draft EIS and EIS)
is required and the project proponent must respond to all suggestions and
comments expressed. This can result in a very site-specific environmental
analysis that focuses exclusively on the critical issues and does not become
overburdened with red tape. The Japanese law lacks specific procedural
requirements such as required evaluation of alternatives, an authorizing
agency to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts, and a complete eval-
uation of mitigation. This can sometimes be a disadvantage if no stakeholder
raises these issues, or the project proponent decides not to include them in
the analysis. The law does make provisions for the decision makers to have
the necessary information to fully understand the impacts of any proposed
action and also to receive and address opinions from stakeholders, includ-
ing the Minister of the Environment. However, it relies on the commitment
of the authorizing government agency and the project proponent (which are
frequently one and the same or at least closely tied by common objectives)
to consider opinions and comments of others and make decisions that are
environmentally protective and sustaining.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search