Untitled - UNU-IAS

Subsequently, they adopted several advanced policy instruments such as environmental impact
assessment in advance of the central government. Such local governments’ initiatives were
possible because of the Local Autonomy System provided in the 1946 Constitution. On the
other hand, Korea, in the Park Chung-Hee era, centralized her administrative powers, and the
central government played the main role in environmental preservation. Until quite recently,
local governments in Korea showed little or no concern about environmental issues. Because
Korea has gradually restored the Local Autonomy System due to democratization since the late
1980s, large local governments such as Seoul and Taejon have enacted their own ordinances for
environmental preservation since the mid 1990s. Unlike Japan and Korea, China has adopted
the Democratic Centralized System based on her socialist constitution, and the local people’s
governments have had very limited autonomy. For this reason, the central people’s government
has dominated environmental protection activities. However, the Environmental Protection Law
of 1989 requires that the local people’s governments accept responsibility for maintenance of
environmental quality. In the near future, the role of local governments in China will also
become important. Such difference in the role of local governments in the field of environmental
policy reflects the political regimes of these three countries, which were a democratic regime in
Japan, an authoritarian regime in Korea, and a socialist regime in China.
2) Progressive Period
In Japan, the citizens’ movements against pollution and development projects, represented
in cases such as the Honshu-seishi Incident of 1958, have had a strong influence on
environmental policy development. The Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control of 1967
was enacted in response to public pressures, and the Environmental White Paper for
environmental information disclosure has been published annually since 1969. Unlike Japan, the
Korean government, at one time, regarded anti-pollution movements as anti-government
movements, such as the Ulasn case during the late 1960s. Moreover, the government had
strictly limited free speech and press. Since the early 1980s, environmental information
disclosure has gradually been promoted. Since democratization in the late 1980s, campaigns in
the mass media for environmental preservation have also become more prominent. In China,
under the rule of Mao Zedong, information disclosure about both the state of the environment
and the public reaction against pollution was very limited. However, as a part of the policy
reform since 1978, environmental policy also has progressed. Since 1990, the Chinese
government has published annual environmental reports. Thus, environmental policy in both
Korea and China had developed, with respect to the level of environmental information
disclosure that had been more limited compared to Japan’s experience.
3) Consol idation Period
It is important to note Japan’s success in pollution control. Japan, as mentioned above,
adopted almost complete anti-pollution measures in this period. On the other hand, China was
13