Suchergebnisse

In 1963, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries gave the go-ahead for a project for the re-development of Nakaumi Lake in western Japan.1 Nakaumi is Japan's fifth largest lake, and if the adjacent Lake Shinji is taken into consideration, the combined lake area ranks second in Japan, after Lake Biwa in Shiga (just east of Kyoto) and slightly above Kasumigaura in Ibaraki (just east of Tokyo).2 The combination in this lake system of the river-waters flowing into Lake Shinji and the sea-waters flowing into Nakaumi is responsible for a particularly fertile, brackish, lake environment, where river and sea fish and marine life converge, and human settlements grew around them because of their rich variety of food sources. However, the topography and dimensions of this area as settled by the ice age has been under pressure in the late 20th century. Once 97 square kilometres, the human interventions of recent decades have reduced Nakaumi to 88.5km2, and would reduce it much further, to just over 70km2 in the near future. Nor is it merely the dimensions that have to be revised in the geography texts; in future they may well have to revise even the category of lake to which it belongs, from brackish to fresh. The scale of change underway and being planned is momentous, and Lake Nakaumi and Lake Shinji have gradually emerged at the centre of debate about politics, ecology, direction, and value in late 20th century Japan.

In the late 1990s, the words 'Okinawa' and 'problem' are almost synonymous. The 'problem,' as most commonly understood, is that these lush, semi-tropical Japanese southern islands host a huge U.S. military base structure, which their people clearly do not want. But there are other reasons for seeing Okinawa as problem-bound. I believe that Okinawa is a microcosm through which the unsustainability of the Japanese system as a whole becomes visible. The poverty of a simply 'cut the bases; expand development' formula for the future of Okinawa is demonstrated by the fact that the Japanese government now insists that the only way forward is to combine both, bases and development, and promises to do just that. Certainly, the bases should be removed, but just as certainly, I believe, development must be re-thought.