The Grand Design ofFisheries and Resources Managementin JapanFinal Report

Fisheries Research Agency, Japan
March 30, 2009

Beach seine fishery for sardine (19th century)

UKIYOE of abalone and halfbeak by UTAGAWA HIROSHIGE (late Edo era)

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Spring festival for the God of Water in Yokohama Fisheries Cooperative
Association (Photo by M. Makino)

TAIRYO (good catch) flags celebrating the spring festival (photo by M.
Makino)1

Acknowledgements
In April 2008, the Fisheries Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)
requested the Fisheries Research Agency (FRA) to conduct comprehensive research on the
management design for the future Japanese fisheries sector and policy framework. This researchtakes into account not only the output control through catch quota management measures suchas TACs (Total Allowable Catches), IQs (Individual Quotas), or ITQs (Individual Transferable
Quotas), but also the various qualitative and technical control measures such as seasonal/spatial
regulations, size/sex restrictions, gear limitations, etc. This report is the results of FRA’s study
published in March 2009 titled: “The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resource Management inJapan”, hereafter called the FRA Grand Design Report.
For sustainable and effective use of fishery resources, this study aimed to clarify the effects andissues of Japan’s conventional fisheries management systems, including the fishery rights andfishing license, and tried to propose appropriate management frameworks befitting Japanesefisheries.
In April 2008 the study established a Study Committee comprised of specialists from the FRA
and universities. Opinions and comments from relevant organizations and academic experts
were also gathered. The results of those reviews were compiled in July 2008 as an interim report.
Thereafter, other specialists and academics in various fields provided input through lectures.
Also, studies on the Japanese citizen’s preferences and policy demands on fisheries and resourcesmanagement were conducted through an Internet-based questionnaire survey. The results of all
those efforts are compiled in this Final Report.
The FRA Grand Design Report analyzed the advantages and issues of the Japanese fisheries
in light of their diversity and the characteristics of fishery resources and industrial structuresconnected or related to them. It also clarified five principles of fisheries and resourcesmanagement for the future, which specifically involves conservation of fishery resources and theenvironment as well as contributing to local society. From those reviews the FRA Grand Design
Report identified urgent tasks such as the need to establish a flexible fishery system. In addition,
three policy options that explicitly reflect differences in the sense of value are proposed and therelative evaluation of those options and their applicability to citizens’ policy demands based on
the results of the questionnaire survey discussed.
We are grateful to the Fisheries Agency of MAFF, which provided us the valuable opportunity towork on this important subject. We are also grateful to many other people for their cooperation
with this study. We sincerely hope that the FRA Grand Design Report will be of help to thedevelopment of fisheries industries in Japan.

March 30, 2009

Yoshio Ishizuka

Executive Director
Fisheries Research Agency, Japan

2

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Study Committee Member List (March 31, 2009)
Chairman

Yoshio Ishizuka, Executive Director, Fisheries Research Agency

External Members

Yoshihiro Kuronuma, Prof., School of Social Information Studies, Otsuma Women’s
University
Osamu Baba, Prof., Department of Marine Policy and Culture, Tokyo University of Marine
Science and Technology
Takashi Yamakawa, Ass. Prof., Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, theUniversity of Tokyo

Internal Members

Tokio Wada, Director-General, National Research Institute of Fisheries Engineering,
Fisheries Research Agency
Norihisa Baba, Director, Project Planning Department, Headquarters, FRA
Hiroshi Horikawa, Director, Stock Assessment Division, National Research Institute ofFisheries Science (NRIFS), FRA
Yukio Tasaka, Director, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS, FRA
Hitoshi Honda, Director, Tropical Tuna Resources Division, National Research Institute of
Far Seas Fisheries, FRA
Tatsu Kishida, Director, Japan Sea Fisheries Resources Division, Japan Sea National
Fisheries Research Institute, FRA
Akihiko Yatsu, Director, East China Sea Fisheries Resources Division, Seikai National
Fisheries Research Institute, FRA
Takumi Mitani, Chief, Fisheries Management Section, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS,FRAYuzuru Tomizuka, Senior Fisheries Policy Researcher, Fisheries Economy Division, NRIFS,
FRA
Mitsutaku Makino, Researcher, Fisheries Management Section, Fisheries Economy Division,
NRIFS, FRA
Hiroyuki Okochi, Coordinator for Collaborative Research, Project Planning Department,
Headquarters, FRA
Miki Ogura, same as above,
Yoshiaki Hiyama, same as above.

3

Contents
Acknowledgements2••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Study Committee Member List
Executive Summary3••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

5••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

1. Basic Approach and Methods
1.1 Basic Approach
1.2 Method666••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

2. Results
8
2.1 Principle
8
10
2.2 Advantages, Issues and their Correlations of the Present Fishing Industry
10(1) Advantages and merits
10(2) Issues and their correlations
12(3) Extraction of factors that should be preferentially tackled
13
2.3 Basic Direction of Fisheries Policies
13(1) Comprehensiveness of policy: purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures19(2) Grand design for resources and fisheries management24(3) Institutional flexibility
25(4) Distribution system
25(5) Scientific knowledge and monitoring system
26(6) International management framework
26(7) Production systems that match the ecosystems and the consumers’ needs
27(8) Multi-functions of fisheries and communities
28
2.4 Policy Options and Effects(1) Global competition scenario: liberalism scenario focusing on industrial efficiency
28
improvement(2) Ecological mosaic scenario: regionalism scenario for resources and environmental
29
conservation(3) National food security scenario: egalitarianism scenario focusing on the public
30
aspects of food supply
32
2.5 Public Demand for Policies as Revealed from the Questionnaire Survey
32(1) Results of the questionnaire survey
32(2) Considerations for policy options••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

References34•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Executive Summary
Fisheries and fisheries resources for a country or region should be managed taking account of thesocial and ecological characteristics of the country or region. This study examined the frameworkof fisheries and resources management appropriate for the characteristics of the Japanese fishingindustry for the purpose of providing options to policymakers.
To begin with, the Study Committee identified 16 roles that ideal fisheries play in Japanesesociety. These ideals were then divided into five principles: (A) Resource and environmental policy
aspect, (B) Food policy aspect, (C) Industrial and economic policy aspect, (D) Local and community
policy aspects, and (E) Cultural and scientific policy aspect.
Next, the advantages and issues of the present Japanese fisheries were listed and analyzed basedon problem correlational diagrams. An analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship shown in the
problem correlational diagrams was further conducted to identify the combinations of tasks toprioritize.
In addition, measures to be taken to tackle priority problems were reviewed through a process inwhich discussed the basic direction of future fisheries policies. The agenda of the discussion was
narrowed to eight topics: (1) Comprehensive management of fisheries and fisheries resources:
purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures, (2) Clarification of the grand design of fisheries
and resources management, (3) Improvement of institutional flexibility, (4) Improvement of the
products distribution system, (5) Improvement of the scientific knowledge and monitoring system,(6) Establishment of an international management system, (7) Establishment of a production
system meeting both ecosystem characteristics and consumers’ demands, and (8) Evaluation ofmulti-functions of fisheries and fishing communities.
The sense of value should be discussed in relation to specific measures beyond a purely scientificdiscussion to account for national preferences. Therefore, the Study Committee proposed threepolicy options that explicitly reflect the differences among various concepts of values. The first
option, called the “global competition scenario”, emphasizes the economic (monetary) efficiencyof the industry. It defines fisheries as an industry that seeks maximum profit from resources,
while governmental agencies other than fisheries are responsible for the remaining aspects. The
second option, called the “ecological mosaic scenario”, emphasizes the role of the community inconserving resources and the environment. It envisages a sharing of the roles that the coastal
fisheries play in the community and that off-shore fisheries play by seeking to improve industrial
efficiency and expand production. The third option, called the “national food supply security
scenario”, prioritizes the public aspect of the food supply to Japanese citizens and holds thenational government responsible for supplying safe marine products at stable prices, regardless ofinternational supply and demand. The extent each of those options contributes to the essence ofthe principles A through E was numerically evaluated in an attempt to relatively assess them.
Furthermore, a questionnaire survey was conducted to understand public demand for those
three optional policies. The validity of the options was reviewed based on the survey results. The“ecological mosaic scenario” seemed to be the best match for the people’s demand. However, thethree options are theoretical scenarios that show explicit differences in the sense of value. Whenactual policies are formulated it will be necessary to consider the characteristics of those policies,
fully understand what the people need and have a practical attitude, which includes seeking a
middle ground.
51. Basic Study Approach and Methods
1.1 Basic Approach
Fisheries and resources management for a country or region should be conducted with measuresthat match its social and ecological characteristics. From the viewpoint of sustainable andeffective use of fishery resources, our study aims to clarify the effects and issues of the Japanesetraditional fishery systems including the fishery rights system and fishing license system andprovide policymakers with policy options that matches the characteristics of the Japanese fishingindustry (resources, fisheries structure, history and tradition, sense of value, recent conditionalchanges, etc.). Although aquaculture is a pivotal measure for realizing a stable food supply forJapan, this study focuses on the capture fisheries and therefore excludes aquaculture from the listof subjects to review. Also, when activities conducted by the national government are classified
into three categories, i.e., policies (ideal directions or principles), measures (ways to realize
the principle), and operations (specific programs to implement measures), our study focuses on
analysis mainly in the fields of policies and measures.

1.2 Method
Our study employed the following four-stage procedure.
Procedure 1 - Identification of the principle: The first stage of the review is the brain-stormingby the Study Committee members on various attributes and social roles of Japanese fisheries.
Identified attributes and social roles where then classified into principles. The results of thisreview are discussed in Section 2.1.
Procedure 2 - Clarification of the issues and analysis of their correlation: This stage analyzes
the advantages of the Japanese fisheries, clarifies various factors that have caused the present
problems and prepares problem correlational diagrams. Analysis of the cause and effectrelationship among the clarified factors leads to extraction of factors that should be given toppriority in efficiently realizing the principles determined in Procedure 1. The results of this review
are presented in Section 2.2.
Procedure 3 - Direction of management and development of policy options: Basic ideas of how totackle priority factors as identified in the previous procedure are analyzed. Through this process
the basic direction of Japan’s future fishery resources and fisheries management are clarified. The
results of this review are explained in Section 2.3. In addition, this stage studies policy options
that should be adopted as future fisheries policies, while taking into consideration the differencesin various concepts of value. These options are assessed to determine what extent they contributeto each principle clarified in Procedure 1. The results of this review are presented in Section 2.4.
Procedure 4 - Understanding of the public demands for policies: This stage involves aquestionnaire survey to grasp citizens’ demand for the policy options to provide data for discussion
on the future direction of resources and fisheries management. The results are presented in
Section 2.5.
The processes of all four reviews were disclosed to the approximately 500 research experts in
FRA at each interim reporting stage so as to gather opinions widely from various research fields
and specialists. The gathered opinions were reported during the Study Committee’s discussions.
6

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report“Comprehensive” viewpoints were also secured by inviting knowledgeable people from outside thestudy committee and listening to their comments.

7

2. Results
2.1 Principles
The roles the fishing industry should play in the Japanese society are identified as 16
subcategories, which are then classified into five principles: (A) Resource and environmental policy
aspect, (B) Food policy aspect, (C) Industrial and economic policy aspect, (D) Local and community
policy aspects, and (E) Cultural and science policy aspect. (Fig. 1). Detailed descriptions of 16 subcategories are shown in Table 1.
The fisheries and resources management in Japan should be based on comprehensive policy
measures covering those 16 roles in five principles. These results will be used when conducting
relative evaluations of the policy options proposed in Section 2.4, and the questionnaire survey on
the nations’ demand for the policies explained in Section 2.5.

Fig.1 Five principles and sixteen roles in ideal fisheries in Japan
Table 1 principles and roles in ideal fisheries in Japan
A: Resources and environmental policy aspect
A-1 Conservation and recovery of the fishery resources
Through management measures based on both scientific and traditional knowledge, and transparent
decision-making processes, the fisheries resources are maintained at the appropriate level, while
recovery measures are taken for overfished resources.
A-2: Harmony with the ecosystem and the environment
Adaptive fisheries operations that respond to fluctuations in resources and the environment,
including decades-long regime shifts and climate changes, are conducted. Activities for environmental
conservation by fisheries such as energy saving, reduction in environmental impacts, and promotion ofmaterial circulation are made to conserve the structure and function of the ecosystems and continuously
receive the ecosystem services.

8

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

A-3: Establishment of international management frameworks
An international management framework is established while Japan takes leadership in conservationof the resources and ecosystems of the waters crossing the national borders or of the public waters
through international fisheries management organizations (including regional organizations, NGO,
grass root organizations, and other management systems through international cooperation).
B: Food policy aspect
B-1: Increase in production and improvement of self-sufficiency rate
Increased production and supply of fisheries products to the Japanese citizen to make contributions toimprovement of self-sufficiency rate.
B-2: Security of food reliability and safety
Supplying safe and pollution-free fisheries products together with reliable, easy-to-understandinformation for consumers in order to improve the people's overall diet, health and welfare.
B-3: Security of supply stability
Fisheries products stable both in price and quantity are supplied to the Japanese citizen now and in the
future.
C: Industrial and economic policy aspect
C-1: Institutional response to consumer needs changes
Flexible institutional frameworks are provided in order to match the people's consumption needs.
C-2: Realization of efficient and stable operational environment
Efficiency of production and employment is maintained by the multiple use of water surfaces and"Appropriate competition," and an operational system resistant to external shocks is realized.
Administrative spending is also reduced by the local fishers' autonomous management. (The"Appropriate competition" aims at rationalization of resource distribution through market mechanisms
while putting effective brakes on the upper limit of the catching capacity by considering the natureof each fishing method, such as the difference in nature between coastal and offshore fisheries or the
ecological characteristics of the fish to catch.)
C-3: Promotion of internationally competitive products
The brand of qualified Japanese fisheries products and their differentiation in the international market
is promoted.
C-4:Improvement of the working environment
A safe and clean working environment is maintained, and new workers are attracted to join thefisheries industries by good employment conditions.
D: Local and community policy aspect
D-1: Infrastructures and welfare development
Fisheries sector creates diverse job opportunities spreading Japan regardless of the topography.
Attractive rural areas appealing to youths and women are developed by local economic vitalization andthrough the development of good residential environments and support of rich local cultures.
D-2: Integrated coastal zone management
Autonomous activities by local stakeholders including fishers help promote environmental conservationand maintain sea surface use and promote rescue operations during disasters, national bordersurveillance, and preservation of ecosystem services.
D-3: Job creation for fishing community people
Jobs appropriate for each age bracket are available in rural communities to provide an attractive living
environment, and elderly people once retired from their former occupation come from other areas to join
the work forces in rural areas.
E: Cultural and science policy aspect
E-1: Promotion of fisheries and fishing community culture
Cultural activities rooted in and unique to each area including locally unique lifestyles, local knowledge,
fishing techniques and local cuisine, are fostered and maintained, and information related to those
activities is provided to the rest of society.
E-2: Promotion of leisure and education
Functions and charms inherent in fishing communities are enhanced with opportunities for leisure,recreation, or education, and prosper together with other marine industries.
E-3: Promotion of science and international contributions
Fisheries contribute to the collection of basic information for resources and ecosystems, andadvancement of related science and technology. Also make contributions to international society
through spreading such knowledge and technology.

92.2 Advantages, Issues and their Correlations of the Present Fishing Industry(1) Advantages and merits
Japan has a long history of fisheries management (Ruddle 1987, Yamamoto 1995). This part ofthe study identifies and analyzes the advantages and merits in the present Japanese fisheries
industry and classifies them based on principles A through E listed in Section 2.1. The results are
summarized in Figure 2.
Note that some of those advantages and merits are opposites of disadvantages and demerits,
which are to be analyzed in the next section. For example, one advantage in Principle C of
“Industrial and economic policy aspects” is “the presence of various fish species and fishingmethods depending on the season and sea waters.” This, however, also complicates and disables
coordination among fishing methods and fish species. The “presence of order in coastal water use
based on local practice” listed as one of the advantages of (D) “Local and community policy aspect”
is also one of the factors explaining why institutional flexibility is not sufficiently allowed. When
policy options are planned and developed, it is important to further promote the advantages andmerits of the present fishing industry shown here while at the same time fully understand thenegative impacts of the measures to solve the problems with those advantages and merits.

Fig. 2 Advantages and merits in the present Japanese fisheries industry(2) Issues and their correlations
The present Japanese fishery resources and fisheries management faces various issues, and thefactors of those issues were reviewed and correlational diagrams prepared (Fig. 3). In addition,
the factors were classified based on the correlational characteristics into five categories: (1)Bottleneck factors, (2) Independent factors inside the fishing industry, (3) Independent factors
outside the fishing industry, (4) Synergic independent factors, and (5) Process factors (Table 2).

10

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Fig. 3 Problem correlational diagrams of the Japanese fisheries
Table 2 Classification of factors constituting the problem correlational diagram
Kind

Bottleneck
factorDescription

Factors in Fig. 3

These are factors with many incoming and outgoingarrows and should be the major targets of measures.
There are two kinds of measures, direct ones to address
bottleneck factors (which work quickly but do not solve
the very cause of the problem) and measures to address
factors that are the causes of the bottleneck factors(measures that take time until the effect appears).

Insufficient adaptability to fluctuation/uncertainty
Excessive dependency on specific resources
Presence of irrational catch
High cost
Lack of measures against negative impacts on the environment
Reduction in and destabilization of fish prices
Lack of human resources and successors

Independent Independent factors that are the starting point (start Absence or malfunction of international management bodyfactors
point of the arrow) of the cause and effect relationship. It
Complexity of fishery operational adjustment because of theinside theis considered the fundamental cause of a problem.
presence of varying fish species and fishing methods
fisheries
Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency
Lack of institutional flexibility
Insufficiency and lack of scientific knowledge and accuracy inmonitoring systems
Absence of strategies for resource diplomacy
Low awareness of sale and hygiene at producing areas
Segmented and incomplete distribution chain
Poor support for multifunctionality of fisheries
Unclear recognition of the role of remote communities in land
formation policy
Synergetic
independent
factors

Of the independent factors inside thefisheries, those that are the direct causesof each principle and the bottleneck
factors. Since the response to them leads toimprovement of the bottleneck factors aswell as direct effects, synergetic effects will
occur from implementation of measures,and therefore policy effectiveness is
expected to greatly improve.

11

Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency
Lack of institutional flexibility
Insufficiency and lack of scientific knowledge and accuracy inmonitoring systems
Segmented and incomplete distribution chainIndependent Factors outside the fisheries that cannot be directly Climate changes
factors
addressed by fisheries policy, but their impacts should be
Territorial disputes
outside thehandled as fishery measures.
fisheries
Intrinsic fluctuations of ecosystem
Fluctuations in international supply and demand
Fluctuations in foreign exchange
Rise in oil price
Process
factors

Factors other than the above that are in a cause and Malfunction of ability to coordinate among fisheries
effect relationship. Tackling the causes of those factors
should be prioritized rather than taking direct measures Malfunction of autonomous management system
to tackle those factors.
Stagnation of technological development
Excessive capital and equipment
CO2 emission reduction target
Lack of marketing and promotion of products
Weakened local processing businesses
Deterioration of FCA function(3) Extraction of factors that should be preferentially tackled
The effects of the measures for the factors that constitute the problem correlational diagrams
on improvement of principles A through E were summated. Direct effects to the principles arecounted as 1.0 point and secondary (indirect) effects as 0.5 point. Then, the combinations ofpreferential factors were formulated in two kinds. Detailed descriptions of each factor are locatedin Table 3. Note that measures for the bottleneck factors will bring quick improvement. Those
measures are very important as a short-term perspective, but not for solving the root causes of theissues. The rest of this report deals with the long-term structural problem of Japanese fisheries.
Table 3 Factors to be preferentially addressed

Effects on all principles

High efficiency

Factors
Lack of grand design,accountability andtransparency

Description
There are not enough efforts for promoting the people's and stakeholders' understanding of
uncertainties in resource trends and ecosystem fluctuations, and the relationship among the foregoingand fishing capacity, Allowable Biological Catchs (ABCs), and Total Allowable Catchs (TACs). In
addition, the information serving as the grounds for official decision-making on fisheries and resource
management is not fully disclosed.
Lack of institutional
There are various public and conventional institutional systems governing new entry to the fisheries,
flexibility
use of rights and licenses, design of fishing boats and gear, etc., and such intricacies prevent smoothdevelopment and use of new technologies, democratic and appropriate management of rights andlicenses, inflow of human resources and new ideas, and ultimately defy technical reform or innovation.
Scientific knowledge and methods for resource estimation and future prediction, impacts of TACs on
Insufficiency and lack offisheries stakeholders and the national public, etc. is limited (because of the lack of knowledge or presence
scientific knowledge andof inherent fluctuations), and the scope and precision of resource monitoring and statistic information
accuracy in monitoring
gathering, which serve the basis of such analysis, are insufficient, thereby increasing uncertainty.
systems
Segmented and incomplete Producers and processors/distributors are separated, and the distribution chain itself is separated
distribution chain
into various stages. Overall, there is no appropriate working mechanism of price forming, information
provision, and supply and demand. As a result, various disadvantages have occurred, such as
excessive demand for standarized products, deterioration of product diversity and quality, reduction in
producer prices, and inadequate response to consumer needs.
Absence or malfunction of No cross-boarder management framework is fully operational for conservation of resources andinternational management ecosystems over two or more countries or in the public waters, and such framework itself is often
bodynonexistent. Such management framework can be based on regional organizations, NGOs, grass-roots
organizations and other internationally cooperated groups in addition to a nation-based framework.
Absence of strategies for
Medium- and long-term strategies with the Japanese national profits focused are not clear regarding
resource diplomacy
participation in or cooperation with international resources management organizations or technicalsupport to foreign countries.
Low awareness of sale and Fishery operators and the producer markets think of themselves as simply fishery catchers and are
hygiene at producing areas less interested in how to sell and sell well and how to handle marine products. Thus, they lack theability to sense consumer needs and only have lax sanitary measures.
Poor support for
Public evaluation of the multifaceted functions of the fisheries and fishing communities (particularly
multifunctionality ofin terms of material circulation and environmental preservation) is insufficient, and maintenancefisheriesof those functions won't produce profits although it could be a burden. As a result, the multifaceted
functions are degrading and eventually cause deterioration of the natural environment in and the useof the coastal areas and reduction in the attractiveness of the coastal areas.
Unclear recognition of the There is insufficient recognition of non-economic significance regarding communities located at various
role of remote communities places along the coast with the people living there and the presence of fishing ports as the infrastructure
for community formation and maintenance. The roles that are played (or can be played) by fishingin land formation policy
communities and ports from the viewpoint of national land formation are not clearly positioned.
Excessive dependency on
Fishing operations are excessively dependent on specific resources and fishing methods, and no
specific resources (including balanced and effective use of ecosystem productivity has been realized. Destabilization of thelack of effective use of
ecosystems or fishery operations and destabilization of supply have then resulted.
under-used resources)

12

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report[High efficiency]
The measures for the following four factors in Fig. 3 and Table 3 will generate synergic effects
and can efficiently improve each principle. However, almost no improvement could be expectedfrom Principle E-3 Promotion of science and technology and international contributions, A-3
establishment of an international management system, B-2 securing of food reliability and safety,
D-2 general management and disaster prevention for coastal areas, D-3 response to the life cycleof local fishing people, E-1 fisheries and fishing village culture, and E-2 leisure, marine recreationand landscape.
-Lack of grand design, accountability and transparency-Lack of institutional flexibility-Insufficiency and lack of scientific knowledge and accuracy in monitoring systems-Segmented and incomplete distribution chain[Effects on all principles]
In addition to the aforementioned, taking measures for the following six factors will at least cover
all the principles, but to varying degrees. For example, no greater improvement could be expected
for D-2 general management and disaster prevention for coastal areas and E-1 fisheries andfishing village culture than what could be expected for other principles.
-Absence or malfunction of international management body
-Absence of strategies for resource diplomacy-Low awareness of sales and hygiene in producing areas-Poor support for multifunctionality of fisheries-Unclear recognition of the role of remote communities in land formation policy-Excessive dependency on specific resources

2.3 Basic Direction of Fisheries Policies
Considering the analysis results discussed in the previous subsection, basic directions forJapanese fisheries policies are suggested. The content in this section suggest a direction
applicable to all policy options presented in Section 2.4.
(1) Comprehensiveness of policy (purposes, evaluation criteria, and measures)
FRA believes that the following three aspects of comprehensiveness are important for fisheries
and resources management in Japan.
i. Purpose of management
Aiming at ideal fisheries in the future Japanese society, fisheries policies should fulfill 16 roles,
identified in Section 2.1 (Fig. 1). Fisheries and resources management in Japan is preferably
conducted as the comprehensive policy covering those 16 subcategories in 5 principles. Eachmeasure should be implemented to improve those principles and evaluated based on their level ofcontribution to them.

13

ii. Evaluation criteria for management
There is no unique criterion usable to versatilely evaluate comprehensive policy. Evaluation
criteria contain, for example, efficiency (comparison between the results and the efforts input or
costs, such as economic efficiency or efficiency of employment), effectiveness (to what extent the
purpose has been achieved), sufficiency (to what extent the need is satisfied), fairness (distributionof profits and expenses), responsiveness (whether specific needs or values are satisfied) andappropriateness (appropriate for society) (Miyagawa 1994). For example, Hillborn (2007) presents
four criteria for evaluation of fisheries and resources management, which are biological criterion(maximum sustainable yield or MSY), economic criterion (maximum economic yield or MEY),
social criterion (maximum job yield, or MJY, indicating generation of job opportunities for local
communities) and political criterion (‘minimum sustainable whinge’ for reduction of politicalcomplaints, MSW), and concludes that the failure of the past MSY criteria is the success ofanother criteria or the result of competing criteria. It is necessary to avoid excessive dependence
on a single set of criteria to ensure comprehensive evaluation.
iii. Combinations of management measures
If it is dependent on combinations of measures rather than a single measure resources andfisheries management is resilient to ecosystem changes, social changes, uncertainty and diversity(Charles 2007). Therefore, when resources and fisheries management policies are developed,
it is necessary to utilize measures with a full understanding of the suitability, effective range
and limits of each measure in line with the 16 roles in 5 principles shown in Fig. 1, and to try to
produce synergic effects by combining two or more measures. Specific contents and combinationsof management measures must be determined based on the structure of the specific problem,
degree of urgency, public demand for policies and other factors. No standard solution exists, but
solutions can be generalized into the following schemes.
Depending on the target, fisheries and resources management measures can be divided into eightcategories, shown in Table 4a. Figure 4 is an illustrated diagram showing the part of the fisherysystem upon which each measure acts. Furthermore, depending on the implementation approachof each measure, they can be divided into five categories as shown in Table 4b. Table 5, the toolbox of management measures, plots target-based categories in the left side column and approachbased categories in the top row to arrange specific examples of management measures. Eachcategory group has both unique advantages and limits, which are shown in Table 6. Therefore,
when combinations of management measures are reviewed, it is instrumental to understand thestructure of each individual problem as compared to the correlational diagrams of Fig. 3. It is also
necessary to fully review whether a combination of measures effectively and sufficiently handles
the problems and whether the balance of such combination is efficient based on Tables 4 through6 and Fig. 4.

14

Qualitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

33: Conservation and restoration of seaweed beds and wetlands; 34: Seabed tillage; 35: Installation of fishing banks;
36: Pest control or thinning15

5. Autonomous approach

4. Judiciary approach

3. Information approach

2. Economic approach

1. Administrative approach(b) Approach-specific classification

70: Black-listing; 71: Approved list
72: Business reports and press releases
73: Caveats, damage claims, etc.
74: Criminal-code punishment and administrative punishment
75: Resources management agreement; 76: Fishing grounds use agreement;
77: Regulations based on the FCA's rules and subcommittee decisions
78: Other voluntary regulations that go further than legal restrictions

NeutralPrivatePublicOfficially prescribed by the law

Voluntary commitment

68: Branding; 69: Eco-labelling

Mitigation

66: Pool system; 67: Utilization of external private capital

Promotion

64: Dividend from subsidy, incentive pay, or membership fee

Promotion
65: Collection of tax, levy, membership fee

59: Adjustment among fisheries; 60: Administrative guidance and diffusion; 61: Stop order; 62: Instructions from the committee or supportive order; 63:
Introduction of commodities and equipment contributing to reduction in environmental impacts

Guidance/order

Neutral57: Fishing license; 58: Setting of restrictions, regulations and procedures

Regulation/restriction

Mitigation

56: Fishery right

Legal protection

51: Development of fishing gear; 52: Development of fishing methods; 53: Development of fishing grounds and resources;
54: Development of processing methods; 55: Understanding, evaluation and prediction of natural ecosystem mechanism

H. Promotion of science and technology

41: Price sustenance and adjustment storage; 42: Development of fishing ports and markets; 43: Promotion of exports;
44: Rationalization of distribution chains; 45: Improvement of added value by new product development, etc.; 46: Quality standardization by hygiene standards,
etc. (brand value enhancement); 47: Reduction of distribution cost; 48: Accumulation and improvement of processing and distribution technologies

40: Improvement of onboard treatment

49: Establishment and change of management organization; 50: Development, use and recruitment of human resources

After landing

OnboardG. Development of human and organizational capacity

F. Improvement of treatment/disposal,
processing and distribution

37: Promotion of reduction in fishing boats; 38: Promotion of shifting to other fishery types or operation of two or more types;
39: Reduction of capital by smaller fleet size

29: Forestation; 30: Water quality management; 31: Dam repair; 32: Sediment and quicksand management

In the water

28: Release of seeds

25: Restrictions on size of catch (length); 26: Restrictions on gender of catch; 27: Restrictions on fishing of mature fish

22: ITQ (individual transferable quota) (with/without transfer restrictions, with/without deadline); 23: ITVQ (individual transferable vessel quota) (with/withouttransfer restrictions, with/without deadline); 24: GTQ (group-specific transferable quota) (with/without transfer restrictions, with/without deadline)

Non-transferable

On landIndividual quota

16: TAC (total allowable catch); 17: Area- and season-specific TAC; 18: Fisheries type-specific TAC
19: IQ (individual quota); 20: IVQ (individual vessel quota); 21: GQ (group-specific quota)

OverallTransferable

14: Restriction on fishing ground or season (closed fishing area, closed fishing season, marine reserve, etc.);
15: Rotational use of fishing grounds

Operation

10: ITEQ (individual transferable effort quota) (with/without transfer restrictions, with/without deadline); 11: GTEQ (group-specific transferable effort quota) (with/without transfer restrictions, with/without deadline); 12: ITOQ (individual transferable oil quota) (with/without transfer restrictions, with/without deadline)

Transferable

13: Restrictions on fishing gear or fishing methods (restrictions on the type of fishing gear or fishing method, compulsory use of certain fishing equipment, etc.)

6: Restriction of fishing effort (No. of fishing days, No. of fishing operations, No. of nets, etc.); 7: IEC (individual effort quota); 8:GEG (group-specific effort quota); 9:
IOQ (individual oil quota)

Non-transferable

1: Restriction on total tonnage of fishing boats; 2: Restriction on horsepower of fishing boat engines; 3: Restriction on the size of fishing gear; 4: Restriction on fishtank capacity; and 5: Restriction on light power

Fixed equipment

Operation

Fixed equipment

E. Improvement of business operational structure

D. Maintenance and restoration of
ecosystem

C. Addition and enhancement of resources

B. Conservation of resources(output control)

A. Conservation of resources(input control)(a) Target-based classification

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Table 4 Categories of management measuresFig. 4 Management measures for whole the fishery system

16

A. Input control

17

Conservation of resources

51,52,53,
54,55,64,
67
51,52,53,
54,55,64,
67

51,52,53,
54,55,60
51,52,53,
54,55,60

H. Promotion of science and technology

H. Promotion of science and technology

55

55

49,50,64,
67

49,50,60,
62,63

G. Development of human and organizational capacity

49,50

46,48,68,
69,71

41,42,43,
44,4546,
47,48,64,
67

43,44,45,
46,48,60,
63
49,50

40,68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69

68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69,71

68,69,71

69,71

69,71

40,64,67

65

65

22,23,24

19,20,21

66

10,11,12

6,7,8,971

40,60,63

35,36,
64,67

33,34, 60,
63
37,38,39,
64,67

64,67

29,31,32,
63,60

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

Aboard the boat
F. Improvement of treatment/disposal,
processing and After landing
distribution

33

30,31,32

28,64,67

64

64

64

64

64

64

60

60.62

60,62

60,62

60,61,62

63,60,62

59,60,6264

37,38,39,
60,62,63

In the water

On land25,26,27

16,17,18

14,57,59

58,59

57

59,63,60,
62

55

55

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

Promotion Mitigation

55,72

55,72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

Neutral

3. Information approach

E. Improvement of business operational
structure

D. Maintenance andrestoration of
ecosystem

49,50

56

Transferable

Qualitative56

Non-transferable

OverallOperation

56

56

Transferable

Fixed equipment

56

1,2,3,4,
5,58

Neutral2. Economic approach

Legal
Regulationa/ Guidance/
Promotion Mitigation
protection restriction
order

Non-transferable

Fixed equipment

C. Addition and enhancement of resources

B. Output control

Quantitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Operation

Individualquota

1. Administrative approach

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

73

Private

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

Public4. Judiciary approach

55,75,77

55,75,77

49,50,75,77

41,42,45,46,
48,77

40,77

37,38,39,77

33,34,35,36,
75,77

29,30,75,77

75,77

25,26,27,75,77

19,20,21,75,77

51,52,53,54,
55,78

51,52,53,54,
55,78

49,50,78

41,42,43,44,
45,47,48,78

40,78

37,38,39,78

33,34,35,36,78

29,30,7828,78

25,26,27,78

19,20,21,78

78

14,15,59,78

14,15,59,75,
76,77
75,76,77

13,58,59,78

6,7,8,9,59,
75,78

6,7,8,9,59,75,
76,77

13,58,59,75,77

1,2,3,4,5,58,
59,78

One-way commitment

1,2,3,4,5,58,
59,75,77

Officially prescribed

5. Autonomous approach

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

Table 5 Tool-box of fisheries and resource management measures

Table 6 Advantages and limits of management classifications(a) Target-specific
A Conservationof resources(input control)

Description
Control of quality
and quantity ofoperations

Control of quality
B Conservationand quantity ofof resources(output control) catch

Artificial
C Addition andenhancement of reinforcement of
reduced resources
resources

Improvement of
D Maintenanceand restoration fishing groundproductivityof ecosystem
E Improvement Improvement offish value andof businessadded value andoperational
improvement
structureof utilization
efficiency
F Improvement Reduction ofcapital equipmentof treatment/or shifting todisposal,processing and different fisheries
distribution
Development
G Developmentof human and and acquisition
organizational of managementrelated humancapacity
resources, andreform andreinforcement oforganization
Development of
H Promotion oftechnologies andscience andresources, andtechnology
understanding
and predictionof ecosystemmechanism(b) Approach-specificDescription
1 Administrative Government
approachdirectly
implements basedon the act
2 Economic
Indirect induction
approachby economic
incentives
3 Information
Disclosure orapproachprovision of
information to
stakeholders
4 Judiciary
Punishment orapproachorder based on
legal judgment
5 Voluntary
Stakeholders
approachautonomously
implement
measures

Advantage
Limit
Fundamental and long-term effects will be Inappropriate for flexible and expeditious
obtained. It covers the entirety of two or more management. Effect on resource quantity
resources. Measures that match the living is indirect and its assessment is difficult.
history of the subject species can be used. Robust Grasping the effort and fishing pressure isto uncertainties of resources assessment and sometimes difficult. For individual quotas, initial
regulations. Easily adaptive to individual fishery distribution or total volume change is difficult,and regulation cost increases.
operators.
Flexible management depending on resources Cost for setting or execution of quantities isfluctuations is possible. Easier to understand large. Unable to conduct fine-tuned management
method. Readily applicable to management of to match the living history. Effect reduces inresources across borders or distributed over wide case resources fluctuations or assessment errors
are large. Management difficult for fisheries
areas.
catching various fish species. For individual
quotas, initial distribution or total volume
change is difficult, and costs for control marine
dumping or false reporting increase.
Can directly improve locally reduced resources. Difficult to grasp changes in the inter-species
Easier to understand method. Understanding of relationship or impacts on the ecosystem suchas genetic diversity. Subjects limited to species
fishery people easier to obtain.
for which reinforcement technique is developed.
Difficult to cope with deteriorating wide-arearesources.
Can provide multifaceted functions through the How much effect would be achieved or whenconservation of ecosystems.
effects would occur is unclear.
Income will increase for fishery operators, What direct effects would occur to resource
processors and distributors. Can expect economic quantities or when such effects would occur is
growth and produce jobs in fisheries areas. Can unclear.
cope with varying consumer needs.
Can expect reduction in operational cost and When the number of fishing boats is reduced,
acquisition of other income sources.
the burden on the finance (general public) orremaining fishery operators is large. Difficult tocoordinate with relevant fisheries.
Can flexibly cope with various problems in an Human resources development takes time.
innovative way. Can contribute to formation of Organization tends to be conservative andexclusive when it becomes rigid.
attractive community.

Can improve or solve problems in a medium- and Expeditious response difficult. Large initiallong-range and fundamental manner. Can show investment necessary. Uncertain about thefeasibility of expected results.
the right direction for industrial growth.

Advantage
Limit
Highly legitimate and stable because of its legal When subjects are dispersed, small in scalebasis. Effective as a fast-working measure to and diversified, monitoring is difficult. In manycases, higher cost than other methods. Difficulty
local problems.
in flexible and expeditious response.
Highly expeditious. Promotes each implementer's Direct effect for target is uncertain. Separate
creativity and innovativeness. Less costly than measure necessary to ensure distribution.
administrative methods.
Many case examples of efforts by implementers Some measures to ensure effectiveness necessary
can be widely shared and understood.
to provide accurate information.
Highly legitimate and stable because of its legal Time-consuming and costly. Responsibility forbasis. Effective to control similar problems.
corroboration tends to become a burden.
Flexibly copes with individual specific cases. Weak binding and enforcing power. Target
Requires less administrative cost.
achievement is uncertain.

18

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report(2) Grand design for resources and fisheries management
As explained in Section 2.1, fisheries and resources management must maintain fishery resources
at an appropriate level, take action to restore the depleted resources and align fishing operations
with the ecosystem and environment. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CoC)by FAO (FAO 1995) requires the national government to share with the Japanese people thegovernment’s basic ideas concerning resources management and ecological conservation and build
consensus with them. This is regarded as information disclosure on management of resources ascommon public assets. FRA believes that the pivotal components of the grand design for fisheryresources and fisheries management are summarized as the following nine points (illustrated
diagrams in Fig. 5).
i. Basic idea
CoC of FAO, as well as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), call for theestablishment of responsible fisheries and emphasize sustainable use of resources, precautionary
measures, and due measures for ecosystem and the environmental conservation. Considering thatJapan ratified UNCLOS and that Japan is one of the largest fisheries countries in the world, thebasic idea of Japanese fisheries policy should naturally correspond with UNCLOS and CoC.
Such a basic stance is followed by many foreign countries with years of experience in fisheries
management, for example through total catch regulations, and is contained in principles assumed
by many international resources management organizations. It is therefore logical to suppose thatthese basic ideas will be useful in formulating Japanese management measures.
Fig. 5 Composition of the Grand Design (tasks shown in boldface)19

ii. Response to uncertainty
Management of fishery resources faces uncertainties about resource fluctuations and errors inresource evaluation. One response to such uncertainties would be to take precautionary measures
and/or use management measures that can embrace uncertainties. The latter is directly connectedto adaptive management while the former is risk tolerance.
Risk tolerance
Take the TAC system for instance. The criteria for the allowable biological catch (ABC), whichrefers to the range of allowable catch for a species or species group, vary depending on the
resource recovery scenario, such as through what path and until when the resources should berecovered or what goal should be set for resources needing recovery. A slow recovery scenario(gradual recovery) would inevitably induce a higher risk of resource declines below the present
level in the short term, particularly when compared with a rapid recovery scenario with a drastic
catch decrease. On the other hand, the risk of short-term deterioration of fishing business may
in many cases result from a rapid resources recovery scenario. Therefore, for resources thatneed to be restored, scenario choices should be made transparently and consistently with othermanagement measures.
For some fishing sectors and fish species, there is a gap between the resource level and thesize of capital. In such cases, there arises the problem of who will take the risks of resources
deterioration and business deterioration. Furthermore, when the number of fishing boats orallowable quota is reduced to curtail the capital size, the issue here is who will bear the burden.
These are points involving the sense of value or fairness, and it is something the Japanese citizen
should decide. Thus, there is no standard solution. Therefore, this report considers three policy
options as presented in Section 2.4.
Adaptive management
Adaptive management (Walters and Hillborn 1976) is a reasonable response to uncertainties.
Adaptive management observes changes in the status and quickly responds to those changes,
thereby readily adapting to uncertainties (Fisheries Research Agency 2006). In other words,
it continuously monitors resources and revises the level of catching that is considered mostappropriate depending on the present resource conditions. In Japan, a similar idea for
management has been developed as a revised management procedure for whales, which wasdeveloped out of the need to avoid uncertain biological parameters for their stock management. It
is also referred to as “feedback management”.
Monitoring and revising decision-making are the nuclei of adaptive management. The method
most likely developed because of the recognition that decision-making should not be based on theprediction of resources changes, but rather on the current resources assessments. At the sametime, decisions for adaptive management should be based on previously agreed procedures.
iii. Diversity of resources and fisheries types
A unique characteristic of Japanese fisheries is the high variety of fishery resources being
exploited by wide-ranging fishing methods. This diversity shows that the country is bestowed withgood natural resources and is rich in traditionally developed fishing gears. On the other hand,
this diversity is a major cause of complications in management and adjustment. Management
measures produce different effects depending on the social and ecological characteristics of each

20

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Reportfishing sector or area. A measure that has produced excellent results in one area can cause
negative impact on another area. Fine-tuned research on the impact of a measure, therefore, isnecessary.
The combination of management measures and the efficacy of each measure or a combination of
measures is determined according to the diversity of resources and fisheries. For instance, a direct
approach such as output control by TAC proves to be sufficiently effective for a simple fisheries
structure such as those catching a single fish species using a single fishing method. When thefisheries structure is highly diverse, distribution and enforcement of TAC will entail manydifficulties and significant expenditures. It should also be noted that TAC management is notnecessarily an effective management system even for a simple fisheries structure (Walters andPearse 1996).
Even where quantitative output control measures such as TAC are implemented, it is necessary
not only to use a “top-down” regulatory method by administration, but also to combine aneconomic method, information-based method, judicial method and autonomous method (Table 6)
to carry out management that meets the individual conditions of each problem. For the Japanesefisheries structure with a high level of diversity, sustainability of resources and fisheries could beensured by implementing variety of management measures in Table 4.
iv. Responses to resources fluctuations
The regime shift of the marine ecosystem resulting from climate and ocean fluctuations causes
long-term changes in the amount of resources (Kawasaki 1994). For example, the catch ofJapanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus) rapidly increased because of the rise in the market
demand for fish meal, which is the result of the poor catch of anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) in
Peru from the 1970s to the 1980s. The Japanese fishing boats for sardine, especially Large-scale
purse seiners, increased in size to cope with the increased demand. However, in 1988, before theservice life (about 25 years) of those enlarged boats expired, a regime shift occurred, causing asudden decrease in the stock of sardine, making the catch capacity redundant (Yatsu 2005).
The stock of chub mackerels (Scomber japonicus) in the Pacific stayed at a low level, despite
strong year classes in 1992, 1996 and 2004. For the 1992 and 1996 classes there was overfishingpressure as a result of fisheries having mainly caught immature fish. For the 2004 class, thefish stock over three years seemed to increase due to the implementation of TAC and Resources
Recovery Plans. Walleye pollack in the Sea of Japan (Theragra chalcogramma) remained at a low
level because of the influence of the marine environment; the species is currently considered to
be facing overfishing pressure. It is important to decrease the fishing pressure, which has become
excessive due to the regime shift, to an appropriate level.
One of the proposed fishing measures for fluctuating species is switching fishing, which target theincreasing stocks and reduces the pressure on decreasing stocks (Katsukawa and Matsuda 2003).
It is necessary to establish composite fishing gears that enable the switching of target species
depending on the rise and fall in the stock levels. A licensing system that allows such fishing
operation should also be discussed.
Communication is important among citizens, fishers, fisheries processing and distribution sectors,
administration and scientists. Communication will enable all stakeholders to fully understand not
only the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and the regime shift, but also the need for21

appropriate resources management.
v. Promotion of rational catch
Qualitative management measures will be further promoted. However, these measures are notenough to reduce dumping and bycatch and avoid catching of economically less valuable small
fish. Japanese traditional management measures such as setting a closed season and protecting
spawning and growing sites, should be also promoted.
Taking small-scale trawl fishing in Shimane Prefecture as an example, Yuki and Murayama(1998) proposed enlarging the trawl net mesh size to avoid bycatch of small fish without reducing
the catch of expensive fish. This recommendation was based on the results of a survey and thecomparison of a shift to safer and easier fishing methods to conventional methods. According to
the stock assessment of yellowtail snapper, reduction in the fishing pressure of small fish would
lead to an increase in the catch of expensive large fish (Fisheries Research Agency and Fisheries
Agency 2007). Results of these studies are expected to be implemented as management measuresin the field.
vi. Consensus building and incentives
Consensus needs to be built among stakeholders when fisheries and resources management
is smoothly and effectively implemented. For example, the attitude of fishers played a criticalrole in two successful cases of resources management: Japanese sandeel fisheries in the Ise Bay(Tomiyama et al. 2008) and sandfish fishing in Akita Prefecture (Suenaga 2008). Without theircooperation, any management measures would have been insufficient. The need for consensus
building is also extensively discussed with respect to TAC management.
In order to enable fishery operators and policymakers to understand the necessity andeffectiveness of resources management measures, scientists must clearly explain the limitationsof artificial controls of natural resources. In addition, since consensus building is expected totake time, a phasal approach should used. For example, it is relatively easy to understandthe management results when the yield per recruit (YPR) is improved such as by fish length
control, but spawning per recruit (SPR) management seems to be difficult to understand as therecruitment is greatly affected by environmental impacts. Even in this case, as SPR is likely toincrease from improved YPR, phased implementation of a management measure that is easier tounderstand and accept is desired. Furthermore, deregulation of fishing licenses or fishing boat
construction and establishment of clear-cut rules could be used as incentive to ensure that they
will be rewarded for their efforts.
vii. Reform of the fisheries structure
Amid the prevailing fear of long-term rise in fuel prices, it is important to revise the cost structure
and create fisheries that can withstand a fuel price hike. Short-term solutions to a fuel pricerise as well as long-term efforts such as the development of energy-saving technology are bothnecessary.
To develop responsible fisheries we should establish a production system that reduces theenvironmental load, bycatch and dumping, catches the necessary fish in the necessary amount,fosters internationally competitive fishing operators, constructs a stable employment structure

22

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Reportand builds a sustainable fisheries production structure that matches the status of resources.
For fishing boats, which are the indispensable means of production, we should develop nextgeneration boats that are energy-saving, safe, comfortable, require less production cost andgenerate less environmental loads. At the same time, we should achieve a good balance between
the total catching capacity (operational size) and the resource level in order to break the vicious
circle by which excessive investment causes a reduction in resources and operational crisis forces
the continuation of excessive fishing, resulting in an even greater reduction in resources.
It is important to ensure the availability of measures for resources management, such as thesuspension of fishing or reduction in the number of boats, and public compensation for impactfulchanges in social conditions. Although the judgment greatly varies depending on what policy
option is chosen (see 2.4 for details), it is logical to consider more direct compensation given theimportance of fisheries as the food providing industry, local industry and job-creating industry for
local communities.
viii. Harmonious growth of offshore fisheries and coastal fisheries
As various fishing types and gears use the same resources within the Japanese EEZ, fisheries
management is required to enable both coastal and offshore fisheries to mutually prosper. In
many cases, coastal fisheries and offshore fisheries catch the resources at different life cycle
stages, such as when spawning or feeding and immature fish or mature fish, depending on thefishing ground or fishing method. The problem here is who takes the fish first. One solution tothis problem is that fishery operators share the same understanding based on a quantitative andqualitative evaluation of the impact of each type of fishing on the resources.
A variety of fish species are caught in coastal fisheries, in which the licensing conditions are
relatively lax. Thus, it is easier to catch different fish species depending on the resource conditions(switching fishing) (such as tiger puffer stock instead of sandfish during the closed season in
Akita). Coastal fisheries also frequently catch small species such as rocky shore resources, andthe effect of management is therefore easier felt. On the other hand, it is difficult to have aquantitative understanding of the resource conditions or catching capability for specific resources.
Coastal fisheries also make great contributions to the multi-functions of local fishing communities.
Therefore, qualitative management is generally considered appropriate for coastal fishing.
In contrast, offshore fisheries are characterized by a relatively small number of fish species tocatch and of fishery operators, which makes quantitative management a better choice. In fact,many TAC-regulated species are caught by offshore fisheries in Japan. But since it is difficult for
the TAC system to avoid excessive investment under the competitive environment of who catches
the fish first, it is necessary to study a combination of Individual Quota (IQ) or other qualitative
management techniques. It is necessary to review the production capability of the major
resources, the catching capacity of fishing boats, the number of fishing boats and to envisage thefuture of offshore fishing. Obstacles to switching fishing in offshore fisheries include the demandand price of the fish species. For example, the stock of Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus)
increased after the 1990s outnumbering the stock of Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus),
but Japanese anchovy itself is smaller than sardine, quickly deteriorates and is difficult to keep
fresh, therefore making it have a smaller demand than that for sardine. It is thus important to
conduct R&D on application of Japanese anchovy to fish meal or food for cultivated fish, whose
demand is expected to grow in the future, as well as to take other measures in an integrated
manner that involve the processing industry such as fish meal factories.

23

Introduction of new management measures, which may be feasible, should be reviewed to givevarious suggestions to the management of offshore fishing, which has a large catch potential. For
example, as an economic approach, charging the landing of low-priced small fish may be effective.
Individual transferable oil quota (ITOQ), which controls the consumption of fuel by fishing boats,is proposed as a measure for controlling fishing efforts (Yamakawa 2007).
ix. Linkage with the ecosystem and environment
Considering the fact that fishery resources constitute part of the ecosystem, it is necessary to
clarify the policies to manage the impacts of fishery operations on the ecosystem such as marine
pollution, bycatch, and endangerment of species. An example of such policies includes theecological approach to fisheries (Garcia 2010).
The Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is now high on the agenda in international communities.
In Japan selected water areas are protected by institutional efforts including water surface
protection by the Living Aquatic Resources Protection Act and marine park areas as per the
Natural Park Act. Many protected areas are also designated such by local fishers and citizens.
Inherent changes in the ecosystem cause changes in the level of marine resources. Thosechanges are beyond human control. Therefore, it is necessary to promote measures that allow
quick adjustment of fishing pressures and clarify the principle for creating a stable supply offisheries products to the nation. For example, including not only resources recovery but also
the stabilization of the landings could be the target of fisheries policy (indexing of the catchby variation coefficient). It will lead to protection of strong year class, which could eventually
increase the number of spawning adults.
(3) Institutional flexibility
There are various official and conventional restrictions imposed on new entries to the fishingindustry, operation of rights and license quotas, and design of fishing boats and gear. In someplaces, undemocratic or feudalistic restrictions remain. All those institutional restrictions need to
be abolished to the extent appropriate for today’s fisheries industry circumstances. Also, further
improvement of qualification requirements and reinforcement of punishment are necessary.
Such deregulation is expected to promote new technologies for cost-effective and environmentallyfriendly gears, input of new human resources and ideas and expand employment. For example,
measures for regulating fishing pressure include individual quota (IQ), individual transferable
quota (ITQ), individual effort quota (IEQ), individual transferable effort quota (ITEQ), group effort
quota (GEQ) and group transferable effort quota (GTEQ) (OECD 2006). In addition, individual oil
quota (IOQ) and individual transferable oil quota (ITOQ), which are equipped with the capacity topreserve the environment and reduce fuel consumption, are also proposed. To reduce costs somefishery operators have already introduced a “mini-sized fleet operation”. Moreover, as mentioned
previously, it is necessary to develop technologies that realize flexible switching of target species
according to the stock conditions, i.e., such as a “hybrid” fishing gear that combines trawling andpurse seine fishery. Institutional supports (administrative, economic, information, etc.) for these
activities are also effective to stabilize the supply of fisheries products.
However, unlimited deregulation can destroy the spontaneous order born and established throughthe process of survival and selection formed by Japanese fishers over centuries. Eventually,
unlimited deregulation may cause the loss of many advantages of the present fishery systems,

24

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Reportas shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the historical and social backgroundbehind the establishment of the present order, compare the advantages and disadvantages ofmeasures relative to each principle in Fig. 1, and make the appropriate political judgment. To
make contributions to such rational judgment, research in natural sciences and social sciences on
the actual status of Japanese fisheries should be promoted.
(4) Distribution system
What is unique about Japanese fisheries is that small production areas are scattered at various
parts along the coast of the country (in 2003, there are 6291 fishing communities, one for every
5.5 km in average); a variety of fish species intensively land at fishing ports; and the catches, eventhough they belong to the same fish species, vary in size and quality and are used for different
purposes depending on those aspects. Out of the need to efficiently distribute such fish, thetraditional Japanese distribution system for fisheries products has been developed as a two-tiermarket system: “production area markets” at many fisheries production areas, and “consumer
area market” at large cities. A large number of distribution-related people are involved in thissystem.
Traditionally, fishers (producers) are concerning almost solely with catching fish and are lessinterested in their products after they have put their catch into the production area market. On
the other hand, consumers are unaware of product information such as the current fisheries
and resource situation and seasonal products. As a result, producers are unaware of consumer
needs. This structural distortion of the distribution system leads to the malfunction of the pricemechanism. It is necessary to develop efficient distribution systems using current technology.
If property implement, various measures may be effective. For example, to promote an integrated
industry-wide effort people in processing and distribution sectors and representatives of fishingport areas should be involved in the decision-making on resources management. Development of
a new business environment for advanced communication technologies is also required to help
establish a two-way framework ensuring the provision of sufficient information to consumers on
the quality of products (food as well as environmental aspects) and options. Other recommended
efforts include establishing a labeling system that certifies food safety and the developing productsthat are easy to cook or produce no residues or smoke after or during cooking. It is also necessary
to study and promote good ways of fish processing, distribution and consumption presuming thatnatural changes in resources will occur.
(5) Scientific knowledge and monitoring system
Better management requires accurate monitoring of the status of fisheries and the conditionof fishery resources. TAC-based management generally requires scientific infrastructure forresources assessments. Management measures other than TAC are also required to continuously
monitor the conditions of resources and report the results so that measures can be implemented.
Grasping accurate information on the catch, that is, what fish was caught in what area and inwhat quantity, is indispensable for promoting resources assessment and management. The fishingindustry, which uses ecosystem services, should be obligated to account for the sustainability
and rationality of its use. Therefore, maintenance and enhancement of the accuracy of statistics,
improvement of the catch report (assuming it is used for resources assessment), and theintroduction of a vessel monitoring system should be implemented.

25

Resources assessment is not meant to literally calculate ABC; it is best served by accurately
grasping the conditions of resources and suggesting various recommendations for problems andimproving catching from the viewpoints of varying management methods. It is also important
to enable fishers and the general public to understand the significance of resources assessment,
what information is used to make resources assessment and the purpose of resources assessment.
The positive cooperation of the public will contribute to improve resources assessment.
At present, limited scientific knowledge on ecosystem structure and processes inevitably generates
uncertainties regarding prediction of resources dynamics, effects of ABC or the effect of TAC on
fishers and the public. Monitoring and statistic information, which underlies their analysis, is not
yet sufficient in terms of its coverage and accuracy. Therefore, it is necessary to disclose to the
public and stakeholders what the present science can and cannot do. The effects of TAC-based
measures implemented to date and the validity of the Resources Recovery Plans should also be
scientifically verified. Using adaptive management to verify hypotheses is effective to accumulatescientific knowledge. At the same time, adopting preventive measures and employing resilient
management policies that combine various management measures is recommended.
Particularly for resources mainly composed of 0-year and one-year-old fish, uncertainty of theirresources assessment increases. It is important to promote knowledge about the ecology of young
fish and recover the age structure.
As shown by the results of analysis in Section 2.2.3, with the help of synergic effects of themeasures the basic direction explained above is expected to produce highly efficient results.
Extremely high results will be expected particularly for Principle A (Resource and environmental
policy aspect) and C (Industrial and economic policy aspect). These measures alone, however,will not provide sufficient improvement to other principles. It is therefore desirable to implement
measures based on the urgency of specific problems and the people’s demand for fisheries policies.
(6) International management framework
When a resource or an ecosystem covers two or more territorial waters or is located in highseas, there are cases where management framework is not sufficiently operational or where no
management exists. In these cases, it is necessary to urgently build an effective international
management framework. At the moment, many of those sea areas are also involved in territorial
disputes and political judgment is necessary to separate territorial disputes from resources andfisheries management problems. Although a territorial dispute is a zero-sum game and only
brings profits to a single country, resolving overexploitation of resources will bring benefits toall countries involved, making it a win for everyone involved. To this end, the encouragement ofprivate international communication, such as gatherings of fishers from stakeholder countries,
would be effective. At the same time, it is important to pay attention to the consistency between
measures under the international management framework and those in Japan’s EEZ.
An intermediate- and long-range diplomatic strategy for Japan’s national interest in light of the
future feasibility of the common fisheries policies in the Asia-Pacific area should be clarified. Sucha strategy should be referred to in the planning of technical support projects for developing thefisheries field in foreign countries.
(7) Production systems that match the ecosystems and the consumers’ needs

26

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

In the production stage, both the resources conditions and the market conditions tend to direct
fishery operators to specific resources or fishing methods. This may eventually result in various
problems, including the prevention of an effective and balanced use of the productivity of theecosystems, leaving untapped resources underutilized, destabilizing the ecosystem, increasing theextinction risk of some fish species, destabilizing fishing operations and destabilizing fish supply.
Therefore, appropriate interventions and support by the government are required to correct the
distortion of the market and produce incentives to establish fisheries operations matching the
productivity of the fishing grounds and the characteristics of the ecosystem.
On the other hand, the current products distribution system hides the information of the products
after they are once shipped, namely the information on who caught the fish in what way or who
arranged the product and shipped it. Such invisibility prevents food suppliers (fishers) from being
held responsible when a problem occurs. This leads to a more important problem: however hardfishers try to land better products, responses from the consumers provide no feedback to the
producers. Therefore, in conjunction with “Improvement of the distribution system” of (4) above, itis necessary to promote accurate incorporation of consumer needs to production sites by changing
the attitudes of producers towards sales and sanitation. Introduction of a traceability system,
promotion of eco-labeling and encouragement of green purchasing by feeding services for schools,
hospitals and administrative organizations are effective for this aim.
(8) Multi-functions of fisheries and local fishing communities
The role played by the fisheries industry is not simply the provision of fisheries products. It isnecessary to fairly evaluate the industry’s multifaceted function (Science Council of Japan, 2004).
It is necessary to evaluate those roles and provide them with economic support. For example, at
the Shiretoko World Heritage waters, the local fishing industry plays a decisive part in ecosystempreservation (Fisheries Agency 2008). The ecosystem conservation plan at Shiretoko fairly
evaluates the roles of the local fisheries, and this approach is highly regarded by internationalsociety as a new conservation model in a UNESCO World Heritage program (Makino et al.
2009). To deepen the people’s understanding, it would also be effective to, for example, promoteecotourism, use local traditional “fish festivals” as an opportunity to understand and learn themulti-functions of fisheries, and, when a fishing port is constructed, incorporate facilities to usethem for school education.
To communicate with the general public it is necessary to initiate discussions aboutcomprehensive reviews of the usage of national land, food security and environmental issues.
This problem not only relates to people in primary industries but also affects Japanese society as
a whole. Considering the present condition of Japan with a decreasing population, it is irrational
to maintain the number and scale of all fishing communities as they currently are (in 2003, there
are 6291 fishing communities, one for every 5.5 km in average). It is necessary to discuss themeaning of communities being formed in coastal areas and the effects of people living there fromthe viewpoint of national land formation, the history of the formation of such communities andtheir roles toward interregionally balanced growth. Then, it is necessary to promote national
discussion on which fishing communities in which areas should be maintained from the viewpointof the entire national land, while considering the conditions of resources, ecosystems and thesocio-economy.
Furthermore, it is important to secure varying jobs appropriate for each age group to enable
the fishing industry to play active roles in the coming aging society. Many Japanese elderly27

individuals lead an active life in farming and fishing communities, this reduces the amount ofwelfare spending. Whether or not Japanese fishing communities can continue to embrace elderly
people in the future will decide the future success or failure of the efforts to cope with the aging
problem. Communities where elderly people can continue to lead active and meaningful lives willcontribute to a dynamic and secure society (Rural Culture Association Japan 1987). This requires
an infrastructure to meet the living needs of the community residents as basic prerequisites.
Concerted efforts and role-sharing with the relevant government agencies is the key in thisrespect.

2.4 Policy Options and Effects
In the analytical processes in policy science, handling the sense of value is very important. As thefisheries policy, by definition, the resources and the environment policy aspect (Principle A) andthe food security policy aspect (Principle B) in Fig. 1 are very important. In Japan, we understandthere is no major conflict between them regarding value. The problem lies in the industrial/
economic policy (Principle C), the regional/community policy (Principle D) and the cultural/scientific policy (Principle E) aspects. In those areas, the sense of value is highly problematic, suchas who receives what profit (C), to what region the values should be distributed (D) or to what
extent noneconomic values such as cultural diversity or beauty of landscapes should be respected(E). This is something that cannot be solved by a simple scientific analysis, but instead must be amatter of public debate. In addition, what is more important in policy science is that the contentsof efficient measures for realization of Principle A and B change depending on how Principle
C, D and E are weighed. For example, if the regional/community aspect is given high priority,
an efficient approach would be to strengthen the local authorities in ecological conservation or
resource management. If economic (monetary) efficiency is prioritized, market mechanism andthe government’s supplementary policies for avoiding market failure should be utilized to theirfullest. In this situation the social policies for Principle D and E also become indispensable. In
this section, therefore, three policy options for fisheries and resource management in Japan arepresented by reference to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). To stimulate public
discussion, ideal (or somewhat extreme) scenarios are formulated that highlight the differences inpolicies arising from different senses of value.

(1) Global competition scenario: Liberalism scenario focusing on industrial efficiency improvement
This scenario clarifies who does what; that is, the fisheries industry seeks economic profit, andthe government covers the rest of the field in Fig.1. In the scenario, deregulation and competition
are promoted to the extent possible while appropriately considering the advantages of the present
fisheries and the exchange value generated from the industry (monetary value) is maximized.
Subsidies to the industry are abolished, and the industry is requested to shoulder their due
portion of resources management expenses (such as the cost for resource estimation). The
industry’s international competitive power and the employees’ income would be increased, and the
new human resources would be recruited to the fisheries. Management measures such as ITQs,
ITEQs and ITOQs that utilize the market mechanism are compatible to this scenario. However,their introduction is equal to the creation of a kind of property right based on the ecosystemservice; these methods, including their advantages and disadvantages, need be understood by
the public in advance. Also, collection of royalties as an ecosystem service fee (Clark 2006) is
necessary to prevent excessive investment before the introduction of those measures.

28

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Report

The government, as the resource and ecosystem steward, could promptly respond to resources andecosystem fluctuations by setting and changing the TAC or the number of licenses in a top-down
way. The risk of aggravation of fishery operations, which could result from such management
measures, would be totally received by the industry in principle, but swift control of fishingpressure would be able to minimize the risk of resources depletion.
Since the basic rule of corporate activity is maximization of profit (maximization of the profitof the stockholders), corporations are supposed to be less interested in the public good or nonmonetary values. As a result, cultural diversity and diversity in fishing operations/gears would
decrease (Matsuda et al. 2008). In addition, following the economically rational decisions, there
is a possibility of sudden withdrawal of the operation, as well as outflow of the generated wealthto outside of the area which would destabilize the local employment and society. Therefore, itwould be necessary to prevent those problems by the government implement various regulatory
measures and conducting strict surveillance. At the same time, environmental conservation, local/
community maintenance, and stability of food supply should be handled as supplementary policy
measures by the government.
In this scenario, industrial and economic policy measures (Principle C) centering on economic
approaches as shown in Table 4b, would be taken. At the same time other principles would becovered as the social policies by other governmental ministries centering on administrative
approaches.

(2) Ecological mosaic scenario: regionalism scenario for resources and environmental conservation
This scenario is based on a role sharing scheme where coastal fisheries play the broadened role in
the region, including some public roles, and offshore fisheries prioritize industrial efficiency.
Coastal fishing would clarify its accountability for sustainable resource use, ecologicalconservation, and food production depending on the ecological characteristics of each sea area(clarification of its position as an ecosystem service using industry) and play a public roleas the core of a regional community. Deregulation would be implemented to allow the entryof new human resources to play public roles, such as interregional distribution of odd lots,
establishing a system of local consumption of local products or the community currency system,
or autonomous promotion of ecosystem conservation by local people. As a result, a variety ofmanagement measures matching the local ecosystem or culture would be implemented, and theresultant efficiency of protection of non-monetary values. The employment maintenance and local
maintenance is high, while the efficiency of monetary value is low.
For offshore fishing in the Japanese EEZ, the global competition scenario should be the basis, but
it would also be necessary to introduce measures that match the resources and ecosystem of eachwater area to increase the food production as well as enhance the efficiency of the monetary value.
Different from the global competition scenario, responses to the resources fluctuation for fisheries
in the Japanese EEZ would be conducted through cooperation of the fishery industry and theJapanese government. To ensure a stable supply of marine products to the Japanese population,
due consideration would be taken to maintain an appropriate level of fishing operations, andestablishment of an appropriate resources recovery scenario chosen for overfished resources.
Then, closure of fishing and withdrawal from fisheries would be promoted through reduction29

in catch and the number of fishing boats in conjunction with support of fishing operations topartially compensate for the loss of income. The choice would be to aim at the stable supply offisheries products and yet to have the risk of fishery operation deterioration shared among thegovernment and industry. Ultimately, the risk of no recovery of resources would be higher thanthat in the global competition scenario.
In a case where part of the risk of aggravating fishery operations due to resources fluctuations
is compensated for using government funds, it would be necessary to accept accountability andprovide operating data to the fishing, processing and distributing operators in order to establish
scientific and objective criteria.
In this scenario, measures centering on autonomous measures as shown in Table 4b would betaken for coastal fishing to contribute to the Principle A, D, E, while measures centering on
economic measures for principle B, C would be taken for offshore fishing.

(3) National food security scenario: egalitarianism scenario focusing on the public aspects of foodsupplyThis scenario focuses on the social role as a food production sector.
A production system that maximizes the fisheries production through resources management
and environmental preservation are strategically introduced based on the national government’s
scientific research. A certain level of income would be guaranteed to fishers regardless of thecondition of catch through strict pricing policies, such as the collection of a fishing tax or otherprice supporting policies. The food supply industry as a kind of quasi-public official would besecured by the national government. People satisfying certain objective criteria would be entitledto join the fisheries sector, and a fluidity of personnel would be maintained by the introduction ofa retirement system.
For consumers, public funds would be invested to create a safe supply of marine products at stableprices free from the impact of international demand-supply fluctuations. Systematic formation ofcore fishery areas matching the natural conditions and industrial background would be conducted
to maintain the local economy and local culture. At the same time, the data on operations,environmental protection measures and management would be totally disclosed, and monitoringof resources and the environment as well as maintenance of statistic information would be
mandatory for fishers.
Since the incentives for innovation or technical reform would inevitably diminish, it would be
important to maintain and promote the operational efficiency by continuously encouraging
technological development. Separate supplementary measures would also be necessary toaccurately grasp consumer needs.
Responses to resources fluctuations would be the government’s responsibility. For resources thatneed restoration, the catch would be determined through transparent decision-making processes
while considering the stability of the food supply and the speed of resources recovery. The
resultant fishery business risk or decision to reduce the number of fishing boats would be totallycompensated for with public funds. For the time being, public funds expenditure would increase,but self-sufficiency would be greatly improved. In addition, if a long-term rise in international

30

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Reportfood demands is considered, it would become a cost-effective option.
In this scenario, measures focusing on Principle B would be implemented with administrative andjudiciary methods as in Table 4b to be introduced into core measures.

(4) Relative evaluation of policy options
To make a relative evaluation of these policy options, their effect on Principles A through E from
implementation of policy options 1) through 3) above were evaluated by the Study Committee
members on a scale of 1-10 with the present condition set as 5.0. The average evaluation,
arranged in a radar chart, is shown in Fig. 6. As shown in the figure, each scenario has its
advantages and disadvantages. To be specific, great improvement, medium improvement andslight improvement would result from the global competition scenario for Principle C, A and B,
respectively. But serious deterioration would be expected for Principle D and E. For the ecologicalmosaic scenario, all principles A through E would expect medium improvement. In the national
food security scenario, Principle B would enjoy great improvement, while A and D would expect
medium improvement.

Fig. 6 Relative evaluation of the policy options(A. Resource and environmental policy aspect, B. Food policy aspect, C. Industrial and economic policy
aspect, D. Local and community policy aspects, and E. Cultural and scientific policy aspect)31

2.5 Public Demand for Policies as Revealed from the Questionnaire Survey(1) Results of the questionnaire survey
As explained in Section 2.4, the issue of the sense of value is essential for discussing policy
options. This is something that cannot be given a uniform solution from scientific analysis, butrather must be left to public debate and national choice. Therefore, to grasp the public demand forfisheries policies a web-based questionnaire survey was conducted in January 2009. Two thousand
surveys were analyzed.
The survey contains questions on which attributes of those that constitute Principles A throughE, shown in Fig. 1, are the most important and their level of importance. Another question asks
which uses of the waters around Japan are the most important.
For the resources and environmental policy of Principle A, people show a particularly highinterest in A-2 (Harmony with the ecosystem and the environment), shown in Fig. 1. Particularlyhigh rates come from regions where fisheries production is large, such as Hokkaido, Tohoku,
Kyushu and Okinawa. For the food security policy of Principle B, a high interest is shown bothin B-1 (Increase in production and improvement of self sufficiency rate) and B-2 (Security of foodreliability and safety). This trend is equally seen by region and by gender. For the industrial/
economic policy of Principle C, many answers prioritize C-2 (Realization of efficient and stable
operational environment). This trend is higher in the 20-30 year old generation, and no majordifference is seen among regions. For the local/community policy of Principle D, many respondents
prioritized D-3 (Job creation for fishing community people). This trend is higher in older
generations, meaning individuals 50 years of age or older, and becomes lower as age decreases.
By region, the trend is higher in Shikoku, Tohoku, Kyushu and Okinawa. For the cultural policyof Principle E, a high interest is shown for E-1 (Promotion of fisheries and fishing community
culture). This trend is high in Hokkaido, Kyushu, Okinawa and Tohoku, where fisheries
production is high.
For the ranking of importance among the five principles, A through E, the answers that “all ofthem are equally important (cannot rank them)” occupy the majority of the answers in all regions,and the national average also went up to 54.5%. It is therefore speculated that prioritization orweighting of the five principles is not appropriate when policies are selected. Respondents who
answered that prioritization is possible (45.4%) were asked about the ranking, and the resultant
order of importance is A, B, C, D and E in descending order.
Lastly, the questionnaire asked the respondents to choose the important usages of the waters
around Japan (one or two), and 83.3% of all respondents chose “food production by fisheries”;
this response was followed by “generation of energy from tidal power generation or offshore wind
power generation” (54.4%), “transportation” (21.0%), “recreational use” (8.2%), and “creation of
space by land reclamation” (1.9%). The respondents who chose “food production by fisheries” werethe largest group in every region, and the more such respondents, the higher the age.

(2) Considerations for policy options
Based on the above results, three policy options proposed in Section 2.4 are discussed in thisparagraph. The majority of respondents find it inappropriate to prioritize or weigh the five32

The Grand Design of Fisheries and Resources Management in Japan Final Reportprinciples. In light of this, it is logical to think that the ecological mosaic scenario, which showsbalanced improvement for all principles as in Fig. 10, best satisfies the public demand for policies.
For Principle A, considered important among the respondents (45.4%) who said prioritization ispossible, it is logical to conclude that this scenario, which clarifies the position of the fisheries
as an ecosystem service using industry in coastal waters, is very appropriate considering
their high interest in A-2 (harmonization with the ecosystem and environment). This trend ishigher in regions with high fishery production. In the Ecosystem Approach of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the principle 2 suggests that “Management should be decentralized
to the lowest appropriate level” (CBD Decision V/6). This is in line with the theoretical trendof recent environmental policies that effective and equitable governance will be best achieved
when ecosystem service users in each region implement management in a decentralized andautonomous way (Dolsak and Ostrom 2003).
Note that, as described in Section 2.4, the three policy options presented here are theoreticalscenarios that intentionally highlight the differences in the sense of value. Actual policy planningshould fully consider the characteristics of each option, consider public demand for policies indetail, and make the right decision, which may include a practical choice of the middle ground.

33

References
Charles AT (2007) Adaptive co-management for resilient resource systems: some ingredients and theimplications of their absence. In Armtage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) Adaptive co-management.
University of British Columbia Press, 83-104.
Clark CW (2006) The worldwide crisis in fisheries. Cambridge University Press.
Dolsak N, Ostrom E (eds) (2003) The commons in the new millennium. MIT Press.
FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
Fisheries Agency (2008) The Fisheries White Paper.
Fisheries Research Agency (2006) Encyclopedia of Fisheries. Asakura Publishing Co., Ltd. (in Japanese)
Fisheries Research Agency, Fisheries Agency (2007) Evaluation of Fisheries Resources in the Waters around
Japan.
Garcia SM (2010) Governance, Science, and Society: The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, (in RQ Grafton, R
Hilborn, D Squires, M Tait, M Williams, ed.s) Handbook of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
Oxford University Press, 87-98.
Hilborn R (2007) Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy, 31: 153-158.
Katsukawa T, Matsuda H (2003) Simulated effects of target switching on yield and sustainability of fishstocks. Fisheries Research, 60: 515 – 525.
Kawasaki T (1994) A decade of the regime shift of small pelagic: FAO expert consultation (1983) to the
PICES III (1994). Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography, 58: 321-333.
Makino M, Matsuda H, Sakurai Y (2009) Expanding fisheries co-management to ecosystem-based
management, Marine Policy, 33: 207-214.
Matsuda H, Makino M, Kotani K (2008) Optimal fishing policies that maximize sustainable ecosystemservices, (in Tsukamoto K, Kawamura T, Takeuchi T, Beard Jr TD, Kaiser MJ ed.s) Fisheries for
global welfare and environment, TERRAPUB, 359-369.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being, Island Press.
Miyagawa K (1994) Foundation of Policy Science, Toyo Keizai, Inc. (in Japanese)
OECD (2006) Using market mechanisms to manage fisheries: smoothing the path, OECD publishing.
Ruddle K (1987) Administration and conflict management in Japanese coastal fisheries, FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper 273, FAO.
Rural Cultural Association (1987) Principle of Regional Formation, Rural Cultural Association (in Japanese).
Science Council of Japan (2004) About the Content and Evaluation of the Multifaceted Functions of Fisheries
and Fishing Communities Concerning People’s Living (in Japanese).
Suenaga S (2008) Sandfish Resource Co-management in Akita Prefecture, Japan, In Case Studies in
Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504: 191-200.
Tomiyama M, Komatsu T and Makino M (2008) Sandeel Fisheries Governance in Ise Bay, Japan, In Case
Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504: 201-210.
Walters CJ, Hilborn R (1976) Adaptive control of fishing systems. J. Fish Res. Board Can., 33: 145-149.
Walters CJ, Pearse PH (1996) Stock information requirements for quota managements systems incommercial fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6: 21-42.
Yamakawa T (2007) Offshore Fishery Management by Individual Transferable Oil Quota (ITOQ), Fisheries
Economics, 52: 1-20 (in Japanese).
Yamamoto T (1995) Development of a community-based fishery management system in Japan. Marine
Resource Economics, 10:21–34.
Yatsu A (2005) Management of Fishery Resources from the Viewpoint of Resources Assessor -I, Nippon
Suisan Gakkaishi (Journal of JSFS), 71: 854-858 (in Japanese)
Yuki Y, Murayama T (1998) Small Dragnet Fishery in Shimane Prefecture, Fisheries Science Series 118 (inJapanese).
All the old drawings and UKIYOEs are from the archives in the Library and Fisheries Museum, FRA.

34

Purse seiner Hokusyo Maru (photo by JAMARC)

Operation of Hokusho Maru (photo by JAMARC)UKIYOE of people enjoying shellfish gatherings at Tokyo Bay (late Edo era)