A struggle for distributive fairness in waste disposal: Koto Ward and In-Ward Waste Disposal in the 23 wards of Tokyo

ABSTRACT

This study explores the politics of distributive fairness in Locally-Unwanted-Land-Uses (LULUs) siting by looking into how a movement in LULU disputes changes its attitude towards a frame of distributive fairness over a long period of time. Some kinds of facilities are often opposed by local residents because of negative side-effects, even as they are claimed to be necessary for the well-being of the wider public. Framing refers to actors’ signifying work, and how to frame distributive fairness plays a significant role in conflicts over such controversial land uses. In the 23 wards of Tokyo, distributive fairness in waste disposal among the wards has been a crucial issue. In the early 1970s, Koto Ward, which suffered a disproportionate burden of waste disposal, launched a campaign to rectify the unfairness. In-Ward Waste Disposal (IWWD), a frame of distributive fairness, played a central role in this movement. However, Koto Ward’s attitude towards this frame of distributive fairness changed over time. By examining why Koto Ward’s advocacy for IWWD varied over time, this study shows how Koto Ward’s stance on IWWD changed in conjunction with economic, policy, and political circumstances, thereby illuminating the importance of integrating socio-politico-economic contexts in framing analysis.

KEYWORDS:

• Distributive fairness
• framing
• LULUs
• NIMBY
• waste management

ORCID

Takashi Nakazawa http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2107-2735

Notes

1. Tokyo Metropolis is divided into two parts: the special wards and the Tama area. The former consists of 23 wards while the latter is made up of 26 cities, three towns and one village as of 2016. The 23 wards, which covers 627 square kilometres, has around 9.33 million residents as of 1 April 2016 (Tōkyōto 2016). The populaion of a ward ranges from around 58,000 (Chiyoda) at the smallest end to over 900,000 (Setagaya) at the largest.

2. Today, a large part of Koto Ward has been reclaimed by dumping and landfill.

3. The landfills were not in Koto Ward, but just offshore from the ward. Their actual ownership has yet to be decided after reclamation.

4. The first organised programme for incinerators siting was laid out in the Waste Disposal Plan in 1939. The plan intended to site nine small incinerators evenly dispersed along beltways at the outskirts, while garbage in the central area was to be disposed of in the coastal area in a concentrated way. Although this siting plan was interrupted by World War II, it became the archetype of siting policies in the post-war period (Tōkyōto Seisō Kyoku 2000).

5. There are two incinerators in Koto, Setagaya, Nerima, and Ota wards.

6. It suggested blocking garbage truck passage through the ward. Back then, the ward led the blockades, as it feared the situation would have been out of control if they had been carried out by local people directly (Komatsuzaki Gunji Denki Kankō Kai 1981).

7. The ward also demanded the realisation of the dispersed dumping and the consensus of the local people in Toyosu and Shinonome, where garbage trucks would come through to the inner seawall landfill.

8. It is noteworthy that Koto Ward did not believe that IWWD was totally achievable. Koto recognised that it was hardly possible to site an incinerator in every ward due to lack of land available for the projects, especially in the central part of Tokyo (Yomiuri Shinbun 1971).

9. The incinerator projects met with opposition from local residents and businesses who worried that the incinerators would bring environmental degradation to their communities and hinder their development, while IWWD was widely supported by the citizens of Tokyo (Tōkyōto 1973). Although the TMG was eventually able to overcome these local protests, they delayed the progress of incinerators siting. The local resistance in Suginami ward in particular was regarded as the bottleneck of IWWD. While the TMG tried to legitimise the project by claiming IWWD, the opposition movement made a counter-argument that the site-selection process was distorted by political power and legally flawed (Shōyō Kinen Zaidan 1983). Although the resistance finally broke down as Koto ward actually blockaded Suginami’s waste and the TMG suggested the use of eminent domain, it significantly delayed the progress of facility siting.

10. In “Seisō Kōwan Mondai to Kōtōku [Waste and Harbour Issues in Koto Ward]”, which collected documents on waste and harbour issues in the ward, the last document in the 1970s which (indirectly) referred to IWWD was “On dumping of residual ashes of sewage sludge in inner bay landfill” in 1975, which required the implementation of the conditions to which the ward agreed on the landfill.

11. This project aimed at shortening the construction period by constructing an incinerator on a floating vessel in a dock while building a docking station at the landfill site simultaneously.

12. The governor back then was Yukio Aoshima, who won the election in 1995 after Suzuki stepped down.

13. Shinjuku Ward found the site for an incinerator by that time.

14. The other two were offshore of Kasai and Haneda.

15. See Kōtōku Kikaku Bu (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).

16. Interview with an officer of Koto Ward (18.11.2011).

17. Interview with a member of Koto Ward council (21.11.2011).