このページはフレーム対応ブラウザ用に作成されています。下のリンクは非フレーム使用ページですのでそちらをご覧ください。
この記事をプリントする
公共事業の見直し
公共事業の見直し
先月、長崎県諌早市で集中豪雨があり
死者や浸水などの被害が出た。
調整池堤防による防災効果は
どの程度あったのか
公的な追跡調査が望まれる。
Evaluating Public Works
By DAVID ZOPPETTI
Ironically, it was right after the rainy season that Isahaya, Nagasaki Prefecture, was battered by torrential rains this year, suffering severe damage.
Residents were urged to evacuate their homes because of floods that partly destroyed crops, houses and furniture.
Landslides blocked roads and forced trains to stop. One child even lost his life falling in the raging Honmyo River.
It was not the first time that Isahaya has faced such an ordeal. The region always gets tremendous amounts of rain
and is located right on the edge of the Isahaya Bay lowlands (areas that are below sea level at high tide) facing the
Ariake Sea. The Isahaya flood of 1957 left more than 500 people missing in its wake.
Two years ago, I spent a couple of weeks in Isahaya covering the completion of one of Japan's most ambiguous and
heavily criticized public works project ever. Some of you might remember the scene: Hundreds of steel plates were dropped
vertically into the ocean to complete the last portion of a 7-kilometer-long dike, cutting off a 3,550-hectare area
of lowlands (known also as tidelands or wetlands) from the sea.
Officially, the aim of the project — which cost more than ¥237 billion — was to prevent disasters caused by high
waves and flooding. But the Ariake Sea Dam has a more complex history.
The initial objective, set out in 1952, was the creation of land for local farmers. However a rice glut in the
early '70s led to drastic reductions of farmland, making it unnecessary to reclaim the tidal flats for that reason.
Securing fresh water resources was proposed but quickly rejected as unnecessary. It was only then that the
proponents conveniently remembered the inundation problems in the region and declared a new the objective: disaster
prevention.
Aside from the huge sums of money invested in what was a very dubious project, environmentalists were worried about
the fate of the rich local ecosystem in the Isahaya Bay wetlands. The symbol for their fight became the "mutsugoro."
But the bay was also home to many other rare species and was known as one of Japan's largest and most beautiful bird
sanctuaries.
All the controversy eventually led to one good thing. A bill was passed enabling the Environment Agency to
conduct 5-year "time assessments" of public works projects to evaluate them before deciding their funding.
As Japan didn't have proper environmental assessment legislation at the time this was indeed a big step ahead. But
shouldn't government projects also have to undergo follow-up surveys to verify that projects really serve the purpose
for which they were designed?
Two years have passed since the construction of the Isahaya Bay Dam. But to this day no official evaluation of its
impact has been conducted. Hearing about the damage caused by this year's precipitation, one feels legitimately
entitled to question its efficiency as a flood disaster prevention device.
I believe that an objective survey of the situation with results made public is required if we want to learn from
the past and avoid the situation in which public work projects become nothing more than a means for bureaucrats to pad
ministry coffers with taxpayers' money.
Ironically, it was right after the rainy season that Isahaya, Nagasaki Prefecture, was battered by torrential rains this year, suffering severe damage.
Residents were urged to evacuate their homes because of floods that partly destroyed crops, houses and furniture.
Landslides blocked roads and forced trains to stop. One child even lost his life falling in the raging Honmyo River.
It was not the first time that Isahaya has faced such an ordeal. The region always gets tremendous amounts of rain
and is located right on the edge of the Isahaya Bay lowlands (areas that are below sea level at high tide) facing the
Ariake Sea. The Isahaya flood of 1957 left more than 500 people missing in its wake.
Two years ago, I spent a couple of weeks in Isahaya covering the completion of one of Japan's most ambiguous and
heavily criticized public works project ever. Some of you might remember the scene: Hundreds of steel plates were dropped
vertically into the ocean to complete the last portion of a 7-kilometer-long dike, cutting off a 3,550-hectare area
of lowlands (known also as tidelands or wetlands) from the sea.
Officially, the aim of the project — which cost more than ¥237 billion — was to prevent disasters caused by high
waves and flooding. But the Ariake Sea Dam has a more complex history.
The initial objective, set out in 1952, was the creation of land for local farmers. However a rice glut in the
early '70s led to drastic reductions of farmland, making it unnecessary to reclaim the tidal flats for that reason.
Securing fresh water resources was proposed but quickly rejected as unnecessary. It was only then that the
proponents conveniently remembered the inundation problems in the region and declared a new the objective: disaster
prevention.
Aside from the huge sums of money invested in what was a very dubious project, environmentalists were worried about
the fate of the rich local ecosystem in the Isahaya Bay wetlands. The symbol for their fight became the "mutsugoro."
But the bay was also home to many other rare species and was known as one of Japan's largest and most beautiful bird
sanctuaries.
All the controversy eventually led to one good thing. A bill was passed enabling the Environment Agency to
conduct 5-year "time assessments" of public works projects to evaluate them before deciding their funding.
As Japan didn't have proper environmental assessment legislation at the time this was indeed a big step ahead. But
shouldn't government projects also have to undergo follow-up surveys to verify that projects really serve the purpose
for which they were designed?
Two years have passed since the construction of the Isahaya Bay Dam. But to this day no official evaluation of its
impact has been conducted. Hearing about the damage caused by this year's precipitation, one feels legitimately
entitled to question its efficiency as a flood disaster prevention device.
I believe that an objective survey of the situation with results made public is required if we want to learn from
the past and avoid the situation in which public work projects become nothing more than a means for bureaucrats to pad
ministry coffers with taxpayers' money.
Shukan ST: Aug. 27, 1999
(C) All rights reserved
- Ironically
- 皮肉にも
- was battered by 〜
- 〜 にたたかれた
- torrential rains
- 豪雨
- suffering severe damage
- 大きな損害を被って
- were urged to 〜
- 〜 するよう言われた
- evacuate 〜
- 〜 から避難する
- floods
- 洪水
- crops
- 作物
- Landslides
- 土砂崩れ
- raging
- 荒れ狂う
- Honmyo River
- 本明川
- ordeal
- 試練
- tremendous
- ものすごい
- Isahaya Bay lowlands
- 諌早湾の低地
- are below sea level at high tide
- 満潮の時には海水面より低い
- Ariake Sea
- 有明海
- Isahaya flood of 1957
- 諌早大水害
- left 〜 missing in its wake
- 〜 が行方不明となった
- covering 〜
- 〜 を取材して
- ambiguous
- 不明瞭な
- vertically
- 垂直に
- the last portion of 〜
- 〜 の最後の部分
- dike
- 堤防
- tidelands
- 干潟
- wetlands
- 湿地帯
- prevent
- 防止する
- initial objective
- 当初の目的
- set out
- 計画された
- rice glut
- 米余り
- drastic
- 徹底的な
- reclaim
- 埋め立てる
- tidal flats
- 潮汐平底(広大な干潟など)
- fresh water resources
- 真水の水源
- proponents
- 提案者
- inundation
- 洪水
- dubious
- (結果などが)疑わしい
- environmentalists
- 環境保護論者
- ecosystem
- 生態系
- rare species
- 珍しい種
- bird sanctuaries
- 鳥たちの聖域
- controversy
- 論争
- bill
- 法案
- Environment Agency
- 環境庁
- conduct
- 行なう
- "time assessments"
- 時のアセスメント(予算化されながら長期間着工されていない事業などについて中止も含めて再評価する)
- funding
- 財政的援助
- legislation
- 法律
- undergo
- 受ける
- follow-up surveys
- 追跡調査
- verify
- 確認する
- serve the purpose
- 目的にかなう
- precipitation
- 降雨量
- legitimately entitled to 〜
- 〜 する正当な権利がある
- device
- 手段
- objective
- 客観的な
- with results made public
- 結果を公表して
- means for 〜 to pad ministry coffers with 〜
- 〜 が財源を 〜 で増やす手段
- bureaucrats
- 官僚