Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Protected area / relocation · Japan · 1977–1980

Lake Biwa phosphate-detergent ban

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

After a freshwater red tide in 1977, Shiga Prefecture banned the sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent around Lake Biwa in an ordinance of 1979–1980. The prefecture's page says the ordinance remains in force.

BannedPhosphate-containing detergent: sale and use
Shiga Prefecture ordinance, 1979–1980; still in force per the prefecture.

Status As of the latest source reviewed: the Shiga Prefecture ordinance banning phosphate-containing detergent is described as still in force; its measured effect on the lake is not verified.

What?
A prefectural ordinance banned the sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent. Shiga Prefecture
Where?
Shiga Prefecture, Lake Biwa, Japan. Shiga Prefecture
When?
Red tide 1977; ordinance 1979–1980. Shiga Prefecture
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Followed a freshwater red tide in 1977 (sequence per the prefecture's page; causal reasoning not stated). Shiga Prefecture
How?
Through a prefectural ordinance banning the sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent. Shiga Prefecture
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who

What happened

The record, in order.

In 1977 a freshwater red tide occurred in Lake Biwa, Shiga Prefecture, according to the prefecture's page.

A ban on the sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent followed in the 1979–1980 Lake Biwa ordinance. The prefecture says the ordinance is still in force.

The sources reviewed describe the measure as arising from a soap movement of local households and a soap council set up in 1978, but those details are not verified (see unknown).

  1. 1977Freshwater red tide in Lake Biwa
  2. 1979Ordinance banning the sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent adopted (1979–1980, per Shiga Prefecture)

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Phosphate-containing detergent may not be sold or used under the Lake Biwa ordinance.
    Shiga Prefecture · Shiga Prefecture

Recorded

  • Freshwater red tide in Lake Biwa, 1977.
    Shiga Prefecture
  • Ordinance banning sale and use of phosphate-containing detergent, 1979–1980; in force today.
    Shiga Prefecture

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Freshwater red tide, 1977
Recorded
Shiga Prefecture
Red tide since the ordinance
Not verified
Reported as absent for over ten years; the source was not read in full

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
No court caseNo independent ecological evaluation

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.

Court

Record

  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that a soap movement of households led to the ordinance, that a soap council was formed in 1978, and that the ordinance set Japan's first nitrogen and phosphorus limits for industrial wastewater.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that no freshwater red tide has been seen for more than a decade, and that this reflects the ordinance together with sewage investment and advanced treatment.
  • None on record The monitored phosphorus levels in the lake before and after the ordinance are not on record in the sources reviewed.

Did the harm stop?

Not established in the sources reviewed beyond the prefecture's statement that the ordinance remains in force.

Who paid?

Not established in the sources reviewed.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Government and regulators

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Similar cases
Agriculture, livestock and food · Water use · Chemical pollution · Protected area / relocation · Netherlands · 1990–2026
Dutch nitrogen crisis and farm buyouts
Same type: Water use, Chemical pollution, Protected area / relocationHarm to nature not measured
Water use · Chemical pollution · Japan · 2023–2025
Fukushima treated water discharge and Chinese seafood ban
Same type: Water use, Chemical pollutionSame countryHarm to nature not measured
Mining / tailings dam · Chemical pollution · Water use · Indonesia · 2020–2026
IMIP nickel waste landslides and Obi island (Indonesia)
Same type: Chemical pollution, Water useSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Urban greening and displacement · Protected area / relocation · Water use · India · 2015–2024
Chennai water-body restoration evictions and Perumbakkam resettlement
Same type: Protected area / relocation, Water useSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Insurance declined or withdrawn · Chemical pollution · Water use · United States · 2020–2026
PFAS insurance disputes (3M, Chemours, DuPont)
Same type: Chemical pollution, Water useHarm to nature not measured
Liability shifting (spin-offs, bankruptcy, closure bonds) · Chemical pollution · Water use · United States · 2017–2021
Duke Energy coal ash cleanup cost recovery (North Carolina)
Same type: Chemical pollution, Water useHarm to nature not measured