ISARIBI NO.56

ISSN1346-2512

JapanFisheries
AssociationNO.56, NOV. 2007
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

Japan International Seafood Expo

9th Japan International Seafood Expo attracts
record number of 450 exhibitors
JFA invites active participation in Osaka Seafood Expo next JanuaryT

he Japan Fisheries Association (JFA)organized the 9th Japan International Seafood& Technology Expo at the Tokyo Big Sight on
July 18-20. A record number of approximately 450companies related to seafood processing and othertechnologies participated from Japan and overseas.
Also the number of countries taking part in the show
hit a record level of 14 including one territory, withThailand, Brunei, Myanmar and Mauritius making theirfirst participation.
Active booths at the Expo totaled 560, with thenumber of visitors reaching 26,240 during the threeday session, exceeding last year’s figure by 3,500.
During the show, the first “Sushi Expo” was held,reflecting the rising popularity of sushi both in Japanand abroad. Also, a biennial international exposition on
fishery aquaculture technology was organized and 35
seafood-related seminars were held.
At the opening ceremony on July 18, Isao Nakasu,president of the JFA, stated: “We have seen everincreasing exhibitors since the first show in 1999, now
witnessing that this Expo has become the biggest
seafood show in Asia.”
Highlighting some of the new attempts at the presentExpo, Nakasu noted: “As demand for seafood isincreasing worldwide, sushi, one of Japan’s
representative food cultures, is enjoying a widespreadboom in various parts of the world, and providing
business opportunities.
“A variety of expertise on sushi, including sushi
materials, rice cooking techniques, sushi robots andconveyors for revolving sushi restaurant chains, areOpening of the Tokyo Seafood Expodisplayed. I hope that participants will use this occasion
for developing sushi into a good business chance.”
Nakasu further pointed out that another special
feature of the Expo was the international exposition
on aquaculture technology. He observed: “Now there
is concern over decreasing fish resources and catches
are approaching their limit worldwide. Under thesecircumstances, aquaculture is drawing special attentionas a means to ensure a stable supply of seafood.”“At the Expo, a wide range of technology andfacilities supporting both shore-based and marine
aquaculture are presented,” he said.
Nakasu concluded his remark by saying that “it istruly a pleasure for the organizer to see that the show
is contributing to the promotion of business, andproviding a motive for boosting demand for seafood inJapan, which is said to be on a declining trend in recentyears.”

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

ISARIBI NO.56

NOV. 2007

Meanwhile, the JFA is inviting active participationin the 5th Japan International Seafood & TechnologyExpo, Osaka, to be held on January 24 and 24, 2008.
Like the show in Tokyo, it will feature exhibitionand displays from a large variety of areas such as

seafood, processing, seasonings and food additives,freezing and refrigeration, packaging, distribution
machinery, HACCP-supporting equipment andservices and food samintation management
machinery.

MEL Japan

Japan’s first seafood eco-labeling system
to be launched this yearJ

apan’s first seafood eco-labeling system, “MarineEco-label Japan” (MEL Japan) will be introduced
before the end of this year.
MEL Japan is designed to ensure that any seafood
was harvested with attention to the conservation of
the marine ecosystem and sustainability of theresources.
The system is designed to give opportunities toconsumers to participate actively in the promotion ofsustainable utilization of fishery resources and theconservation of the ecosystem.
Under the system, seafood products are expected
to have certification labels showing that they havebeen harvested sustainably and in a manner complyingwith the conservation of the ecosystem based on thebest scientific evidence available, also taking into
account traditional knowledge of the resources,ensuring objective verification.
The certification is to be further confirmed by anindependent, impartial and transparent scheme.
With the support from all sectors of the fisheries inJapan, including the producing and distribution
industries and companies and academia, a preparatorycommittee for an eco-labeling system was established.
The committee has developed a blueprint of its own
ecolabeling system in line with the FAO Guidelines for
the Ecolabeling of Fish and Fishery Products from
Marine Capture Fisheries that was agreed on in 2005
as well as the guidance of the Fisheries Agency of theJapanese government. Additional asset of the scheme
is to give due regards to the characteristics of fisheryproduction and stock management in Japan, particularly
co-management.
The idea of co-management is for fishermen to share
the role of fisheries management and resource
enhancement. Taking into account the diversity ofscales and types of fisheries in Japan, the new labelingsystem will aim to hold to a minimum level the financial
burden on fishers, processors and other users inobtaining the eco-label certification with a view tofacilitate the distribution of eco-labeled seafood in Japanand promote exports. The preparatory process hasentered into the final stage. MEL Japan aims toestablish credibility within Japan and also gaininternational recognition for its unique and reasonablecharacteristics.

2007 CITES Meeting

Attending the 14th meeting of CITES

Does CITES choose
the path of “Horror Hospital”?
Reporter, Masashi Nishimura
Japan Fisheries AssociationT

he 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties of the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was held in the Hague June 3-15, 2007. In
what follows, I would like to discuss the appropriate role of CITES, centering on some major
agenda items taken up at the meeting.
CITES shies away from scientific review
Japan proposed a periodic review of all listed
cetaceans to ensure that the Convention’s Appendicescorrectly reflect the conservation and management
needs of species. The inclusion of cetacean species inAppendix I had taken place before detailed scientificPage 2

ISARIBI NO.56

NOV. 2007

criteria was adopted and scientific veracity of theselistings has not been tested against the criteria.
This proposal was rejected at Committee I, held
before the Plenary Session. Conversely, a proposal
stating that “No periodic review of any great whale,including the fin whale, should occur while the IWC
moratorium is in place,” tabled by Australia, wasadopted. (As is commonly known, the commercial
whaling moratorium has been maintained by politicalmotives, not by scientific judgment.)
This proposal of Australia was presented rather
abruptly after the discussion on the Japanese proposal.
On this ground, Palau requested for reopening ofdiscussion at the Plenary since the Australian proposal
did not follow the procedures required by CITES
regulations that any new proposal be submitted inwriting prior to the meeting. Further, Palau requested
that secret ballot should be used if the decision onwhether the reopening of the discussion on proposal isput to vote. However, Palau’s proposal was put to votewithout taking the procedure of secret ballot becauseof the mismanagement of Chair and the Secretariat.
The proposal was defeated with 35 votes in favor, 71
against—one vote short of the one third vote required
for the reopening of discussion.
St. Christopher and Nevis, Norway and Icelandobjected to the proceeding of the meeting, and themeeting became entangled for some time. The issue
was finally brought to the CITES Bureau at which thedecision not to reopen the discussion was made.
Palau, while saying it did not intend to prolong thematter any further, stated as follows: “We were greatly
disappointed with the management of the Secretariat.
The Secretariat should advise us properly on theprocedure of the meeting. The Australian proposal
pertains not only to the issue of whaling but also thecredibility and integrity of the Convention. The role ofthe Animals Committee is to review that the species
are correctly listed according to the criteria. The
decision will seriously undermine independent scientificreviews, which are the fundamental part of work of
the convention.”
St. Vincent and the Grenadines concurred with thisintervention and expressed its deep concern over theimplication of the decision. It contended that theadoption of the decision will be the precedent toundermine the rules of procedure of the conventionand will be a hallmark to all the international
conventions. This is a question of integrity of theconvention.

14th CITES COP

Not only in the case of this issue, the Plenary Session
fell into disorder during some other discussions, finallycutting into the closing of the conference. I felt a bit
sorry for the Agriculture Minister from the Netherlands,
who chaired the meeting, but I thought it was the roleof the CITES Secretariat to support and guide theChair who is not well versed with the procedure ofCITES meetings.
Furthermore, although the Australian proposal causedsuch a turmoil, the same mistake in procedure forsecret ballot was about to be repeated for inclusion of
red corals in the Appendix. However, this confusion
was avoided by the intervention of Japan.
As the reopening of the discussion of the Australian
proposal regarding cetaceans was rejected only withthe margin of one vote, there should have been an
ample possibility for the discussion to be reopened if
secret ballot had been conducted and countries whichevaded pressures from big countries or environmentalgroups had voted in support of it.
The CITES Director-General circumvented hisresponsibility by saying that “any country that came toknow the absence of appropriate proceedings for secretballot at the time of voting should have so pointed out
before the voting.” But this was evidently a mistakeby Chairman and the Secretariat, and, as far as it was
their mistake, the only step that should be taken musthave been to carry out the voting again.
In addition to the issue of procedures, the case of
the Australian proposal implied that CITES chose thepath of “horror hospital”—meaning that the hospitaltries to find reasons to reject health check in order tocontinue to keep the patient in the hospital even after
he or she fully recovers.
The IWMC World Conservation Trust, anPage 3

ISARIBI NO.56
environmental non-governmental organization (NGO)supporting sustainable use of natural resources, statedat the meeting as follows: “The countries opposing to
the review of Appendix listing fear that the fact thespecies in question is not decreasing may come tothe light.”
In the shadow of G8 summit
The atmosphere that this year’s meeting carriedover from past meetings was the flashy opening
ceremony and the above-stated verbal exchanges.
There were no radical demonstrations during themeeting, but only fake elephant objects and ivory,
made by animal welfare groups, were placed
sporadically at the entrance of the conference.
In previous meetings we could see numbers ofshops, giving the impression that CITES conference
was a festival of environmental NGOs. But this time
only animal welfare groups were distributing ecogoods, such as bags, badges, pens and stuffed animals,
contributing to “consumer culture.”
There were almost no reports by major TV
companies such as CNN or BBC, spectators seemed
to have been completely taken away by NGO protests
at the summit meeting of eight industrial countries(G8), held around the same time in Heiligendamm,Germany.
CITES steps in the kitchen
The species burdened with the leading actor of thisrelatively quiet CITES conference were Porbeagle
Shark and Spiny Dog Fish. The proposed inclusion ofthese two species in Appendix II was rejected. It wasa rare sight at CITES to see several environmentalist
countries oppose to inclusion of such species inAppendices. In the background of this move, I
observed that fish species placed on plates came into
discussion at CITES after Appendix inclusion of large
and what conservationist consider lovable animals
almost ran its course. The tendency has been
observed for more than 10 years, while it was thefirst time for so many countries, including
environmentalist ones, to consider CITES Appendix
inclusion as their own issues of food security rather
than means to promote environmentalist agenda.
It should be pointed out, on the other hand, that theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) has the expertise in management of these
species on a comprehensive basis.
At this meeting, the presence of FAO drew a special
attention. FAO clearly expressed its concern thatNOV. 2007
there exist differences in views on a number of proposals
between the FAO and CITES. We were encouraged tosee that this remark reflected the year-long assertionof the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations(ICFA) that management of fishery resources shouldbe left to FAO and regional fisheries management
organizations. CITES is basically a forum to take“emergency measures” in the form of trade controls in
face of “urgent status” i.e. the risk of extinction to somewildlife resources. It is unrealistic that CITES havingsuch “a limited role” has launched into the domain ofcomprehensive management of wildlife resources withthe backing of environmental NGOs.
Conservation of wildlife, in its essence, is an
accumulation of simple and at times tedious works. It
seems to me that CITES began to deviate itself from its
original track from the time it became a theater of dealing
with showy issues such as the conservation of elephants
and whales. I believe CITES’ efforts to return to normal
track on this occasion is the path of regaining its
credibility and integrity.
I would hope to see CITES remember its original workin the 15th COP to be held in Doha, Qatar, in 2010.

Japan gains support
on the IWC and CITES fromAtlantic coast Africancountries
The 7th Ministerial Conference on Fisheries
Cooperation among African States bordering theAtlantic Ocean (ATLAFCO) was held in the Ivory
Coast on July 25-27.
The Japanese delegation headed by Jun
Yamashita of the Fisheries Agency attended themeeting as an observer.
The meeting agenda included the sustainableutilization of fishery resources by the Africancountries on the Atlantic coast. Appreciation wasexpressed by many countries attending themeeting for Japan’s assistance in the area offisheries.
At the meeting, Japan made its position clear
on the International Whaling Commission and theConvention on the International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) and gained the support of participating
countries.

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