Recollection of My Visit to Ogasawara Village, Tokyo – Call for support for the villagers vacillating on the NUMO literature survey

By Takano Satoshi

The literature survey, which constitutes the first stage of the national government’s assessment to determine the final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste, began on May 20, 2026 in Ogasawara Village, Tokyo. It was only on March 3, 2026 that the government requested the village to accept the implementation of a literature survey in the village’s Minamitorishima Island, which was designated by the government as a candidate disposal site. Namely, the survey began no more than three months after the announcement of the designation. There was no voice from the village side calling for the designation: no villagers submitted a formal request and the local assembly made no decision to offer a candidate site. Under such circumstances, resentful voices were heard that the survey started at too short notice and that the decision for the acceptance was too fast and sloppy. To listen to the villagers to learn their feelings about the survey and to sample the atmosphere in the local communities, I visited Chichijima Island and Hahajima Island, both part of Ogasawara Village, from July 3 to 13. I would like to record the visit here.

Signature-collecting campaign to turn the subsidy away

A group of Ogasawara villagers voluntarily started action before my visit. They launched a campaign to collect signatures to request the Village Office not to receive the two billion yen subsidy, to which the village would be entitled from the national government by agreeing to the literature survey. This action, which villagers started on June 5, 2026, may be valued as the first proactive, organized manifestation of their thoughts concerning the survey. The major reasons why they requested the office to turn down the subsidy were as follows:

• The issue of nuclear waste should essentially be discussed across the nation, but could be misunderstood as an issue only of the region that would receive the subsidy.
• The acceptance of the subsidy for the survey might make the issue appear money-centered.
• If the Village Office received the subsidy, it would produce misunderstandings or rumors that the village accepted the survey in exchange for money.

These are highly appropriate reasons, aren’t they? I heard from the villagers involved in this action: “Ogasawara did not raise its hand voluntarily; the national government was the first to propose the implementation of the survey in Minamitorishima, and then the village office agreed in response. It was because the village seriously thought about the issue of nuclear waste, and not that it wanted money. We participated in the signature-collecting campaign thinking that not accepting the subsidy would be the only way to show that the village had accepted the survey because it had sincerely thought about the issue.”

The national government, on the other hand, takes the attitude that it gives the subsidy to municipalities that cooperate with the governmental policy of finding a final disposal site, to express their appreciation and gratitude. In the municipalities that have previously accepted the literature survey, residents were divided concerning whether to accept the subsidy, sometimes resulting in antagonism. The national government should reexamine the grant of the subsidy, listening to the voices of Ogasawara villagers, shouldn’t it?

Village Assembly turns down the local residents’ petition

The signature-collecting campaign was conducted in two forms: collecting hand-written signatures from Ogasawara residents, and collecting signatures online from those outside the village. The campaign was conducted for only ten days, from June 5; 264 villagers signed the petition and about 6,000 online signatures were gathered. The population of Ogasawara Village is about 2400, so more than 10% of the population signed the petition. On June 11, the villagers’ hand-written signatures were submitted as the petition of residents to the assembly, and a printout of online signatures were attached as a reference document.

However, the petition was simply turned down at the Ogasawara Village Assembly meeting on June 25, with three yeas versus four nays. Only two assembly members against the petition spoke at the meeting. One member even called the petition “dangerous.” Some residents who participated in the action were disappointed: “The assembly seems to think that villagers should just follow what the national government says.” “The assembly members did not show an attitude of communicating with villagers. They apparently tried to obstruct the movement.” “It was just farcical.”

The Village Assembly did not have a serious discussion and rejected a motion to continue to discuss the petition, such that some residents received the impression that the assembly was playing down the villagers’ voices. The assembly should realize that they bear the responsibility for handling the petition in such a manner and should respond to the villagers’ various opinions by discussing the issue of the literature survey more seriously and calmly.

My visit and talks in a relatively apathetic atmosphere

The rejection of the petition by the assembly caused the regional society to become extremely apathetic: “Whatever we do will be in vain.” “We are not listened to.” In the circumstances where the sense of interest in the literature survey rapidly weakened in the village, the author paid a visit there, and gave talks in Chichijima Island and Hahajima Island. In Chichijima, about 30 people attended, and in Hahajima, six people. The members of NPO ONE LIFE (Ogasawara Native Ecology Life), which organized the talks, told me that, under the circumstances where the residents were very disappointed, more people came than expected.

In the talks, I firstly introduced the possible problems that might occur if Minamitorishima Island was selected as the final disposal site, and then shifted focus to what residents can do proactively.ⁱ Specifically, I explained about the “Place for Dialogue” meetings, which would start in Ogasawara Village, and how to deal with them.

The basic policy of the national government concerning the determination of the final disposal site of specific radioactive waste stipulates that “Place for Dialogue” meetings should be organized in the municipalities where the literature survey is conducted. The meetings are intended to provide local residents with opportunities to discuss the final disposal project with the national government and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), the latter being in charge of the project. I examined the “Place for Dialogue” meetings that had been organized in Hokkaido, and explained that a NUMO-prepared document, “Matters Considered in the Basic Planning of Dialogues with Local Communities,” describes three Place for Dialogue models and that in Model C, local residents can proactively propose and design the organization of individual Place for Dialogue meetings.

Further, in the sixth Subcommittee on Specified Radioactive Waste meeting in April 2025, the national government said, in short: “The Place for Dialogue meetings are not necessarily held in the same manner. If dialogues are set up to accommodate people of various standpoints, it would be good. NUMO is deemed to support such events proactively. Of course, this may increase costs in various ways, and NUMO should be prepared to support these, including the costs.”

What attracts attention is that, when the national government decided to perform the literature survey in Ogasawara Village, Shibuya Masaaki, Mayor of Ogasawara Village, Tokyo, requested explanations and discussion opportunities that should be more specific and theme-based, according to the opinions of residents. Specifically, the mayor mentioned the invitation of experts of geomorphology and geology, as well as specialists on the natural environment in Minamitorishima Island.

Namely, Ogasawara residents can propose that the Ogasawara Village Office and NUMO invite specialists who can answer various questions from them to the Place for Dialogue meetings, and NUMO should properly respond to those proposals and shoulder the expenses for doing so. When I explained this at the talks, I received the following responses: “I would like to think of how to use that approach.” “I have learned some clues for what we can do in the future.”

Support to and coalition with the efforts by Ogasawara villagers in need

Ogasawara villagers sometimes sarcastically call themselves “a group of strange people.” The Ogasawara Islands are far from the main islands of Japan, and to travel to Tokyo, they need to use a surface cruise vessel that sails once a week and basically requires a whole day. They are settled there in spite of this inconvenience, and maybe they can be called strange. But to put it in another way around, it is a proof that many residents have firm beliefs and values, love nature, and maintain a sustainable lifestyle independent of nuclear power. There is a population of relatively young people who have moved to the islands, and the limitations that are often seen in traditional small communities may be fewer. On the other hand, because the islands are distant from the main islands of Japan, some residents say that they are dependent on the national government and it may be difficult to take a clear stand against the government.

The author had the impression that the villagers in Ogasawara live in a very delicate relationship in the local communities. Many times I heard anxious residents say: “Whatever I do, is it really possible to change the situation?” “Probably we will end up with the results that the government expects. We are afraid of the future.” Under such circumstances, can the villagers organize the Place for Dialogue meetings independently, or will the meetings be organized at the initiative of the national government and NUMO? Efforts by the villagers are important, but more than that, I believe the power of coalition by citizens in society that support the villagers and prevent them from being isolated is important.

i) For the problems in Minamitorishima Island, please refer to “CNIC Statement: Regarding the government request for a literature survey on Minamitorishima: Several issues need to be considered” available at cnic.jp/english/?p=8967, and “CNIC Statement: The geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste on Minamitorishima-island is fraught with difficult issues” available at cnic.jp/english/?p=9106