The world watched on March 11, 2011, as the Fukushima Nuclear Accident unfolded. In the wake of this disaster, international communities came together to support the Japanese Government in efforts to mitigate and control the impacts of this nuclear catastrophe. Twelve years on, the Japanese Government approved the disposal of its nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean as a ‘nuclear sewer,’ shifting risks of nuclear contamination to a broader scale of different communities despite opposition from the international communities and multiple protests by the Japanese people. The cost-saving approach selected from other disposal strategies was backed by the comprehensive report released to international communities that highlighted the consultations, impacts, and disposal mechanism; however, the discussion and conclusion of these aspects are minimal, and it failed to express some of the significant concerns we have on this matter. 

In addition, the Japanese Government has used the review of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as the green light for this plan to go forward in August despite the outrage around the Pacific Forum Communities and Asia-Pacific Region. In contrast, the G7 countries have either supported or remained silent about the Japanese Government’s disposal plan. Still, we can see that there is no resistance by the G7 countries, showing a lack of care for the potential environmental problems, and the prioritization of politics over our global efforts for environmental sustainability is unthinkable. 

The IAEA tasked with the review of this plan has come under criticism by the media over the contribution of the Japanese Government to a vital percentage of the IAEA budget, questioning the interests behind this review and lack of engagements and international consultation underestimating the scope of impacts that this plan has on the Pacific countries, South-Asian countries and communities. As an organization operating under the United Nations with a limited mandate on atomic energy matters mainly to safeguard and promote atomic nuclear developments, it raises a critical inquiry for the IAEA, does it have the same power to regulate nuclear development within national levels since this remains very unclear under its interests as an atomic nuclear safeguard organization. Regarding the plan, the IAEA has provided a comment that the plan will have “negligible impacts on the environment” and meet the standards. Is this an explicit endorsement of the plan to have their review take accountability with the Japanese Government for any anticipated or unanticipated impacts in the future. 

The Impact on the Blue Pacific Continent

The plan by the Japanese Government to discharge was labeled by the Deputy Forum Secretary General, Dr. Filimon Manoni, as ‘unconscionable’ as the Pacific Countries are already struggling to address the nuclear waste from the nuclear testing operations in the past decade. The Pacific Ocean is our home; it has been for thousands of years and will continue for another thousand generations. The Strategy of the Blue Pacific Continent encompasses our deep connections and commitments as custodians. We also place our cultural and spiritual values in our ocean and our interest in the Blue Economy as the world grows the demands for our resources. The concept of the "Blue Pacific Continent" refers to the idea of enhancing regional cooperation and connectivity among Pacific Island nations. 

Supporters of wastewater release may argue that the disposal of contaminated water is a responsible action that contributes to this concept by addressing a pressing environmental issue associated with nuclear development in the region. They may claim that managing this wastewater disposal in a controlled manner still demonstrates a commitment to protecting the Pacific Ocean and its resources. However, the Blue Pacific Continent already has set and agreed to its own strategy for the Pacific Ocean to maintain its marine health and resources, support prosperities in our Pacific region, and share with the world. Despite this, the strategy has remained silent in this matter, which raises questions: are our commitments to the Blue Continents are not economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable enough to be heard within this nuclear disposal plan or whether we have forgotten to voice and fulfill our obligations to protect our ocean and our environment? 

As Polynesian, our environment and biosphere are our indigenous ‘tapu’ (taboo and sacred), a sacred essence of our existence that contains a life force beyond our reckoning and our gift to the future generation. As the Pacific Ocean becomes more threatened by this disposal plan, we look back at our Pacific Island history and remind ourselves of the ticking bomb of the Runit Dome, where a supposed temporary measure has remained a tomb of radioactive materials since 1977. We share the same global concerns with other countries and organizations regarding the impact of this plan on the Blue Pacific Continent. 

First, most of the Pacific communities affected by this plan remained in the dark as the Japanese Government approved the plan to cut costs and minimize their own risk by shifting into the international communities. 

Second, the lack of international consultation and interactions with the Pacific Islands and South Asian Counties have not been considered and discussed despite the opposition from experts and people from these mainly affected countries, Latin America and African nations. 

Third, many international environmental parties demand an explanation from the Japanese Government and responsible authority for a possible violation of the international law preventing marine pollution under the United Nations and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (1972). 

Fourth, the monitoring of this plan has been criticized for raising concerns about its effectiveness over time and over the 30 years disposal plan, which resulted in further opposition of the plan from international communities. 

Fifth, the Japanese Government and responsible authority to carry out full monitoring routines using their experts and facilities where a third-party verification of these activities is not possible over this time while many other governments in the world can provide assistance and support on this matter. An international collaborative effort with giants in managing the sustainability of the disposal of nuclear wastes can be approached and incorporated. However, the fast pace of this plan has made this complex, and why many people and countries have heavily criticized the plan. This is no ordinary nuclear wastewater from the cooling system, this disposal plan is for the nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima accident.

For the people of the Blue Pacific Continent, we are further affected by this with no knowledge of monitoring within our ocean water; the plan does not give or include international monitoring or any warning in case of an emergency in times of high concentration of discharge or any monitoring station in countries near to the discharge point. This may not be important as the IAEA claims the plan to conform with the standards. However, releasing 1.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste requires adequate environmental controls, health measures, awareness, and overall compliance, considering the long duration of the disposal plan. Pacific Island countries have often learned that these devastating impacts will be encountered in progress; by then, it is too late for any prevention. 

In addition, the ocean water near Japan consists of very high currents, which disperse this quickly to the Pacific Ocean for tritium dilution. Still, the marine ocean is rich and abundant; the accumulation of any radioactive materials can be uptake by the primary producer within the marine ecosystems and continue to pass up to the food chain causing a cascade of human health and environmental problems. This is a similar concern raised by Professor Robert Richmond, a marine biologist. These are some main reasons we should be very concerned about this plan, as their environmental impacts are irreversible. 

Furthermore, the economic impact of this decision has hit the Japanese economy, with some countries in Asia banning the import of fisheries products with possible extensions of this ban to other marine products and services. No doubt, this ban will soon expand to the blue economy of the Blue Continent countries, where most of the Pacific communities that depend on the ocean will be throttled by limiting or banning export in fisheries industries to other countries. This will add up to the Pacific countries' struggling economies, which are already hammered by various impacts of climate change and the inflations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As a Pacific Islander, it’s evident that the Japanese Government has utilized one of the ‘greatest capabilities’ of the Blue Pacific Continent’s ocean water as an economical dilution solvent for its treated nuclear wastewater, which now opens entrances for more nuclear wastewater dumping in the future. We also know now we are writing a devastating scientific setback in environmental sustainability for the Pacific Ocean and its communities, continuing the heartbreaking ‘nuclear sewer legacy’ to the future generation of our Pacific Island Countries. Those who see it as a continuation of the nuclear sewer legacy may argue that the release undermines the principles of sustainability and ecological integrity, which are central to the Blue Pacific Continent concept. They contend that finding alternative solutions, such as further storage capacity or alternative treatment methods, would better align with the vision of a clean and healthy Pacific Ocean.

Ultimately, the decision to dispose of Fukushima's nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean involves complex environmental, health, economic, and social factors. It is essential to engage in thorough scientific analysis, international collaboration, and transparent decision-making processes to balance the potential risks and benefits and ensure the long-term well-being of both the Pacific Ocean and communities that rely on it.