It is summer 2023, and the controversy over the releases of treated water from the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant rumbles on. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has presented its report to the Japanese Government, concluding that the release process is in line with international standards and that the water TEPCO is planning to release is unlikely to have any effects on people or ecosystems. However, Japan’s fishers – whilst welcoming the report – continue to have concerns over the plans to release treated water. Internationally, tensions continue to simmer, with ongoing expressions of concern and the potential for more restrictions on the import of produce from Fukushima Prefecture and Japan more widely.
All the while, preparations for releasing the water – which will be treated and diluted prior to release to remove and dilute many radioactive elements – are continuing. The physical equipment on site has been built, and the Japanese Government are preparing to give TEPCO the go-ahead to start the releases within this summer. But whilst the physical infrastructure might be ready, two critical elements that could help to move past the current impasse are missing: trust, and fair process.
In the popular discourse, I’ve seen two common strategies, neither of which seem likely to build support for a way forwards: flooding people with ‘more and better’ information; and whataboutery. The ‘flooding people with more and better information’ strategy appears to have a mainly domestic focus. TEPCO and Japan’s national-level ministries have embarked on an information provision campaign ahead of the planned releases, with newspaper adverts, television films and face-to-face meetings with fishers – all of which have the goal of ‘informing’ the public and key stakeholders like fishers about the releases, and reassuring them the risk of harm is virtually non-existent. Meanwhile, internationally, actors from The Economist to the US Ambassador to Japan have taken a pop at China’s opposition to the releases, arguing that China releases far more into the Pacific from their own nuclear plants than Japan is planning to release from Fukushima Dai’ichi.
The issue with both of these approaches is that neither addresses the fact that there remains in some quarters a deep-seated lack of trust in the two institutions who are responsible for overseeing the releases: the national-level government in Japan, and TEPCO. Without trust, it’s very hard to bring people on-side – no matter what the science might say.
Clearly there is a difference between wild speculation and falsehoods about marine radioactivity spread in bad faith; versus legitimate concerns grounded in different interpretations of what constitutes an acceptable level of risk or uncertainty. Accurate and correct information is important for both countering outright falsehoods, and also enabling people to come to their own decision about whether or not they wish to consume Fukushima fish. But I worry there’s a real danger that dismissing concerns as ‘harmful rumours’ or pointing to the activities of other nations to contexualise the releases risks reinforcing an ‘us and them’ mentality in an already polarised situation.
It’s worth remembering the Pacific Ocean is a highly contested space, and Fukushima Dai’ichi is just one of a number of issues that has the potential to become a flashpoint for tensions between countries. It’s vital that the decisions countries make about importing Fukushima produce are based on science, not politics or public sentiment. But if we look both within and outside Japan, we can see that some key stakeholders have understandable grounds to be apprehensive about the treated water releases.
For example, the Pacific Islands Forum, which represents the shared interests of the Pacific Island nations, have continually expressed concern over the releases. They have engaged their own team of scientists to assess the proposals, who visited the Fukushima Dai’ichi site earlier this year, and have advocated for a precautionary approach based on a more complete scientific assessment and fuller consideration of all the available options. If we look to history and the disproportionate exposure to nuclear risk the Pacific Islands have had to face, we can understand why the Pacific Islands Forum has very reasonable concerns about radioactive material being released into the ocean that is vital to their livelihoods and sense of culture without full and prior consent.
Likewise, Fukushima Prefecture’s fishing cooperatives – and indeed the association representing fisheries cooperatives across all of Japan – continue to have strong misgivings about the releases. The cooperatives understand the science and engineering, but argue this isn’t the same as knowing that consumers will be reassured about the continued safety of their produce. The cooperatives in Fukushima have also recently said they still want more details on how exactly the releases are going to proceed. Moreover, the Japanese government has previously said they will create a fund to compensate fishers if they see a decline in sales due to the releases. These plans may well exist, and they may well be detailed. But if so, let’s counter the speculation which is being released by other nations by getting it out in the public domain and help to build the sense that TEPCO, and the Japanese government that are regulating and overseeing them, have competence in what they are proposing to do.
It’s worth saying that I do have a fair degree of sympathy for the IAEA in all of this. The IAEA were asked by the Japanese government to review the proposed treated water release processes. They had a very specific remit, and their experts produced a technical report which assessed the process for releasing water itself, plus its potential effects on nearby people and ecosystems. Authority to release treated water ultimately rests with the Japanese Government and TEPCO alone, and the IAEA can only provide independent observation and evidence to support decision-making. Yet, as we’ve also seen with some of the online responses to the IAEA’s observations at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, it can be very hard to provide evidence that purports to be ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ in a highly politicised and emotive situation, where everyone has their own view of what the ‘truth’ is and can be quick to accuse institutions and individuals of being complicit in some kind of cover-up or cop-out if they don’t produce evidence that validates their own pre-existing beliefs. In other words, with the treated water review, the IAEA were in some ways damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.
So what do I think is the best way forwards? As before, two critical and linked elements are trust and process. This involves ensuring different actors have access to data they feel they can trust; and bringing key stakeholders whose livelihoods and sense of identity depend on the Pacific Ocean into the decision-making process. In real terms, this might mean (a) TEPCO and the Japanese government releasing more data and allowing different stakeholder groups and countries access to the Fukushima Dai’ichi site to make their own measurements; (b) developing deliberative groups that can inform decision-making for how the treated water releases proceed from now on, with an active role for fisheries cooperatives and municipal governments within Fukushima rather than these groups being passive recipients of decisions forced on them from on-high; and (c) supporting different levels of government and civil society actors to do their own research, monitoring and public engagement into the treated water releases and the marine environment off the Fukushima coast.
There are a few small positive signs that things are moving in the right direction. South Korea sent their own delegation of experts to Fukushima Dai’ichi to carry out additional assessments which, combined with the release of the full IAEA report, was enough for the South Korean government to give their backing to the release plan (although whether opposition parties and the Korean public agree with this assessment remains to be seen). The IAEA also announced that they are establishing a permanent office at Fukushima Dai’ichi to monitor the treated water releases for their full duration. This has been welcomed by the fisheries cooperatives in Fukushima Prefecture, who see it is providing additional assurance to themselves and to consumers. The IAEA’s Director General, Rafael Mariano Grossi, also met with fishers and with town governments on the Fukushima coast when he was in Fukushima Prefecture at the start of July, an encouraging sign that the IAEA is listening to and taking seriously the views of the people closest to the nuclear plant.
Doing nothing is not an option. Space on the Fukushima Dai’ichi site is limited, and something will have to be done with the treated water at some point. But just as a band of voices is calling for a pause to ensure that all the evidence is in place and all other options have been explored before the treated water is released into the Pacific, the best way to support those whose livelihoods and identities depend on the sea might be to spend a little more time to rebuild trust and establish more participatory processes for governing the treated water at Fukushima Dai’ichi.
Dr Leslie Mabon 