180
M. Seta
is also under the METI, engages in the development of technology for the exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources.
4 Furthermore, the Fisheries Agency under the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) is inevitably involved in the
development and implementation of comprehensive ocean policies.
5
For the protection and conservation of the marine environment, traditionally, the
MLIT, which is in charge of shipping regulations has played a central role, because
most of the measures to protect the marine environment are closely connected to
shipping regulations. However, recently, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has
contributed to the protection of the marine environment by introducing a more
environment-oriented approach. Against this background, this chapter describes how
Japan, and especially the Japanese government, protects and conserves the marine
environment. For this purpose, Sect. 10.2 focuses on the implementation of IMO
shipping environmental regulations. Then, Sect. 10.3 examines the recent developments of marine environmental policies led by the MOE, namely, the establishment
of marine protected areas and measures to deal with marine litter.
10.2 Marine Environmental Protection from Shipping
10.2.1 Municipal Legislations
In 1996, when Japan ratified the UNCLOS, Japan also revised its Act on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Water and passed the Act on the Exclusive Economic
Zone and the Continental Shelf, and attempted to comply with international law, by
harmonising its municipal laws. In the pre-UNCLOS era, to comply with the 1972
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (London Convention of 1972), Japan amended the Act on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution and Maritime Disasters (the Marine Pollution Prevention Act).
6
In a similar vein, to fulfil obligations under the 1978 Protocol relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL
73/78), Japan modified the Marine Pollution Prevention Act.
7
The Japanese position on utilising municipal legislation for ocean policies has not
changed until now. This was confirmed in 2014 when Japan ratified the International
4 JOGMEC, Annual Report (Year ended March 31, 2016), p. 23, available at http://www.jogmec.
go.jp/content/300328471.pdf (last visited 21 May 2019).
5 Rodger D. Smith, Japan’s International Fisheries Policy: Law, Diplomacy and Policy Governing
Resource Security (2015), pp. 204–205.
6 Jun Tsuruta, ‘Japanese Measures against the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment under the UNCLOS and the IMO Treaties’, Meiji Gakuin Law Journal, Vol. 106 (2019),
pp. 99–100.
7 Ibid., pp. 103–104. As for this Act, see also Chie Kojima, ‘Japan’s Legal Regime for Preventing
and Controlling Accidental Discharges of Oil and Hazardous and Noxious Substances from Ships
and Offshore Facilities’, in Anastasia Telesetsky, Warwick Gullett and Seokwoo Lee (eds.), Marine
Pollution Contingency Planning: State Practice in Asia-Pacific States (2017), pp. 88–91.
M. Seta
is also under the METI, engages in the development of technology for the exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources.
4 Furthermore, the Fisheries Agency under the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) is inevitably involved in the
development and implementation of comprehensive ocean policies.
5
For the protection and conservation of the marine environment, traditionally, the
MLIT, which is in charge of shipping regulations has played a central role, because
most of the measures to protect the marine environment are closely connected to
shipping regulations. However, recently, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has
contributed to the protection of the marine environment by introducing a more
environment-oriented approach. Against this background, this chapter describes how
Japan, and especially the Japanese government, protects and conserves the marine
environment. For this purpose, Sect. 10.2 focuses on the implementation of IMO
shipping environmental regulations. Then, Sect. 10.3 examines the recent developments of marine environmental policies led by the MOE, namely, the establishment
of marine protected areas and measures to deal with marine litter.
10.2 Marine Environmental Protection from Shipping
10.2.1 Municipal Legislations
In 1996, when Japan ratified the UNCLOS, Japan also revised its Act on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Water and passed the Act on the Exclusive Economic
Zone and the Continental Shelf, and attempted to comply with international law, by
harmonising its municipal laws. In the pre-UNCLOS era, to comply with the 1972
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (London Convention of 1972), Japan amended the Act on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution and Maritime Disasters (the Marine Pollution Prevention Act).
6
In a similar vein, to fulfil obligations under the 1978 Protocol relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL
73/78), Japan modified the Marine Pollution Prevention Act.
7
The Japanese position on utilising municipal legislation for ocean policies has not
changed until now. This was confirmed in 2014 when Japan ratified the International
4 JOGMEC, Annual Report (Year ended March 31, 2016), p. 23, available at http://www.jogmec.
go.jp/content/300328471.pdf (last visited 21 May 2019).
5 Rodger D. Smith, Japan’s International Fisheries Policy: Law, Diplomacy and Policy Governing
Resource Security (2015), pp. 204–205.
6 Jun Tsuruta, ‘Japanese Measures against the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment under the UNCLOS and the IMO Treaties’, Meiji Gakuin Law Journal, Vol. 106 (2019),
pp. 99–100.
7 Ibid., pp. 103–104. As for this Act, see also Chie Kojima, ‘Japan’s Legal Regime for Preventing
and Controlling Accidental Discharges of Oil and Hazardous and Noxious Substances from Ships
and Offshore Facilities’, in Anastasia Telesetsky, Warwick Gullett and Seokwoo Lee (eds.), Marine
Pollution Contingency Planning: State Practice in Asia-Pacific States (2017), pp. 88–91.