Importance of understanding fishery dynamics
There used to be a Fishing Technology Specialist Working Group (FTSWG) in the
Scientific Committee of the WCPFC (Midwest Tuna Conservation Commission) thatcollected information and conducted research on fishing gear and methods, but it
disappeared before we knew it. The objective of this division was to understand the actual
state of fisheries, and ultimately to conduct stock assessments that reflected the changing
state of fisheries. While the development of resource assessment models and analysis
methods has progressed, there are fewer opportunities for researchers to experience theactual fishing industry. For example, there are fewer opportunities to go out for local markets
research or to board a commercial fishing vessel and experience the actual situation.
FTSWG was a unique group that was not found in other international tuna resources
conservation organizations, and I felt sorry that it was disappeared, providing valuable
information even for researchers who have fewer opportunities to directly interact with theactual state of fisheries. Fisheries industry has changed significantly, for example, thespread of deep-line fishing, in which hooks are set deeper than before in long-line fishingfor bigeye, and the spread of FADs (artificial fish aggregation devices) in purse seine fishing.
With these new fishing methods, fishing efficiency has increased significantly. However,bigeye tuna resources, which are caught by longline fishing for adults and purse seine
fishing for immature fish, have been the most affected and have been a major challenge inresource management. Since new fishing methods spread rapidly in a short period of time,
resource assessment and management tend to follow suit, which makes the problem worse,
so it is necessary to grasp accurate information as soon as possible. This article touches
on the reasons for the delay in grasping accurate information and countermeasures.

Why accurate information is grasped late
The reason can be briefly explained as follows. Since new fishing methods are more costeffective than conventional ones, the fishermen who came up with them share information
only among themselves and rarely disseminate information to the outside, so it takes timeto grasp the information. In addition to such circumstances, resource researchers who have
few opportunities to see the fishing site have difficulty grasping the qualitative andquantitative characteristics of the new fishing method. Furthermore, if the analysis takes
time or the research on it is not a high priority, the initiative is put off. Since the government
obtains information from fishermen and researchers, the response is even slower, and it
also takes time to coordinate the intentions of the relevant parties regarding the responseto the new fishing method. Looking at the examples of the ban on large-scale drift nets inthe high seas, one of the major factors that led to the ban was that information on bycatchorganisms such as seabirds, sea turtles, and dolphins caught in drift nets was not obtained
through drift net fishermen, and effective measures could not be implemented in a timely
manner. However, before the drift net problem occurred, it was known to some that bycatchof sea turtles and other creatures was sometimes recorded in the tuna longline operation
records of fisheries research stations and training ships of fisheries high schools. If thecollection of information and research on bycatch organisms in tuna and billfish fisheries
had started at that time, the situation might have been different.
Unfortunately, it was only after the ban on large-scale drift nets in the high seas thatspecialized laboratories on bycatch organisms were established. It is regrettable that effortson this issue were delayed, as excellent research is being conducted in laboratories on
bycatch organisms.

Ensuring transparency of scientific observers
There is a way to utilize scientific observer information to improve the situation describedabove. Scientific observers are people with specialized knowledge who board fishingvessels to collect detailed information on fishing methods and catches. Scientific observers
are mainly on board longline and purse seine, which are the main tuna fishing methods. For
example, the WCPFC (Midwest Tuna Conservation Commission) has WCPFC-certified
observers on board all large oceangoing purse seine vessels. On the other hand, forlongline fishing vessels, which have a large number of fishing vessels and include manysmall vessels, the coverage rate is quite low, and observers selectedvessels, the coverage rate is quite low, and observers selected according to Japan's own
standards (which meet the WCPFC data submission standards) are on board. However, inorder to obtain accurate and transparent information, it is important to have as manyobservers on board as possible, even on longline vessels, and to strictly check whether theobservers are performing their duties correctly.

Utilizing video recording at the time of landing
Currently, there is a method called EM (Electronic Monitoring), which records video at thetime of landing, which is being attempted and tried in some areas of longline fishing. Thisinitiative is mainly used for two purposes, one is to reduce manpower when small boats or
small-scale fisheries do not have the space to accommodate scientific observers, and theother is to assist scientific observers who tend to be overworked With EM. Cameras areattached to several places on the boat and automatically record the situation at the time of

landing, and later, analysts on land can use the images to identify the species of the catchand bycatch and measure their size. However, there are many issues to be addressed in
the future regarding the introduction of EM, such as who will manage and analyze theobtained data and how, and issues regarding the installation and maintenance of theequipment. And although it may become a powerful method in the future, it will likely takesome time before it is generalized.

Information exchange and sharing of awareness of problems among stakeholders
The two methods mentioned so far (scientific observers on board and EM) both haveseveral problems, and it seems difficult to solve them quickly. One possible solution is tomake a steady effort to understand the actual situation by sharing information about thefishery among stakeholders and take measures. In relation to this, meetings of fishermen,researchers, the Fisheries Agency, etc. have been held before each international
conference of Regional Tuna Management Organizations (RFMOs) to exchange
information and discuss necessary measures.
However, at these types of conferences, discussions tend to be limited to responses to theconference at hand, and issues related to the entire fishery are not necessarily addressed.
In the past, there were opportunities for stakeholders to gather together and discuss issues
and measures related to the entire fishery, not just for specific conferences. Why not createsuch an opportunity again to exchange information among stakeholders, raise issues andfreely discuss solutions? For example, in the case of Pacific bluefin tuna, the introductionof TAC and IQ has changed the existing fishery, making it impossible to use the resource
abundance index that has traditionally been used for resource assessment, and facing new
problems such as estimating the amount of discarded fish. There have also been lawsuits
over the falsification of catches and quotas. However, such problems inevitably arise tosome extent whenever new fishery management is introduced, and they have been
overcome in resources that have been successfully managed. Although the managementof this resource faces these problems, the resource is currently recovering at a faster pacethan expected. With the recovery of the resource now almost certain, I believe that it istime to act now for the government, fisheries industry, and researchers to build even greater
mutual trust and respond appropriately to the current issues.