Evolution of Water Governance for Climate Resilience: Lessons from Japan’s Experience

Abstract

Water resources management needs to be strengthened to address increasing flood and drought risks exacerbated by climate change and socio-economic development. This requires effective water governance mechanisms that can reduce vulnerability in disasters while managing complex stakeholder relationships. This paper analyzes the evolution of water governance in Japan over more than half a century, examining how the country transformed from a centralized, top-down approach to a more collaborative model of water management. Through an analysis of three significant water infrastructure projects, this study identifies key drivers of governance change and evaluates the effectiveness of various stakeholder engagement mechanisms. The findings reveal how catalytic events prompted institutional innovations in addressing social impacts, environmental concerns, and climate resilience. Challenges remain in balancing diverse interests, managing implementation timeframes, and incorporating climate change uncertainties into decision-making processes. This paper offers important lessons for developing countries working to strengthen their water governance frameworks, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement, social impact mitigation, and the development of flexible institutional arrangements that can adapt to emerging climate risks. This research contributes to governance theory by demonstrating how institutional evolution occurs through the interaction of formal mechanisms and informal processes in response to changing social, environmental, and climatic conditions.

1. Introduction

Water resources management (WRM) needs to be strengthened to address the increasing risks of floods and droughts that are being exacerbated by both socio-economic development and climate change. The growing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events require effective water governance mechanisms to reduce vulnerability to water-related disasters and enhance community resilience. However, the successful implementation of these mechanisms depends on managing complex socio-economic impacts and engaging multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process. As climate change introduces greater uncertainties into WRM, understanding the factors that influence water governance evolution becomes crucial for developing adaptive and sustainable solutions.

Water governance has shifted from a hierarchical, institutionalized, top-down form of government to a collaborative approach involving more diverse stakeholders in some countries [1,2]. This is because as countries develop and socio-economic conditions change, diverse and sometimes conflicting water needs emerge, requiring coordination and tension resolution among different stakeholders [3,4]. For example, the construction of large, water-related structures must meet the goals of flood damage reduction and water supply while considering social and environmental impacts such as resettlement and ecosystems. These impacts are not considered enough in some countries, particularly developing countries.

This paper aims to analyze the factors influencing water governance by examining the process of governance development in Japan over more than half a century. It examines the challenges faced in implementing stakeholder engagement and consensus-building processes. In addition, by offering policy recommendations, this paper provides useful insights for developing countries facing difficulties in shaping water governance to adapt to climate change and reduce disaster risks.

The modernized Japanese government, established in the late 19th century, initially adopted a top-down approach to WRM without considering public input [5]. From the high-growth period in the 1950s, the country began to face various social issues in constructing a large-scale structure for water resources development [6]. This paper identifies the key drivers and catalytic events that have led to changes in Japan’s approach to water management over time. It also clarifies the evolving process of governance mechanisms and stakeholder engagement to address issues such as social impacts, environmental concerns, and political conflicts related to water infrastructure projects. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with former and current key government officials and researchers.

2. Evolution of Water Governance and Climate Risk Reduction

This section reviews the recent literature on water governance. There is a limited number of studies holistically analyzing changing governance in Japan over the last decades.

2.1. Local Context of Water Governance and Disaster Resilience

Water governance has long been evolving and is influenced by physical factors, the level of economic and social development, and political and cultural norms [7]. Water issues vary widely between countries, necessitating context-specific solutions rather than a universal approach [8].

The Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development [9] proposed a comprehensive framework of 12 principles for water governance, which are based on three mutually reinforcing and complementary dimensions: effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement. Effectiveness involves capacity and coordination to define and implement policies. Efficiency is about maximizing benefits through data collection, funding, rulemaking, and fostering innovation. Trust and engagement are needed to build the confidence of the public and ensure inclusiveness. It also includes the principles of transparency, resolving trade-offs, participation, and monitoring [10].

Countries worldwide have enhanced their water governance frameworks. The European Union’s Water Framework Directive requires EU Member States to develop and implement river basin management plans. A participatory process in which all stakeholders are informed, consulted, and actively involved is required to develop and update the plans [11]. However, this is not an easy process. Rimmert et al. [12] reviewed cases and found that the value of active participation was limited, while the value of citizen consultation was considered insignificant. Citizen participation was low and there was little two-way communication, even though different groups of actors were involved in processes. Wehn et al. [13] pointed out that there is a trade-off between the “breadth” and “depth” of multi-stakeholder engagement. When conducting stakeholder engagement, representativeness, inclusiveness, or equality in two-way processes are challenges.

The Netherlands adopted collaborative approaches in the WRM strategies of “Room for river” and the “Delta program”. However, the country faced difficulties in establishing a collaborative arrangement on the ground [1]. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched the Catchment Based Approach in 2013. This approach aims to achieve multiple objectives such as improving water quality, restoring habitats, reducing flood risk, and achieving the sustainable use of water resources through a collaborative approach by multi-sector bodies across England [14].

2.2. Evolution of Water Governance and Disaster Management in Japan

The Japanese management of water resources, which was developed mainly for rivers, was carried out by farming communities with a long tradition of rice production. Takemura [15] pointed out that the foundations of today’s WRM were laid in the Edo period (17th–19th centuries). The modern mechanisms of WRM have been shaped by the respect and prioritization of customs that were established by farming communities through conflicts.

Kada [5] analyzed Japanese water governance using the theory of environmental value. She named it “life environmentalism” in the early modern period and “modern technicism” when Western technology was used to develop water resources and control floods from the late 19th century. A new paradigm called “nature conservationism” emerged in the late 20th century, involving stakeholders who also valued the environment.

3. Methods

3.1. Area Analyzed

This study analyzes how water management in Japan—the management of flood risk and water scarcity—has been transformed to take account of socio-environmental impacts and incorporate different perspectives. Japan has mitigated two major issues of water shortage and flood disasters by investing in infrastructure. Takemura [15] argued that the construction of dam infrastructure resolved intercommunal conflict among water users by providing free water to farmers during dry periods and developing water resources for emerging urban industries and populations during the high growth from the 1950s onward.

Japan has experienced devastating floods many times throughout its history. Japan’s unique topography, with steep mountainous terrain, fast-flowing rivers, and densely populated floodplains, creates an inherent vulnerability to flood disasters. Particularly since World War II, Japan has experienced flood disasters resulting in more than 1000 deaths each year, including approximately 2700 deaths from the Makurazaki typhoon in 1945, 1100 deaths from the Kathleen typhoon in 1947, and 5000 deaths from the Isewany typhoon in 1959. While Japan has successfully mitigated flood damage through aggressive investment in infrastructure, it has recently suffered from flooding exacerbated by climate change. Torrential rains in western Japan in 2018 killed more than 200 people, and Typhoon Hagibis in 2019 caused record economic damage of JPY 1.9 trillion (about USD 12 billion) [16]. Japan has implemented innovative strategies to address the increasing flood risks associated with climate change. In addition to traditional structural measures, the government is promoting “River Basin Disaster Resilience and Sustainability by All”, which involves various sectors, including urban planning, agriculture, sewage, and forestry [17].

3.2. Methodology

The analysis encompassed the recent academic literature on water governance, alongside government policy documents and legislation pertinent to WRM. Project reports and evaluations provided detailed insights into specific implementations, while historical records offered context for the evolution of water infrastructure projects.

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2021 with six key informants representing different aspects of water governance. The participants included two former director generals of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Tourism and Transport (MLIT), two senior staff members from MLIT with direct involvement in water governance policy formulation, and two academic researchers specializing in Japanese water governance. Two former director generals conducted decision-making on revising the River Law in 1997, which transformed water governance to include community involvement in WRM projects. Two academic researchers played leading roles in governmental policy committees in WRM and climate change adaptation. Two senior staff members were involved in controversial water infrastructure projects.

The interviews explored several key areas: the historical development of water governance mechanisms, primary drivers of governance reform, implementation challenges, lessons learned from major projects, and the evolution of stakeholder engagement processes.

Three major water infrastructure projects were identified as catalysts for change because of their importance in shaping governance reform (Figure 1,

Table 1. Emerging issues and evolving water governance in Japan.

Project	Issue	Scale	Governance Arranged
Shimouke Dam	Social impact: relocation	Dam site	Community development at dam site
Nagaragawa Estuary Weir	Environmental impact	River basin	River basin committee Dam evaluation committee
Yanba Dam	Policy issues	Nationwide	Scientific committee

Note: Source: Author’s elaboration.

). For each case study, a systematic analysis was conducted examining five key dimensions: the catalyzing events and conflicts that initiated change, stakeholder responses and interactions throughout the project, governance mechanisms developed in response to challenges, implementation difficulties encountered, and the resulting outcomes and lessons learned.

4. Evolution of Japanese Water Governance for Disaster Risk Reduction

Japan developed water resources to supply water to people and industries and mitigate flood damage in urban areas following World War II, which contributed to high growth. However, the Japanese centralized approach of WRM faced intense opposition from the 1950s due to multiple issues related to dam construction. The three major projects of Shimouke Dam, Nagaragawa Estuary Weir, and Yanba Dam served as catalysts for enhancing water governance. These projects drove changing policies and legislation on water governance. This section examines the challenges these projects faced and how the country arranged governance to resolve these issues (Table 1).

4.1. Social Impact

Resettlement due to dam construction became a controversial issue. Opposition to dams began to emerge at project sites in the 1950s due to the submergence of large areas of land, often entire communities. People affected by the projects felt that the benefits of the dams were often limited to the urban areas downstream and that the project sites suffered from the negative social impacts of the projects [18].

The Shimouke Dam Project marked a significant milestone in improving policies to mitigate social impacts and foster local economic development at dam sites. The government planned this dam to reduce flood damage in the Chikugogawa River Basin after the 1953 floods in western Japan that killed more than 1000 people. For 13 years from 1956, local communities at the dam site continued to protest the dam construction because of resettlement issues. Inadequate consultation caused local communities to distrust the government, leading to the largest opposition movement in the history of dam construction in Japan. Ultimately, the government resolved this movement by force.

Following this bitter experience, Japan developed laws, financial systems, and institutions to support affected communities, integrating local needs into dam projects. In addition to providing compensation for the loss of assets, assistance was also provided to facilitate the resettlement and restoration of livelihoods and local development of communities affected by the construction of dams. Furthermore, reservoir area support funds were set up by the local governments in the beneficiary areas to provide support that could not be financed from the government budget. The main projects of the fund included interest subsidies for resettled families to rebuild their homes, the provision of livelihood consultants, financial support for access roads, and upstream and downstream exchange programs. As a governance mechanism, local governments, communities, dam operators, and civil society organizations (CSOs) jointly developed a vision for reservoir areas and promoted socio-economic activities for communities affected by the projects.

4.2. Environmental Impact

Environmental concerns emerged in the 1980s as civil society gained influence, leading to disputes over dam and weir construction [18,19]. In the 1980s and 1990s, various CSOs raised concerns about the environmental impacts of damaging ecosystems and water quality caused by the Nagara Estuary Weir, which became one of the most controversial dam projects [20]. The government constructed the weir to reduce flood damage in the Nobi Plain, which had repeatedly suffered from floods historically. MLIT changed the policy of sharing information and began releasing all hydrology, environmental, and structural information to encourage discussion about the weir. Right before the barrage operation in 1995, eight round-table meetings were held to discuss issues among governments and CSOs. However, they were unable to reach an agreement, and the government finally started operating the weir.

In 1995, the MLIT established the Dam Project Evaluation Committee to respond to criticism that “once a project starts, it never stops”. After discussions by this committee, the ministry canceled about 100 dam projects [21].

The River Law, which was revised in 1997, stipulates that river improvement plans reflect the opinions of local residents. Oda [22] argued that this revision expects different river basins to seek different approaches to consensus building. Planning processes with public participation sometimes took a long time to reach a consensus due to a variety of opinions in the whole basin.

The example of Tamagawa River Basin is regarded as a good practice of formulating river improvement plans [23]. MLIT established a “River Basin Committee” in 1999 consisting of academics, CSOs, and government agencies to examine a river improvement plan. The Tamagawa River Basin Advisory Council was established in 1998 for the purpose of the continuous exchange of information and opinions among government agencies, CSOs, academia, and the private sector to realize a good river and good towns in the river basin (Figure 2). The council aimed to reach a loose consensus through mutual cooperation and deepening trust. The council organized a series of workshops for CSOs to consider river improvement works as well as river basin seminars to discuss their findings with government agencies. These outputs were reflected in discussions with the River Basin Committee, and the River Improvement Plan was formulated in 2001. The plan featured the following advanced measures: (1) comprehensive flood protection, comprehensive river flow management, and biodiversity conservation and restoration measures that took into account the entire river basin; (2) soft measures such as “flow analysis” and the “establishment of the Tama River Museum”; and (3) cooperative and integrated measures that reflected the opinions of neighboring municipalities, residents, NPOs, and academic experts.

While the Yodogawa River Basin Committee failed to formulate an authorized river improvement plan, committee mechanisms were regarded as innovative in stakeholder participation and consensus-building [24,25] (Figure 3). Committee members were selected transparently in 2000. The secretariat was outsourced to a private company and functioned neutrally. Various regional and thematic working groups were formed to examine a wide range of issues. These were very different from conventional approaches where the government acted as a secretariat, selecting members, guiding discussions, and drafting plans.

The committee’s deliberations were characterized by an inclusive and participatory process. Anyone could provide comments and questions, and all materials and discussions were open to the public. In total, 56 committee meetings and over 500 working group meetings were held. In 2003, the committee recommended against the construction of dams and the development of new water resources, suggesting instead that water demand should be managed through conservation and efficiency measures.

The committee and the ministry disagreed over building dams [26]. After MLIT suspended the committee in 2007, the committee was restructured to resume its activities. MLIT proposed a draft plan in 2008 that included dam construction, contrary to the committee’s recommendations. The MLIT ultimately formulated the final plan in 2009 without reaching a consensus within the committee.

4.3. Policy Issue

The controversy surrounding the Yanba Dam project in Tonegawa River was not only about the social and environmental impacts of a single dam but also about water policy. The project developed water resources and protected the Tokyo Metropolitan Area from flooding in the 1950s but was canceled by the new cabinet in 2009. CSOs pointed to excessive flood protection planning, the overestimation of benefits, and the overestimation of water demand. Over the years, the relationship between the people affected by the dam project deteriorated, and people became exhausted. Finally, after the community accepted the dam project, opposition to the project arose. Conflicts arose between environmental groups with certain universal principles of environmental protection and local communities with local circumstances that accepted the dam project [27].

In 2011, the Science Council of Japan, at the request of the MLIT, established a technical committee to evaluate flood protection planning for the Tonegawa River. The committee concluded that the project plan was scientifically sound. Based on the scientific arguments, the government resumed the project in 2011 and started its operation in 2020.

5. Discussion

The evolution of water governance in Japan over the past several decades since the 1950s provides valuable insights into inclusive decision-making and achieving sustainability in WRM. This evolution can be regarded as a transformation useful for adapting to increasing disaster risks due to climate change. As the case studies show, Japan has moved from a top-down, centralized approach to a more collaborative and participatory model involving diverse stakeholders.

It is important to note that MLIT maintains ultimate authority in flood management, as stipulated by the River Act, rather than fully delegating responsibility to CSOs and local communities. This dynamic is evident in the controversial cases of the Shimouke Dam, Nagaragawa Estuary Weir, and Yanba Dam, where MLIT ultimately proceeded with construction and operations while only partially incorporating perspectives from CSOs and local communities [28].

5.1. Institutional Transformation for Climate Resilience

Analyses of the three case studies reveal how catalytic events prompted fundamental institutional changes. The Shimouke Dam controversy led to the development of comprehensive social impact mitigation frameworks. The Nagaragawa Estuary Weir dispute catalyzed the creation of river basin committees. The Yanba Dam conflict introduced scientific committees for independent project evaluation. These governance mechanisms can bring together local governments, communities, CSOs, and experts and facilitate stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution, and consensus-building. The case of the Tamagawa River Basin demonstrates how such a collaborative approach can lead to the development of river improvement plans that reflect diverse perspectives and priorities.

One of the main drivers of this shift has been the recognition of the social and environmental impacts of large-scale water infrastructure projects such as dams and weirs. Opposition movements and conflicts, particularly those that emerged during the high growth period, highlight the need to address the concerns of local communities affected by resettlement, the potential ecological impacts of these projects, and the need for the projects (Figure 4).

5.2. Implementation Challenges in Building Disaster-Resilient Governance

This also highlights the challenges of achieving proper participation and consensus. For example, in the Yodogawa River, committee members and government agencies struggled to reconcile diverse views on dam construction and, ultimately, the committee’s recommendations were not followed. Despite efforts to ensure inclusion, there may have been imbalances in the ability of different stakeholder groups, such as local communities, CSOs, and government, to effectively voice their interests and influence outcomes. Questions of adequate representation in stakeholder participation and consensus-building remain the same as in cases in Europe and the Netherlands.

The time-intensive nature of participatory processes often conflicts with project implementation schedules. The Yodogawa case took almost a decade to formulate the river basin improvement plan. The Nagaragawa case showed how attempts at consensus-building through eight round-table meetings ultimately failed to prevent controversy over the weir’s operation.

This research identified a recurring tension between local and broader regional interests. The Shimouke Dam case exemplifies how projects serving urban areas’ water needs often imposed disproportionate burdens on rural communities, leading to the development of more comprehensive compensation and community development mechanisms.

In addition, the Yanba Dam project illustrates how controversy can extend beyond the impacts of a specific project to broader policy issues such as flood protection planning, water demand forecasting, and environmental protection. In such cases, the involvement of an independent scientific committee can help provide an objective assessment and facilitate evidence-based decision-making.

5.3. Theoretical Contributions to Climate-Adaptive Governance

This analysis contributes to governance theory by demonstrating how institutional evolution occurs through the interaction of formal mechanisms and informal processes. The Japanese experience suggests that effective water governance requires both robust institutional frameworks and flexible adaptation to local contexts and emerging climate risks. The cases reveal how governance mechanisms evolve through an iterative process of conflict, innovation, and adaptation to address both immediate needs and long-term climate resilience.

This research also highlights the importance of temporal perspectives in understanding governance transitions. The seven-decade span of analysis reveals how governance innovations build upon previous experiences, with each phase incorporating lessons from earlier challenges while addressing emerging concerns about climate-related disasters of flooding and water shortage. Governance arrangements do not follow static standards but are dynamic goals that require continuous rebalancing in response to changing social, environmental, and climatic conditions.

This study focused primarily on major water infrastructure projects and high-level governance reforms. While this approach captured significant developments in Japanese water governance, it may not fully reflect experiences at smaller scales or in less prominent cases. Additionally, while the interview participants represented key positions in water governance, future research could benefit from including a broader range of stakeholder perspectives, particularly from affected communities and environmental organizations.

6. Conclusions

Water governance is an iterative process that adapts to changing socio-economic, environmental, and climatic conditions. As climate change intensifies water-related disasters, relevance and effectiveness can be ensured by updating governance frameworks, policies, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms to address both current and future risks. Japan’s experience highlights the importance of adapting water governance to the local conditions of river basins, addressing the diverse needs and values of affected stakeholders and fostering trust and engagement through transparent and inclusive processes. Japan has developed water governance to mitigate flood risks and water shortage with legislation, institutions, and financial mechanisms. Nevertheless, there remain challenges in water governance that need to be addressed with all stakeholders. This includes identifying effective strategies for representing diverse stakeholder interests and fostering consensus to ensure equitable water management within river basins while building resilience to climate-related disasters.

The evolution of governance mechanisms in Japan offers valuable lessons for other countries seeking to balance water resource development with social and environmental concerns while adapting to climate change. It is necessary to ensure that mechanisms are in place to meaningfully involve all affected stakeholders, including local communities, civil society organizations, and environmental groups, in the planning and decision-making process for water infrastructure projects and river basin management plans. In particular, river basin committees or platforms should be established to facilitate dialogue, consultation, and consensus-building on both immediate water management needs and long-term climate adaptation strategies. Information should also be made available to the public as a basis for governance arrangements. Trust with stakeholders can be built through consistent engagement, transparent communication, and a clear commitment to address stakeholder concerns and involve them in the decision-making process.

For dams and large projects, robust resettlement policies and financial support schemes in project areas are needed to mitigate social impacts, facilitate livelihood restoration, and promote economic development in affected areas while ensuring that these communities are better protected against climate-related disasters. Dedicated funds or mechanisms are useful to rebuild people’s daily lives and support community development initiatives in project-affected areas.

Mechanisms for independent scientific review and analysis can inform WRM policies, flood protection plans, and demand projections. Scientific input can ensure that decisions are based on sound data and evidence. This is particularly crucial as communities face increasing uncertainty from climate change impacts.

The research provides valuable lessons for developing countries facing similar water management challenges, particularly those grappling with the social and environmental impacts of large infrastructure projects while trying to build climate resilience. Specific lessons include the importance of early stakeholder engagement, the value of formal mechanisms for addressing social impacts, and the need for flexible governance frameworks that can adapt to emerging challenges while maintaining institutional stability.