The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources … Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report 3 Study Committee Member List (March 31, 2009) Chairman Yoshio

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan

Final Report

Fisheries Research Agency, JapanMarch 30, 2009

Beach seine fishery for sardine (19th century)

UKIYOE of abalone and halfbeak by UTAGAWA HIROSHIGE (late Edo era)

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

1

Spring festival for the God of Water in Yokohama Fisheries Cooperative Association (Photo by M. Makino)

TAIRYO (good catch) flags celebrating the spring festival (photo by M. Makino)

2

Acknowledgements

In April 2008, the Fisheries Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) requested the Fisheries Research Agency (FRA) to conduct comprehensive research on the management design for the future Japanese fisheries sector and policy framework. This research takes into account not only the output control through catch quota management measures such as TACs (Total Allowable Catches), IQs (Individual Quotas), or ITQs (Individual Transferable Quotas), but also the various qualitative and technical control measures such as seasonal/spatial regulations, size/sex restrictions, gear limitations, etc. This report is the results of FRA’s study published in March 2009 titled: “The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resource Management in Japan”, hereafter called the FRA Grand Design Report.

For sustainable and effective use of fishery resources, this study aimed to clarify the effects and issues of Japan’s conventional fisheries management systems, including the fishery rights and fishing license, and tried to propose appropriate management frameworks befitting Japanese fisheries.

In April 2008 the study established a Study Committee comprised of specialists from the FRA and universities. Opinions and comments from relevant organizations and academic experts were also gathered. The results of those reviews were compiled in July 2008 as an interim report. Thereafter, other specialists and academics in various fields provided input through lectures. Also, studies on the Japanese citizen’s preferences and policy demands on fisheries and resources management were conducted through an Internet-based questionnaire survey. The results of all those efforts are compiled in this Final Report.

The FRA Grand Design Report analyzed the advantages and issues of the Japanese fisheries in light of their diversity and the characteristics of fishery resources and industrial structures connected or related to them. It also clarified five principles of fisheries and resources management for the future, which specifically involves conservation of fishery resources and the environment as well as contributing to local society. From those reviews the FRA Grand Design Report identified urgent tasks such as the need to establish a flexible fishery system. In addition, three policy options that explicitly reflect differences in the sense of value are proposed and the relative evaluation of those options and their applicability to citizens’ policy demands based on the results of the questionnaire survey discussed.

We are grateful to the Fisheries Agency of MAFF, which provided us the valuable opportunity to work on this important subject. We are also grateful to many other people for their cooperation with this study. We sincerely hope that the FRA Grand Design Report will be of help to the development of fisheries industries in Japan.

March 30, 2009

Yoshio IshizukaExecutive DirectorFisheries Research Agency, Japan


3

Study Committee Member List (March 31, 2009)

ChairmanYoshio Ishizuka, Executive Director, Fisheries Research Agency

External MembersYoshihiro Kuronuma, Prof., School of Social Information Studies, Otsuma Women’s

UniversityOsamu Baba, Prof., Department of Marine Policy and Culture, Tokyo University of Marine

Science and TechnologyTakashi Yamakawa, Ass. Prof., Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the

University of Tokyo

Internal MembersTokio Wada, Director-General, National Research Institute of Fisheries Engineering,

Fisheries Research AgencyNorihisa Baba, Director, Project Planning Department, Headquarters, FRAHiroshi Horikawa, Director, Stock Assessment Division, National Research Institute of

Fisheries Science (NRIFS), FRAYukio Tasaka, Director, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS, FRAHitoshi Honda, Director, Tropical Tuna Resources Division, National Research Institute of

Far Seas Fisheries, FRATatsu Kishida, Director, Japan Sea Fisheries Resources Division, Japan Sea National

Fisheries Research Institute, FRAAkihiko Yatsu, Director, East China Sea Fisheries Resources Division, Seikai National

Fisheries Research Institute, FRATakumi Mitani, Chief, Fisheries Management Section, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS,

FRAYuzuru Tomizuka, Senior Fisheries Policy Researcher, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS,

FRAMitsutaku Makino, Researcher, Fisheries Management Section, Fisheries Economy Division,

NRIFS, FRAHiroyuki Okochi, Coordinator for Collaborative Research, Project Planning Department,

Headquarters, FRAMiki Ogura, same as above,Yoshiaki Hiyama, same as above.

4

Contents

Acknowledgements

Study Committee Member List

Executive Summary

1. Basic Approach and Methods1.1 Basic Approach1.2 Method

2. Results2.1 Principle2.2 Advantages, Issues and their Correlations of the Present Fishing Industry

(1) Advantages and merits(2) Issues and their correlations(3) Extraction of factors that should be preferentially tackled

2.3 Basic Direction of Fisheries Policies(1) Comprehensiveness of policy: purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures(2) Grand design for resources and fisheries management(3) Institutional flexibility(4) Distribution system(5) Scientific knowledge and monitoring system(6) International management framework(7) Production systems that match the ecosystems and the consumers’ needs(8) Multi-functions of fisheries and communities

2.4 Policy Options and Effects(1) Global competition scenario: liberalism scenario focusing on industrial efficiency

improvement(2) Ecological mosaic scenario: regionalism scenario for resources and environmental

conservation(3) National food security scenario: egalitarianism scenario focusing on the public

aspects of food supply2.5 Public Demand for Policies as Revealed from the Questionnaire Survey

(1) Results of the questionnaire survey(2) Considerations for policy options

References

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••2

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••3

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••5

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••6••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••6

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••6

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••8••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••8

•••••••••••••••••••••••••10•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••10

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••10•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••12

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••13••••••••••••••••••••13

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••19••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••24

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••25••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••25

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••26••••••••••••••••••••••26

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••27•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••28

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••28

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••29

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••30•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••32

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••32••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••32

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••34


5

Executive Summary

Fisheries and fisheries resources for a country or region should be managed taking account of the social and ecological characteristics of the country or region. This study examined the framework of fisheries and resources management appropriate for the characteristics of the Japanese fishing industry for the purpose of providing options to policymakers.

To begin with, the Study Committee identified 16 roles that ideal fisheries play in Japanese society. These ideals were then divided into five principles: (A) Resource and environmental policy aspect, (B) Food policy aspect, (C) Industrial and economic policy aspect, (D) Local and community policy aspects, and (E) Cultural and scientific policy aspect.

Next, the advantages and issues of the present Japanese fisheries were listed and analyzed based on problem correlational diagrams. An analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship shown in the problem correlational diagrams was further conducted to identify the combinations of tasks to prioritize.

In addition, measures to be taken to tackle priority problems were reviewed through a process in which discussed the basic direction of future fisheries policies. The agenda of the discussion was narrowed to eight topics: (1) Comprehensive management of fisheries and fisheries resources: purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures, (2) Clarification of the grand design of fisheries and resources management, (3) Improvement of institutional flexibility, (4) Improvement of the products distribution system, (5) Improvement of the scientific knowledge and monitoring system, (6) Establishment of an international management system, (7) Establishment of a production system meeting both ecosystem characteristics and consumers’ demands, and (8) Evaluation of multi-functions of fisheries and fishing communities.

The sense of value should be discussed in relation to specific measures beyond a purely scientific discussion to account for national preferences. Therefore, the Study Committee proposed three policy options that explicitly reflect the differences among various concepts of values. The first option, called the “global competition scenario”, emphasizes the economic (monetary) efficiency of the industry. It defines fisheries as an industry that seeks maximum profit from resources, while governmental agencies other than fisheries are responsible for the remaining aspects. The second option, called the “ecological mosaic scenario”, emphasizes the role of the community in conserving resources and the environment. It envisages a sharing of the roles that the coastal fisheries play in the community and that off-shore fisheries play by seeking to improve industrial efficiency and expand production. The third option, called the “national food supply security scenario”, prioritizes the public aspect of the food supply to Japanese citizens and holds the national government responsible for supplying safe marine products at stable prices, regardless of international supply and demand. The extent each of those options contributes to the essence of the principles A through E was numerically evaluated in an attempt to relatively assess them.

Furthermore, a questionnaire survey was conducted to understand public demand for those three optional policies. The validity of the options was reviewed based on the survey results. The “ecological mosaic scenario” seemed to be the best match for the people’s demand. However, the three options are theoretical scenarios that show explicit differences in the sense of value. When actual policies are formulated it will be necessary to consider the characteristics of those policies, fully understand what the people need and have a practical attitude, which includes seeking a middle ground.

6

1. Basic Study Approach and Methods

1.1 Basic Approach

Fisheries and resources management for a country or region should be conducted with measures that match its social and ecological characteristics. From the viewpoint of sustainable and effective use of fishery resources, our study aims to clarify the effects and issues of the Japanese traditional fishery systems including the fishery rights system and fishing license system and provide policymakers with policy options that matches the characteristics of the Japanese fishing industry (resources, fisheries structure, history and tradition, sense of value, recent conditional changes, etc.). Although aquaculture is a pivotal measure for realizing a stable food supply for Japan, this study focuses on the capture fisheries and therefore excludes aquaculture from the list of subjects to review. Also, when activities conducted by the national government are classified into three categories, i.e., policies (ideal directions or principles), measures (ways to realize the principle), and operations (specific programs to implement measures), our study focuses on analysis mainly in the fields of policies and measures.

1.2 Method

Our study employed the following four-stage procedure.

Procedure 1 - Identification of the principle: The first stage of the review is the brain-storming by the Study Committee members on various attributes and social roles of Japanese fisheries. Identified attributes and social roles where then classified into principles. The results of this review are discussed in Section 2.1.

Procedure 2 - Clarification of the issues and analysis of their correlation: This stage analyzes the advantages of the Japanese fisheries, clarifies various factors that have caused the present problems and prepares problem correlational diagrams. Analysis of the cause and effect relationship among the clarified factors leads to extraction of factors that should be given top priority in efficiently realizing the principles determined in Procedure 1. The results of this review are presented in Section 2.2.

Procedure 3 - Direction of management and development of policy options: Basic ideas of how to tackle priority factors as identified in the previous procedure are analyzed. Through this process the basic direction of Japan’s future fishery resources and fisheries management are clarified. The results of this review are explained in Section 2.3. In addition, this stage studies policy options that should be adopted as future fisheries policies, while taking into consideration the differences in various concepts of value. These options are assessed to determine what extent they contribute to each principle clarified in Procedure 1. The results of this review are presented in Section 2.4.

Procedure 4 - Understanding of the public demands for policies: This stage involves a questionnaire survey to grasp citizens’ demand for the policy options to provide data for discussion on the future direction of resources and fisheries management. The results are presented in Section 2.5.

The processes of all four reviews were disclosed to the approximately 500 research experts in FRA at each interim reporting stage so as to gather opinions widely from various research fields and specialists. The gathered opinions were reported during the Study Committee’s discussions.


7

“Comprehensive” viewpoints were also secured by inviting knowledgeable people from outside the study committee and listening to their comments.

8

2. Results

2.1 Principles

The roles the fishing industry should play in the Japanese society are identified as 16 subcategories, which are then classified into five principles: (A) Resource and environmental policy aspect, (B) Food policy aspect, (C) Industrial and economic policy aspect, (D) Local and community policy aspects, and (E) Cultural and science policy aspect. (Fig. 1). Detailed descriptions of 16 sub categories are shown in Table 1.

The fisheries and resources management in Japan should be based on comprehensive policy measures covering those 16 roles in five principles. These results will be used when conducting relative evaluations of the policy options proposed in Section 2.4, and the questionnaire survey on the nations’ demand for the policies explained in Section 2.5.

Fig.1 Five principles and sixteen roles in ideal fisheries in Japan

Table 1 principles and roles in ideal fisheries in Japan

A: Resources and environmental policy aspectA-1 Conservation and recovery of the fishery resources

Through management measures based on both scientific and traditional knowledge, and transparent decision-making processes, the fisheries resources are maintained at the appropriate level, while recovery measures are taken for overfished resources.

A-2: Harmony with the ecosystem and the environmentAdaptive fisheries operations that respond to fluctuations in resources and the environment, including decades-long regime shifts and climate changes, are conducted. Activities for environmental conservation by fisheries such as energy saving, reduction in environmental impacts, and promotion of material circulation are made to conserve the structure and function of the ecosystems and continuously receive the ecosystem services.


9

A-3: Establishment of international management frameworksAn international management framework is established while Japan takes leadership in conservation of the resources and ecosystems of the waters crossing the national borders or of the public waters through international fisheries management organizations (including regional organizations, NGO, grass root organizations, and other management systems through international cooperation).

B: Food policy aspectB-1: Increase in production and improvement of self-sufficiency rate

Increased production and supply of fisheries products to the Japanese citizen to make contributions to improvement of self-sufficiency rate.

B-2: Security of food reliability and safety Supplying safe and pollution-free fisheries products together with reliable, easy-to-understand information for consumers in order to improve the people's overall diet, health and welfare.

B-3: Security of supply stabilityFisheries products stable both in price and quantity are supplied to the Japanese citizen now and in the future.

C: Industrial and economic policy aspectC-1: Institutional response to consumer needs changes

Flexible institutional frameworks are provided in order to match the people's consumption needs.C-2: Realization of efficient and stable operational environment

Efficiency of production and employment is maintained by the multiple use of water surfaces and "Appropriate competition," and an operational system resistant to external shocks is realized. Administrative spending is also reduced by the local fishers' autonomous management. (The "Appropriate competition" aims at rationalization of resource distribution through market mechanisms while putting effective brakes on the upper limit of the catching capacity by considering the nature of each fishing method, such as the difference in nature between coastal and offshore fisheries or the ecological characteristics of the fish to catch.)

C-3: Promotion of internationally competitive productsThe brand of qualified Japanese fisheries products and their differentiation in the international market is promoted.

C-4:Improvement of the working environmentA safe and clean working environment is maintained, and new workers are attracted to join the fisheries industries by good employment conditions.

D: Local and community policy aspectD-1: Infrastructures and welfare development

Fisheries sector creates diverse job opportunities spreading Japan regardless of the topography. Attractive rural areas appealing to youths and women are developed by local economic vitalization and through the development of good residential environments and support of rich local cultures.

D-2: Integrated coastal zone managementAutonomous activities by local stakeholders including fishers help promote environmental conservation and maintain sea surface use and promote rescue operations during disasters, national border surveillance, and preservation of ecosystem services.

D-3: Job creation for fishing community peopleJobs appropriate for each age bracket are available in rural communities to provide an attractive living environment, and elderly people once retired from their former occupation come from other areas to join the work forces in rural areas.

E: Cultural and science policy aspectE-1: Promotion of fisheries and fishing community culture

Cultural activities rooted in and unique to each area including locally unique lifestyles, local knowledge, fishing techniques and local cuisine, are fostered and maintained, and information related to those activities is provided to the rest of society.

E-2: Promotion of leisure and educationFunctions and charms inherent in fishing communities are enhanced with opportunities for leisure, recreation, or education, and prosper together with other marine industries.

E-3: Promotion of science and international contributionsFisheries contribute to the collection of basic information for resources and ecosystems, and advancement of related science and technology. Also make contributions to international society through spreading such knowledge and technology.

10

2.2 Advantages, Issues and their Correlations of the Present Fishing Industry

(1) Advantages and merits

Japan has a long history of fisheries management (Ruddle 1987, Yamamoto 1995). This part of the study identifies and analyzes the advantages and merits in the present Japanese fisheries industry and classifies them based on principles A through E listed in Section 2.1. The results are summarized in Figure 2.

Note that some of those advantages and merits are opposites of disadvantages and demerits, which are to be analyzed in the next section. For example, one advantage in Principle C of “Industrial and economic policy aspects” is “the presence of various fish species and fishing methods depending on the season and sea waters.” This, however, also complicates and disables coordination among fishing methods and fish species. The “presence of order in coastal water use based on local practice” listed as one of the advantages of (D) “Local and community policy aspect” is also one of the factors explaining why institutional flexibility is not sufficiently allowed. When policy options are planned and developed, it is important to further promote the advantages and merits of the present fishing industry shown here while at the same time fully understand the negative impacts of the measures to solve the problems with those advantages and merits.

(2) Issues and their correlations

The present Japanese fishery resources and fisheries management faces various issues, and the factors of those issues were reviewed and correlational diagrams prepared (Fig. 3). In addition, the factors were classified based on the correlational characteristics into five categories: (1) Bottleneck factors, (2) Independent factors inside the fishing industry, (3) Independent factors outside the fishing industry, (4) Synergic independent factors, and (5) Process factors (Table 2).

Fig. 2 Advantages and merits in the present Japanese fisheries industry


11

Table 2 Classification of factors constituting the problem correlational diagram

Fig. 3 Problem correlational diagrams of the Japanese fisheries

Kind Description Factors in Fig. 3

Bottleneck factor

These are factors with many incoming and outgoing arrows and should be the major targets of measures. There are two kinds of measures, direct ones to address bottleneck factors (which work quickly but do not solve the very cause of the problem) and measures to address factors that are the causes of the bottleneck factors (measures that take time until the effect appears).

Insufficient adaptability to fluctuation/uncertainty

Excessive dependency on specific resources

Presence of irrational catch

High cost

Lack of measures against negative impacts on the environment

Reduction in and destabilization of fish prices

Lack of human resources and successors

Independent factors inside the fisheries

Independent factors that are the starting point (start point of the arrow) of the cause and effect relationship. It is considered the fundamental cause of a problem.

Absence or malfunction of international management body

Complexity of fishery operational adjustment because of the presence of varying fish species and fishing methods

Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency

Lack of institutional flexibility

Insufficiency and lack of scientific knowledge and accuracy in monitoring systems

Absence of strategies for resource diplomacy

Low awareness of sale and hygiene at producing areas

Segmented and incomplete distribution chain

Poor support for multifunctionality of fisheries

Unclear recognition of the role of remote communities in land formation policy

Synergetic independent factors

Of the independent factors inside the fisheries, those that are the direct causes of each principle and the bottleneck factors. Since the response to them leads to improvement of the bottleneck factors as well as direct effects, synergetic effects will occur from implementation of measures, and therefore policy effectiveness is expected to greatly improve.

Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency




12

(3) Extraction of factors that should be preferentially tackled

The effects of the measures for the factors that constitute the problem correlational diagrams on improvement of principles A through E were summated. Direct effects to the principles are counted as 1.0 point and secondary (indirect) effects as 0.5 point. Then, the combinations of preferential factors were formulated in two kinds. Detailed descriptions of each factor are located in Table 3. Note that measures for the bottleneck factors will bring quick improvement. Those measures are very important as a short-term perspective, but not for solving the root causes of the issues. The rest of this report deals with the long-term structural problem of Japanese fisheries.

Independent factors outside the fisheries

Factors outside the fisheries that cannot be directly addressed by fisheries policy, but their impacts should be handled as fishery measures.

Climate changes

Territorial disputes

Intrinsic fluctuations of ecosystem

Fluctuations in international supply and demand

Fluctuations in foreign exchange

Rise in oil price

Process factors

Factors other than the above that are in a cause and effect relationship. Tackling the causes of those factors should be prioritized rather than taking direct measures to tackle those factors.

Malfunction of ability to coordinate among fisheries

Malfunction of autonomous management system

Stagnation of technological development

Excessive capital and equipment

CO2 emission reduction target

Lack of marketing and promotion of products

Weakened local processing businesses

Deterioration of FCA function

Table 3 Factors to be preferentially addressedFactors DescriptionLack of grand design, accountability and transparency

There are not enough efforts for promoting the people's and stakeholders' understanding of uncertainties in resource trends and ecosystem fluctuations, and the relationship among the foregoing and fishing capacity, Allowable Biological Catchs (ABCs), and Total Allowable Catchs (TACs). In addition, the information serving as the grounds for official decision-making on fisheries and resource management is not fully disclosed.


There are various public and conventional institutional systems governing new entry to the fisheries, use of rights and licenses, design of fishing boats and gear, etc., and such intricacies prevent smooth development and use of new technologies, democratic and appropriate management of rights and licenses, inflow of human resources and new ideas, and ultimately defy technical reform or innovation.


Scientific knowledge and methods for resource estimation and future prediction, impacts of TACs on fisheries stakeholders and the national public, etc. is limited (because of the lack of knowledge or presence of inherent fluctuations), and the scope and precision of resource monitoring and statistic information gathering, which serve the basis of such analysis, are insufficient, thereby increasing uncertainty.


Producers and processors/distributors are separated, and the distribution chain itself is separated into various stages. Overall, there is no appropriate working mechanism of price forming, information provision, and supply and demand. As a result, various disadvantages have occurred, such as excessive demand for standarized products, deterioration of product diversity and quality, reduction in producer prices, and inadequate response to consumer needs.

Absence or malfunction of international management body

No cross-boarder management framework is fully operational for conservation of resources and ecosystems over two or more countries or in the public waters, and such framework itself is often nonexistent. Such management framework can be based on regional organizations, NGOs, grass-roots organizations and other internationally cooperated groups in addition to a nation-based framework.

Absence of strategies for resource diplomacy

Medium- and long-term strategies with the Japanese national profits focused are not clear regarding participation in or cooperation with international resources management organizations or technical support to foreign countries.

Low awareness of sale and hygiene at producing areas

Fishery operators and the producer markets think of themselves as simply fishery catchers and are less interested in how to sell and sell well and how to handle marine products. Thus, they lack the ability to sense consumer needs and only have lax sanitary measures.

Poor support for multifunctionality of fisheries

Public evaluation of the multifaceted functions of the fisheries and fishing communities (particularly in terms of material circulation and environmental preservation) is insufficient, and maintenance of those functions won't produce profits although it could be a burden. As a result, the multifaceted functions are degrading and eventually cause deterioration of the natural environment in and the use of the coastal areas and reduction in the attractiveness of the coastal areas.

Unclear recognition of the role of remote communities in land formation policy

There is insufficient recognition of non-economic significance regarding communities located at various places along the coast with the people living there and the presence of fishing ports as the infrastructure for community formation and maintenance. The roles that are played (or can be played) by fishing communities and ports from the viewpoint of national land formation are not clearly positioned.

Excessive dependency on specific resources (including lack of effective use of under-used resources)

Fishing operations are excessively dependent on specific resources and fishing methods, and no balanced and effective use of ecosystem productivity has been realized. Destabilization of the ecosystems or fishery operations and destabilization of supply have then resulted.

Effe

cts

on a

ll pr

inci

ples

Hig

h ef

ficie

ncy


13

[High efficiency]

The measures for the following four factors in Fig. 3 and Table 3 will generate synergic effects and can efficiently improve each principle. However, almost no improvement could be expected from Principle E-3 Promotion of science and technology and international contributions, A-3 establishment of an international management system, B-2 securing of food reliability and safety, D-2 general management and disaster prevention for coastal areas, D-3 response to the life cycle of local fishing people, E-1 fisheries and fishing village culture, and E-2 leisure, marine recreation and landscape.

-Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency-Lack of institutional flexibility-Insufficiency and lack of scientific knowledge and accuracy in monitoring systems-Segmented and incomplete distribution chain

[Effects on all principles]

In addition to the aforementioned, taking measures for the following six factors will at least cover all the principles, but to varying degrees. For example, no greater improvement could be expected for D-2 general management and disaster prevention for coastal areas and E-1 fisheries and fishing village culture than what could be expected for other principles.

-Absence or malfunction of international management body-Absence of strategies for resource diplomacy-Low awareness of sales and hygiene in producing areas -Poor support for multifunctionality of fisheries-Unclear recognition of the role of remote communities in land formation policy-Excessive dependency on specific resources

2.3 Basic Direction of Fisheries Policies

Considering the analysis results discussed in the previous subsection, basic directions for Japanese fisheries policies are suggested. The content in this section suggest a direction applicable to all policy options presented in Section 2.4.

(1) Comprehensiveness of policy (purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures)

FRA believes that the following three aspects of comprehensiveness are important for fisheries and resources management in Japan.

i. Purpose of management

Aiming at ideal fisheries in the future Japanese society, fisheries policies should fulfill 16 roles, identified in Section 2.1 (Fig. 1). Fisheries and resources management in Japan is preferably conducted as the comprehensive policy covering those 16 subcategories in 5 principles. Each measure should be implemented to improve those principles and evaluated based on their level of contribution to them.

14

ii. Evaluation criteria for management

There is no unique criterion usable to versatilely evaluate comprehensive policy. Evaluation criteria contain, for example, efficiency (comparison between the results and the efforts input or costs, such as economic efficiency or efficiency of employment), effectiveness (to what extent the purpose has been achieved), sufficiency (to what extent the need is satisfied), fairness (distribution of profits and expenses), responsiveness (whether specific needs or values are satisfied) and appropriateness (appropriate for society) (Miyagawa 1994). For example, Hillborn (2007) presents four criteria for evaluation of fisheries and resources management, which are biological criterion (maximum sustainable yield or MSY), economic criterion (maximum economic yield or MEY), social criterion (maximum job yield, or MJY, indicating generation of job opportunities for local communities) and political criterion (‘minimum sustainable whinge’ for reduction of political complaints, MSW), and concludes that the failure of the past MSY criteria is the success of another criteria or the result of competing criteria. It is necessary to avoid excessive dependence on a single set of criteria to ensure comprehensive evaluation.

iii. Combinations of management measures

If it is dependent on combinations of measures rather than a single measure resources and fisheries management is resilient to ecosystem changes, social changes, uncertainty and diversity (Charles 2007). Therefore, when resources and fisheries management policies are developed, it is necessary to utilize measures with a full understanding of the suitability, effective range and limits of each measure in line with the 16 roles in 5 principles shown in Fig. 1, and to try to produce synergic effects by combining two or more measures. Specific contents and combinations of management measures must be determined based on the structure of the specific problem, degree of urgency, public demand for policies and other factors. No standard solution exists, but solutions can be generalized into the following schemes.

Depending on the target, fisheries and resources management measures can be divided into eight categories, shown in Table 4a. Figure 4 is an illustrated diagram showing the part of the fishery system upon which each measure acts. Furthermore, depending on the implementation approach of each measure, they can be divided into five categories as shown in Table 4b. Table 5, the tool-box of management measures, plots target-based categories in the left side column and approach-based categories in the top row to arrange specific examples of management measures. Each category group has both unique advantages and limits, which are shown in Table 6. Therefore, when combinations of management measures are reviewed, it is instrumental to understand the structure of each individual problem as compared to the correlational diagrams of Fig. 3. It is also necessary to fully review whether a combination of measures effectively and sufficiently handles the problems and whether the balance of such combination is efficient based on Tables 4 through 6 and Fig. 4.


15

(a) T

arge

t-ba

sed

clas

sific

atio

n

A. C

onse

rvat

ion

of r

esou

rces

(in

put c

ontr

ol)

Qua

ntita

tive

Fixe

d eq

uipm

ent

1: R

estr

ictio

n on

tota

l ton

nage

of fi

shin

g bo

ats;

2: R

estr

ictio

n on

hor

sepo

wer

of fi

shin

g bo

at e

ngin

es; 3

: Res

tric

tion

on th

e si

ze o

f fish

ing

gear

; 4: R

estr

ictio

n on

fish

ta

nk c

apac

ity; a

nd 5

: Res

tric

tion

on li

ght p

ower

Ope

ratio

nN

on-tr

ansf

erab

le6:

Res

tric

tion

of fi

shin

g ef

fort

(No.

of fi

shin

g da

ys, N

o. o

f fish

ing

oper

atio

ns, N

o. o

f net

s, e

tc.);

7: I

EC (i

ndiv

idua

l effo

rt q

uota

); 8:

GEG

(gro

up-s

peci

fic e

ffort

quo

ta);

9:

IOQ

(ind

ivid

ual o

il qu

ota)

Tran

sfer

able

10: I

TEQ

(ind

ivid

ual t

rans

fera

ble

effo

rt q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithou

t tra

nsfe

r res

tric

tions

, with

/with

out d

eadl

ine)

; 11:

GTE

Q (g

roup

-spe

cific

tran

sfer

able

effo

rt q

uota

) (w

ith/

with

out t

rans

fer r

estr

ictio

ns, w

ith/w

ithou

t dea

dlin

e); 1

2: IT

OQ

(ind

ivid

ual t

rans

fera

ble

oil q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithou

t tra

nsfe

r re

stri

ctio

ns, w

ith/w

ithou

t dea

dlin

e)

Qua

litat

ive

Fixe

d eq

uipm

ent

13: R

estr

ictio

ns o

n fis

hing

gea

r or fi

shin

g m

etho

ds (r

estr

ictio

ns o

n th

e ty

pe o

f fish

ing

gear

or

fishi

ng m

etho

d, c

ompu

lsor

y us

e of

cer

tain

fish

ing

equi

pmen

t, et

c.)

Ope

ratio

n14

: Res

tric

tion

on fi

shin

g gr

ound

or s

easo

n (c

lose

d fis

hing

are

a, cl

osed

fish

ing

seas

on, m

arin

e re

serv

e, e

tc.);

15

: Rot

atio

nal u

se o

f fish

ing

grou

nds

B. C

onse

rvat

ion

of re

sour

ces

(out

put c

ontr

ol)

Qua

ntita

tive

Ove

rall

16: T

AC (t

otal

allo

wab

le ca

tch)

; 17:

Are

a- a

nd s

easo

n-sp

ecifi

c TAC

; 18:

Fis

heri

es ty

pe-s

peci

fic T

AC

Indi

vidu

al q

uota

Tran

sfer

able

19: I

Q (i

ndiv

idua

l quo

ta);

20: I

VQ (i

ndiv

idua

l ves

sel q

uota

); 21

: GQ

(gro

up-s

peci

fic q

uota

)

Non

-tran

sfer

able

22: I

TQ (i

ndiv

idua

l tra

nsfe

rabl

e qu

ota)

(with

/with

out t

rans

fer r

estr

ictio

ns, w

ith/w

ithou

t dea

dlin

e); 2

3: IT

VQ (i

ndiv

idua

l tra

nsfe

rabl

e ve

ssel

quo

ta) (

with

/with

out

tran

sfer

rest

rict

ions

, with

/with

out d

eadl

ine)

; 24:

GTQ

(gro

up-s

peci

fic tr

ansf

erab

le q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithou

t tra

nsfe

r re

stri

ctio

ns, w

ith/w

ithou

t dea

dlin

e)

Qua

litat

ive

25: R

estr

ictio

ns o

n si

ze o

f cat

ch (l

engt

h); 2

6: R

estr

ictio

ns o

n ge

nder

of c

atch

; 27:

Res

tric

tions

on

fishi

ng o

f mat

ure

fish

C. A

dditi

on a

nd e

nhan

cem

ent o

f res

ourc

es28

: Rel

ease

of s

eeds

D. M

aint

enan

ce a

nd r

esto

ratio

n of

ec

osys

tem

On

land

29: F

ores

tatio

n; 3

0: W

ater

qua

lity

man

agem

ent;

31: D

am re

pair

; 32:

Sed

imen

t and

qui

cksa

nd m

anag

emen

t

In th

e w

ater

33: C

onse

rvat

ion

and

rest

orat

ion

of s

eaw

eed

beds

and

wet

land

s; 3

4: S

eabe

d til

lage

; 35:

Inst

alla

tion

of fi

shin

g ba

nks;

36

: Pes

t con

trol

or t

hinn

ing

E. Im

prov

emen

t of b

usin

ess

oper

atio

nal s

truc

ture

37: P

rom

otio

n of

redu

ctio

n in

fish

ing

boat

s; 3

8: P

rom

otio

n of

shi

fting

to o

ther

fish

ery

type

s or

ope

ratio

n of

two

or m

ore

type

s;

39: R

educ

tion

of ca

pita

l by

smal

ler fl

eet s

ize

F. Im

prov

emen

t of t

reat

men

t/dis

posa

l, pr

oces

sing

and

dis

trib

utio

n

Onb

oard

40: I

mpr

ovem

ent o

f onb

oard

trea

tmen

t

Afte

r la

ndin

g41

: Pri

ce s

uste

nanc

e an

d ad

just

men

t sto

rage

; 42:

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

shin

g po

rts

and

mar

kets

; 43:

Pro

mot

ion

of e

xpor

ts;

44: R

atio

naliz

atio

n of

dis

trib

utio

n ch

ains

; 45:

Impr

ovem

ent o

f add

ed v

alue

by

new

pro

duct

dev

elop

men

t, et

c.; 4

6: Q

ualit

y st

anda

rdiz

atio

n by

hyg

iene

sta

ndar

ds,

etc.

(bra

nd v

alue

enh

ance

men

t); 4

7: R

educ

tion

of d

istr

ibut

ion

cost

; 48:

Acc

umul

atio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t of p

roce

ssin

g an

d di

stri

butio

n te

chno

logi

es

G. D

evel

opm

ent o

f hum

an a

nd o

rgan

izat

iona

l cap

acity

49: E

stab

lishm

ent a

nd ch

ange

of m

anag

emen

t org

aniz

atio

n; 5

0: D

evel

opm

ent,

use

and

recr

uitm

ent o

f hum

an r

esou

rces

H. P

rom

otio

n of

sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy51

: Dev

elop

men

t of fi

shin

g ge

ar; 5

2: D

evel

opm

ent o

f fish

ing

met

hods

; 53:

Dev

elop

men

t of fi

shin

g gr

ound

s an

d re

sour

ces;

54

: Dev

elop

men

t of p

roce

ssin

g m

etho

ds; 5

5: U

nder

stan

ding

, eva

luat

ion

and

pred

ictio

n of

nat

ural

eco

syst

em m

echa

nism

(b) A

ppro

ach-

spec

ific

clas

sific

atio

n

1. A

dmin

istr

ativ

e ap

proa

ch

Lega

l pro

tect

ion

56: F

ishe

ry ri

ght

Reg

ulat

ion/

rest

rict

ion

57: F

ishi

ng li

cens

e; 5

8: S

ettin

g of

rest

rict

ions

, reg

ulat

ions

and

pro

cedu

res

Gui

danc

e/or

der

59: A

djus

tmen

t am

ong

fishe

ries

; 60:

Adm

inis

trat

ive

guid

ance

and

diff

usio

n; 6

1: S

top

orde

r; 6

2: In

stru

ctio

ns fr

om th

e co

mm

ittee

or

supp

ortiv

e or

der;

63:

In

trod

uctio

n of

com

mod

ities

and

equ

ipm

ent c

ontr

ibut

ing

to re

duct

ion

in e

nvir

onm

enta

l im

pact

s

2. E

cono

mic

app

roac

h

Prom

otio

n64

: Div

iden

d fr

om s

ubsi

dy, i

ncen

tive

pay,

or m

embe

rshi

p fe

e

Miti

gatio

n65

: Col

lect

ion

of ta

x, le

vy, m

embe

rshi

p fe

e

Neu

tral

66: P

ool s

yste

m; 6

7: U

tiliz

atio

n of

ext

erna

l pri

vate

capi

tal

3. In

form

atio

n ap

proa

ch

Prom

otio

n68

: Bra

ndin

g; 6

9: E

co-la

belli

ng

Miti

gatio

n70

: Bla

ck-li

stin

g; 7

1: A

ppro

ved

list

Neu

tral

72: B

usin

ess

repo

rts

and

pres

s re

leas

es

4. J

udic

iary

app

roac

hPr

ivat

e73

: Cav

eats

, dam

age

clai

ms,

etc

.

Publ

ic74

: Cri

min

al-c

ode

puni

shm

ent a

nd a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pu

nish

men

t

5. A

uton

omou

s ap

proa

chO

ffici

ally

pre

scri

bed

by th

e la

w75

: Res

ourc

es m

anag

emen

t agr

eem

ent;

76: F

ishi

ng g

roun

ds u

se a

gree

men

t;

77: R

egul

atio

ns b

ased

on

the

FCA'

s ru

les

and

subc

omm

ittee

dec

isio

ns

Vol

unta

ry co

mm

itmen

t78

: Oth

er v

olun

tary

regu

latio

ns th

at g

o fu

rthe

r tha

n le

gal r

estr

ictio

ns

Table 4 Categories of management measures

16

Fig. 4 Management measures for whole the fishery system


17

1. A

dmin

istr

ativ

e ap

proa

ch2.

Eco

nom

ic a

ppro

ach

3. In

form

atio

n ap

proa

ch4.

Jud

icia

ry a

ppro

ach

5. A

uton

omou

s ap

proa

ch

Lega

l pr

otec

tion

Regu

latio

na/

rest

rictio

nG

uida

nce/

or

der

Prom

otio

nM

itiga

tion

Neu

tral

Prom

otio

nM

itiga

tion

Neu

tral

Priv

ate

Publ

icO

ffici

ally

pre

-sc

ribe

dO

ne-w

ay co

m-

mitm

ent

Fixe

d eq

uipm

ent

1,2,

3,4,

5,58

59,6

3,60

,62

6465

7170

7273

741,

2,3,

4,5,

58,

59,7

5,77

1,2,

3,4,

5,58

, 59

,78

Non

-tran

sfer

able

5657

59,6

0,62

6465

6,7,

8,9

69,7

170

7273

746,

7,8,

9,59

,75,

76

,77

6,7,

8,9,

59,

75,7

8

Tran

sfer

able

5665

10,1

1,12

69,7

170

7273

74

Fixe

d eq

uipm

ent

58,5

963

,60,

6264

6568

,69,

7170

7273

7413

,58,

59,7

5,77

13,5

8,59

,78

Ope

ratio

n56

14,5

7,59

60,6

1,62

6465

68,6

9,71

7072

7374

14,1

5,59

,75,

76

,77

14,1

5,59

,78

Ove

rall

16,1

7,18

60,6

264

6566

68,6

9,71

7072

7374

75,7

6,77

78

Non

-tran

sfer

able

5660

,62

6465

19,2

0,21

68,6

9,71

7072

7374

19,2

0,21

,75,

7719

,20,

21,7

8

Tran

sfer

able

5665

22,2

3,24

68,6

9,71

7072

7374

Qua

litat

ive

25,2

6,27

60.6

264

6568

,69,

7170

7273

7425

,26,

27,7

5,77

25,2

6,27

,78

C. A

dditi

on a

nd e

nhan

cem

ent o

f res

ourc

es60

28,6

4,67

68,6

972

7374

75,7

728

,78

D. M

aint

e-na

nce

and

rest

orat

ion

of

ecos

yste

m

On

land

30,3

1,32

29,3

1,32

, 63

,60

64,6

765

68,6

9,71

7273

7429

,30,

75,7

729

,30,

78

In th

e w

ater

3333

,34,

60,

6335

,36,

64

,67

6568

,69,

7172

7374

33,3

4,35

,36,

75

,77

33,3

4,35

,36,

78

E. Im

prov

emen

t of b

usin

ess

oper

atio

nal

stru

ctur

e37

,38,

39,

60,6

2,63

37,3

8,39

,64

,67

7273

7437

,38,

39,7

737

,38,

39,7

8

F. Im

prov

e-m

ent o

f tre

at-

men

t/dis

posa

l, pr

oces

sing

and

di

stri

butio

n

Aboa

rd th

e bo

at40

,60,

6340

,64,

6740

,68,

69,7

172

7374

40,7

740

,78

Afte

r lan

ding

43,4

4,45

,46

,48,

60,

63

41,4

2,43

,44

,454

6,47

,48,

64,

67

46,4

8,68

,69

,71

7273

7441

,42,

45,4

6,48

,77

41,4

2,43

,44,

45

,47,

48,7

8

G. D

evel

opm

ent o

f hum

an a

nd o

rgan

iza-

tiona

l cap

acity

49,5

049

,50

49,5

0,60

,62

,63

49,5

0,64

,67

49,5

072

49,5

0,75

,77

49,5

0,78

H. P

rom

otio

n of

sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy51

,52,

53,

54,5

5,60

51,5

2,53

,54

,55,

64,

6755

5555

,72

55,7

5,77

51,5

2,53

,54,

55

,78

H. P

rom

otio

n of

sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy51

,52,

53,

54,5

5,60

51,5

2,53

,54

,55,

64,

6755

5555

,72

55,7

5,77

51,5

2,53

,54,

55

,78

A. Input control

Quantitative Quantitative

Operation Individual quota

Quantitative

B. Output control

Conservation of resources Table 5 Tool-box of fisheries and resource management measures

18

Table 6 Advantages and limits of management classifications(a) Target-specific

Description Advantage LimitA Conservation

of resources (input control)

Control of quality and quantity of operations

Fundamental and long-term effects will be obtained. It covers the entirety of two or more resources. Measures that match the living history of the subject species can be used. Robust to uncertainties of resources assessment and regulations. Easily adaptive to individual fishery operators.

Inappropriate for flexible and expeditious management. Effect on resource quantity is indirect and its assessment is difficult. Grasping the effort and fishing pressure is sometimes difficult. For individual quotas, initial distribution or total volume change is difficult, and regulation cost increases.

B Conservation of resources (output control)

Control of quality and quantity of catch

Flexible management depending on resources fluctuations is possible. Easier to understand method. Readily applicable to management of resources across borders or distributed over wide areas.

Cost for setting or execution of quantities is large. Unable to conduct fine-tuned management to match the living history. Effect reduces in case resources fluctuations or assessment errors are large. Management difficult for fisheries catching various fish species. For individual quotas, initial distribution or total volume change is difficult, and costs for control marine dumping or false reporting increase.

C Addition and enhancement of resources

Artificial reinforcement of reduced resources

Can directly improve locally reduced resources. Easier to understand method. Understanding of fishery people easier to obtain.

Difficult to grasp changes in the inter-species relationship or impacts on the ecosystem such as genetic diversity. Subjects limited to species for which reinforcement technique is developed. Difficult to cope with deteriorating wide-area resources.

D Maintenance and restoration of ecosystem

Improvement of fishing ground productivity

Can provide multifaceted functions through the conservation of ecosystems.

How much effect would be achieved or when effects would occur is unclear.

E Improvement of business operational structure

Improvement of fish value and added value and improvement of utilization efficiency

Income will increase for fishery operators, processors and distributors. Can expect economic growth and produce jobs in fisheries areas. Can cope with varying consumer needs.

What direct effects would occur to resource quantities or when such effects would occur is unclear.

F Improvement of treatment/disposal, processing and distribution

Reduction of capital equipment or shifting to different fisheries

Can expect reduction in operational cost and acquisition of other income sources.

When the number of fishing boats is reduced, the burden on the finance (general public) or remaining fishery operators is large. Difficult to coordinate with relevant fisheries.

G Development of human and organizational capacity

Development and acquisition of management-related human resources, and reform and reinforcement of organization

Can flexibly cope with various problems in an innovative way. Can contribute to formation of attractive community.

Human resources development takes time. Organization tends to be conservative and exclusive when it becomes rigid.

H Promotion of science and technology

Development of technologies and resources, and understanding and prediction of ecosystem mechanism

Can improve or solve problems in a medium- and long-range and fundamental manner. Can show the right direction for industrial growth.

Expeditious response difficult. Large initial investment necessary. Uncertain about the feasibility of expected results.

(b) Approach-specificDescription Advantage Limit

1 Administrative approach

Government directly implements based on the act

Highly legitimate and stable because of its legal basis. Effective as a fast-working measure to local problems.

When subjects are dispersed, small in scale and diversified, monitoring is difficult. In many cases, higher cost than other methods. Difficulty in flexible and expeditious response.

2 Economic approach

Indirect induction by economic incentives

Highly expeditious. Promotes each implementer's creativity and innovativeness. Less costly than administrative methods.

Direct effect for target is uncertain. Separate measure necessary to ensure distribution.

3 Information approach

Disclosure or provision of information to stakeholders

Many case examples of efforts by implementers can be widely shared and understood.

Some measures to ensure effectiveness necessary to provide accurate information.

4 Judiciary approach

Punishment or order based on legal judgment

Highly legitimate and stable because of its legal basis. Effective to control similar problems.

Time-consuming and costly. Responsibility for corroboration tends to become a burden.

5 Voluntary approach

Stakeholders autonomously implement measures

Flexibly copes with individual specific cases. Requires less administrative cost.

Weak binding and enforcing power. Target achievement is uncertain.


19

(2) Grand design for resources and fisheries management

As explained in Section 2.1, fisheries and resources management must maintain fishery resources at an appropriate level, take action to restore the depleted resources and align fishing operations with the ecosystem and environment. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CoC) by FAO (FAO 1995) requires the national government to share with the Japanese people the government’s basic ideas concerning resources management and ecological conservation and build consensus with them. This is regarded as information disclosure on management of resources as common public assets. FRA believes that the pivotal components of the grand design for fishery resources and fisheries management are summarized as the following nine points (illustrated diagrams in Fig. 5).

i. Basic idea

CoC of FAO, as well as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), call for the establishment of responsible fisheries and emphasize sustainable use of resources, precautionary measures, and due measures for ecosystem and the environmental conservation. Considering that Japan ratified UNCLOS and that Japan is one of the largest fisheries countries in the world, the basic idea of Japanese fisheries policy should naturally correspond with UNCLOS and CoC.

Such a basic stance is followed by many foreign countries with years of experience in fisheries management, for example through total catch regulations, and is contained in principles assumed by many international resources management organizations. It is therefore logical to suppose that these basic ideas will be useful in formulating Japanese management measures.

Fig. 5 Composition of the Grand Design (tasks shown in boldface)

20

ii. Response to uncertainty

Management of fishery resources faces uncertainties about resource fluctuations and errors in resource evaluation. One response to such uncertainties would be to take precautionary measures and/or use management measures that can embrace uncertainties. The latter is directly connected to adaptive management while the former is risk tolerance.

Risk toleranceTake the TAC system for instance. The criteria for the allowable biological catch (ABC), which refers to the range of allowable catch for a species or species group, vary depending on the resource recovery scenario, such as through what path and until when the resources should be recovered or what goal should be set for resources needing recovery. A slow recovery scenario (gradual recovery) would inevitably induce a higher risk of resource declines below the present level in the short term, particularly when compared with a rapid recovery scenario with a drastic catch decrease. On the other hand, the risk of short-term deterioration of fishing business may in many cases result from a rapid resources recovery scenario. Therefore, for resources that need to be restored, scenario choices should be made transparently and consistently with other management measures.

For some fishing sectors and fish species, there is a gap between the resource level and the size of capital. In such cases, there arises the problem of who will take the risks of resources deterioration and business deterioration. Furthermore, when the number of fishing boats or allowable quota is reduced to curtail the capital size, the issue here is who will bear the burden. These are points involving the sense of value or fairness, and it is something the Japanese citizen should decide. Thus, there is no standard solution. Therefore, this report considers three policy options as presented in Section 2.4.

Adaptive managementAdaptive management (Walters and Hillborn 1976) is a reasonable response to uncertainties. Adaptive management observes changes in the status and quickly responds to those changes, thereby readily adapting to uncertainties (Fisheries Research Agency 2006). In other words, it continuously monitors resources and revises the level of catching that is considered most appropriate depending on the present resource conditions. In Japan, a similar idea for management has been developed as a revised management procedure for whales, which was developed out of the need to avoid uncertain biological parameters for their stock management. It is also referred to as “feedback management”.

Monitoring and revising decision-making are the nuclei of adaptive management. The method most likely developed because of the recognition that decision-making should not be based on the prediction of resources changes, but rather on the current resources assessments. At the same time, decisions for adaptive management should be based on previously agreed procedures.

iii. Diversity of resources and fisheries types

A unique characteristic of Japanese fisheries is the high variety of fishery resources being exploited by wide-ranging fishing methods. This diversity shows that the country is bestowed with good natural resources and is rich in traditionally developed fishing gears. On the other hand, this diversity is a major cause of complications in management and adjustment. Management measures produce different effects depending on the social and ecological characteristics of each


21

fishing sector or area. A measure that has produced excellent results in one area can cause negative impact on another area. Fine-tuned research on the impact of a measure, therefore, is necessary.

The combination of management measures and the efficacy of each measure or a combination of measures is determined according to the diversity of resources and fisheries. For instance, a direct approach such as output control by TAC proves to be sufficiently effective for a simple fisheries structure such as those catching a single fish species using a single fishing method. When the fisheries structure is highly diverse, distribution and enforcement of TAC will entail many difficulties and significant expenditures. It should also be noted that TAC management is not necessarily an effective management system even for a simple fisheries structure (Walters and Pearse 1996).

Even where quantitative output control measures such as TAC are implemented, it is necessary not only to use a “top-down” regulatory method by administration, but also to combine an economic method, information-based method, judicial method and autonomous method (Table 6) to carry out management that meets the individual conditions of each problem. For the Japanese fisheries structure with a high level of diversity, sustainability of resources and fisheries could be ensured by implementing variety of management measures in Table 4.

iv. Responses to resources fluctuations

The regime shift of the marine ecosystem resulting from climate and ocean fluctuations causes long-term changes in the amount of resources (Kawasaki 1994). For example, the catch of Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus) rapidly increased because of the rise in the market demand for fish meal, which is the result of the poor catch of anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) in Peru from the 1970s to the 1980s. The Japanese fishing boats for sardine, especially Large-scale purse seiners, increased in size to cope with the increased demand. However, in 1988, before the service life (about 25 years) of those enlarged boats expired, a regime shift occurred, causing a sudden decrease in the stock of sardine, making the catch capacity redundant (Yatsu 2005).

The stock of chub mackerels (Scomber japonicus) in the Pacific stayed at a low level, despite strong year classes in 1992, 1996 and 2004. For the 1992 and 1996 classes there was overfishing pressure as a result of fisheries having mainly caught immature fish. For the 2004 class, the fish stock over three years seemed to increase due to the implementation of TAC and Resources Recovery Plans. Walleye pollack in the Sea of Japan (Theragra chalcogramma) remained at a low level because of the influence of the marine environment; the species is currently considered to be facing overfishing pressure. It is important to decrease the fishing pressure, which has become excessive due to the regime shift, to an appropriate level.

One of the proposed fishing measures for fluctuating species is switching fishing, which target the increasing stocks and reduces the pressure on decreasing stocks (Katsukawa and Matsuda 2003). It is necessary to establish composite fishing gears that enable the switching of target species depending on the rise and fall in the stock levels. A licensing system that allows such fishing operation should also be discussed.

Communication is important among citizens, fishers, fisheries processing and distribution sectors, administration and scientists. Communication will enable all stakeholders to fully understand not only the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and the regime shift, but also the need for

22

appropriate resources management.

v. Promotion of rational catch

Qualitative management measures will be further promoted. However, these measures are not enough to reduce dumping and bycatch and avoid catching of economically less valuable small fish. Japanese traditional management measures such as setting a closed season and protecting spawning and growing sites, should be also promoted.

Taking small-scale trawl fishing in Shimane Prefecture as an example, Yuki and Murayama (1998) proposed enlarging the trawl net mesh size to avoid bycatch of small fish without reducing the catch of expensive fish. This recommendation was based on the results of a survey and the comparison of a shift to safer and easier fishing methods to conventional methods. According to the stock assessment of yellowtail snapper, reduction in the fishing pressure of small fish would lead to an increase in the catch of expensive large fish (Fisheries Research Agency and Fisheries Agency 2007). Results of these studies are expected to be implemented as management measures in the field.

vi. Consensus building and incentives

Consensus needs to be built among stakeholders when fisheries and resources management is smoothly and effectively implemented. For example, the attitude of fishers played a critical role in two successful cases of resources management: Japanese sandeel fisheries in the Ise Bay (Tomiyama et al. 2008) and sandfish fishing in Akita Prefecture (Suenaga 2008). Without their cooperation, any management measures would have been insufficient. The need for consensus building is also extensively discussed with respect to TAC management.

In order to enable fishery operators and policymakers to understand the necessity and effectiveness of resources management measures, scientists must clearly explain the limitations of artificial controls of natural resources. In addition, since consensus building is expected to take time, a phasal approach should used. For example, it is relatively easy to understand the management results when the yield per recruit (YPR) is improved such as by fish length control, but spawning per recruit (SPR) management seems to be difficult to understand as the recruitment is greatly affected by environmental impacts. Even in this case, as SPR is likely to increase from improved YPR, phased implementation of a management measure that is easier to understand and accept is desired. Furthermore, deregulation of fishing licenses or fishing boat construction and establishment of clear-cut rules could be used as incentive to ensure that they will be rewarded for their efforts.

vii. Reform of the fisheries structure

Amid the prevailing fear of long-term rise in fuel prices, it is important to revise the cost structure and create fisheries that can withstand a fuel price hike. Short-term solutions to a fuel price rise as well as long-term efforts such as the development of energy-saving technology are both necessary.

To develop responsible fisheries we should establish a production system that reduces the environmental load, bycatch and dumping, catches the necessary fish in the necessary amount, fosters internationally competitive fishing operators, constructs a stable employment structure


23

and builds a sustainable fisheries production structure that matches the status of resources. For fishing boats, which are the indispensable means of production, we should develop next-generation boats that are energy-saving, safe, comfortable, require less production cost and generate less environmental loads. At the same time, we should achieve a good balance between the total catching capacity (operational size) and the resource level in order to break the vicious circle by which excessive investment causes a reduction in resources and operational crisis forces the continuation of excessive fishing, resulting in an even greater reduction in resources.

It is important to ensure the availability of measures for resources management, such as the suspension of fishing or reduction in the number of boats, and public compensation for impactful changes in social conditions. Although the judgment greatly varies depending on what policy option is chosen (see 2.4 for details), it is logical to consider more direct compensation given the importance of fisheries as the food providing industry, local industry and job-creating industry for local communities.

viii. Harmonious growth of offshore fisheries and coastal fisheries

As various fishing types and gears use the same resources within the Japanese EEZ, fisheries management is required to enable both coastal and offshore fisheries to mutually prosper. In many cases, coastal fisheries and offshore fisheries catch the resources at different life cycle stages, such as when spawning or feeding and immature fish or mature fish, depending on the fishing ground or fishing method. The problem here is who takes the fish first. One solution to this problem is that fishery operators share the same understanding based on a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of each type of fishing on the resources.

A variety of fish species are caught in coastal fisheries, in which the licensing conditions are relatively lax. Thus, it is easier to catch different fish species depending on the resource conditions (switching fishing) (such as tiger puffer stock instead of sandfish during the closed season in Akita). Coastal fisheries also frequently catch small species such as rocky shore resources, and the effect of management is therefore easier felt. On the other hand, it is difficult to have a quantitative understanding of the resource conditions or catching capability for specific resources. Coastal fisheries also make great contributions to the multi-functions of local fishing communities. Therefore, qualitative management is generally considered appropriate for coastal fishing.

In contrast, offshore fisheries are characterized by a relatively small number of fish species to catch and of fishery operators, which makes quantitative management a better choice. In fact, many TAC-regulated species are caught by offshore fisheries in Japan. But since it is difficult for the TAC system to avoid excessive investment under the competitive environment of who catches the fish first, it is necessary to study a combination of Individual Quota (IQ) or other qualitative management techniques. It is necessary to review the production capability of the major resources, the catching capacity of fishing boats, the number of fishing boats and to envisage the future of offshore fishing. Obstacles to switching fishing in offshore fisheries include the demand and price of the fish species. For example, the stock of Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus) increased after the 1990s outnumbering the stock of Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus), but Japanese anchovy itself is smaller than sardine, quickly deteriorates and is difficult to keep fresh, therefore making it have a smaller demand than that for sardine. It is thus important to conduct R&D on application of Japanese anchovy to fish meal or food for cultivated fish, whose demand is expected to grow in the future, as well as to take other measures in an integrated manner that involve the processing industry such as fish meal factories.

24

Introduction of new management measures, which may be feasible, should be reviewed to give various suggestions to the management of offshore fishing, which has a large catch potential. For example, as an economic approach, charging the landing of low-priced small fish may be effective. Individual transferable oil quota (ITOQ), which controls the consumption of fuel by fishing boats, is proposed as a measure for controlling fishing efforts (Yamakawa 2007).

ix. Linkage with the ecosystem and environment

Considering the fact that fishery resources constitute part of the ecosystem, it is necessary to clarify the policies to manage the impacts of fishery operations on the ecosystem such as marine pollution, bycatch, and endangerment of species. An example of such policies includes the ecological approach to fisheries (Garcia 2010).

The Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is now high on the agenda in international communities. In Japan selected water areas are protected by institutional efforts including water surface protection by the Living Aquatic Resources Protection Act and marine park areas as per the Natural Park Act. Many protected areas are also designated such by local fishers and citizens.

Inherent changes in the ecosystem cause changes in the level of marine resources. Those changes are beyond human control. Therefore, it is necessary to promote measures that allow quick adjustment of fishing pressures and clarify the principle for creating a stable supply of fisheries products to the nation. For example, including not only resources recovery but also the stabilization of the landings could be the target of fisheries policy (indexing of the catch by variation coefficient). It will lead to protection of strong year class, which could eventually increase the number of spawning adults.

(3) Institutional flexibility

There are various official and conventional restrictions imposed on new entries to the fishing industry, operation of rights and license quotas, and design of fishing boats and gear. In some places, undemocratic or feudalistic restrictions remain. All those institutional restrictions need to be abolished to the extent appropriate for today’s fisheries industry circumstances. Also, further improvement of qualification requirements and reinforcement of punishment are necessary. Such deregulation is expected to promote new technologies for cost-effective and environmentally friendly gears, input of new human resources and ideas and expand employment. For example, measures for regulating fishing pressure include individual quota (IQ), individual transferable quota (ITQ), individual effort quota (IEQ), individual transferable effort quota (ITEQ), group effort quota (GEQ) and group transferable effort quota (GTEQ) (OECD 2006). In addition, individual oil quota (IOQ) and individual transferable oil quota (ITOQ), which are equipped with the capacity to preserve the environment and reduce fuel consumption, are also proposed. To reduce costs some fishery operators have already introduced a “mini-sized fleet operation”. Moreover, as mentioned previously, it is necessary to develop technologies that realize flexible switching of target species according to the stock conditions, i.e., such as a “hybrid” fishing gear that combines trawling and purse seine fishery. Institutional supports (administrative, economic, information, etc.) for these activities are also effective to stabilize the supply of fisheries products.

However, unlimited deregulation can destroy the spontaneous order born and established through the process of survival and selection formed by Japanese fishers over centuries. Eventually, unlimited deregulation may cause the loss of many advantages of the present fishery systems,


25

as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the historical and social background behind the establishment of the present order, compare the advantages and disadvantages of measures relative to each principle in Fig. 1, and make the appropriate political judgment. To make contributions to such rational judgment, research in natural sciences and social sciences on the actual status of Japanese fisheries should be promoted. (4) Distribution system

What is unique about Japanese fisheries is that small production areas are scattered at various parts along the coast of the country (in 2003, there are 6291 fishing communities, one for every 5.5 km in average); a variety of fish species intensively land at fishing ports; and the catches, even though they belong to the same fish species, vary in size and quality and are used for different purposes depending on those aspects. Out of the need to efficiently distribute such fish, the traditional Japanese distribution system for fisheries products has been developed as a two-tier market system: “production area markets” at many fisheries production areas, and “consumer area market” at large cities. A large number of distribution-related people are involved in this system.

Traditionally, fishers (producers) are concerning almost solely with catching fish and are less interested in their products after they have put their catch into the production area market. On the other hand, consumers are unaware of product information such as the current fisheries and resource situation and seasonal products. As a result, producers are unaware of consumer needs. This structural distortion of the distribution system leads to the malfunction of the price mechanism. It is necessary to develop efficient distribution systems using current technology.

If property implement, various measures may be effective. For example, to promote an integrated industry-wide effort people in processing and distribution sectors and representatives of fishing port areas should be involved in the decision-making on resources management. Development of a new business environment for advanced communication technologies is also required to help establish a two-way framework ensuring the provision of sufficient information to consumers on the quality of products (food as well as environmental aspects) and options. Other recommended efforts include establishing a labeling system that certifies food safety and the developing products that are easy to cook or produce no residues or smoke after or during cooking. It is also necessary to study and promote good ways of fish processing, distribution and consumption presuming that natural changes in resources will occur.

(5) Scientific knowledge and monitoring system

Better management requires accurate monitoring of the status of fisheries and the condition of fishery resources. TAC-based management generally requires scientific infrastructure for resources assessments. Management measures other than TAC are also required to continuously monitor the conditions of resources and report the results so that measures can be implemented. Grasping accurate information on the catch, that is, what fish was caught in what area and in what quantity, is indispensable for promoting resources assessment and management. The fishing industry, which uses ecosystem services, should be obligated to account for the sustainability and rationality of its use. Therefore, maintenance and enhancement of the accuracy of statistics, improvement of the catch report (assuming it is used for resources assessment), and the introduction of a vessel monitoring system should be implemented.

26

Resources assessment is not meant to literally calculate ABC; it is best served by accurately grasping the conditions of resources and suggesting various recommendations for problems and improving catching from the viewpoints of varying management methods. It is also important to enable fishers and the general public to understand the significance of resources assessment, what information is used to make resources assessment and the purpose of resources assessment. The positive cooperation of the public will contribute to improve resources assessment.

At present, limited scientific knowledge on ecosystem structure and processes inevitably generates uncertainties regarding prediction of resources dynamics, effects of ABC or the effect of TAC on fishers and the public. Monitoring and statistic information, which underlies their analysis, is not yet sufficient in terms of its coverage and accuracy. Therefore, it is necessary to disclose to the public and stakeholders what the present science can and cannot do. The effects of TAC-based measures implemented to date and the validity of the Resources Recovery Plans should also be scientifically verified. Using adaptive management to verify hypotheses is effective to accumulate scientific knowledge. At the same time, adopting preventive measures and employing resilient management policies that combine various management measures is recommended.

Particularly for resources mainly composed of 0-year and one-year-old fish, uncertainty of their resources assessment increases. It is important to promote knowledge about the ecology of young fish and recover the age structure.

As shown by the results of analysis in Section 2.2.3, with the help of synergic effects of the measures the basic direction explained above is expected to produce highly efficient results. Extremely high results will be expected particularly for Principle A (Resource and environmental policy aspect) and C (Industrial and economic policy aspect). These measures alone, however, will not provide sufficient improvement to other principles. It is therefore desirable to implement measures based on the urgency of specific problems and the people’s demand for fisheries policies.

(6) International management framework

When a resource or an ecosystem covers two or more territorial waters or is located in high seas, there are cases where management framework is not sufficiently operational or where no management exists. In these cases, it is necessary to urgently build an effective international management framework. At the moment, many of those sea areas are also involved in territorial disputes and political judgment is necessary to separate territorial disputes from resources and fisheries management problems. Although a territorial dispute is a zero-sum game and only brings profits to a single country, resolving overexploitation of resources will bring benefits to all countries involved, making it a win for everyone involved. To this end, the encouragement of private international communication, such as gatherings of fishers from stakeholder countries, would be effective. At the same time, it is important to pay attention to the consistency between measures under the international management framework and those in Japan’s EEZ.

An intermediate- and long-range diplomatic strategy for Japan’s national interest in light of the future feasibility of the common fisheries policies in the Asia-Pacific area should be clarified. Such a strategy should be referred to in the planning of technical support projects for developing the fisheries field in foreign countries.

(7) Production systems that match the ecosystems and the consumers’ needs


27

In the production stage, both the resources conditions and the market conditions tend to direct fishery operators to specific resources or fishing methods. This may eventually result in various problems, including the prevention of an effective and balanced use of the productivity of the ecosystems, leaving untapped resources underutilized, destabilizing the ecosystem, increasing the extinction risk of some fish species, destabilizing fishing operations and destabilizing fish supply. Therefore, appropriate interventions and support by the government are required to correct the distortion of the market and produce incentives to establish fisheries operations matching the productivity of the fishing grounds and the characteristics of the ecosystem.

On the other hand, the current products distribution system hides the information of the products after they are once shipped, namely the information on who caught the fish in what way or who arranged the product and shipped it. Such invisibility prevents food suppliers (fishers) from being held responsible when a problem occurs. This leads to a more important problem: however hard fishers try to land better products, responses from the consumers provide no feedback to the producers. Therefore, in conjunction with “Improvement of the distribution system” of (4) above, it is necessary to promote accurate incorporation of consumer needs to production sites by changing the attitudes of producers towards sales and sanitation. Introduction of a traceability system, promotion of eco-labeling and encouragement of green purchasing by feeding services for schools, hospitals and administrative organizations are effective for this aim.

(8) Multi-functions of fisheries and local fishing communities

The role played by the fisheries industry is not simply the provision of fisheries products. It is necessary to fairly evaluate the industry’s multifaceted function (Science Council of Japan, 2004). It is necessary to evaluate those roles and provide them with economic support. For example, at the Shiretoko World Heritage waters, the local fishing industry plays a decisive part in ecosystem preservation (Fisheries Agency 2008). The ecosystem conservation plan at Shiretoko fairly evaluates the roles of the local fisheries, and this approach is highly regarded by international society as a new conservation model in a UNESCO World Heritage program (Makino et al. 2009). To deepen the people’s understanding, it would also be effective to, for example, promote ecotourism, use local traditional “fish festivals” as an opportunity to understand and learn the multi-functions of fisheries, and, when a fishing port is constructed, incorporate facilities to use them for school education.

To communicate with the general public it is necessary to initiate discussions about comprehensive reviews of the usage of national land, food security and environmental issues. This problem not only relates to people in primary industries but also affects Japanese society as a whole. Considering the present condition of Japan with a decreasing population, it is irrational to maintain the number and scale of all fishing communities as they currently are (in 2003, there are 6291 fishing communities, one for every 5.5 km in average). It is necessary to discuss the meaning of communities being formed in coastal areas and the effects of people living there from the viewpoint of national land formation, the history of the formation of such communities and their roles toward interregionally balanced growth. Then, it is necessary to promote national discussion on which fishing communities in which areas should be maintained from the viewpoint of the entire national land, while considering the conditions of resources, ecosystems and the socio-economy.

Furthermore, it is important to secure varying jobs appropriate for each age group to enable the fishing industry to play active roles in the coming aging society. Many Japanese elderly

28

individuals lead an active life in farming and fishing communities, this reduces the amount of welfare spending. Whether or not Japanese fishing communities can continue to embrace elderly people in the future will decide the future success or failure of the efforts to cope with the aging problem. Communities where elderly people can continue to lead active and meaningful lives will contribute to a dynamic and secure society (Rural Culture Association Japan 1987). This requires an infrastructure to meet the living needs of the community residents as basic prerequisites. Concerted efforts and role-sharing with the relevant government agencies is the key in this respect.

2.4 Policy Options and Effects

In the analytical processes in policy science, handling the sense of value is very important. As the fisheries policy, by definition, the resources and the environment policy aspect (Principle A) and the food security policy aspect (Principle B) in Fig. 1 are very important. In Japan, we understand there is no major conflict between them regarding value. The problem lies in the industrial/economic policy (Principle C), the regional/community policy (Principle D) and the cultural/scientific policy (Principle E) aspects. In those areas, the sense of value is highly problematic, such as who receives what profit (C), to what region the values should be distributed (D) or to what extent noneconomic values such as cultural diversity or beauty of landscapes should be respected (E). This is something that cannot be solved by a simple scientific analysis, but instead must be a matter of public debate. In addition, what is more important in policy science is that the contents of efficient measures for realization of Principle A and B change depending on how Principle C, D and E are weighed. For example, if the regional/community aspect is given high priority, an efficient approach would be to strengthen the local authorities in ecological conservation or resource management. If economic (monetary) efficiency is prioritized, market mechanism and the government’s supplementary policies for avoiding market failure should be utilized to their fullest. In this situation the social policies for Principle D and E also become indispensable. In this section, therefore, three policy options for fisheries and resource management in Japan are presented by reference to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). To stimulate public discussion, ideal (or somewhat extreme) scenarios are formulated that highlight the differences in policies arising from different senses of value.

(1) Global competition scenario: Liberalism scenario focusing on industrial efficiency improvement

This scenario clarifies who does what; that is, the fisheries industry seeks economic profit, and the government covers the rest of the field in Fig.1. In the scenario, deregulation and competition are promoted to the extent possible while appropriately considering the advantages of the present fisheries and the exchange value generated from the industry (monetary value) is maximized. Subsidies to the industry are abolished, and the industry is requested to shoulder their due portion of resources management expenses (such as the cost for resource estimation). The industry’s international competitive power and the employees’ income would be increased, and the new human resources would be recruited to the fisheries. Management measures such as ITQs, ITEQs and ITOQs that utilize the market mechanism are compatible to this scenario. However, their introduction is equal to the creation of a kind of property right based on the ecosystem service; these methods, including their advantages and disadvantages, need be understood by the public in advance. Also, collection of royalties as an ecosystem service fee (Clark 2006) is necessary to prevent excessive investment before the introduction of those measures.


29

The government, as the resource and ecosystem steward, could promptly respond to resources and ecosystem fluctuations by setting and changing the TAC or the number of licenses in a top-down way. The risk of aggravation of fishery operations, which could result from such management measures, would be totally received by the industry in principle, but swift control of fishing pressure would be able to minimize the risk of resources depletion.

Since the basic rule of corporate activity is maximization of profit (maximization of the profit of the stockholders), corporations are supposed to be less interested in the public good or non-monetary values. As a result, cultural diversity and diversity in fishing operations/gears would decrease (Matsuda et al. 2008). In addition, following the economically rational decisions, there is a possibility of sudden withdrawal of the operation, as well as outflow of the generated wealth to outside of the area which would destabilize the local employment and society. Therefore, it would be necessary to prevent those problems by the government implement various regulatory measures and conducting strict surveillance. At the same time, environmental conservation, local/community maintenance, and stability of food supply should be handled as supplementary policy measures by the government.

In this scenario, industrial and economic policy measures (Principle C) centering on economic approaches as shown in Table 4b, would be taken. At the same time other principles would be covered as the social policies by other governmental ministries centering on administrative approaches.

(2) Ecological mosaic scenario: regionalism scenario for resources and environmental conservation

This scenario is based on a role sharing scheme where coastal fisheries play the broadened role in the region, including some public roles, and offshore fisheries prioritize industrial efficiency.

Coastal fishing would clarify its accountability for sustainable resource use, ecological conservation, and food production depending on the ecological characteristics of each sea area (clarification of its position as an ecosystem service using industry) and play a public role as the core of a regional community. Deregulation would be implemented to allow the entry of new human resources to play public roles, such as interregional distribution of odd lots, establishing a system of local consumption of local products or the community currency system, or autonomous promotion of ecosystem conservation by local people. As a result, a variety of management measures matching the local ecosystem or culture would be implemented, and the resultant efficiency of protection of non-monetary values. The employment maintenance and local maintenance is high, while the efficiency of monetary value is low.

For offshore fishing in the Japanese EEZ, the global competition scenario should be the basis, but it would also be necessary to introduce measures that match the resources and ecosystem of each water area to increase the food production as well as enhance the efficiency of the monetary value.

Different from the global competition scenario, responses to the resources fluctuation for fisheries in the Japanese EEZ would be conducted through cooperation of the fishery industry and the Japanese government. To ensure a stable supply of marine products to the Japanese population, due consideration would be taken to maintain an appropriate level of fishing operations, and establishment of an appropriate resources recovery scenario chosen for overfished resources. Then, closure of fishing and withdrawal from fisheries would be promoted through reduction

30

in catch and the number of fishing boats in conjunction with support of fishing operations to partially compensate for the loss of income. The choice would be to aim at the stable supply of fisheries products and yet to have the risk of fishery operation deterioration shared among the government and industry. Ultimately, the risk of no recovery of resources would be higher than that in the global competition scenario.

In a case where part of the risk of aggravating fishery operations due to resources fluctuations is compensated for using government funds, it would be necessary to accept accountability and provide operating data to the fishing, processing and distributing operators in order to establish scientific and objective criteria.

In this scenario, measures centering on autonomous measures as shown in Table 4b would be taken for coastal fishing to contribute to the Principle A, D, E, while measures centering on economic measures for principle B, C would be taken for offshore fishing.

(3) National food security scenario: egalitarianism scenario focusing on the public aspects of food supply

This scenario focuses on the social role as a food production sector.

A production system that maximizes the fisheries production through resources management and environmental preservation are strategically introduced based on the national government’s scientific research. A certain level of income would be guaranteed to fishers regardless of the condition of catch through strict pricing policies, such as the collection of a fishing tax or other price supporting policies. The food supply industry as a kind of quasi-public official would be secured by the national government. People satisfying certain objective criteria would be entitled to join the fisheries sector, and a fluidity of personnel would be maintained by the introduction of a retirement system.

For consumers, public funds would be invested to create a safe supply of marine products at stable prices free from the impact of international demand-supply fluctuations. Systematic formation of core fishery areas matching the natural conditions and industrial background would be conducted to maintain the local economy and local culture. At the same time, the data on operations, environmental protection measures and management would be totally disclosed, and monitoring of resources and the environment as well as maintenance of statistic information would be mandatory for fishers.

Since the incentives for innovation or technical reform would inevitably diminish, it would be important to maintain and promote the operational efficiency by continuously encouraging technological development. Separate supplementary measures would also be necessary to accurately grasp consumer needs.

Responses to resources fluctuations would be the government’s responsibility. For resources that need restoration, the catch would be determined through transparent decision-making processes while considering the stability of the food supply and the speed of resources recovery. The resultant fishery business risk or decision to reduce the number of fishing boats would be totally compensated for with public funds. For the time being, public funds expenditure would increase, but self-sufficiency would be greatly improved. In addition, if a long-term rise in international


31

food demands is considered, it would become a cost-effective option.

In this scenario, measures focusing on Principle B would be implemented with administrative and judiciary methods as in Table 4b to be introduced into core measures.

(4) Relative evaluation of policy options

To make a relative evaluation of these policy options, their effect on Principles A through E from implementation of policy options 1) through 3) above were evaluated by the Study Committee members on a scale of 1-10 with the present condition set as 5.0. The average evaluation, arranged in a radar chart, is shown in Fig. 6. As shown in the figure, each scenario has its advantages and disadvantages. To be specific, great improvement, medium improvement and slight improvement would result from the global competition scenario for Principle C, A and B, respectively. But serious deterioration would be expected for Principle D and E. For the ecological mosaic scenario, all principles A through E would expect medium improvement. In the national food security scenario, Principle B would enjoy great improvement, while A and D would expect medium improvement.

Fig. 6 Relative evaluation of the policy options(A. Resource and environmental policy aspect, B. Food policy aspect, C. Industrial and economic policy aspect, D. Local and community policy aspects, and E. Cultural and scientific policy aspect)

32

2.5 Public Demand for Policies as Revealed from the Questionnaire Survey

(1) Results of the questionnaire survey

As explained in Section 2.4, the issue of the sense of value is essential for discussing policy options. This is something that cannot be given a uniform solution from scientific analysis, but rather must be left to public debate and national choice. Therefore, to grasp the public demand for fisheries policies a web-based questionnaire survey was conducted in January 2009. Two thousand surveys were analyzed.

The survey contains questions on which attributes of those that constitute Principles A through E, shown in Fig. 1, are the most important and their level of importance. Another question asks which uses of the waters around Japan are the most important.

For the resources and environmental policy of Principle A, people show a particularly high interest in A-2 (Harmony with the ecosystem and the environment), shown in Fig. 1. Particularly high rates come from regions where fisheries production is large, such as Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kyushu and Okinawa. For the food security policy of Principle B, a high interest is shown both in B-1 (Increase in production and improvement of self sufficiency rate) and B-2 (Security of food reliability and safety). This trend is equally seen by region and by gender. For the industrial/economic policy of Principle C, many answers prioritize C-2 (Realization of efficient and stable operational environment). This trend is higher in the 20-30 year old generation, and no major difference is seen among regions. For the local/community policy of Principle D, many respondents prioritized D-3 (Job creation for fishing community people). This trend is higher in older generations, meaning individuals 50 years of age or older, and becomes lower as age decreases. By region, the trend is higher in Shikoku, Tohoku, Kyushu and Okinawa. For the cultural policy of Principle E, a high interest is shown for E-1 (Promotion of fisheries and fishing community culture). This trend is high in Hokkaido, Kyushu, Okinawa and Tohoku, where fisheries production is high.

For the ranking of importance among the five principles, A through E, the answers that “all of them are equally important (cannot rank them)” occupy the majority of the answers in all regions, and the national average also went up to 54.5%. It is therefore speculated that prioritization or weighting of the five principles is not appropriate when policies are selected. Respondents who answered that prioritization is possible (45.4%) were asked about the ranking, and the resultant order of importance is A, B, C, D and E in descending order.

Lastly, the questionnaire asked the respondents to choose the important usages of the waters around Japan (one or two), and 83.3% of all respondents chose “food production by fisheries”; this response was followed by “generation of energy from tidal power generation or offshore wind power generation” (54.4%), “transportation” (21.0%), “recreational use” (8.2%), and “creation of space by land reclamation” (1.9%). The respondents who chose “food production by fisheries” were the largest group in every region, and the more such respondents, the higher the age.

(2) Considerations for policy options

Based on the above results, three policy options proposed in Section 2.4 are discussed in this paragraph. The majority of respondents find it inappropriate to prioritize or weigh the five


33

principles. In light of this, it is logical to think that the ecological mosaic scenario, which shows balanced improvement for all principles as in Fig. 10, best satisfies the public demand for policies. For Principle A, considered important among the respondents (45.4%) who said prioritization is possible, it is logical to conclude that this scenario, which clarifies the position of the fisheries as an ecosystem service using industry in coastal waters, is very appropriate considering their high interest in A-2 (harmonization with the ecosystem and environment). This trend is higher in regions with high fishery production. In the Ecosystem Approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the principle 2 suggests that “Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level” (CBD Decision V/6). This is in line with the theoretical trend of recent environmental policies that effective and equitable governance will be best achieved when ecosystem service users in each region implement management in a decentralized and autonomous way (Dolsak and Ostrom 2003). Note that, as described in Section 2.4, the three policy options presented here are theoretical scenarios that intentionally highlight the differences in the sense of value. Actual policy planning should fully consider the characteristics of each option, consider public demand for policies in detail, and make the right decision, which may include a practical choice of the middle ground.

34

References

Charles AT (2007) Adaptive co-management for resilient resource systems: some ingredients and the implications of their absence. In Armtage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) Adaptive co-management. University of British Columbia Press, 83-104.

Clark CW (2006) The worldwide crisis in fisheries. Cambridge University Press.Dolsak N, Ostrom E (eds) (2003) The commons in the new millennium. MIT Press.FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.Fisheries Agency (2008) The Fisheries White Paper.Fisheries Research Agency (2006) Encyclopedia of Fisheries. Asakura Publishing Co., Ltd. (in Japanese)Fisheries Research Agency, Fisheries Agency (2007) Evaluation of Fisheries Resources in the Waters around

Japan.Garcia SM (2010) Governance, Science, and Society: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, (in RQ Grafton, R

Hilborn, D Squires, M Tait, M Williams, ed.s) Handbook of Fisheries Conservation and Management, Oxford University Press, 87-98.

Hilborn R (2007) Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy, 31: 153-158.Katsukawa T, Matsuda H (2003) Simulated effects of target switching on yield and sustainability of fish

stocks. Fisheries Research, 60: 515 – 525.Kawasaki T (1994) A decade of the regime shift of small pelagic: FAO expert consultation (1983) to the

PICES III (1994). Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography, 58: 321-333.Makino M, Matsuda H, Sakurai Y (2009) Expanding fisheries co-management to ecosystem-based

management, Marine Policy, 33: 207-214.Matsuda H, Makino M, Kotani K (2008) Optimal fishing policies that maximize sustainable ecosystem

services, (in Tsukamoto K, Kawamura T, Takeuchi T, Beard Jr TD, Kaiser MJ ed.s) Fisheries for global welfare and environment, TERRAPUB, 359-369.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being, Island Press.Miyagawa K (1994) Foundation of Policy Science, Toyo Keizai, Inc. (in Japanese)OECD (2006) Using market mechanisms to manage fisheries: smoothing the path, OECD publishing.Ruddle K (1987) Administration and conflict management in Japanese coastal fisheries, FAO Fisheries

Technical Paper 273, FAO.Rural Cultural Association (1987) Principle of Regional Formation, Rural Cultural Association (in Japanese).Science Council of Japan (2004) About the Content and Evaluation of the Multifaceted Functions of Fisheries

and Fishing Communities Concerning People’s Living (in Japanese).Suenaga S (2008) Sandfish Resource Co-management in Akita Prefecture, Japan, In Case Studies in

Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504: 191-200.Tomiyama M, Komatsu T and Makino M (2008) Sandeel Fisheries Governance in Ise Bay, Japan, In Case

Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504: 201-210.Walters CJ, Hilborn R (1976) Adaptive control of fishing systems. J. Fish Res. Board Can., 33: 145-149.Walters CJ, Pearse PH (1996) Stock information requirements for quota managements systems in

commercial fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6: 21-42.Yamakawa T (2007) Offshore Fishery Management by Individual Transferable Oil Quota (ITOQ), Fisheries

Economics, 52: 1-20 (in Japanese).Yamamoto T (1995) Development of a community-based fishery management system in Japan. Marine

Resource Economics, 10:21–34.Yatsu A (2005) Management of Fishery Resources from the Viewpoint of Resources Assessor -I, Nippon

Suisan Gakkaishi (Journal of JSFS), 71: 854-858 (in Japanese)Yuki Y, Murayama T (1998) Small Dragnet Fishery in Shimane Prefecture, Fisheries Science Series 118 (in

Japanese).

All the old drawings and UKIYOEs are from the archives in the Library and Fisheries Museum, FRA.

Purse seiner Hokusyo Maru (photo by JAMARC)

Operation of Hokusho Maru (photo by JAMARC)

UKIYOE of people enjoying shellfish gatherings at Tokyo Bay (late Edo era)

Documents

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources … Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report 3 Study Committee Member List (March 31, 2009) Chairman Yoshio