Implementing the rights of indigenous peoples in Japan: implications and challenges of forest certification for the Ainu

ABSTRACT

After the adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, the Government of Japan recognised the Ainu as an indigenous people in 2008, and it began developing the Ainu policy. However, the policy focuses on individual rights and cultural promotion, failing to implement UNDRIP. In this situation, private standards, notably forest certification, are increasingly paid attention to because the mechanism requires forest managers to respect the rights of indigenous peoples outlined in UNDRIP. With this in mind, the study will discuss the implications and challenges of forest certification in relation to the Ainu indigenous rights in Hokkaido, particularly the 2012 revision of Principles and Criteria of Forest Stewardship Council. It will take a close look at newly added requirements on UNDRIP, identification of indigenous peoples, and the right to free, prior and informed consent. Through this analysis, the study will clarify that the revised standard could improve the relationship between the Ainu and forest managers. However, by considering the current situation of the Ainu, the study will also point out the necessity of careful audit process, further effort in working on the Governmental policy and the increase in auditors’ familiarities with indigenous rights.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous peoples
• human rights
• forest certification
• Forest Stewardship Council
• Ainu
• Japan

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Fumiya Nagai is a PhD student at the Department of Anthropology, the University of British Columbia (Canada). He holds master's degrees in Human Rights by the School of Advanced Study, the University of London (UK), and in Cultural Anthropology by Kyoto University (Japan). He has also worked for several international human rights NGOs, most closely with Shimin Gaikou Centre (Citizens' Diplomatic Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Japan), which supports UN activities by indigenous peoples in Japan.

Notes

1. Alison Brysk, ‘Turning Weakness into Strength: The Internationalization of Indian Rights’, Latin American Perspectives 23, no. 2 (1996): 46.

2. Colin Samson and Carlos Gigoux, Indigenous Peoples and Colonialism: Global Perspectives, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017), 148.

3. S. James Anaya ‘The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination in the Post-Declaration Era’, in Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Claire Charters and Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009), 185.

4. Ronald Niezen, The Origin of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003), 51.

5. Asbjørn Eide, ‘The Indigenous Peoples, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, in Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Claire Charters and Rodolfo Stavenhagen (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009), 40–1.

6. Hideaki Uemura, ‘Nihon niokeru Datsushokuminchika no Ronri to Heiwagaku – Sono Kankeisei no Seiri to Mondaiteiki’ [Logic of Decolonisation and Peace Studies in Japan – Summarising the Relationship and Setting the Issues], Peace Studies 47 (2016): vii.

7. Hideaki Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta Nihon no Senjuminzoku – Kokusai Rengou deno Undo ga motarashita Seika to Kadai’ [Indigenous Peoples in Japan Who Raised their Voice – Outcome and Challenge brought by thei UN Activism], in Senjumin kara Miru Gendai Sekai – Watashitachi no <Atarimae> ni Idomu, ed. Naoko Fukayama, Junko Maruyama and Makiko Kimura (Kyoto: Showado, 2018), 62–5.

8. Ainu Association of Hokkaido (AAH), Ainu Minzoku no Gaisetsu – Hokkaido Ainu Kyokai no Katsudo wo fukume [Overview of The Ainu People: Including Activities of Ainu Association of Hokkaido], rev ed., 31 March 2017, https://www.ainu-assn.or.jp/public/files/1d05c1dd9ceb9cf70478cd757622d3075a2c94b7.pdf, 1. Hereinafter, the access dates of the URL referred in the paper are all 30 July 2018 if not specified.

9. Hokkaido Government (HG), Hokkaido Ainu Seikatsu Jittai Chosa Hokokusho [Report on Ainu Living Condition in Hokkaido] (2018), http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/ass/H29_ainu_living_conditions_survey.pdf, 3.

10. Advisory Council for Future Ainu Policy (ACFAP), Final Report, trans. Comprehensive Ainu Policy Office, 29 July 2009, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainu/dai10/siryou1_en.pdf, 2–9.

11. Yoko Tanabe, ‘The UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Ainu of Japan: Development and Challenge’, Indigenous Policy Journal 24, no. 4 (2014), 6; Richard Siddle, Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan (London: Routledge, 1996), 56.

12. Ishii Hiroshi, ‘Hokkaido Kaitaku no Rekishi’ [History of Hokkaido Development], in Hokkaido no Shinrin, ed. Hoppo Shinrin Gakkai (Sapporo: Hokkaido Shimbun Press, 2011), 74–8.

13. ACFAP, Final Report, 9.

14. Siddle, Race, Resistance and, 76–7.

15. Their claims include the abolishment of assimilative legislation, ‘ethnic’ and ‘economic self-reliance’, basic human rights, the elimination of ‘racial discrimination’, the guarantee of political participation, and rights pertaining to education, language and culture (AAH, Ainu Minzoku no, 13–5).

16. Siddle, Race, Resistance and, 183–4.

17. Chris Burgess, ‘The “Illusion” of Homogeneous Japan and National Character: Discourse as a Tool to Transcend the “Myth” vs. “Reality” Binary’, The Asia-Pacific Journal 8-9, no. 1 (2010): 1–24.

18. Siddle, Race, Resistance and, 185.

19. Yuji Iwasawa, ‘Nibutani Dam Saiban no Kokusaihojo no Igi’ [The Significance of the Nibutani Dam Case in International Law], Intercultural Human Rights 9 (1998): 56–9.

20. Richard Siddle, ‘An Epoch-Making Event? The 1997 Ainu Cultural Promotion Act and Its Impact’, Japan Forum 14, no. 3 (2002): 410–11.

21. Naohiro Nakamura, ‘“Ainu Seisaku no Arikata ni kansuru Yushikisha Kondankai” Hokokusho ni kansuru Ronko no Hikaku Kento’ [Comparative Examination of Analysis on the Final Report of ‘Advisory Council of Future Ainu Policy’], Hokkaido Ethnology 10 (2014): 69.

22. Hideaki Uemura, ‘“Senjuminzoku no Kenri nikansuru Kokuren Sengen” Kakutoku heno Nagai Michinori’ [A Long Way to Achieving ‘the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’], PRIME 27 (2008): 64.

23. Tanabe, ‘The UN Declaration’, 12–3.

24. Yasuo Fukuda, Shugiin Giin Suzuki Muneo kun Teishutsu Ainu Minzoku wo Senjuminzoku tosurukotowo Seifu ni motomeru Kokkaiketsugi wo uketeno Seifu no Torikumi nikansuru Saishitsumon nitaisuru Tobensho [Answer to the Resubmitted Question by Muneo Suzuki, a Diet’s Member, on the Government’s Efforts for ‘Resolution on Resolution Calling for the Recognition of the Ainu People as an Indigenous People’], 24 June 2008, http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon_pdf_t.nsf/html/shitsumon/pdfT/b169549.pdf/$File/b169549.pdf.

25. ACFAP, Final Report, 1.

26. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’, 59.

27. Teruki Tsunemoto, ‘Ainu Minzoku to “Nihongata” Senjuminzoku Seisaku’ [The Ainu and ‘Japan-specific’ Indigenous Policy], Gakujutsu no Doko 16, no. 9 (2011): 80.

28. Teruki Tsunemoto, ‘Toward Ainu- and Japan-Specific Indigenous Policies’, http://jspsusa.org/FORUM2012/presentation/3-3_Tsunemoto.pdf.

29. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’, 59.

30. ACFAP, Final Report, 21.

31. Tanabe, ‘The UN Declaration’, 15. The criticisms also range over the lack of repatriation measures (e.g. Kunihiko Yoshida, Ainu Minzoku no Senju Hosho Mondai – Minpogaku no Kenchi kara [Ainu Indigenous Reparation Issue: From the Civil Law Perspective], (Sappro: Sappro Jiyu Gakko ‘Yu’, 2012), 9–11) or the structural exclusiveness and centralisation of the Ainu policy group (e.g. Takeshi Higashimura, ‘Ainu Seisaku no Bunseki Wakugumi – Kyosei sareta “Kyosei” no Kozo’ [Analytical Framework of the Ainu Policy: Structure of Forced ‘Co-existence’], Forum of International Development Studies 47, no. 8 (2016): 1–16).

32. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’ 64.

33. Christie Overdevest, ‘Comparatin Fores Certification Schemens: The Case of Ratcheting Standards in the Forest Sector’, Socio-Economic Review 8 (2010): 47–6.

34. Sarah Crow and Cecilia Danks, ‘Why Certify? Motivations, Outcomes and the Importance of Facilitating Organizations in Certification of Community-Based Forestry Initiatives’, Small-Scale Forestry 9 (2010): 197.

35. María Gafo Gómez-Zamalloa, Alejandro Caparrós, Alfonso San-Miguel Ayanz, ‘15 Years of Forest Certification in the European Union. Are We Doing Things Right?’, Forest Systems 20, no. 1 (2011): 82.

36. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), ‘FSC Celebrates Its 20th Anniversary: 20 Years of Growth With FSC 1994–2014’, https://ic.fsc.org/20-years-of-growth/.

37. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), ‘History’, https://www.pefc.org/about-pefc/who-we-are/history.

38. PEFC, ‘International Endorsement’, https://www.pefc.org/standards/endorsement-mutual-recognition.

39. Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council (SGEC), ‘SGEC Kokusai Ninsho Seido toshiteno Aratana Shuppatsu – PEFC tono Sogo Shonin no Jitsugen’ [Fresh Start as SGEC International Certification Mechanism: Mutual Endorsement with PEFC], 3 June 2016, http://sgec-eco.org/swfu/d/ReporterLecture2016_6_3.pdf.

40. FSC, ‘Forest Management Certification: Maintaining Forest Ecosystems and Local Communities’, https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/forest-management-certification.

41. FSC, ‘Chain of Custody Certification: Providing Credentials for Entering Sustainable Markets’, https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/chain-of-custodycertification.

42. FSC, ‘Forest Management Certification’.

43. FSC, ‘Accreditation Program: Ensuring Excellence in Certification?’, https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/accreditation-program.

44. Yuki Yamamoto et al., ‘Is There a Price Premium for Certified Wood? Empirical Evidence from Log Auction Data in Japan’, Forest Policy and Economics 38 (2014): 168–72.

45. Forest Stewardship Council Japan (FSCJ), ‘FSC Japan – FSC Nihon Kokunai Shinrin Kikaku Dai 1 Soan Kochokai’ [Public Hearing on First Draft of FSC Japan National Forest Standard], 22 July 2016, https://jp.fsc.org/preview..a-391.pdf.

46. Kisato Miura and Masaki Shiba, ‘Shinrin Ninsho Seido to Ninsho Shohin nitaisuru Shohisha no Ishiki’ [Consumers’ Understanding of Forest Certification and Certified Products] (2009), https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jfsc/120/0/120_0_112/_pdf.

47. Forestry Agency, ‘Shinrin Ringyo Hakusho’ [White Paper on Forest and Forestry] (2016), http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/28hakusyo/attach/pdf/zenbun-4.pdf, 78.

48. Oliver Damette and Phillipe Delacote, ‘Unsustainable Timber Harvesting, Deforestation and the Role of Certification’, Ecological Economics 70 (2010): 1215–6.

49. Ibid.

50. PEFC, Sustainable Forest Management – Requirements (2010), https://www.pefc.org/images/documents/PEFC_ST_1003_2010_SFM__Requirements_2010_11_26.pdf, 12–3.

51. This battle occurred from ‘the question of whether indigenous peoples are the same “peoples” – with an “S” – so prominent in the Charter of the United Nations, … and who therefore must be recognized as possessing all the rights that flow from that status, including the right to self-determination’ (Niezen, The Origin of, 160–5).

52. Hideaki Uemura, ‘Shinrin Ninsho to Senju Minzoku’ [Forest Certification and Indigenous Peoples], 19 November 2016, https://ainupolicy.jimdo.com/%E5%B8%82%E6%B0%91%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%AE%E8%A8%98%E9%8C%B2/%E7%AC%AC%EF%BC%93%E5%9B%9E%E5%B8%82%E6%B0%91%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B02016%E5%B9%B411%E6%9C%8819%E6%97%A5/%E4%B8%8A%E6%9D%91%E8%8B%B1%E6%98%8E-%E6%A3%AE%E6%9E%97%E8%AA%8D%E8%A8%BC%E3%81%A8%E5%85%88%E4%BD%8F%E6%B0%91%E6%97%8F/. See also SGEC, Principles, Indicators and Guidelines for SGEC Forest Management Certification: Requirements for Forest Management Certification (2016), https://www.pefc.org/images/stories/documents/NGB_Documentation/Japan/Rev_161014_SGEC_doc_No_3_-_FM_principles_indicators_and_guidelines.pdf, 17–8.

53. In January 2018, FSC certifies 50,000 hectares of forest areas in Hokkaido, while SGEC (PEFC Japan) certifies 1,030,000 hectares of them. See HG, Hokkaidonai no Shinrin Ninsho Shutoku Jokyo [The Situation of the Forest Certification in Hokkaido], 10 January 2018, http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/srk/ninnsyousyutokujyoukyou_180110.pdf.

54. FSC, ‘The P&C Review Process: A Consistent Review of the Principles & Criteria’, https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/principles-criteria/the-revisited-p-and-c/the-review-process.

55. FSC, Overview for Prioritization of the Approved Motions from the 2011 General Assembly, 15 July 2011, http://motions.fsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/FSC_Report_GA-Motion-Passed_English.pdf, 7. In PIPC, an Ainu person, Koichi Kaizawa, was also appointed as a representative member from the Asia-Pacific region in 2016 (FSC Canada, ‘NAFA encourages Canadian leadership on Indigenous rights in the forest and welcomes Ainu representation to the Permanent Indigenous Peoples Committee of FSC’, 14 June 2016, https://ca.fsc.org/en-ca/newsroom/id/580).

56. FSC, Overview for Prioritization of the Approved Motions from the 2011 General Assembly, 15 July 2011, http://motions.fsc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/FSC_Report_GA-Motion-Passed_English.pdf, 7.

57. Some amendments were also made in 2014, and the latest version (V5-2) for implementation was approved in 2015 while Principle 3 has not changed.

58. Nature Economy and People Connected (NEPCon), ‘FSC “fundamental law” revised and approved’, 3 April 2012, https://www.nepcon.org/newsroom/fsc-fundamental-law-revised-and-approved.

59. For the overall changes of P&C, see FSC, FSC Principles & Criteria Review: Summary of Changes between FSC-STD-01-001 Version 4-0 and FSC-STD-01-001 Version 5-0 D4-0, 20 March 2011, http://ic.fsc.org/download.fsc-std-01-001-v5-0-d4-0-summary-of-changes-english.570.htm.

60. NEPCon, ‘FSC Principles & Criteria review: for better or for worse?’, 27 June 2011, https://www.nepcon.org/newsroom/fsc-principles-criteria-review-better-or-worse.

61. FSC, International Generic Indicators (FSC-STD-60-004 V1-0 EN) (Bonn: FSC International Center, 2015), http://igi.fsc.org/approved-documents.60.htm, 5–6.

62. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’, 63.

63. FSCJ, ‘Nihon Kokunai Shinrin Kanri Kikaku Sakutei notameno Field Test’ [Field Test for Japanese National Forest Management Standard Draft], 9 February 2017, https://jp.fsc.org/jp-jp/news/id/364.

64. FSCJ, ‘FSC Nihon Kokunai Shinrin Kikaku Daiichi Soan Kochokai’ [Public Hearing on First Draft of FSC Japan National Forest Standard], 22 July 2016, https://jp.fsc.org/preview..a-391.pdf.

65. FSCJ, ‘FM Kokunai Kikaku Sakutei’ [Establishment of FM Domestic Standards], 16 February 2019, https://jp.fsc.org/jp-jp/4-fsc/4-3/4-3-1-fm.

66. Uemura, ‘Shinrin Ninsho to’.

67. FSC, International Generic Indicators (FSC-STD-60-004 V1-0 EN) (Bonn: FSC International Center, 2015), 24.

68. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII), Concept Note, Expert Group Meeting – Dialogue on an Optional Protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. PFII/2015/EGM, 27–29 January 2015, 3. However, whether UNDRIP already reflect customary international law or not has been an important issue. See S. James Anaya and Siegfried Wiessner, ‘The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Reempowerment’, Jurist Legal News and Research (2007), http://www.jurist.org/forum/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous.php; and Alexandra Xanthaki, ‘Indigenous Rights in International Law over the Last 10 Years and Future Developments’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009), http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1686060/Xanthaki.pdf.

69. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’, 63.

70. FSCJ, FSC Nihon Kokunai Shinrin Kanri Kikaku Daiichi Soan (D1-1) Field Test Hokokusho [Report on Field Test for the First FSC Japan National Standard Draft (D1-1)], 21 October 2016, https://jp.fsc.org/preview.1.a-445.pdf.

71. FSCJ, Senju Minzoku Working Group Dai 2 kai Meeting Gijiroku [Minutes of Second Meeting of Working Group on Indigenous Peoples] (working paper, FSC Japan, 2016).

72. FSC, FSC Principles and Criteria, Criterion 3.3.

73. Mitsui & Co., Environment, Social Contribution Activity: Mitsui & Co., Ltd. Sustainability Report 2015, http://www.mitsui.com/jp/en/sustainability/sustainabilityreport/2015/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/09/08/en_csr_2015-07.pdf, 110.

74. Kazuhiro Matsui, ‘Shinrin Ninsho Seido niokeru Senju Minzoku no Kenri’ [The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights on the Forest Certification], International Public Policy Studies 9, no. 2 (2005): 287.

75. FSCJ, ‘FSC Nihon Kokunai’, 15.

76. FSC, FSC Principles & Criteria Review, 4–5.

77. Chisato Mishiba (Policy and Standard Coordinator, FSC Japan National Office), interview by the author, 26 July 2017, via Skype.

78. FSCJ, The Final Draft of the Nation Forest Stewardship Standard, https://jp.fsc.org/jp-jp/news/id/455, 30–1.

79. FSCJ, ‘Senju Minzoku Working Group Dai 4 kai Meeting Gijiroku’ [Minutes of Fourth Meeting of Working Group on Indigenous Peoples] (working paper, FSC Japan, 2016).

80. HG, Hokkaido Ainu Seikatsu, 3.

81. See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the Combined Seventh to Ninth Periodic Reports of Japan, UN Doc. CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, 26 September 2014, para. 20.

82. Tanabe, ‘The UN Declaration’, 19.

83. Ibid.

84. HG, Hokkaido Ainu Seikatsu, 49.

85. PFII, The Concept of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. PFII/2004/WS.1/3, 19–21 January 2004, para. 3.

86. Kyoko Kojima and Ainu Museum, eds., Ainu Bunka no Kiso Chishiki [Basic Knowledge on Ainu Culture] enl. rev. (Urayasu: Sofukan, 2018), 178–84.

87. FSC, FSC Principles and Criteria, Criterion 3.3.

88. FSC, FSC Guidelines for the Implementation of the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) (Bonn: FSC International Center GmbH, 2012), https://ca.fsc.org/download.fsc-guidelines-for-fpic.177.pdf, 6.

89. FSC, FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship: FSC-STD-01-001 (version 4-0) EN (Bonn: Forest Stewardship Council, 1996) https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/principles-criteria/the-revisited-p-and-c, Criteria 3.1 and 3.4.

90. FSC, FSC Guidelines for, 6.

91. Mauro Barelli, ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Aftermath of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Developments and Challenges Ahead’, The International Journal of Human Rights 16, no. 1 (2012): 3–4.

92. Currently, the Working Group has been established to develop the second version of the guideline. (FSC International, ‘FSC establishes FPIC Working Group’, 20 June 2018, https://ic.fsc.org/en/news-updates/id/2113).

93. FSC, FSC Guidelines for, 8.

94. Anaya, ‘The Right of’, 192–3.

95. Human Rights Council (HRC), Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/47, 6 July 2012, para. 80.

96. FSC, FSC Guidelines for, 8.

97. Toyah Rodhouse and Frank Vanclay, ‘Is Free, Prior and Informed Consent a Form of Corporate Social Responsibility?’, Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016): 791.

98. FSC, FSC guidelines for, 11; HRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, James Anaya, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, 15 July 2009, paras. 46, 49.

99. Amy K. Lehr and Gare A. Smith, Implementing a Corporate Free, Prior and Informed Consent Policy: Benefits and Challenges (Boston: Foley Hoag, 2010), http://solutions-network.org/site-fpic/files/2012/09/Implementing-a-Corporate-Free-Prior-Informed-Consent-Foley-Hoag.pdf, 59.

100. Cf. Mitsui & Co., 2017 Mitsui Bussan Sustainability Report, https://www.mitsui.com/jp/ja/sustainability/sustainabilityreport/2017/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/09/08/ja_sustainability_2017-p.pdf, 37, 41.

101. Nicholas Connolly and Manette Kaisershot, ‘Corporate Power and Human Rights’, The International Journal of Human Rights 19, no. 6 (2015): 666.

102. Cf. Rodhouse and Vanclay, ‘Is Free, Prior’.

103. Jennifer Franco, Reclaiming Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the Context of Global Land Grabs (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute for Hands off the Land Alliance, 2014), https://www.tni.org/files/download/reclaiming_fpic_0.pdf.

104. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples, September 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/FreePriorandInformedConsent.pdf.

105. Nakamura, ‘Ainu Seisaku no’, 69–70.

106. FSCJ, ‘FSC Nihon Kokunai’, 15.

107. AAH, ‘Kakuchiku Ainu Kyokai Ichiran’ [List of Ainu Associations of Each Region], https://www.ainu-assn.or.jp/outline/list.html.

108. The number of the Ainu who answered the latest survey on the Ainu living condition was 13,118 in 2017 while the number of the AAH members is around 3,000. See Nakamura, ‘Ainu Seisaku no’, 75.

109. Higashimura, ‘Ainu Seisaku no’.

110. Uemura, ‘Koe wo Ageta’, 64–5.

111. Other scholars also discuss the roles of the national Governments in the forest certification. See Lukas Giessen et al., ‘From Governance to Government: The Strengthened Role of State Bureaucracies in Forest and Agricultural Certification’, Policy and Society 35 (2016), 71–89.

112. Uemura, ‘Shinrin Ninsho to’.

113. Marie-Gabrielle Piketty and Isabel Garcia Drigob, ‘Shaping the Implementation of the FSC Standard: The Case of Auditors in Brazil’, Forest Policy and Economics 90 (2018), 160–6.

114. Mishiba, interview.

115. Uemura, ‘Shinrin Ninsho to’.