金融機関の責任を問う
ALPS処理水の海洋放出と太平洋諸島とのステークホルダーエンゲージメントの欠如
レポート本文はコチラ
(English Summary Below)
＜概要＞
2023年8月24日、廃炉工事の進められる東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の敷地に貯水されていた放射性物質を含むALPS処理水の海洋放出が開始された。この判断は2021年に日本政府が閣議決定で海洋放出の方針を決定して以降急ピッチで進められたが、国内外のステークホルダーとの対話が欠如した中で事業開始に至った。
東京電力は2015年にもやむなく放射性物質を含むサブドレン水を太平洋に放出することとなったが、その際に「関係者の理解なしには、いかなる処分も行わない」旨が約束された。それにも関わらず国内外のステークホルダーとの対話を十分に行うことなく事業実施の方針が閣議決定され、決定後にようやく極めて限定的にステークホルダーへの説明と意見徴収が行なわれた。
また、その説明にあたっては恣意的なデータの提示や報道機関による追及を受けて初めて開示されるデータがあるなど信憑性を疑わざるを得ない場面がたびたび繰り返された。国際放射線防護委員会（ICRP）が予防原則に基づいて低線量被ばくについては直線しきい値無しモデル（LNT）を採用するのが最も実用的であるとしている中では、すでに多くの放射性物質を放出した福島第一原発からさらに被ばくのリスクを高める行為に対して国内外のステークホルダーが説明を求めるのは当然のことである。しかし、福島県民も多くが賛同していない中で事業は開始され、直接的に経済被害を受ける漁民もまた反対姿勢を堅持しているにも関わらず海洋放出は始められた。
国際的にはさらに深刻である。すでに放射性物質が低濃度になるとはいえ太平洋全域に拡散されるモデル等が福島第一原子力発電所の水素爆発以降様々な査読論文で検証されてきた中で、先の東電の日本における公聴会のように恣意的なデータ提出は疑念を払しょくするに至らず、15ヶ国の加盟する太平洋諸島フォーラムはいまだに日本による放射性物質の海洋投棄を承認していない。これは加盟している多くの国が南太平洋非核地帯条約、通称ラロトンガ条約の下で「いかなる核の汚染にも反対する」立場にも関わっており日本を外交的に危うい立場にしている。
さらに、太平洋諸島の人口の大部分は先住民族によって構成されているが、その伝統的文化・精神性にちなんで海洋放出に反対する声は十分に聞き入れられていない。これは先住民族に影響を及ぼす恐れのある事業における「自由意思による事前の十分な情報に基づく同意（FPIC）」違反ともいえるものであり、フィジー、トンガなどの市民社会組織からもそのように強く非難されている。
一方で、原子力について国際的権威とされている国際原子力機構（IAEA）は事業にかかわる建設工事がすべて完了し、もはや後戻りがほとんどできないという段階に至ってようやく東電の放射線環境影響評価（REIA）および日本政府の管理監督体制を評価する最終報告書を公開した。しかも、この報告書においても事業の「正当化」についてIAEAはコメントする立場にないと言及を避けている。その意味において、海洋放出事業はIAEAの基本的安全原則ないしその運用について定められた基本的安全指針に反して行われていると言える。
事業の進め方やその途中段階における様々な反対意見や先住民族の権利侵害に気づきうる場面は日本政府の方針決定後にも十分にあったが事業の再検討も含めた見直しや延期、是正は十分に行われず、東京電力ホールディングス株式会社は鹿島建設株式会社に工事を発注して事業を進めていった。
FFGJの評価対象としている金融機関の中で東京電力ホールディングス株式会社並びに鹿島建設株式会社に最も投融資している銀行は調査によって住友三井フィナンシャルグループであることが判明している。しかし、一義的に責任を持つ東京電力と鹿島建設双方に三菱UFJ、みずほらメガバンクも融資をしている。
これら金融機関には投融資方針の中に先住民族の権利保護を謳うものもあるが、基本的に赤道原則に従うものであり、プロジェクトファイナンスに限定される。しかし、本来は企業融資全般に対して先住民族の権利保護は約束されるべきものである。今後は先住民族の権利保護を企業融資へと拡大するとともに企業融資におけるエンゲージメントを強化することが求められる。
日本政府による独りよがりの事業許認可に基づくコンプライアンスでは決して十分な環境・社会配慮とは呼べない。金融機関各社には日本政府の勝手な主張をうのみにせず、「国連先住民族の権利条約」や「国際海洋法条約」に照らしてエンゲージメントを強化する必要がある。
東京電力ホールディングスの主要借入
鹿島建設株式会社の主要借入
(English Summary)
Fair Finance Guide Japan Briefer on Indigenous Peoples Rights
Banks Cast Blind Eye to Complete lack of Engagement with Pacific Stakeholders on Fukushima Radioactive Water Dump
On August 24, 2023, Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO) began releasing water from its tanks within the premises of the stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS), which were processed through their Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) but which still contained radioactive nuclides. The actions leading to the commencement of release happened rapidly after the Government of Japan unilaterally decided at a 2021 closed-door cabinet meeting that they will pursue this as a national policy. Since then, the project was bulldozed through amid a lack of both domestic and international stakeholder dialogue, including those with Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific.
Meanwhile, banks that supported the two companies most involved in the dumping project and construction of the infrastructures to allow it to take place, have been largely silent. The banks were in a position to be able to leverage their finances to foster further dialogue but did not do so despite their public statements seeming to support Indigenous People’s Rights.
—-----
In 2015, TEPCO claimed that they had no choice but to begin releasing what they called, “subdrain water”, which was a body of groundwater within the premises of FDNPS which had it not been drained through 41 wells surrounding the nuclear reactors, it would have allowed 300 to 500 tons of water to come into contact with the broken reactors and further exacerbate the contaminated water situation. Due to proximity to the reactors, the subdrain water contained some radioactive nuclides, but TEPCO deemed them negligible after approval by the Government of Japan to begin releasing the waters into the Pacific Ocean. This caught the attention of various stakeholders, especially the fisherfolk of Fukushima, and led to TEPCO and the Japanese Government promising in writing that they will not release any more radioactive water, such as those contained in the ALPS treated water tanks “without the understanding of relevant stakeholders”.
Nevertheless, the Cabinet unilaterally decided on a national policy without sufficient dialogue with domestic and international stakeholders. Only after the decision to release had been made did they begin providing very limited informational presentations and offered opportunities for public commenting.
To add fuel to the fire, during these informational presentations by TEPCO and Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry (METI), TEPCO offered selective data points to misrepresent the status of the water stored in the ALPS treated water tanks, and some data were disclosed only after stringent efforts by the press and audience members. This series of botched informative sessions left people with more doubt than trust.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) states that using the Linear Non-Threshold Model is the most practical method in considering low-dose radiation consistent with “precautionary principles” as defined by UNESCO. Given this recommendation, it is only natural that stakeholders, both domestic and abroad, demand explanations regarding additional risks of radiation exposure, given that FDNPS had already spewed trillions of Becquerels of radioactive materials into the air and seas.
However, the release commenced despite opposition from the public in Fukushima, especially the fisherfolk whose livelihoods will be negatively impacted.
Internationally, the situation is more severe. After the original accident at FDNPS, in 2011 multiple peer-reviewed academic research papers have credibly demonstrated that radioactive nuclides will travel through the Pacific and spread itself across boundaries. So, it is completely legitimate for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including 15 member states in the region, to demand answers beyond the selective data disclosure by TEPCO. The PIF has yet to approve Japan’s dumping of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean.
Considering the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, better known as the Rarotonga Treaty, it is not only understandable, but morally justified, that states oppose the dumping, for they are obliged by treaty to oppose any dumping of nuclear waste within their territorial waters. Since studies demonstrate that radioactive nuclides will travel across the Pacific it is not a far-fetched claim that they demand Japan to correct their actions. But these calls have met nearly deaf ears of Japanese officials.
In addition, many residents within the Pacific islands are Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific that have demonstrated distinct and traditional relations with the oceans predating any international treaty governing the seas. A failure to consult and obtain the “Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)” of these people is a violation of the UN Treaty on Indigenous Peoples Rights. Civil society members of Fiji and Tonga have strongly condemned Japan for their actions.
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), considered to be the world’s leading authority on nuclear power, finally released their report analyzing and evaluating TEPCO’s Radioactive Environmental Impact Analysis (REIA) and Japan’s oversight mechanisms, just as construction work related to the water release has been concluded and there were no real off ramps left. According to IAEA’s General Safety Regulations (GSR), any planned release of radioactive material must be “justified”, and their detailed guidelines on how that should be conducted (General Safety Guidelines Part 8) states that the justification process must not only look at the radiological impacts, but that economic, societal and environmental impacts must be considered in order for a planned release to be justified. Yet, the IAEA comments in its final report that the decision is up to the Japanese Government and that they are not in a position “to comment on and analyze non-technical aspects of this decision” while also stating that the decision to discharge in the Pacific is “consistent with” international regulations. With this final report, the IAEA had forfeited its credibility and admitted that they are unfit to analyze their own safety guidelines.
To this end, it is clear that TEPCO and the Japanese Government have not justified their planned release. If this were justifiable, stakeholders both domestic and abroad, would not be raising serious concerns in response. This demonstrates that TEPCO and Japan are breaching internationally endorsed IAEA General Safety Regulations.
Japan has had many occasions to interact with the various stakeholders who openly oppose the project. Even so, the government has not considered any actions for correction, postponement or reconsideration of their decision to release water from FDNPS into the Pacific.
During this whole situation, financial institutions who manage our deposits have been using our money to invest in, and lend support to, TEPCO Holdings and Kajima Corporation. The former is the company most responsible for the accident of FDNPS and the water release, and the latter the general contractor / construction company working on constructing the underwater tunnel which is being used for the water release. During this whole process, construction went on without public approval, international consent or a final word from the IAEA. And it was Japanese bank clients that unknowingly financially supported those construction works.
Specifically, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, and Mizuho Financial Group all had outstanding loans to both TEPCO and Kajima and were in a position to financially support the two companies while the construction was taking place. At the same time, these banks all have what they call human rights policies posted on their websites that include protection for Indigenous Peoples’ rights. However, those protections are only applied to project finance, and not to corporate loans. Therefore, their brilliantly worded protection is not relevant in this case. This is a serious gap in policy and practice that must be addressed.
Fair Finance Guide Japan urges Japanese banks to incorporate the protection of Indigenous Peoples rights into all loans and investments, and to utilize their engagement powers to ensure that the bank policies are followed by their borrowers and receivers of investments.
Private financial institutions are urged to hold stringent Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies because governments can, and do, abuse power to push through projects in violation of international human rights standards and norms. Enforcing such policies in project finances in the Global South, while casting a blind eye to Japanese actions, is a discriminative double standard that must be fixed.
Had this water release been a project proposed in the Global South, construction could not have begun without proper stakeholder engagement and FPIC. That is exactly how it should be in Japan, and financial institutions that operate globally should make demands as such.
Major Lenders to TEPCO Holdings
Major Lenders to Kajima Corporation
