|
 |
第2巻
中澤 高師 Takashi Nakazawa受苦の集中と分散をめぐる紛争過程 ―町田市廃プラスチック中間処理施設問題を事例として―
Conflicts over Concentration and Dispersion of Costs
2010年07月 発行
[ 要旨 ]
本稿の目的は、迷惑施設の立地に伴う受苦の集中と分散をめぐる紛争過程について考察することである。集中と分散をめぐる問題の構造を明らかにするためには、複数の関連する紛争の関係性を捉える視点が不可欠となる。迷惑施設紛争には、既存の受苦圏とは異なる主体・圏域が受苦を分担する形で引き起こされる「受苦分担型」と、既存の受苦圏と同一の主体・圏域が受苦を重複して被る形で引き起こされる「受苦重複型」という二類型が考えられ、問題構造や紛争形態が異なる。
本稿では、東京都町田市における廃プラスチック中間処理施設立地問題を事例として、この二類型を再検討し、受苦の集中と分散の問題の展開を試みる。町田市においては、清掃事業における受苦の小山田への一極集中という状況下で、廃プラスチック中間処理施設の立地をめぐって受苦の集中と分散が大きな問題となり、小山田、鶴間、小山ヶ丘の三地域で紛争が引き起こされた。
「受苦重複型」である小山田の紛争においては、町田市は廃プラ施設が焼却場からのダイオキシンを軽減するという「リスク代替」アプローチをとった。一方、反対運動は「リスクの公平な負担」という観点から受苦の分散化を求めた。「受苦分担型」である鶴間においては、町田市は小山田への受苦の一極集中を是正するという「配分的公正」を建設推進の正当性として主張したが、反対運動は横浜市からの煙害に苦しむ鶴間にとっては受苦の集中化であると反論した。
「受苦分散型」おいては、地域間に受苦のトレード・オフが生じるが、三地域の運動間には情報交換をベースとした緩い連帯関係が存在した。緩い連帯関係が可能になった最大の理由は、小山田の運動が、廃プラ問題だけではなくごみ問題の包括的な解決を目指すものであったことである。また、三地域とも町田市の計画の進め方を問題視したことや、施設の安全性が大きな焦点となったことも、連帯の可能性を強めたと考えられる。
[ Abstract ]
The purpose of this paper is to consider the concentration and dispersion of costs caused by locally unwanted facilities through the investigation of conflicts concerning a plastic waste recycling facility in Machida city. To clarify the problematic structure of locally unwanted facilities, the relationship between one facility siting case and another has to be considered.
From this perspective, I classified conflicts in the siting of locally unwanted facilities into two types. One is " cost sharing siting", and the other is " cost overlapping siting". When a facility is constructed according to the concept of sharing the burden which has been concentrated in another area, the siting is an example of " cost sharing siting". By contrast, when a facility is constructed in the same place where the cost of nuisance facilities has already been concentrated, the siting is an example of " cost overlapping siting".
In "cost sharing siting", the construction of the facility has the purpose of achieving "fairness of distribution". Therefore, those who are opposed to the construction, tend to focus on the unfair siting procedure of public officials. On the other hand, in the case of " cost overlapping siting", "fairness of distribution" can provide people with reasons to oppose the project.
Through the research of conflicts in Machida city, the characteristics of the two types of conflicts were considered. In Machida city, the cost of waste disposal has been concentrated in one part of the city, Oyamada, for a long time. In addition, the Machida city government planned to construct a plastic waste recycling facility in Oyamada. This case is thought to be one of " cost overlapping siting".
The Machida government tried to justify the plan by "risk substitution",arguing that the new facility would alleviate environmental risk in the local surroundings because plastic recycling would reduce dioxin emissions from the incinerator operating in Oyamada. But residents in Oyamada were strongly opposed to this plan and declared that the burden of waste disposal should be shared with other areas in Machida city. After this, the Machida government decided to construct the facility in a southern part of the city, Tsuruma, in the interests of the fair distribution of burden. But residents in Tsuruma also rejected the facility siting, complaining that they had suffered from air pollution caused by waste disposal facilities in an adjacent city. After the failure in Tsuruma, the Machida government tried to construct the facility in another area, Oyamagaoka. However, it failed again to reach consensus with local residents.
In "cost sharing siting", there is a trade-off relationship between one area which has suffered from the burden and another area which is asked to share the burden with the former. This trade-off often gives rise to conflicts between the two areas. However, in the case of Machida, no conflict occurred between three areas. On the contrary, opposition movements in the three areas supported one another. One of the reasons why conflicts did not happen is that the opposition movements in Oyamada tried to find a comprehensive solution to the waste problem including not only plastic recycling, but also incinerators and landfills in Oyamada. Their aim lay in changing the fundamental waste disposal policy in Machida city. Another reason is that the siting procedure of the Machida government was regarded as unfair and undemocratic by residents in all the three areas. This enabled the three areas to unite against the Machida government