ISARIBI NO.57

ISSN1346-2512

JapanFisheries
AssociationNO.57, FEB. 2008
Sankaido Bldg.,
9-13 Akasaka 1, Minato-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 107-0052
tel: 81-3-3585-6683
http//www.suisankai.or.jp

Views and Opinions of Japan’s Fisheries Industry

MEL Japan

Marine Eco-label Japan EstablishedM

arine Eco-label Japan (MEL Japan) was established in Tokyo on December 6, 2007. MEL Japanis a joint effort by the fishing industry, the scientific community, conservation organizations, fishprocessors and distributors, consumers and food specialists committed to the promotion of thesustainability of Japanese fisheries. Finalization of the scheme, including the certification standards andprocedural rules, is underway and the scheme is expected to be completed soon. MEL Japan, therefore,expects to begin receiving applications for certification and inspection around April, 2008.

1. Background
Amid the burgeoning world population andgrowing demand for seafood on a global scale,increased efforts are needed in conserving the marine
ecosystem and avoiding excessive catches. According
to the Review of the State of World Marine Fishery Resourcesof the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), 2005, of the441 stock or species groups
where assessment information
is available, about 77 percent of
the world stocks are either fully
exploited, over-exploited,
depleted, or recovering, andthus offer no room for furtherexpansion. Under suchcircumstances, Ecolabeling offish and fishery products has
been promoted particularly inwestern countries.
Recognizing the global natureof the seafood industry andthat Japan is one of the largest markets for fisheryproducts, Japanese stakeholders in the fishing industry
and fisheries management have decided to respondto the situation proactively and establish their ownecolabeling scheme, which is most suitable to thesituation of the Japanese fisheries.

2. Basic principles(1) Promotion of the conservation andsustainable use of marine resources and theconservation of marine ecosystems.
Marine Eco-label Japan (MEL Japan) “is intended tomake provision for informed decisions of purchasers
whose choice can be relied
upon to promote andstimulate the sustainable use off i s h e r y r e s o u r c e s,” a ss t i p u l a t e d i n t h e FAO
Guidelines.
(2) Co-management
MEL Japan pursues utilizing
the merits of co-management
which have been practiced inorder to ensure the sustainable
use of aquatic resources inJapan and Asia from oldent i m e s. T h e i d e a o f c o management is that fishermenshare in the role of fisheries
management and resource enhancement. In fishingcommunities in Japan, fishers have developed the idea ofmanaging local fishery resources jointly and on their own
will in order to ensure subsistence of their communities.
As a result, practical and effective resource managementoriented fisheries, incomparable in other parts of theworld, have developed and expanded in Japan. In theISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992.
JFA President: Isao Nakasu; Editor: Masashi Nishimura

ISARIBI NO.57

FEB. 2008

background of this development, one can point out
the presence of many small-scale fishers and fishingboats as well as a variety of target fish species in fisheries.
A framework has functioned that encourages fishers
and others related to fisheries, who are users of theresources, to fulfill their role in resource management
voluntarily and individually. Fishers and regional andcentral governments are united in participating in thecurrent framework for resource recovery as well. MELJapan, therefore, effectively applies the concept of comanagement to certification as a means to facilitate andreinforce the work of the scheme. MEL Japan aims tocreate a positive cycle in which fishers, through ecolabel
certification, give closer attention to resource
management, reinforce cooperation with scientists andadministrators, and contribute to the accumulation ofscientific data and the improvement of information
through fishing activities.
(3) Scientific and objective certification
MEL Japan is structured by a council, a board andcommittees that include representatives of fisheries
management authorities, the fishing industry,
fishworkers organizations, the scientific community,environmental interest groups, fish processors, traders
and retailers as well as consumers, which realize balanced
and fair participation by all interested parties. MEL Japan
also ensures scientific and objective certification by
independent certification bodies which form acertification team comprising scientists and other experts
with a profound understanding of the Japanese fisheries
and marine environment.
3. Affordable costs of certification
For the ecolabeling scheme to be accepted widely, it
is crucial that it contribute to the sustainability of fisheries.
What MEL Japan pursues is a practicable frameworkin which diverse fishers—large and small-scale alike—proactively engaged in sustainable fisheries can obtaincertification at low costs.
To that end, the scheme of MEL Japan is being
developed into a system that requires the recovery ofactual costs only and avoids duplication of work, byutilizing to the maximum extent existing data acquired

through the management efforts that have already been
undertaken. Furthermore, the system is non-commercialand non-profit in nature, and MEL Japan itself and third
party certification bodies require the minimum necessary
fees for maintenance of the project. Needless to say,minimizing certification costs does not mean
compromising the sustainability requirements, andsustainability of the examined fisheries is the prerequisite
for certification.
4. Present goal
The goal of MEL Japan at the moment is to promote
its recognition in the Japanese market, with the aim togain wider acceptance. MEL Japan also aims to respondto the needs of foreign markets to promote the exportof sustainable Japanese seafood.

MEL Japan received favorablyat Seafood Summit 2008
The Secretariat for MEL Japan reported on February
6 that the eco-labeling program was introduced andreceived favorably at Seafood Summit 2008 heldin Barcelona, Spain, for four days from January 27.
More than 500 people from the distribution andretailing industries (including major supermarkets
such as Wal-Mart), the fishing industry, andconservation groups participated in the Summit
sponsored by Seafood Choices Alliance.
Three panel discussions at the Summit were heldon such subjects as seafood safety, the sustainableutilization of fishery resources, food traceability,seafood eco-labeling, and the measures that can betaken by distributors against IUU (illegal, unregulatedand unreported) fishing activities.
Dr. Makoto Miyake, adviser to the Japan-TunaFisheries Cooperative, who reported on the world’s
bluefin tuna market, made a presentation on theestablishment of MEL Japan as well. Dr. Miyake
explained Japan’s efforts to build a highly transparent
and credible eco-labeling system with the aim toensure the sustainable use of fishery resources inJapan. His presentation was received favorably bymany Summit participants, the MEL JapanSecretariat said.

ICFA Annual Meeting 2007

ICFA members united over the issues of highseas
trawling, Marine Protected Areas and eco-labelingT

he annual meeting of the International Coalitionof Fisheries Associations (ICFA) was held inRome, October 2-4, 2007. Iceland, the European

Union, Australia, Canada, Korea, Spain, Taiwan, New
Zealand, Norway, the United States, Peru and Japan
participated. The members discussed various issues thatPage 2

ISARIBI NO.57
could cause unreasonable impacts on the world’s
fisheries, and agreed that they will unite among
themselves to have ICFA’s position reflected in thediscussions at various international fora.
In the major discussion at the meeting, Japan reported
on the results of the first Joint Meeting of Regional
Tuna Fisheries Management Organizations (RMFOs),
held in Kobe, Japan, in January 2007. J
apan explained the joint resolution of the World Tuna
Purse Seine Organization (WTPO) and the Organization
for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fisheries(OPRT) regarding the promotion of restraint on
excessive tuna fishing capacity which was one of thefocal issues at the meeting, and proposed that ICFA
support the resolution.
However, a consensus was not achieved as NewZealand, which aims to further develop its tuna fishing,
was opposed to that proposal. New Zealand, though,admitted that it is seriously concerned about the present
situation where the management capability of RFMOs
is put to question, although it was opposed to theposition that the limitation of fishing capacity is themost necessary means for the solution of the tuna issue
for the time being. ICFA faces the task to continue
consultations on this issue and develop a unified positionat the earliest possible date.
Japan also explained the continued dysfunctional stateof the International Whaling Commission (IWC) andthe blatant violent actions at sea by the Sea Shepherd
Conservation Society and Greenpeace, and called forfurther support from ICFA on this issue.
Further, Norway expressed its concerns that theIWC’s Scientific Committee has now become a forumof political battle, rather than that for discussing
scientific views objectively.
Other issues discussed at the meeting were as follows.
(1) Highseas trawling issue before the UnitedNations
The management scheme of this fishery will bereviewed at the United Nations in 2009. ICFAmembers confirmed that this issue has been taken up
by existing RFMOs such as the North Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO) and that work toward theestablishment of new RFMOs in the North Pacific andthe South Pacific has been generally advancing at asmooth pace.
ICFA agreed that it will act on relevant governments
to expedite this work and the fishing industry will
cooperate for progress toward this goal.
(2) Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
It was agreed at the World Summit for Sustainable

FEB. 2008
Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South
Africa, in 2002 to establish networks for MPAs. In 2005,
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) started the work to develop technicalguidelines for establishing MPAs. ICFA is concerned
about the expansion of MPAs, — which is apparently
understood as a trophy of the conservationist movement—, and has agreed to support the FAO’s initiative to
streamline and address the issue.
Specifically, ICFA agreed that the locating of MPAs
is one of the means to increase fishery resources fromthe viewpoint of food security. It agreed that an MPA,
like other various resource management measures, is oneof the tools in the comprehensive tool box to ensure thesustainable utilization of fishery resources, and should
be used in a rational manner based on science.
(3) Seafood eco-labeling
ICFA members discussed ways to ensure thesustainability of fisheries and the marine environment aswell as ways to communicate to the public the need topromote sustainability. Japan’s presentation on its
approach to launch its Marine Eco-label Japan (MELJapan) attracted the attention of the participants.
The discussion centered on who is the mostappropriate to assess sustainability, and many members
believed that governments should assume that role. Some
expressed the view that it is not right for one private
enterprise, such as the Marine Stewardship Council(MSC), to judge between “good” and “bad” fisheries.
In connection with this topic, questions were raisedthat the phrase “fully exploited,” used often in the reportson the state of the world’s fishery resources, can send amisleading message to the public. For instance, thefollowing description can be found on the FAO’s website:“Marine capture fisheries resources are usuallyconsidered close to full exploitation worldwide withsome 52 percent fully exploited, 24 percent of themover exploited, depleted or recovering from depletionand 21 percent only with some capacity to produce morethan they presently do.”The overview of the world’s fishery resource statuslargely differs depending on how the expression “fullyexploited” is understood. All members expressed
concerns that “fully exploited” could be erroneously taken
by people not versed with fisheries as the state wherein
the fishery has been completely exhausted.”“To use the fishery resources to their maximum limit”
means effective utilization of the resources to theirmaximum limit without causing them to deplete.
Members agreed on the need to make further efforts tocommunicate the actual situation to the public morecorrectly.

Page 3

ISARIBI NO.57

FEB. 2008

Whaling

New relationships between whales and humans
Mitsuki Sasaki
2nd grader,
Aoba Junior High School in Ishinomaki City
It is deplorable to see an atmosphere in some quarters of the world that approves at-sea attacks against the Japanese whaling fleet in
the Antarctic by combatant animal-welfare groups. At last year’s annual meeting, the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
adopted a resolution condemning their actions and urging them to refrain from such activities. Nevertheless, the extremist groups once
again staged similar attacks against Japanese vessels this year.
The IWC should have no excuse for succumbing to such terrorist violence against scientific research, duly recognized under theInternational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
The international community also should take a determined stance to block such blatant criminal actions. The IWC should makeclear that it will not condone any action of violence and take effective measures against it.
The illegal activities by radical animal welfare groups are obviously against reason in the eyes of everyone, even children. Following
is an example of such an observation made by a 12-year-old student in Japan.

Anumber of years ago, Ayukawa, a port town
near Ishinomaki, throve as a whaling base. In
former years, there was coexistence between
whales and the Japanese people. But the days withwhales have now become a past memory. Will thescene of a port town coexisting with whales no longer
come back?
My father works on a whale research mothership.
He has been doing this job since I was in the sixth
grade of elementary school. He spends many days on
the whaling ship--at times two months at home and atother times at least two weeks. He goes to Hiroshima
to board the whaling mothership bound for theAntarctic. He engages in the research on the ecologyof whales living in the oceans.
In the past, whales were exposed to the risk ofextinction because of over-exploitation by humans.
What we did not know about whale ecology before
and how they are recovering has now been madeclearer. It seems that research has advanced to the pointof showing the state of whale stocks for which catches
by humans will present no problem.
But my father’s research vessel was attacked by theSea Shepherd Conservation Society, an organization
claiming to protect whales. Frankly, I was shocked when
I heard about this news from my mother. Luckily, myfather was not injured but his fellow crew members
were wounded on their faces by the attack. I also heardthat this was not the first time they assaulted the researchvessels. Previously, they scratched the sides of theresearch ships or threw some objects at them.
Why do they engage in such activities? I felt thisquestion arising in my heart, almost a feeling of anger.
Organizations such as Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace
are opposed to catching whales. They are trying to savewhales which had been subjected to over-exploitationand driven to the risk of extinction in the past. And they
believe that whales should not be killed because they are
the same living creatures as human beings. This is what
anti-whaling people have in mind. I think it is good forthem to think that they want to save whales. But, at thesame time, I have a question whether it is right to kill
animals other than whales. Whales are not the only animals
living on this earth. We humans and other creatures on
this earth take the lives of other living things in order tolive. If this should be stopped, then no living creature
can survive on this earth.
All living things, including humans, have to take otherlives in order to survive. This is a condition that no one
can avoid. I think that accepting this assumption andavoiding taking the lives of other creatures more than isnecessary means coexistence in respect for the lives ofeach other.
Thinking this way, I cannot understand what antiwhaling groups are really trying to protect. I wonder what
they actually want to do because the issue of whales cannot
be solved by violence.
We, living things, are supporting each other--sometimes
by using other lives. If we really understand this, we may
not have confrontation over whales, and whaling in agood sense can be started again.
My father is researching whale ecology somewherein the Antarctic today. His research is to build a new
relationship between whales and humans, by respecting
each others lives. It is my hope that, as in former days inJapan, boats carrying whales will return to the port andbring back vitality to the port town of Ishinomaki throughwhales.
(This essay won the President Prize of the Ishinomaki
Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the Painting andEssay Contests to mark the Whale Forum 2007.)

The readers are cordially invited to send their comments on articles in this issue to mnishimu@suisankai.or.jp--Editor