It looks as if the releases of treated water from the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant are about to commence, potentially within the next few days. Despite continued opposition from fishers, some local residents and other nations, it now seems unlikely that the Japanese Government and TEPCO will reverse their decision.
The purpose of this post is to outline what happens now, and to highlight some points that are worth looking out for in the months ahead. As I see it, the key take-aways right now are:
-fishing in Fukushima waters is going to continue as it was before;
-although risks should be minimal if everything goes to plan, independent, timely and widespread monitoring is crucial;
-evidence-based assessment of the effects of the releases on the sales of Fukushima fish – and the effects of any communication efforts – is going to be key;
-the relationship between Fukushima’s fishers and TEPCO/the national government is at rock bottom, and trust somehow needs to be rebuilt.
Effects on seafood and the marine environment
One of the first and most apparent questions that gets asked is ‘will seafood be safe?’ Fukushima’s fishers – and indeed fishers across all of Japan – remain fundamentally opposed to the treated water releases. Nonetheless, the Fukushima Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations have said they will continue their fishing and selling their fish. The cooperatives have undertaken screening on all produce they land since fishing in Fukushima was resumed in 2012, and will continue to do so after the releases commence. The results of this screening are shared online on the cooperative website.
Additional data from sampled fish is collected and publicised by Fukushima Prefecture – the regional government in which the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant is located – and by TEPCO based on monitoring of species in the port area of the plant. All of this is going to continue for the foreseeable future. The International Atomic Energy Agency have also opened a site office at Fukushima Dai’ichi to oversee the process and collect their own data.
There is fairly broad consensus that if the releases go to plan and are undertaken correctly, then the impacts on people and the marine environment are likely to be minimal (although it is fair and important to note that some scientists have called for a more precautionary approach, and for a fuller and clearer understanding of what exactly is in the tanks). However, it is vital that these assertions and the current monitoring regimes are supported by ongoing monitoring and screening, ideally by independent research organisations and by an international community of researchers undertaking peer-reviewed work. It is especially important that monitoring covers the broad range of materials that are in the tanks and in the water released into the sea, and that data is released in a transparent and timely manner.
Prices of seafood
One of the main concerns quoted in the media and political discourse has been the potential for negative effects on the reputation – and thus price – of seafood landed in Fukushima ports. Prices of seafood landed at Fukushima ports can be tracked by looking at the value of seafood landed in each fishing district, as this data is collected by fisheries cooperatives. Indeed, Japan has a vibrant and thriving field of fisheries economics research, which can provide insight in this regard. The Japanese Government has proposed to create a fund to step in and buy seafood if sales and prices of produced landed in north-east Japan suffers because of the treated water releases, and Prime Minister Kishida pledged that the fishing industry will be supported for the duration of the releases.
Japanese supermarket chain Aeon has already pledged to keep buying and selling Fukushima fish even after the releases start. Internationally, countries such as Hong Kong and China have already placed restrictions on produce from Japan, but it is worth remembering that Fukushima fish continues to have many markets, especially within Japan.
What is not always so easy to ascertain is why prices in seafood fluctuate, especially against an ongoing backdrop of climate change which can make some species more scarce and others more common. Again, what is going to be very important here is research in fisheries economics and consumer surveys – two areas where Japan is very good – to understand whether the treated water releases are driving consumers away. A few years the initial nuclear accident in 2011, fisheries cooperatives felt that consumers were essentially divided into two groups: those who were happy to eat Fukushima fish, and those who wouldn’t no matter what. Seeing if this dynamic holds once the releases start will be important.
It will also be useful to monitor social media and traditional media outlets to see how Fukushima seafood is being represented. The Japanese Government has run an extensive public information campaign on treated water, and has promised a robust response to any ‘harmful rumours. However, this rhetoric needs to be supplemented by (a) monitoring of media channels to see what misinformation spreads; and (b) economic/survey-based assessment of how effective any countermeasures are in terms of reducing consumer anxiety or helping sales and prices to recover.
Politics
Internationally, it’s worth remembering that the Pacific Ocean is a very contested space, and that anything like the release of treated water has the potential to become a flashpoint for tensions between countries. To an extent, some of the more fiery rhetoric may die down as the news cycle moves on and other issues take centre stage. However, what is going to be much harder to rebuild is trust between the Japanese Government and other nations, especially smaller Pacific Island nations who have advocated a precautionary approach to the releases based on a fuller set of scientific data. As Azby Brown of Safecast points out, the manner in which the Japanese Government and TEPCO have handled the treated water releases could set a worrying precedent.
Domestically too, relations of trust between TEPCO, the Japanese Government and Fukushima’s fishers are now at rock bottom. The governor of Fukushima Prefecture pointed out very recently that work now needs to be done to rebuild relations between fishers and TEPCO/the national government. The releases of treated water are unlikely to be the last action TEPCO needs to take during the process of decommissioning Fukushima Dai’ichi. So a critical question going forwards will be: how can TEPCO and the Japanese Government rebuild relations with the fishing cooperatives in Fukushima, to gain consent and licence for other actions they might need to take on-site in the future?
Social and cultural issues
As I’ve discussed extensively in my research, fishing in Fukushima – as everywhere – isn’t just a job. It’s a way of life, not just for fishers themselves, but for their families and for coastal communities who see fishing as part of their identity and of the environments in which they live and work. Fukushima’s fishers take a real pride in what they do, and in the work they have put in since 2011 to rebuild their fisheries. Research from Europe has shown that there can be real aversion to contamination of previously clean or rehabilitated environments as part of post-nuclear accident rehabilitation. So it is hard to say at the moment what the social and cultural impacts of the releases on Fukushima’s coastal communities will be. Certainly, fishers have pledged to keep fishing, and many online users have pledged to keep buying at eating Fukushima fish. But anthropological and qualitative research and in-depth journalism has a powerful and important role to play in sharing the story of what it means to live in a changing environment. It is crucial that the diverse range voices of those close to Fukushima Dai’ichi are not ignored.
Dr Leslie Mabon 