|Budget Amount *help
¥2,700,000 (Direct Cost : ¥2,700,000)
Fiscal Year 2000 : ¥800,000 (Direct Cost : ¥800,000)
Fiscal Year 1999 : ¥900,000 (Direct Cost : ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 1998 : ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,000,000)
We carried out a comparative research on the three systems of forest management viz. market, state, and commons regime in sustainable use of environmental resources, and also discussed about the role, function, and the best combination of each system.
Firstly, we research about each management system for the forest resources of Japan. We found that all types of forest management organization of Japan (market, state, and commons), which depend on forestry as industry, cannot achieve Sustainable Forest Management. As a result, we reached the conclusion with a necessary enhancement of the volunteer organization, which was putting the new value on forest, as it neither controlled by the trend of the wood market, and nor to aim at the only harvest of the market goods of wood production in the past, but to aim at the public maintenance function of the forest.
Next, we researched about the difference between the environmental regulation and a voluntary environmental management action by the
economic enterprise. The Command and Control, based on the emission standard, has the possibility to achieve static efficiency. However, it can only achieve dynamic efficiency, if the local government is executing it and it is not being uniformly applied to all the enterprises. Nevertheless, these unequal emission standards also have the problem with large possibility to ruin the fairness of the regulation. On the other hand, the Emission Charge System, which is one of the Market Based Instruments, can achieve static efficiency, but it is difficult to achieve an environmental target. Therefore and it cannot be necessarily said that it is an excellent system for dynamic efficiency. Thus, independent and volunteer means to manage the enterprise activity is by introducing the opening of information for the public and conducting environmental accounting. It can be said that such a system is excellent to achieve the maximum efficiency.
The state system is excellent in maintaining fairness. The commons system is excellent in terms of efficiency among the three systems viz. market, state, and commons regime. Because these systems do not perform well as standalone, the Mixed Regulatory System by which three systems are combined is useful. However, in the future, the use of the market regime and the commons regime will become important, as the ratio of the state regime is the largest so far. Less