352
K. Takao . B.T. Bower
of the occurrence of eutrophication in Tokyo Bay. The group of four prefectures and
two cities promulgated the "Guidelines for controlling eutrophication in Tokyo Bay"
on 1st July 1982.
A major deficiency of such an inter-prefectural forum is that it is ad-hoc, and depends on voluntary cooperation among the major players involved in the management
of Tokyo Bay. Therefore it lacks the necessary authority to approve or veto individual
developments and activities which have potentially significant repercussions on the
ecosystem and other human activities involved in Tokyo Bay. As seen earlier, given the
complex and fragmented system of authority regarding the management of Tokyo Bay,
such a mechanism is unlikely to be powerful enough to have a significant influence on
the activities undertaken in Tokyo Bay.
Another possible deficiency of the inter-prefectural agency is that it is missing important entities, namely the ministries and agencies of the national government, which
have major responsibilities relating to management of Tokyo Bay. Therefore a third
option is to establish an entity based on a compact among national, regional, and local
governments. The entity would in essence be an interprefectural-national agency, with
at least the following signatories: Tokyo Metropolitan Government; Kanagawa Prefecture; Chiba Prefecture; Yokohama City; Kawasaki City; and Ministries of Transportation and Construction, and the Environment Agency of the central government. Membership of the board of the agency might be composed of one member from each of
the five local government signatories, appointed by the respective governors and mayors (who themselves could be the members), and five members appointed by the Prime
Minister to represent the national government.
The question is, how much power and which functions should be given to the agency.
If the powers and functions vested in the agency are similar to those in the first option
suggested above, the agency is limited to coordination and services, then the agency
will only be able to facilitate decision-making by national and local governments. It
would amount to being an interprefectural-national forum to exchange views and information, with no power to implement actions, allocate resources, and veto actions
of other entities.
If comprehensive and integrated management of Tokyo Bay is to be achieved, in both
the short-run and the long-run, special legislation must be passed establishing a Tokyo Bay Management Agency (TBMA). The legislation should be backed by the national government, the prefectural governments, and the municipal governments. There
are two critical requisites for the TBMA to be effective.
• The agency must have authority to reject any proposal which is considered not to
be consistent with the comprehensive plan, regardless of what entity - public or
private, municipal, prefectural or national - puts forth the proposal. If the TBMA
were established by interprefectural-national compact legislation, the signatories
would have to agree that the execut,ive board of the agency - with representation
from each of the signatories - should have that power.
• The agency must be staffed with individuals competent to develop, put forth, defend, modify and continually update, a comprehensive plan (action program) for
management of Tokyo Bay. Only by having a dynamic action program which is economically, technologically, ecologically, and institutionally feasible, is it likely to be
possible to implement the veto authority. '
K. Takao . B.T. Bower
of the occurrence of eutrophication in Tokyo Bay. The group of four prefectures and
two cities promulgated the "Guidelines for controlling eutrophication in Tokyo Bay"
on 1st July 1982.
A major deficiency of such an inter-prefectural forum is that it is ad-hoc, and depends on voluntary cooperation among the major players involved in the management
of Tokyo Bay. Therefore it lacks the necessary authority to approve or veto individual
developments and activities which have potentially significant repercussions on the
ecosystem and other human activities involved in Tokyo Bay. As seen earlier, given the
complex and fragmented system of authority regarding the management of Tokyo Bay,
such a mechanism is unlikely to be powerful enough to have a significant influence on
the activities undertaken in Tokyo Bay.
Another possible deficiency of the inter-prefectural agency is that it is missing important entities, namely the ministries and agencies of the national government, which
have major responsibilities relating to management of Tokyo Bay. Therefore a third
option is to establish an entity based on a compact among national, regional, and local
governments. The entity would in essence be an interprefectural-national agency, with
at least the following signatories: Tokyo Metropolitan Government; Kanagawa Prefecture; Chiba Prefecture; Yokohama City; Kawasaki City; and Ministries of Transportation and Construction, and the Environment Agency of the central government. Membership of the board of the agency might be composed of one member from each of
the five local government signatories, appointed by the respective governors and mayors (who themselves could be the members), and five members appointed by the Prime
Minister to represent the national government.
The question is, how much power and which functions should be given to the agency.
If the powers and functions vested in the agency are similar to those in the first option
suggested above, the agency is limited to coordination and services, then the agency
will only be able to facilitate decision-making by national and local governments. It
would amount to being an interprefectural-national forum to exchange views and information, with no power to implement actions, allocate resources, and veto actions
of other entities.
If comprehensive and integrated management of Tokyo Bay is to be achieved, in both
the short-run and the long-run, special legislation must be passed establishing a Tokyo Bay Management Agency (TBMA). The legislation should be backed by the national government, the prefectural governments, and the municipal governments. There
are two critical requisites for the TBMA to be effective.
• The agency must have authority to reject any proposal which is considered not to
be consistent with the comprehensive plan, regardless of what entity - public or
private, municipal, prefectural or national - puts forth the proposal. If the TBMA
were established by interprefectural-national compact legislation, the signatories
would have to agree that the execut,ive board of the agency - with representation
from each of the signatories - should have that power.
• The agency must be staffed with individuals competent to develop, put forth, defend, modify and continually update, a comprehensive plan (action program) for
management of Tokyo Bay. Only by having a dynamic action program which is economically, technologically, ecologically, and institutionally feasible, is it likely to be
possible to implement the veto authority. '