95

The Ecosystem Approach of the CBD and
Fisheries Management in Japan
Mitsutaku MAKINONational Research Institute of Fisheries Science, Fisheries Research Agency,
2-12-4 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-8684, Japane-mail: mmakino@fra.affrc.go.jp

Abstract
The Ecosystem Approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a social and holistic
decision-making framework for ecosystem management. It links biological, social and economic information and aims to achieve a socially acceptable balance between nature conservation priorities and theuse and sharing of benefits of resource. This article introduces this approach’s conceptual background as
an alternative to conventional environmental policy concepts. Then, it examines institutional characteristics of Japanese fisheries management from the viewpoint of the Ecosystem Approach. The objective of the analysis is to define the advantages and shortcomings of Japanese fisheries management, andto derive logical foundations for policy responses necessary to achieve marine ecosystem managementin Japan.
As an environmental management institution, the Japanese fisheries management system has many
advantages such as a decentralized management system, adaptive management process, use of local andscientific knowledge, multi-scale and interlinked management and promotion of sustainable resource
use in economic context. On the other hand, conservation of ecosystem structures and functions falls
basically beyond the scope of this management. Progress in scientific understanding should bepromoted in order to achieve marine ecosystem management. Discussions should also be facilitated ofappropriate characteristics of rights and licenses, ecosystem perspectives in formulating TAC and TAE,
and the role of fisheries in marine ecosystem management. Also required will be wide-ranging
stakeholder involvement, a watershed management viewpoint, identification of ecologically necessarydata, development of long-term ecosystem indicators, and role-sharing in data collection and monitoring.
The ‘term Marine Protected Area (MPA)’ is not synonymous with ‘no-take zone.’ An economically andecologically meaningful MPA system can be devised and should be implemented where necessary.
Key words: Ecosystem Approach, environmental policy, fisheries management, institution, Japan.

1. Introduction: CBD and the Ecosystem
Approach
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) isthe first global agreement on the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity. It was adopted
in June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Riode Janeiro, along with the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, theDeclaration of Forest Principles, and the Agenda 21.
The CBD set out a commitment for maintaining
the world’s ecological underpinnings as economic
development proceeds, and established three main
goals: (1) the conservation of biodiversity, (2) sustainable use of the components of biodiversity, and (3)sharing the benefits arising from the commercial andGlobal Environmental Research9(2)/2005:95-104
printed in Japanother utilization of genetic resources in a fair andequitable way (UNEP CBD, 1992). In order to deliver
these goals, the Ecosystem Approach was adopted as
the primary framework for action (decision II/8), andwas defined as ‘a strategy for management of land,
water and living resources that promotes conservationand sustainable use in an equitable way.’ It is based on
the application of appropriate scientific methodologies
focused on levels of biological organization which
encompass the essential processes, functions andinteractions among organisms and their environment.
It also recognizes that humans, with their cultural
diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.
Decision V/6 endorsed the description of twelve
principles of the Ecosystem Approach and five operational guidelines for application of the approach(Table 1).
©2005 AIRIES96

M. MAKINO

Table 1 Principles and operational guidance of the Ecosystem
Approach (from UNEP CBD, 2000; Smith & Maltby,
2003).
Principle 1.

The objectives of management of land, waterand living resources are a matter of societal
choice.
Principle 2. Management should be decentralized to thelowest appropriate level.
Principle 3. Ecosystem managers should consider theeffects (actual or potential) of their activities on
adjacent and other ecosystems.
Principle 4. Recognizing potential gains from management,
there is usually a need to understand andmanage the ecosystem in an economic context.
Any such ecosystem-management programmeshould:a) Reduce those market distortions thatadversely affect biological diversity;b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use;c) Internalize costs and benefits in the given
ecosystem to the extent feasible.
Principle 5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystemservices, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.
Principle 6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limitsof their functioning.
Principle 7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken
at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
Principle 8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales andlag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management
should be set for the long term.
Principle 9. Management must recognize that change isinevitable.
Principle 10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of,conservation and use of biological diversity.
Principle 11. The ecosystem approach should consider all
forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
Principle 12. The ecosystem approach should involve all
relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.
Five Points of Operational Guidance
1. Focus on the functional relationships and processes
within ecosystems.
2. Enhance benefit sharing.
3. Use adaptive management practices.
4. Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate
for the issue being addressed, with decentralisation to
lowest level, as appropriate.
5. Ensure intersectional cooperation.

This article focuses on the Ecosystem Approach of
the CBD, and introduces its conceptual background.
Then institutional characteristics of Japanese fisheries
management are examined from the viewpoint of the
Ecosystem Approach. The objective of the analysis is
to define the advantages and shortcomings of Japanesefisheries management, and to derive logical foundations for policy responses necessary to achieve marine
ecosystem management. There are several previous
works, as cited in section 3, which deal with the institutional features of Japanese fisheries management

system, but this article is the first study which deals
with the ecosystem management of fisheries resources
and the relationship between the Ecosystem approachof the CBD.

2. The Ecosystem Approach as an Alternative to Conventional Environmental
PolicyThis section briefly introduces a shift in the world
environmental policy since 1972, and presents thecharacteristics of the Ecosystem Approach and theprocess of its international application to marine
policy.
Human beings have long been aware of theiradverse impacts on ecosystems and have been taking
measures to combat these problems. In 1972, as thefirst global conference on environmental issues, theUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm. One of the core issues of
the conference was environmental destruction andpollution caused by industrialization and urbanization.
In the process of the discussions, however, there were
sharp divisions elicited between the developed countries, who were emphasizing on environmental degradation caused by developmental activities, and thedeveloping countries who wished to eradicate domestic poverty and starvation through industrializationand development. With regard to this situation, theWorld Commission on Environment and Development,
also known as the Brundtland Commission, publisheda report of their four-year discussions; ‘Our Common
Future,’ in 1987. They presented the idea of ‘sustainable development;’ meaning ‘development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own needs,’
in other words, development not antagonistic to environmental conservation, but essential to satisfy humanneeds and improve the quality of the environment andhuman life. The point is that development must be
based on the efficient and environmentally responsible
use of all of society’s scarce resources-natural, human,and economic.
During these decades, concurrently, there was ashift in the world’s environmental issues and awareness, that the issues to be tackled were not limited to
local, specific pollution or destruction with relatively
apparent stakeholders (i.e., polluters and victims), butwere broader in scope, including global environmental
deterioration with a wide range of stakeholders, suchas global warming and biodiversity losses. This paradigm shift in environmental issues (Matsushita, 2002)
inevitably led to a fundamental change in environmental policy ideas, that is, from regulatory policies
such as setting environmental standard or constructions of preservation area, to integrated and holisticsocial strategies aiming for wise use and conservationof society’s scarce resources. The CBD and otherglobal environmental conventions and declarations

The Ecosysytem Approach of the CBD and Fisheries Management in Japan

adopted at UNCED in 1992 were an offshoot of thistrend.
When it comes to wildlife issues, the traditional
approaches as found, for example, in the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) of 1973 or the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 1975, are basically species-specific or sectoral approaches, in which interactions among ecosystem components including humanactivities are not taken into account. As a consequenceof international trends in environmental policy concepts as summarized above, ecosystem management
has attracted wide attention as a way to redeem theseshortcomings. Ecosystem management is defined as
management driven by explicit goals, executed according to policies, protocols, and practices, and madeadaptable through monitoring and research based on
our best understanding of the ecological interactions
and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem structureand function (Christensen et al., 1996). It is worth
noting that ecosystem management is not only about
the sustainability of ecosystem structures and processes necessary to deliver goods and services. It also
includes concepts such as the conservation of biodiversity, sustained yield of multiple resources and ecosystem health (Salwasser, 1994; Washitani, 1998).
The Ecosystem Approach of the CBD has many
aspects in common with ecosystem management. It is
not a set of guidelines tailored to the management
needs of various ecosystem types. In fact, the Ecosystem Approach under the CBD is a framework forholistic decision-making and action which links biological, social and economic information and aims toachieve a socially acceptable balance between nature
conservation priorities and the use and the sharing of
the benefits of resources (Smith & Maltby, 2003).
Therefore, in addition to the bottom line for managing
ecosystems, such as Principles 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, it also
highlights socio-economic factors. It firmly recognizes people as an integral component of ecosystems
and puts them at the center of management, and engages the widest range of sectoral interests via a participatory approach and decentralized institutionalframework (Principles 1, 2, and 12). In addition, it
takes adaptive measures to deal with uncertainty(Principle 9), and lays emphasis upon the economic
context such as through incentive measures in an
appropriate way (Principles 4, 10). In doing so, allkinds of information from scientific, administrative,
local and indigenous levels are considered (Principle11), and social investment to empower these actors ishighly encouraged. To sum it up, the Ecosystem
Approach is not a replacement, but an extension of
conventional species/area-specific management practices, and can be understood as a new environmental
policy framework to achieve ecosystem management.
Although the development of the ecosystem concept in environmental conservation is still in its infancy, there are several global conventions, agree-97

ments and mandates which specifically deal with its
application to marine ecosystems. The first global
convention that adapted the ecosystem concept toocean management was the 1980 Convention on theConservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR). Ch.17 of Agenda 21 also deals withmarine ecosystems and recognizes integrated coastalzone management (ICZM) as one of the most effective
tools. ICZM is defined as ‘a mechanism for bringing
together the multiplicity of users, stakeholders, anddecision-makers in the coastal zone in order to secure
more effective ecosystem management whilst achieving economic development and intra- and intergenerational equity through the application of sustainability principles’ (the Ramsar Convention, 2002).
Although there are several similar terminologies suchas integrated marine and coastal area management(IMCAM), integrated coastal management (ICM), or
integrated coastal area management (ICAM), they are
all based upon almost the same idea. To sum it up, theICZM and other approaches such as IMCAM, ICAM
or ICM, are social strategies to achieve marine ecosystem management and are recognized as the mosteffective tools for implementing the CBD (AID Environment, 2004).
Other major international documents relating tomarine ecosystem management include the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) of 1982, FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries and Kyoto Declaration at theConference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security of 1995, Jakarta Mandate on
Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity in 1995, andJohannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, to list a few (FAO, 2003;
Hanna, 2003). Based on the above, Wang (2004) concluded that, at that point in time, the obligation to adhere to ecosystem management of the marine environment and resources had been established in international law.

3. Institutional Features of Fisheries
Management in Japan
Marine fisheries are industry which uses marine
ecosystem services. Therefore, the sustainability of thefisheries industry is ultimately dependent upon thesustainability of marine ecosystems. Consequently,
fisheries management and marine ecosystem management must be, by nature, inextricably linked. Based on
this recognition, this section introduces the institutional features of Japanese fisheries management. Thisis then examined, in the next section, from the viewpoint of the Ecosystem Approach of the CBD. Notethat this paper primarily focuses attention on marine
fisheries management, but the basic logic is also applicable to inland freshwater fisheries management.
Marine fisheries are classified into three categories

98

M. MAKINO

in Japan: (1) fishing rights for coastal fisheries; (2)fishing licenses for offshore and distant water fisheries; and (3) free fisheries. Fishing rights are classified,in turn, as (1a) common fishing rights granted to Fishing Cooperative Associations (FCAs, explained later),(1b) large-scale set-net fishing rights, preferentiallygranted to FCAs, and (1c) aquaculture (demarcated)fishing rights (Kaneda, 1995; JIFRS, 2004). Although
the expiration period is fixed in law, fishing rights are
regarded as real rights, and the provisions of the territorial rights law are applied mutatis mutandis. However, they do not include the right to privatize the sea
surface into portions. Fishing rights are rather similar
to use rights in their attributions, i.e., the right to conduct fishery operations exclusively in specified areas
by specified methods. Fishery licenses, on the other
hand, are not real rights, but taking the large capital
investments of the license holders into account, they
are also strongly protected under the law.
The fundamental concept of fishery managementin Japan is ‘the holistic utilization of the sea surfaces’
by resource users themselves, as stated in the Section
1 of the current Fishery Law of 1949. Under this concept, the wide range of fishing operations conductedwithin an area are to be arranged and coordinated withthe overall impact of usage in mind, and not simply
from the viewpoint of each individual economic unit.
As a result, various levels and scales of coordinatingorganizations have been created to act as instruments
to facilitate holistic fisheries coordination; these include the Fishery Policy Council at the national level,
Wide-Area Fisheries Coordinating Committees(WFCCs) at the multi-jurisdictional level, Area Fishery Coordinating Committees (AFCCs) at the prefectural level, and local Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) at the local level.
In addition to these formal coordinating organizations, a number of new operational ideas have beendeveloped since the late 1970s, largely on the initiative of fishermen. These developments include theinstitution of what is known as Resource Management-type Fisheries, or ‘Shigen Kanri-gata Gyogyo.’More specifically, in order to maintain and improvetheir incomes, as well as to sustain resources, autonomous bodies of local fishermen known as ‘Fishery
Management Organizations’ (FMOs) have initiatedvarious management measures. FMOs are often
formed by a group of fishermen within an FCA. According to the biological nature of the target species,
FMOs are sometimes organized by members fromseveral neighboring FCAs, or even by members of
FCAs from several prefectures (Hasegawa et al.,
1992; FAO, 1993) (Table 2).
Within such a framework, the principal decision-makers with regard to management are the local
fishermen. The Fishery Law provides a framework forfishery management through a system of fishing rights
and licenses. In order to achieve holistic utilization ofocean surfaces, these coordinating organizations havebeen granted wide-ranging authority and power. For
example, the AFCCs, which consist mainly of local
fishermen, may determine allocation of, and restrict
applications for fishing rights and licenses by meansof their Fishery Ground Plan and Committee Directions. A variety of fishing restrictions have been stipulated by Prefectural Fishery Coordinating Regulations,
FCA regulations, and FMO rules. Prefectural Fishery
Coordinating Regulations broadly stipulate fishing
restrictions, and these regulations apply throughout
the prefecture. FCA regulations stipulate fishing
restrictions in more detail, and these are applicable
only locally. In particular, FCA regulations consider
the restrictions set out in the Prefectural Fishery
Coordinating Regulations and make additions to them.
Similarly, the FMO rules constitute a further refinement of the FCA regulations. Therefore, the resource
conservation is an integral part of the resource use by
local fishermen. In other words, the exercise of full
fishery rights and licenses is restrained by inherent
legal requirements for resource conservation (Makino,
2001; 2002).
The government also plays a vital role in fisheryresource management. In fact, the co-management
literature makes it clear that neither local fishermen,
nor the organizations to which they belong, can function efficiently without government cooperation or

Table 2 Coordinating organizations in Japan (for more detail, see Makino & Matsuda, 2005)
Level
National Level

Organizaion
Fishery Policy Council

Function
The advisory body to the government for national level fisherycoordination, design of national fishery policy, etc.

Multijurisdictional Wide-Area Fisheries Coordinating
Level
Committees (WFCCs)

Coordination of resource use and management of highly migratory
species. Also addresses Resource Restoration Plans.

Prefectural Level

Area Fishery Coordinating
Committees (AFCCs)

Mainly composed of democratically elected fishermen. Coordination
through the Fishery Ground Plan, Prefectural Fishery Coordinating
Regulations, and Committee Directions.

Local Level

Local Fisheries Cooperative
Associations (local FCAs)

Composed of local fishermen. They esablish operational regulations(FCA regulations) that stipulate gear restrictions, seasonal/area closuresof fishing grounds, etc.

More Specialized
Purposes

Fishery Management
Organizations (FMOs)

Autonomous bodies of fishermen. FMO rules are more detailed andstricter than FCA regulations.

The Ecosysytem Approach of the CBD and Fisheries Management in Japan

intervention (Pomeroy & Berks, 1997; Dolsak &Ostrom, 2003). Such is the case also for the Japaneseinstitutional framework. For example, the prefectural
fisheries division is responsible for the issuance andrenewal of fishing rights and licenses, and bases its
decisions on advice from the AFCC. Scientific information or administrative guidelines presented by theprefecture often form the basis for the regulations andrules devised by local fishermen. Furthermore, the‘Resource Management Agreement System’ in the
Marine Fisheries Resource Development Promotion
Law of 1971 legislatively encouraged autonomous
fisheries management among fishermen. When a local
agreement between fishermen prevails at a certain
level within the area, the government can affirm theagreement, and then it becomes an official rule. Therefore, it constitutes an official support system forautonomous resource management by the fishermen.
Also, in relation to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, the ‘Law Regarding Preservationand Management of Living Marine Resources’ wasenacted in 1996. With this law, a total allowable catch(TAC) and a total allowable effort (TAE) system wereintroduced. Based on advice from the Fishery Policy
Council or WFCCs, the central government sets TAC
and TAE, and controls total fishing pressures. However, the allocation of quotas and the determination ofaccess rules are basically the responsibility offishermen’s organizations.
In short, Japanese fisheries management is adecentralized co-management between local fishermen and the government, rather than compulsory,
top-down regulation by the government, or a market-oriented management based on property rights andtheir efficient utilization by economically rational resource users. The transaction costs for fisheries management, which constitute the strongest counterargument for top-down management systems, are also
shared between the government and the local
fishermen. Makino and Matsuda (2005) analyzed acase in Kanagawa Prefecture, and found that the transaction costs, especially the monitoring, enforcement
and compliance costs, were remarkably low (about
0.6 % of production).
Given the above, is the Japanese fisheries management framework capable of playing a role in marine
ecosystem management? Can fishing rights andlicenses be consistently adjusted to be included into
the ICZM? Alternatively, is it fundamentally inconsistent with ecosystem management? Sakuma (1995)
noted that Japanese fisheries management can beunderstood as a case of decentralized environmental
management in the sense that it involves flexible
response by the local people as one of the parties incharge who autonomously and voluntarily participate
in the decision-making process. Also, based on therecognition that the local fishermen are one of the central interested parties in establishing coastal use prioritization, Nakayama (1994) purported that environ-99

mental duties and obligations should accompany fishing rights. Accordingly, if the Japanese institutional
system has a potential to extend its scope to ecosystemmanagement, how should it be revised or adjusted? In
the next section, the institutional characteristics ofJapanese fisheries management as an environmental
management system are examined from the viewpointof the Ecosystem Approach of the CBD.

4. Examination from the Viewpoint of the
Ecosystem Approach
In this section, an analytical framework is appliedconsisting of six interconnected themes provided by
the UNEP CBD (2003) in order to deepen the discussion and understanding of the CBD’s Ecosystem
Approach; these are, (1) provision of environmental
goods and services (what is being managed within
ecosystems and for what purpose?); (2) building consensus (who will undertake the management?); (3)providing incentives for management (what are the
incentives for management?); (4) balancing conservation and use of biotic resources (how can different
management objectives be reconciled and integrated?); (5) cross-scale integration (how best to integrate management across multiple scales of interaction and response?); and (6) building adaptive capacity (how best to develop the capacity to initiate, learn
from and thereby sustain activities?).
4.1 Provision of environmental goods and services(Principle 5)
Marine fisheries are industry which uses marine
ecosystem services. Consequently, the conservation,
use and management of fisheries resources take placein an ecosystem context. These activities have potentially consequences in terms of changes in the structure and functioning of the marine ecosystem of which
the fisheries resources are part. This can affect the
production of goods and services, either positively or
negatively. Whether such impacts arise, and with what
effects, depends greatly on the particular structure of
the ecosystem concerned, the nature of the linkages
among its components and the resulting processes andfunctions.
The main focus of Japanese fisheries management
has been on target species, especially highly valued
ones, and it has not paid much attention to the ecosystem context, per se. The reason simply relates to theprincipal aim of the current fishery law enacted
shortly after World War II, that is, to develop fisheries
productivity in order to cope with domestic foodshortages and to improve the economic status offishermen actually engaged in fishing operations(Makino & Matsuda, 2005). However, in the Fisheries
Basic Policy Plan of 1999, it is clearly stated that ecosystem conservation is a prerequisite for fisheries
management. Also, Article 2 of the Basic Law on
Fisheries Policy of 2001 recognizes that fisheries

100

M. MAKINO

resources are a component of the marine ecosystem,
and require conservation. Therefore, in recent years,
ecosystem management has become an important policy task in Japanese fisheries administration.
In order to achieve marine ecosystem management,
first of all, scientific understanding should be facilitated with regard to the relationship and interactions
between target resources and ecosystem, the impact offishing operations on the ecosystem, and effective
measures for its conservation. For example, Matsuda
and Abrams’ multi-trophic food web model (in printing) shows that simple yield or profit maximization
may lead to extinction of a significant fraction of thespecies. Therefore, in order to conserve the ecosystem
structure of the system, there will be a need for institutions to coordinate decision-making between fisheries
targeting prey species and that targeting predator species, based on monitoring results of the ecosystem
structure in concern.
To sum up the above, there are no institutions forconservation of the marine ecosystem structure andfunctioning under current Japanese fisheries management. Progress should be facilitated in scientificunderstanding of the interrelationship between fishingactivities and marine ecosystems. Then, appropriate
institutional frameworks should be installed to achievemarine ecosystem management.
4.2 Building consensus (Principles 1, 11, 12)
Human society is diverse in the kind and mannerof relationships that different groups have with thenatural world, each viewing the world around them in
different ways and emphasizing their own economic,
cultural and societal interests and needs. In addition,
fisheries are a food providing industry and have a particularly important social role in terms of the foodsecurity of Japan. Hence, determination of the ways ofuse or conservation objectives of marine ecosystems
inevitably becomes a highly social issue. Therefore,
the objectives of marine ecosystem management
should be a societal choice (Principle 1). In this regard,
marine resource users and local communities are especially important stakeholders, as they live on the resource and can more directly affect its future. Theirrights and interests have to be appropriately recognized and incorporated into management planning. At
the same time, the involvement of all relevant stakeholders and technical expertise in planning and carrying out joint activities, sharing management resources,
is essential for effective management. (Principle 12).
Indeed, fisheries have long been the central industry in many coastal communities, and hence, fisheries
coordination has had a lot in common with local social
needs for the use of marine ecosystems. However,there are no other interests taken into account in thisdecision-making process. For example, recreational
angler’s interests are relatively important around urban areas, but there is no official institution for the
inclusion of their interests into fisheries management.

There is a broad range of users in marine ecosystems. This means there are varieties of interests related to marine ecosystems, such as non-use value forcitizens, or afflux of land-oriented pollutants or nutrients through material circulation. Also, the availabilityof the fishery resources as a bequest to future generations, or their potential to provide new goods such as
pharmaceuticals can have value as options. In order totake these all into account, the viewpoint of watershedmanagement is needed, and a decision-making systemshould be devised which transparently reflects all the
relevant stakeholders’ interests. This system can beestablished as an extension of the current fisheries
coordinating organization by incorporating various
stakeholders into the organization, or separately established with the fisheries industry as a constituent.
There are specific marine ecosystem functions andstructures in each geographical and seasonal condition.
They are actually infinite in variety. The local fishermen and their organizations have a lot of explicit andtacit knowledge of the local area which has accumulated for generations. As explained in the last section,
fishery management in Japan has been conducted by
local fishermen themselves. Therefore, the local
knowledge cultivated by local fishermen should be
utilized in ecosystem management (Principle 11).
Daily catch data are also an important source of ecosystem information. However, information provided
by local fishermen is not sufficient to achieve the conservation of ecosystem functions and structures.
Therefore, as a first step, priorities for additional information or data necessary for ecosystem management should be identified from a scientific point ofview. Subsequently, a role-sharing scheme should be
devised for data collection and monitoring among
local fishermen, the government and other citizens.
4.3 Providing incentives for management(Principle 4)
Marine ecosystems provide economically valuable
goods and services, thus predicating the need tounderstand and manage ecosystems in an economic
context (Principle 4). In that sense, organization of
local fishermen as resource managers provides an
incentive to manage the resource effectively so as to
cut associated costs or gain additional benefits fromenhanced ecosystem services. Indeed, in Japan, there
have been traditional activities which can be appraised
from the ecosystem point of view. For example, insome coastal areas, fishermen have voluntarily planted
sea grasses, and established coastal nursery grounds
and protected areas. Some others have afforested upper stream hills. These activities have long history,
and are worthy of remark and research. However, they
are motivated mainly by potential effects to the target
species which directly relate to the concerned ecosystem. In other words, these activities could be understood as ‘fishery ground conservations,’ and conducted in economic contexts.

The Ecosysytem Approach of the CBD and Fisheries Management in Japan

There are several advantageous features of theJapanese institution with regard to promoting ecosystem management in line with Principle 4. Legally protected rights / licenses mean high security of theirinterests. This high security can then lead to an economic motive for sustainable use of the area which
they are coordinating, because the incentive to conserve the long-term ecosystem health of that area may
be higher than, for example, individual transferable
quotas (ITQs) that are defined for each target resource
per se (Dolsak & Ostrom, 2003). This difference inthe characteristics of interests, i.e., area-based andtarget resource-based, may be more influential under
uncertainty, where permit rights such as ITQs are
redefined as new information becomes available, anddecreases the security of rights, which then reduces
economic motivation for long-term decision making.
Therefore, in Japan, if a proposed ecosystem management plan can demonstrate economic benefit for thefishermen, then they will be willing to play a positiverole using their knowledge and abilities.
In addition to these incentives at the production
stage, distribution stage-oriented incentives such as
Marine Stewardship Council programs (Izawa &Makino, 2005) are now being introduced into Japan,
and expected to be an additional measure to reduce
adverse effects on ecosystems. In sum, Japanese fishery management has a potential to expand its scope toecosystem management in line with the Principle 4.
However, the high rate of fishing gear depreciationand very high uncertainty in fishery income will raisethe discount rate, and the future term considered byeach fisherman during the decision-making process
tends to be relatively short. Negative externalities
from other fisheries operations as well as
land-oriented pollutants and recreational fishing may
complicate the situation. In order to resolve thistime-scale inconsistency in decision-making, reference to long-term performance indicators (section 4.5)
and adaptive attitudes in decision-making (section 4.6)
are important.
4.4 Balancing conservation and use of biotic
resources (Principles 6, 10)
Principle 10, the appropriate balance between conservation and use, is the very same concept of resource-management type fisheries as presented in thelast section. But its main scope is, again, limited toeconomically valuable species. Economic incentives
are critical and must be fully utilized for efficient conservation, but the scope of management should bebroadened to include ecosystem structures and functions to the extent feasible. Likewise, limits to theirfunctioning (Principle 6) are deeply acknowledged infisheries management as far as the target resources areconcerned. The TAC or TAE system is a formal institution to keep fisheries pressures within the limits.
The task is to incorporate ecosystem perspectives into
TAC/TAE formulating protocols.

101

As may be necessary, a system of marine protectedareas (MPAs) may be one of the most effective measures to ensure the conservation of marine ecosystems.
Within a system of MPAs, a range of measures can beapplied along a continuum from ecosystems that arestrictly protected, through mixed resource-use systems,of which ecosystem conservation and sustainable useare both part, to areas that have been wholly utilizedby human activities including fisheries.
Note that, the term ‘MPAs’ does not necessarilymean ‘no-take zones’. No-take zones are just one formof the MPA system. In fact, they can range from small
closed areas or harvest refugia designated to protect a
specific resource or habitat type, to extensive multiple-use MPA areas that integrate the management ofmany species, habitats and uses in a single, comprehensive plan (Agardy et al., 2003). Misunderstandingsof the meaning of MPA often lead to negative reactions, especially where local communities sense thatsomething is being taken away from them in order topreserve endangered species or ecosystems. As
Sanchirico and Wilen (2001) implied by their metapopulation bioeconomic model, according to thenature and price of the resource and the level of its
overexploitation, an appropriately designed system of
MPAs can improve both fishery income and ecosystem health. Therefore, a system of MPAs is notantagonistic to fisheries operations, but can be understood as an ecosystem-based resource enhancement
system which enables multiple and responsible use of
ecosystem services, including fishery operations.
The limits of ecosystems are not static but mayvary across sites, through time, and in relation to past
circumstances and events. There is considerable uncertainty and ignorance about the actual limits (thresholds for change) in different ecosystems. The impactof the MPAs is also uncertain and difficult to predict.
The externalities raised from other sectors add more
complexity. Under such circumstances, management,
whether for conservation or planned sustainable resource use, should be adaptive and flexible (seesection 4.6).
4.5 Cross-scale integration (Principles 2, 3, 7, 8)
Principle 2 states that natural resource management is best carried out at the level of the resource
production system. This is a variation of the subsidiarity principle, which states that higher-tier authorities
should not assume functions that can be carried out
more appropriately by lower-tier associations; or,alternatively, problems are best resolved at the level oforganization at which they occur. This principle is inline with the current trend towards increasing devolution of responsibility for natural resource management
to local institutions, on the grounds of greater efficiency, effectiveness and equity (UNEP CBD, 2003).
As described in section 4, the basic concept ofJapanese fisheries management is that of resource
management by resource users themselves. Therefore,

102

M. MAKINO

the challenge is to incorporate ecosystem viewpoints
into the management system on an ecologically meaningful scale of area and time.
Scale, however, is a serious matter in ecosystemmanagement (Principles 7, 8). How the components
are perceived to be arranged spatially depends partly
on the scale of observation. There is no single level oforganization at which to understand and best manage
ecosystem functioning. Each level-genetic, population,
species, community or landscape-is important or
irrelevant, depending on the nature and scale of the
problem being addressed and on the perspective andaims of the managers.
Likewise with time: an one time scale (e.g.
monthly, annually) a component or process may appear to exhibit constant periodicity; an another, longer
or shorter time scale, the temporal dynamics may appear to be episodic or chaotic (unpredictable). In addition, ecosystems are not closed systems (Principle 3).
They are largely open, connected to other systems
through the flow of energy, matter and information,and the movement of organisms. In order to cope withthese scale problems, effective management institutions should be devised at multiple levels that are connected (McGinnins & Ostrom, 1996).
In Japanese fisheries management, there are various levels of management organizations from the local
community level to the national level, as shown in
Table 2. In particular, in order to surpass jurisdictionalboundaries, FMOs are organized by members fromseveral prefectures according to the biological natureof the target species. Therefore, the Japanese management system has the potential to cope with geological-scale problems. However, again, the current system mainly focuses on the target species. For example,
in regard to Principle 3, nearly 80 species are being
artificially propagated and released along Japanese sea
coasts in order to enhance fisheries resources (JIFRS,
2004), but the potential effects on adjacent and otherecosystem are now under investigation.
As for time-scale problems, fishermen tend to follow short-term incentives. Political interests have alsotendency to be a few years in length. Hence, someinstitutional arrangements should be delivered to guarantee long-term conservational objectives. In order toresolve this time-scale inconsistency in decisionmaking, performance indicators which summarize
data on complex environmental issues to indicate theoverall status and trends of marine ecosystems would
be a useful tool. Competitive fisheries operations
based on economic incentives should be utilized aslong as these long-term performance indicators arewithin scientifically and transparently determined
ranges. The TAC / TAE system in Japan can be understood as one form of ceiling limit in current fisheries
management, but the ecosystem perspective is notincluded, and the decision-making formula is nottransparent enough for the moment.

4.6 Building adaptive capacity (Principle 9)
Change in ecosystems is both natural and inevitable. Ecosystems change, with regard to species composition, population abundance and human- resource
interactions. Hence, management should adapt to thechanges. Building the flexibility and capacity to adapt
to new situations is critical for success of the management.
In Japanese fisheries management, in which local
fishermen are the principal decision-makers, any management decisions can be changed according to information gained via daily operations. In other words,
there is some flexibility in management decisionmaking. In addition, the local FCAs or FMOs offices
are used as capacity building and information centers
for management. Hence, Japanese fisheries management is potentially capable of adaptive decisionmaking.
For example, one of the most successful cases ofadaptive resource management in Japan was the trawling fishery conducted off Kyoto Prefecture. Two kindsof management measures were in place there: voluntary restraint in fishery operations and a no-take zone
constructed at public expense. In both cases, asmall-scale trial was implemented before full expansion. Based on the information from daily fisheryoperations during the trial period, local fishermenagreed on expansion of each measure. Makino (2004)
modeled this sequential decision-making process under a real options framework, and empirically showedthat adaptive strategies can decrease considerably economic risks for fishermen, and hence can bring benefits to both fisheries and the government.
The future task is to develop infrastructure for datacollection and monitoring, in which local fishermen
and their organizations should play an important role,and to incorporate ecosystem perspectives into theseadaptive decision-making processes.

5. Conclusion
There are more than 200,000 fishermen operating
all along the coasts/offshore of Japan, and they live
directly on marine ecosystems. Fishing rights andlicenses have played a central role in the prioritizationof resource use. Their knowledge of the local seas has
accumulated for generations, and should be fully utilized along with scientific knowledge for ecosystemmanagement. This article points out that, from theviewpoint of the Ecosystem Approach of the CBD,
Japanese fisheries management has many advantages
such as a decentralized management system, adaptive
management process, use of local and scientificknowledge, multi-scale and interlinked management,
and promotion of sustainable resource use in an economic context.
Thus, what modifications and upgrading should bemade to the Japanese fisheries system in order toachieve marine ecosystem management? Based on theThe Ecosysytem Approach of the CBD and Fisheries Management in Japan

results in the last section, key issues to be tackled aresummarized as follows.
Firstly, as repeated many times, the fundamental
weakness is the lack of concern for the impact offisheries operations on marine ecosystems. This is themost crucial issue for Japanese fisheries management.
Progress should be facilitated in scientific understanding of ecosystems’ structure, function and processes,
and consistent institutional reform should be carriedout. However, in the process of reform, full consideration must be given to institutional contexts and background of Japanese fisheries management. We cannot
transfer an institutional design that worked well at one
place to another place and expect to repeat the success.
The unique characteristics of fishing rights/licenses
and coordination systems in Japan may logically be
conductive to a different ecosystem management
framework from, for example, that of the Iceland,
where Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) are thecentral policy tool. Therefore, what is required is careful examination of the appropriate nature of the fishing rights/licenses, and deliberate discussions of therole of the fisheries industry in marine ecosystemmanagement. The formulating protocols for TAC andTAE can also include ecosystem perspectives.
Secondly, the scope of coordination or stakeholder
participation is limited to the fisheries sector only, andno other marine ecosystem users are included in thedecision-making process. An appropriate coordinating
system corresponding to the material-circulation
within a watershed should be established along with
the necessary legal framework. What also needs to beseriously considered is a transparent decision-making
procedure which reconciles and integrates the wide
range of management objectives.
Thirdly, the adaptive management is needed inorder to deal with uncertainty. As mentioned in section
4.6, adaptive management can be an economicallyrational and efficient strategy for both resource users
and the government. The first step toward expansion
to adaptive ecosystem management is to identify priorities for necessary information, then determine therole which fishermen can additionally take on anddevelop supplementary data gathering and monitoring
systems to fill the gap. Also, measurable management
indicators of the overall status and long-term trends ofthe ecosystems need to be developed and continuously
referred to.
Fourthly, marine protected area systems can be oneof the most effective tools for marine ecosystem management. Note that ‘MPA’ is not a synonym for‘no-take zone’. Economically and ecologically meaningful MPA systems can be devised, and should be
introduced where necessary.
Table 3 summarizes the institutional advantages,
shortcomings and necessary policy measures for Japanese fisheries management.
Several issues in the Japanese institutional framework merit recognition and discussion. In fact, there103

are many structural defects in Japanese fisheries management. For example, autonomous decision-making
by local fishermen could sometimes leads to inflexibility or reclusiveness. For example, vested interests
may be overprotected or egalitarianism pressure may
prevent efficient use of the resource. Local organizations may also prove to be unwilling to introduce newtechnologies, thereby retarding technical progress. A
decentralized approach is not a versatile prescription.
In addition, coordination by local fishermen is vital tothe current institutional framework, but it inevitably
becomes very complex and locally specific. Sometimes fishermen cannot play their expected roles ascoordinators.
By the same token, the advantages listed in Table 3
do not hold in every area in Japan. They are just general descriptions of the Japanese institutional potentialities. At successful sites, there are peculiar andsite-specific conditions which enable the full realization of the institutional potentials. For example, in thecase of the trawling fishery presented in section 4.6,
very active information exchange has continued
Table 3 Institutional advantages and shortcomings of Japanese fisheries management assessed by the Ecosystem Approach of the CBD.
Institutional Advantages- Decentralized management systems by local resource
users.
- Use of local and scientific knowledge for management.
- Multi-scale and interlinked coordinating organizations.
- Adaptive management process based on daily fisheryoperations.
- Promotion of sustainable resource use in an economic
context.
Shortcomings and necessary policy measures- Ecosystem perspectives: progress in scientific knowledge should be facilitated. Careful examination of appropriate nature of fishing rights/licenses and deliberate
discussion of the role of the fishery industry in marine
ecosystem management is required. The formulating
protocols of TAC and TAE can also include ecosystemperspectives.
- Stakeholder involvement: new institutions should be
introduced to allow a wide range of stakeholders to be
involved in a transparent decision-making process. The
viewpoint of watershed management is also important.
- Data collection and monitoring: identification of priorities in ecologically necessary data, and role-sharing indata collection and monitoring should be established.
- Indicators: Development and reference to long-term
indicators should be promoted. Fisheries can becompetitively operated within the allowable ranges of
the indicators.
- Use of MPA systems: MPAs are not a synonym for
no-take zones, but can be understood as an ecosystembased resource enhancement system which enables
multiple and responsible use of ecosystem services
including fishery operations. Economically and ecologically meaningful systems of MPA can be devised andshould be installed where necessary.

104

M. MAKINO

among local fishermen, the local research station, andprefectural governmental officials. This is a form ofcross-sectoral communication in Japanese fisheries
management. In addition, long cross-generational acquaintances among fishermen operating in the area are
one of the most important factors in building a relationship of mutual trust and a high compliance ratewith regard to management measures. Therefore, in
addition to the institutional framework analyzed inthis article, the capacities, functions and relationshipsof the people concerned should constitute the very
core of marine ecosystem management.
References
Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater, M.P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R.
Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Murray, J.E.
Parks and L. Peau (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
13(4): 353-67.
AID Environment (2004) Integrated Marine and Coastal Area
Management (IMCAM) approaches for implementing theConvention on Biologica Diversity. (CBD Technical Series
No.14).
Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C.
D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F.
Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner and R.G.
Woodmansee (1996) The report of the Ecological Society ofAmerica Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem
Management. Ecological Application 6:665-691.
Dolsak, N. and E. Ostrom (2003) The Challenges of the Commons. In: N. Dolsak and E. Ostrom, eds., The Commons in
the New Millennium,MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp.3-34.
FAO (1993) Report of the FAO/Japan Expert Consultation on
the Development of Community-Based Coastal Fishery
Management Systems for Asia and the Pacific. FAO Fisheries Report 474.
FAO (2003) The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4, Suppl. 2.
Hanna, S. (2003) Transition in the American Fishing Commons: Management Problems and Institutional Design Challenges. In: N. Dolsak and E. Ostrom, eds., The Commons in
the New Millennium,MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp.61-76.
Hasegawa, A., H. Miyazawa and T. Yamamoto (1992) Anoverview of Japanese Fisheries Management Systems
Developed under the Initiative of Fishermen. In: T.
Yamamoto, K. and Short, eds., International Perspectives on
Fisheries Management, National Federation of Fisheries
Cooperative Associations, Tokyo, pp.102-126.
Izawa, A. and M. Makino (2005) MSC Certification and Its
Implementation for Japan’s Fisheries – Its Role and Issues–.
Global Environmental Research 9(2): (151-156)
Japan International Fisheries Research Society: JIFRS (2004)
Japan and Her Fisheries, Overseas Fishery Cooperation

Foundation, Tokyo.
Kaneda, Y. (1995) Fisheries and Fishing Methods of Japan.
Seizando, Tokyo.
Makino, M. (2001) Study on the Legislative History of Fishery
Rights Reform after the W.W.2nd., Social Systems, 4: 61-76.
(in Japanese)
Makino, M. (2002) Legal Characteristics of Fishery Rights, andPleasure Fishing: Case of the Ieshima Affair. Journal of
Regional Fisheries, 42(2): 25-42. (in Japanese)
Makino, M. (2004) Using Real Options to Estimate a Benefit of
the Adaptive Resource Management. Proceedings of theInternational Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade(IIFET) 2004.
Makino, M. and H. Matsuda (2005) Co-Management in Japanese Coastal Fishery: Its Institutional Features and Transaction Cost. Marine Policy 29: 441-450.
Matsuda, H. and P.A. Abrams (2005) Maximal Yields from
Multi-species Fisheries systems: Rules for Systems with
Multiple Trophic Levels. Ecological Applications. (in press)
Matsushita, K. (2002) Environmental Governance. Iwanami
Shoten, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
McGinnins, M. and E. Ostrom (1996) Design Principles for
Local and Global Commons. In: O. Younng, ed., The Innternational Political economy and International Institutions Vol
2, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 465-493.
Nakayama, M. (1994) Resource Management by Fisheries
Rights, and Environmental Rights. Kagawa Law Review
13(4): 439-512. (in Japanese)
Pomeroy, R.S. and F. Berks (1997) Two to tango: the role ofgovernment in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21:
465-480.
Ramsar Convention (2002) resolution VIII/4, Appendix 1.
Sakuma, Y.(1995) Intersections of Regional Environmental
Management and Fisheries Management. Journal of Northern Japan Fisheries Economics 23: 97-104. (in Japanese)
Salwasser, H. (1994) Ecosystem management: can it sustain
diversity and productivity? Journal of Forestry 92(8): 6-10.
Sanchirico, J.N. and J.E. Wilen (2001) A Bioeconomic Modelof Marine Reserve Creation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42: 257-276.
Smith, R.D. and E. Maltby (2003) Using the Ecosystem
Approach to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity: Key Issues and Case Studies (Ecosystem Management
Series No.2). IUCN, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity.
UNEP CBD (2000) Decisions adopted by the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Fifth
Meeting, UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23.
UNEP CBD (2003) Review of the Principles of the Ecosystem
Approach and Suggestions for Refinement: A Framework for
Discussion, UNEP/CBD/EM-EA/1/3.
Wang, H. (2004) Ecosystem Management and Its Application
to Large Marine Ecosystems: Science, Law and Politics.
Ocean Development and International Law 35: 41-74.
Washitani, I. (1998) Adaptive Management in the Ecosystem
Management. Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology 3:
145-166.

(Received 30 June 2005, Accepted 30 September 2005)