| In the Japanese oil spill response literature, there has been insufficient examination of wildlife protection actions, especially analysis relevant to smaller spills. This study analyzes the Japanese system for preparedness and response through comparison with the U.S. model, using legislation, contingency plans, available literature, interviews, and implementation. Lack of statutory mandates and the general nature of relevant provisions within contingency plans results in an overall lack of government accountability for wildlife protection during spills. Wildlife protection is not a national priority, and contingency plans have not incorporated priority ranking of sensitive wildlife and habitat. There are few opportunities for input by wildlife stakeholders during planning and implementation of the main response, and integration of wildlife operations is poor. Wildlife management personnel are often not notified of smaller spills. Most wildlife protection provisions target the Environment Agency, which generally plays only a coordinating role and relies on local governments for implementation of wildlife protection actions, for which local planning or implementation is not required. Accurate information on sensitive wildlife and habitat for use in planning, response, and restoration is scarce, as is expertise in mitigating wildlife impacts. Reliable funds for wildlife protection actions will often not exist, and such actions compete for limited domestic funds. Wildlife operations focus on oiled bird rehabilitation, which competes with more effective actions for funds and personnel. Hazing and wildlife reconnaissance have not been emphasized and damage assessment is primarily monitoring natural recovery, with no precedent for active post-spill restoration of seabird populations. |
