ISARIBI NO.46

ISSN1346-2512

JapanFisheries
AssociationNO.46 July 2005
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

U.N. HOLDS INFORMAL MEETINGON OCEANS AND FISHERIESThe sixth meeting of the Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or
UNICPOLOS) was held 6-10 June 2005, at UN headquarters in New
York. Over 400 representatives from governments, intergovernmentalorganizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academic
institutions participated in the UNICPOLOS.
During the week, delegates convened in plenary sessions toexchange views on areas of concern and actions needed. Two discussion
panels were held to consider fisheries and their contribution tosustainable development and marine debris. Although the meeting reached agreement on most of theelements relating to fisheries and their contribution to sustainable development, there was no time todiscuss the draft elements on marine debris.
The report on the UNICPOLOS discussions will be submitted to the UN General Assembly forconsideration at its 60th session, under the agenda item “Oceans and the law of the sea”. The JFA
newsletter Isaribi highlights some of the discussions and examines the significance of having thediscussions in the UN Process.
* * * * *ICFA Explains Its
Commitment to SustainableFisheries

Two representatives from the commercial/largescale fishing sector explained their commitment
to sustainable fisheries, as well as challenges
including illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU)
fisheries. The representatives are Patrick McGuiness,
Vice Chairman of the International Coalition ofFisheries Associations (ICFA), and Javier Garat,
Secretary-General of Federación Española deOrganizaciones Pesqueras. The following is the gistof the presentation by Patrick McGuiness.
ICFA members are deeply committed to sciencebased and fully participatory fishery conservation andmanagement processes that engage the affectedstakeholders. We are challenged on a daily basis bycompetition from unscrupulous operators operating withcost structures with which responsible fishingcompanies cannot hope to compete. These operations
undermine the sustainability of many legal fisheries.
This problem is irresponsible fishing, not the fishinggear. No gear type is inherently destructive. Fromexperience, we know that all gear types can have somenegative impacts. We need to identify where thechallenges to fisheries sustainability are occurring andbring together responsible governments, responsible
industry organizations, and responsible environmentalgroups in a partnership spirit, not a confrontational spirit,
to jointly develop and implement strategies to solve
any problems. We have had a decade of developing awide range of international fisheries management
instruments. We now need a decade of committed
implementation of these instruments. There is now aneed to develop a consensus model of what powers
and tools a RFMO should have in order to be able tomeet the task. A global moratorium on a type of fishinggear is not a solution. Illegal fisheries would continueeven after a moratorium was adopted, because capitalis mobile.

ISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992.
JFA President: Isao Nakasu; Editor: Masashi Nishimura

ISARIBI NO.46

JULY 2005

Dr. Suzuki Challenges
Dr. Worm’s Paperin Nature Magazine
Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University provided
an overview of the global decline of large predatory
fish. He is known for his study, published with coauthor, Dr. Ransom Myers of the same university, in
Nature magazine (May 15, 2003), concluding that large
predatory fish biomass today is only about 10% of levels
before commercial fisheries began. His study has been
repeatedly quoted by irresponsible environmentalorganizations.
Dr. Jiro Suzuki, tuna biologist from the National
Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Fisheries
Research Agency, seriously questioned the credibilityof the above-mentioned study as follows.
“I have been engaged in the management of tunaspecies for 30 years in IATTC, WCPFC, IOTC,CCSBT and ICCAT, which cover almost the entire
area of the world’s oceans. It is my responsibility topoint out, on behalf of all the scientists in these regional
fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), that theconclusion of the presentation by Dr. Worm grossly
differs from those of every scientist in the RFMOs.
None of the studies of these scientists has the same
result as that of Dr. Worm. His assessment is derived
from simple CPUE (catch per unit effort: the numberof fish divided by the number of hooks) data ofJapanese longlining. In stock assessment, we used alldata available such as CPUE, fish size, catch amount,fishing efforts. We have put them in population dynamicmodels, which have shown no such decline that is being
claimed by Dr. Worm. The figure, 90 % decline, isexaggerated and biased. In his presentation, he shouldhave compared the data of RFMOs with his data.”
Dr. Suzuki distributed a copy of the Nature
magazine vol. 434 (April 28, 2005) that refutes Dr.
Worm’s results.

the high seas.
Many participants pointed out the lack of clarity inthe objectives and definition of the MPAs that thepanelist promoted, especially in relation to distinctions
between specifically designated areas for stockenhancement, and a marine reserve to exclude
fisheries.
Some also pointed out that the successful
implementation of MPAs requires involvement of all
stakeholders, including fishermen. Others further
argued that sovereign states can introduce closure
measures, such as, those to protect spawning areas,
and this is not something that is part of the mandate ofthe UNGA.
As the discussion unfolded, there appeared to bepoor support for the establishment of MPAs on thehigh seas advocated by the Professor Roberts. There
was a sense of skepticism about the intention behindthe establishment of MPAs on the high seas. Thequestion is whether the proposal is intended to conserve
marine resources for the promotion of sustainablefisheries, or simply to turn the global ocean into an
aquarium, at the expense of food security.
The future of high seas MPAs called for by certain
members of the environmental community can bepredicted from the present situation of the whaling
moratorium and sanctuary. Commercial whaling hasnot resumed for 18 years, despite indisputable scientificevidence showing the abundance of whale populations.
This is because the objective of the moratorium is notreally stock enhancement for promotion of sustainablewhaling, as initially claimed by environmental groups,
but the advocacy of whale protection and animal rights.
And this is what the future MPAs would be.
Isaribi would like to caution nations, especiallydeveloping countries, that once MPAs are established
all over the high seas, there will be little chance foranyone to participate in high sea fisheries, even afterfishing technology has been transferred to developing
countries.

Marine Protected Area

BOTTOM TRAWLING--Conservation measure or a threat toglobal food security?----FAO Has Already Taken Steps toAddress the Issue--Callum Roberts, Professor, University of York,detailed the possible future contribution of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) to sustaining ecosystemservices and fisheries. He further noted the importanceof creating high seas MPAs in vulnerable areas for mobile
species and called for a large-scale international networkof MPAs that would target 30% of the oceans, including

The issue of management of bottom trawling wasdiscussed in relation to the UN resolution adopted lastyear. Although NGOs and a few countries called forthe adoption of a global ban on high seas bottom
trawling, there was overwhelming opposition to such a
hasty action. The current resolution, 59/25, adopted in
2004, calls for review of progress on action taken in--The Paper Is Exaggerated and Biased--

Page 2

ISARIBI NO.46

JULY 2005

response to the requests made in the resolution by 2006.
Also, the 26th session of COFI (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Committee onFisheries) has already taken steps to address the issue.
Actions agreed in the COFI meeting include thefollowing.
The Committee called upon Members, directly andthrough RFMOs, as appropriate, to implement as amatter of priority, paragraphs 66 to 71 of the UNGA
Resolution 59/25. The Committee requested FAO tocooperate with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations in the development of the report, as called forin paragraph 70 of UNGA Resolution 59/25.
Further, the Committee called upon Members

conducting deep sea fisheries on the high seas,
individually and in cooperation with others, to address
adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, andto sustainably manage the fishery resources being
harvested, including through controls or limitations on
new and exploratory fisheries.
The Committee requested FAO, when revising theFAO Technical Guidelines on Ecosystem-based
Fisheries Management, to consider appropriate
measures regulating destructive fishing practices
The Committee encouraged the meeting of regional
fisheries bodies (RFBs), that will immediately follow
the Twenty-sixth Session of COFI, to consider the issueof deep sea fisheries conservation and management.

MORE FISHERY OFFICIALS SHOULD ATTENDUNICPOLOS--Serious Lack of Fishery Experts Distorts UN Decisions-Why should the issue of fisheries be discussed inthe UN?
Mr. Golitsyn, Director of DOALOS (Division forOcean Affairs and the Law of the Sea), shared hisview on this very fundamental question, saying thatthe mandate of the FAO is restrictive, and when anissue is not within its mandate, it needs to be discussed
in a broader sense. So the presumption is that on acertain fishery issue, the UN better addresses theproblem than FAO meetings.
The reality is, though, that out of 107 participating
governments, no more than 25 had participation byfishery officials. Clearly, this is not the appropriate bodyto discuss important fisheries issues.
It seems that anti-commercial fishing organizations
have found it to be a good place to introduce a global
ban on fisheries, or MPAs making 30% of the ocean
into marine parks, without giving any thought to thecontribution of fisheries to food security, promotion ofresponsible fisheries, and the regulation of illegal
fishermen, or any matters of complexity or of atechnical nature. Is this what is meant to be “discussion
in a broader sense?” And who will benefit from suchdiscussions besides advocates of non-use?
To be sure, the issue of marine debris can better fit
this process, because significant source of debris isfrom land-based activities, which will require
discussions of a broader scope than just fisheries.
Unfortunately, however, no time was left for thediscussion of this important and more appropriate
subject. In any discussion to deal with the regulation

FAO (26th session of COFI)Countries with participation of fishery officials:120
Countries without participation of fishery officials:4

UN (the 6th Meeting of the UNICPOLOS)
Countries with participation of fishery officials: 25
Countries without participation of fishery officials: 82

Page 3

ISARIBI NO.46

JULY 2005

of fisheries, we must have input from officials andscientists who are directly knowledgeable about
fisheries, and who are engaged in fisheries

management. This, however, brings us to the firstquestion - why can’t we do this in the FAO?

Interview of FAO Expert in Fisheries (from FAO Website)

Many of the World's Poorest People Depend on Fish--Fisheries and aquaculture crucial
to food security, poverty alleviation--(7 June 2005, Rome) - In this interview with an FAO expert, Ichiro Nomura, Assistant-Director General
for Fisheries, discusses how fishing and aquaculture help millions of people around the world by
supporting development, alleviating poverty, and putting food on the table.
QUESTION: How are fishing and aquaculture
important to development, food security, and poverty
alleviation?
NOMURA: Over 852 million people on this planet
don't have enough to eat. That certainly doesn't
promote sustainable development. Millions of mediumand small-scale fishers and fish farmers, often very
poor, depend on fishing and aquaculture. For FAO,
fishing and aquaculture are first and foremost about
people earning a living and putting food on their tables,
and we do think it can be done sustainably.
Fishing and fish farming contribute to food security
in three main ways. They directly increase people's
food supplies, providing highly nutritious animal protein
and important micronutrients while doing so. Fish foodalso "fill in the gaps" during times when other food isscarce. Finally, fishing and aquaculture provide jobs
and income that people use to buy other foods
QUESTION: How much food are we talking about?
NOMURA: Just over 100 million tonnes of fish areeaten world-wide each year, providing two and a halfbillion people with at least 20 percent of their average
per capita animal protein intake.
This contribution is even more important in developing
countries, especially small island states and in coastal
regions, where frequently over 50% of people's animal
protein comes from fish. In some of the most foodinsecure places -- many parts of Asia and Africa, forinstance -- fish protein is absolutely essential,
accounting for a large share of an already-low level ofanimal protein consumption.
QUESTION: You also mentioned the livelihood
aspect...
NOMURA: Yes. By providing employment, fisheries
and aquaculture alleviate poverty and help boost
people's food security.
Remember, around 97 percent of fishers are indeveloping countries. Fishing is especially important
there.
Also, in the absence of social security or
unemployment schemes, fishing can be an activity oflast resort, a "safety net" provided by nature. Ironically,
this characteristic of fisheries, which gives it particularvalue, can also, unfortunately, lead to excessive fishingand depletion of the resources.
There is also the economic activity resulting indirectlyfrom fisheries and aquaculture, which supports around
200 million people, we estimate. International trade infish is creating a lot of jobs in related industries likeprocessing or packing.
QUESTION: Trade in fish?
NOMURA: Yes, it's quite extensive. The octopus
carpaccio that you enjoy at a tapas bar near Barcelona
could have been caught by a European union fishingvessel crewed by Ukrainians fishing off Mauritania,
block-frozen there, and sold through a fish market in
Vigo on Spain's Atlantic Coast before arriving 'freshfrom the sea' at your table.
All in all, about 38 percent of all fish is tradedinternationally. The total world export value for fish
and fish products is nearly US$60 billion! Significantly,
the volume share of developing countries in fisheryexports represents just over half, about 55 percent, ofthe total.
That is a significant source of foreign currency
earnings for poor countries. Net receipts of foreignexchange by developing countries through fish trade is
now around US$17 billion a year, more than what theyearn from exports of tea, rice, coffee together.
But here again, there is a risk that the higher income
possible via exporting fish potentially could reduce local
fish supplies and possible create incentives for overfishing. There is both an opportunity and a risk -- which
is why responsible management is so important.

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