ISARIBI NO.40

ISSN1346-2512

NO.40 Mar.2004

JapanFisheries
AssociationSankaido 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

HIGHLIGHTS: Are Tunas Endangered?

The Essence of IUCN Red List
Criteria and CITES Issues Examined—Excerpts from “Are Tuna Endangered?”—In the previous issue of Isaribi, we introduced thebook “Are Tunas Endangered?” written by Dr.
Yuji Uozumi of the National Research Institute ofFar Seas Fisheries. In the book, Dr. Uozumiintends to convey to the reader, from the scientist’s
point of view, that the resources of tuna as theystand now are not in the least “endangered.” At
the same time he warns users of tuna resources toensure sustainable use of tuna resources. The
following is the first installment of our series ofpresentations from his book, centering on thecriteria for inclusion in the endangered list.

(1) Criteria are not applicable to allcases
In what follows I would like to consider what
are the problems with the criteria.
(i) It should be pointed out that the Red List of theIUCN (The World Conservation Union) has beendeveloped by researchers of taxonomy or breedingscience, but not necessarily by experts in fisheryscience. It now seems that importance is given tothe judgment on the basis of criteria developed in a
way to enable decisions with very limited information.
This can be known from the fact that the criteriausing the probability of extinction estimated on thebasis of a large amount of information are treatedequally with those using only decrease rates (CriterionA) (See Table on thenext page) and thecurrent number ofindividuals (Criterion D).
If things stand as they arenow, it would result in
disregarding theconclusions drawn by
using a large amount ofinformation while it would
Dr. Uozumi
become possible to makea judgment with only small amount of information.
(ii) Attaching importance only to the criteria would
lead to misunderstanding the essence of the issues.
To limit the information for assessment by the criteria
usable with a limited amount of information is likeputting the cart before the horse. The criteria show
the definition of each category, and should beconsidered as a yardstick for judgment. The final
judgment whether or not there is a risk of extinction
should be made on the basis of all available
information for the species in question, taking into
consideration both conservation and biologicalaspects. It is unreasonable not to give priority to theresults of the Criterion E. To uphold simple criteria
as the basic principle and disregard other information
would mean continuation of inappropriate listing of
not only the tunas but also other species.

ISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992. JFA President: Isao Nakasu;
Senior Executive Managing Director: Kiyoshi Yoshizaki; Editor: Masashi Nishimura

ISARIBI NO.40

MARCH 2004(iii) I believe that it is far more important to collectviews and information by experts of conservation
biology, population ecology and biology for eachspecies in question rather than simply formulating
criteria. It is desirable to establish a system in which
objective judgment is made while biases of certain
countries or organizations would not affect scientificdecisions. No matter how simple the criteria are andavailable to anybody, it is extremely dangerous thatpeople with insufficient knowledge of biology orconservation biology, especially marine biology, solely
make decisions.
(iv) The criteria cannot be complete because they
are focused on the period when information is least
available. It is evident that the more information isavailable, the more accurate judgment on the risk ofextinction can be made. As highly accurate analysis
is not possible when information is scarce, we tend
to think that judgment can be made by non-experts,
but it very often happens that a misleading judgment
is made because of a scarcity of information. The
less the amount of information, the more cautious
examination is needed. For example, even when theonly available information is catch volume, there arecases where this catch volume reflects the stock trend
or where it does not reflect it at all. In order todetermine between the two possibilities, we may needvarious information such as the catch history andknowledge on the species characteristics. This
information in most cases is not quantitative but
fragmentary. Consequently, examination by experts
who have much information and accumulated
experience regarding various types of fisheries andrelated species is crucial. It is largely misleading toassume that anyone can make a judgment based on
the simple criteria.

(2) True spirit and obligation of theRed List
What is the meaning of listing in the Red List certain
species for which international organizations or
individual governments are taking management
measures? For example, management measures aretaken for tuna and tuna-like species by internationalorganizations. Yet the same species have been newly
listed on the Red List. Further, the risk of extinction
is judged with a far less amount of information thanthat used by international organizations for stockassessment. The species is listed in a very dogmaticmanner that “it is the conclusion brought about by
the criteria” while knowing that the “risk ofextinction” is obviously overestimated. Such an
approach will reduce the attention to the truly

Table: Criteria for IUCN Red List (summarized from the 2001 version)

A: Rapid decline

C r i ti c a l l y E n d a n g e r e dEndangered

Vunerable

90% (80%) or over in 10y e a r s o r 3 g e n e r a ti o n s

70% (50%) or over in 10years or 3 generations

50% (20%) or over in 10years or 3 generations

distribution area isless than 5,000km2; orhabitat is less than
50km2

distribution area isless than 20,00km2; orhabitat is less than
10km2

B: Narrow distri‑d i s tr i b u ti o n a r e a i sbution area (withintermissions,l e s s th a n 1 0 0 k m 2 , o r
continuous
habitat is less thandecline, and large 10km2
fluctuations)
C: Small group(with continuous
decline)less than 250 matureindividuals; and 25%r e d u c ti o n o c c u r s i n 3years or one generation

less than 2,500 matureindividuals; and 20%
reduction occurs in 5years or 2 generations

less than 10,000 matureindividuals; and 10%
reduction occurs in 10years or 3 generations

D: Especiallysmall groupless than 50 mature
i n d iv i d u a l sless than 250 matureindividuals

less than 1,000 matureindividuals

E: Extinction
probability

extinction probabilityof 50% or over in 10years or 3 generations(provided within 100years)

extinction probabilityof 20% or over in 20years or 5 generations(provided within 100years)

extinction probabilityof 10% or over in 100years

The values in the parentheses are values in the 1994 version. For period the absolute number of years andgenerations are given, whichever longer in the two is used as period.
Page 2

ISARIBI NO.40
endangered species and only create problems. Suchan approach should be critically reviewed.
No one thinks that pine or white cedar (hinokicypress) in Japan are highly endangered simply
because they fulfill the criteria. People know thatthose plants exist in abundance and there will not be
any fear of extinction at least for the coming 100years. Further, if claims are made that pine or whitecedar are endangered based on those criteria, whowill believe it? Some knowledge on tuna will help
you come to the conclusion that tuna will not go extinct
as in the case of pine or white cedar.
The Red List provides only a yardstick to know
the priorities for implementing conservation measures.
Therefore, there is a need to engage in argument
always going back to the starting point. Any attempt
to assess the risk of extinction using only imperfectand very incomplete criteria, and to list certain species
in the Red List in a radical manner shows that theproponents do not understand at all the spirit of theRed List.
What is the meaning of listing on the Red List thetuna for which management measures have alreadybeen taken? What is being sought in doing so? We
cannot find in listing tunas any serious intention toprevent the risk of extinction. What we need is theoverall review of the significance of the Red List.
We should recognize that the significant obligation ofthe Red List is to “contribute to the conservation ofthe species diversity.”(3) The limit of CITES
The objective of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) is to regulate international trade in order toensure the conservation of endangered species. In
other words, it is to prevent the situation thatnecessitates transfer of a species from Appendix IIto Appendix I.
However, in recent years, the interpretation of theCITES objective was expanded, and the view isarising that the objectives of CITES is to ensure“sustainable utilization.” Moreover, along with thismove, some make the claim to the extent that theword “endangered” should be deleted from the nameof the Convention. That is to say, it is an attempt to
expand the CITES objective from “preventingMARCH 2004
extinction ofspecies” to“ e n s u r i n gsustainableutilization.”
This seems toreflect the plausible
thought that if
sustainableutilization is realized,then conservationof the species canalso be realized.
However, we
Are Tuna Endangered
should stand here to published by Seizando Shoten
determine thecapability of CITES. Of course, it is quite anotherstory if authority exceeding the control of international
trade is granted to CITES, but the present
competence of CITES is very simple, i.e. theregulation in international commercial trade.
Besides, many elements such as the restraint ofenvironmental destruction and protection from theimpact from other species should be considered.
When we try to conserve a certain species, we may
have to take very comprehensive protection
measures. Nevertheless, the competence that CITES
now has is only one of those measures. Of course,
this competence works effectively depending on thetime and case, but unless we use CITES always withthis limitation in mind, we may have moredisadvantages than benefits. Take, for example, theinstance of resource management for tuna. Tuna
resources are managed using various methods, suchas the control of catch volumes taking into
consideration the status of the population of eachstock, the characteristics and the present situation ofeach fishery, and the establishment of size limits andclosed areas. Also, full consideration is given to abalance among those management measures.
If CITES engages in exclusive regulation regarding
international trade in fishery products, there arises aneed to keep a close linkage with management
organizations for those fishery resources. How toestablish this system will become a vital issue.
Regarding conclusion on the regulation, there should
be a consensus between each management
Page 3

ISARIBI NO.40

MARCH 2004

organization and CITES.
If we look at the present situation, it does not seem
there exists a close linkage between CITES andmanagement organizations. Regarding reinforcementof the functions of CITES, we should start with how
we can strengthen the linkage with such existingorganizations. International tuna management
organizations are already implementing trade controls
very similar to those of CITES. What effect CITES
can give to the implementation of such management
measures is a question before us.

(4) Is absolute protection the best
measure?
When we think of species conservation, we tend
to enforce absolute protection so as to totally prohibit
the use of the species. CITES Appendix I is a good
example. It is needless to say that full protection of
truly endangered species, such as blue whales, isnecessary. However, if importance is attached only
to full protection, there may often be confusion caused
to already recovering species. In Japan, animals suchas Ezo deer (a species of Japanese deer), theJapanese monkey, and the Japanese serow increasedin numbers because of protection, and they, in turn,ate endangered plants and caused increased damage
on agricultural products.
There is a very small portion of nature, at least on
land, that can keep its balance without humanintervention. When we think of such a reality, weknow that protection should necessarily be
accompanied by the concept of “management.” If
we disregard this aspect, we may cause damage byexcessive protection.
The simplest and most certain way to adjust thenumber of over-increased animals is to harvest them.
However, there are many people who entertain
antipathy against the killing of Ezo deer and theJapanese serow. Some people have proposed theintroduction of predators, such as wolves, into theenvironment instead of conducting hunting by man.
This approach, however, could make management
more uncertain because new complex elements areintroduced into the ecosystem. It is a very dangerous
concept because newly introduced animals can bringin diseases and other unexpected negative impacts.

...protection of the resources
should necessarily be
accompanied by the concept of“management.” If we disregard
this aspect, we may cause
damage by excessive protection. We need the concept ofwildlife management, in otherwords, resource management.

We should discuss measures for more accurate
management from an objective viewpoint, byexcluding emotional factors.
In order to achieve this, we need to consider not
only protection at the time protective measures areimplemented, but also other measures to be taken
when the species have recovered. In short, we mayneed the concept of “wildlife management,” in otherwords “resource management” as it is called infishery resource management.
A very realistic management approach taking
uncertainties into account was introduced, after
lengthy discussion for Ezo deer, a terrestrial species
categorized as “endangered.” In point of fact, thebasis for this management approach was first devisedfor the management of whales. Unfortunately thisapproach was applied to Ezo deer before it wasapplied to whales.
(To be continued)

JFA To Hold 6th Int’l Food Showin July
The Japan Fisheries Association will holdthe 6th Japan International Seafood &Te c h n o l o g y E x p o a t t h e To k y oInternational Exhibition Hall on July 2123, 2004.
For details please contact: Secretariat at
http//www.k-ide.com/seafood/eindex.html

Page 4