ISARIBI NO.44

ISSN1346-2512

JapanFisheries
AssociationNO.44 Feb. 2005
Sankaido Bldg.,
9-13 Akasaka 1, Minato-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 107-0052
tel: 81-3-3585-6683
http//www.suisankai.or.jp

Views and Opinions of Japan’s Fisheries Industry

UN’s DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON SCIENCE
Another threat to the global food security
The JFA newsletter ISARIBI calls for the attention of
the global community to a threat to the global foodsecurity and the rights to fish stipulated in the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
On November 17, 2004, the United Nations adopted
a resolution to encourage prohibition of bottom-trawlingwithout receiving either technical or scientific advice
from the UN’s specialized agency for fisheries, the Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO). Progress on action
taken in response to the Resolution is to be reviewed
within two years and this can develop into closure of
the fishery. This move reminds fishermen of a tragic

movement was then compared to stampede. In theprecedence more 10 years ago.

decision-making process of the regulation of the driftnet

In the early 1990s, more than 40,000 fishermen andfisheries, there was extremely insufficient discussion on

employees of related industry in the world lost their job.

their adverse impacts. The issue of premature discussion

The driftnet used by these fishermen had been demonized

was brought to an inappropriate place to scrutinize thewith the emotional name, ‘curtains of death’ given byquestion of marine biology, the United Nations General

the environmental community The fishermen were simply

Assembly, where the resolution to ban driftnet fisheries

defenseless against this heavily-funded emotional andon the high seas was adopted. This tragedy should neverpolitical campaign. The frenzy of the anti-driftnet

be repeated.

ICFA URGES ALL NATIONS TO REJECTMORATORIUM ON TRAWLING IN THE HIGH SEAS
The Annual Meeting of the International Coalition ofFisheries Associations (ICFA) was held in Honolulu,
Hawaii, November 22-24, 2004. The ICFA discussed
various fisheries issues including the UN resolution on
bottom-trawling and expressed a strong concern on theissue, adopting the following two resolutions.
(ICFA is a non-governmental organization of national fisherytrade groups of the leading fishing nations of the worldfounded in 1988. Its objective is to preserve and maintainthe oceans as a major food source for people of the world.)

ISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992. JFA President: Isao Nakasu;
Editor: Masashi Nishimura; Editorial Assistance: Yoshinari & Associates,Inc.

ISARIBI NO.44

FEBRUARY 2005

ICFA POLICY DIRECTIVE
Regarding the United Nations
General Assembly+Noting the prominent role of the United Nations General
Assembly in fostering international norms and policies in abroad array in policy arenas;
Noting that multiple UN agencies and programs provide
the UN General Assembly with technical information onthese policy arenas; andFurther noting there can be considerable overlap between
and amongst the policy arenas covered by these various+

ICFA therefore:++agencies and programs.

ICFA calls on the UN General Assembly:
To recognize the leadership role of the Food andAgriculture Organization - Department of Fisheries regarding fishery conservation and management matter;
To require that all fishery conservation and management
policy matters be routed through FAO-Fisheries before being
formally considered by the UN General Assembly;
To submit any fishery conservation and management
policy matters that have not been so routed to FAOFisheries for expert comment and analysis prior to being
considered by the UN General Assembly.

ICFA RESOLUTION ON
BOTTOM TRAWLING+++Urges all nations to reject all proposals for amoratorium on trawling in the high seas; andUrges nations to engage in appropriate regional
fisheries arrangements for the high seas thatprovide for the utilization of demersal fish resources
through trawl fishing while ensuring sustainability,
including ensuring that any significant adverse
effects on the aquatic environment are avoided ormitigated.

SCIENTIST’S VIEW Unjustifiable Adoptionof the UN Driftnet Ban
as Bad Precedence
Dr. Uozumi, the author of ‘Are Tunas Endangered,’ partsof which ISARIBI has published in the past, witnesses theunjustifiable process of the adoption of the driftnet ban in
the same book as follows.

Whereas ICFA:+Is disturbed that the recent UN General Assembly
discussion on the issue of trawling in the highseas took place without receiving either technicalor scientific advice from the UN’s specialist agency
for fisheries, the FAO;
Rejects and abhors assertions that trawling is a
“destructive fishing practice”.

Notes that more than 90% of fishing activity takes
place within nation’s Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZs) and that trawling is the major fishing method
used around the world, accounting for more than
60% of production;
Notes that trawling is acknowledged to be asustainable fishing method contributing to global
food supply and security;
Notes lobbying of UN member states byenvironmental NGOs in support of a moratorium
on bottom trawling on the high seas;
Disputes these NGOs unsubstantiated andunscientific claims that trawling, particularly on
sea mounts, destroys benthic biodiversity;In the latter half of the 1980s, when the high seas driftnet
fisheries were under intensive attack from environmental
protection organizations, the forces that opposed
driftnet fisheries frequently resorted to the term
“Precautionary Principle.” Under this principle, theyasserted that the driftnet operations should be suspended
until such time when non-existence of the impact of theincidental catch on marine mammals, seabirds and marine
turtles can be demonstrated.
The problem of incidental catch had been far more serious
in driftnet operations taking place in the coastal areas within
exclusive economic zones than in the offshore area in thehigh seas. This fact had been utterly ignored and thePage 2

ISARIBI NO.44

FEBRUARY 2005

argument had focused on the high seas driftnet fisheries.
Furthermore, such an unreasonable demand was forced
despite the full recognition that if driftnet fisheries had been
fully suspended it would become virtually impossible toassess the impact of incidental catches in the driftnet
fisheries.
And this mounting voice prompted the passage of a U.N.
resolution on the prohibition of driftnet fisheries on thehigh seas, causing elimination of high seas driftnet fisheriesin less than only three years since the issue was first raised.
The consequences of the prohibition forced as many as
600 fishing vessels and 40,000 people related to driftnet
fisheries in Japan alone to undergo severe hardships. Thisapplication of the “Precautionary Principle” for the ban ofhigh seas driftnet fisheries later came under fierce criticism
from legal experts from Canada and other countries.

JAPANESE INDUSTRY LEADER EXPOSES SINISTERMOTIVATION FOR UN RESOLUTION
Proposed Ban on High Seas Trawling without Scientific Basis
Kunio Yonezawa, President of the Japan Deep Sea Trawlers Association, expresses his resentment to the UN resolution
on bottom-trawling and its advocates as follows.

On November 17, 2004,the General Assembly of theUnited Nations adopted Resolution A/RES/59/
25 calling for urgent action, including
consideration of an interim prohibition, to prevent adverse
impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems beyond national
jurisdiction by destructive fishing practices, including
bottom trawling. This resolution is reminiscent of theseries of three resolutions (44-225,45-197,and 46-215)
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly beginningin 1989 proposing a worldwide moratorium on all high seas
drift net fishing that was to be in effect by December 1992.
However the present resolution distinguishes itself fromits infamous predecessors in that it includes two qualifiers;
namely, that the issue be considered “on a case-by-casebasis” and “on a scientific basis.”
Obviously, these two qualifiers, included at the last stageof the draft negotiations, do not alleviate concerns that theintention of the original sponsor of the resolution (CostaRica) and its fiery advocates, the same anti-fishing NGOs
that were behind the drift net resolutions, is nothing shortof a total ban on high seas bottom trawling and that thecurrent resolution is not the end of the matter. This isbecause the same paragraph of the resolution that refers toconsideration “on a case-by-case basis” and “on a scientificbasis” also refers to application of the much abused“precautionary approach” and because a further paragraphin the resolution agrees to a review of progress on action
taken within two years “with a view to furtherrecommendations.”

The real intention of these NGOs is also demonstrated by
the fact that the IUCN World Conservation Congress, heldin Bangkok in November 2004, adopted a resolution urging
the United Nations General Assembly to declare an
immediate moratorium on high seas bottom trawling. That
resolution had been proposed by 11 NGOs and Costa Rica.
But, there is more sinister motivation for the resolution
related to the increasing demands of NGOs for participationin the management of high seas fisheries resources. Calls
for the establishment of high seas marine protected areas
and bans on fishing activities in international fora whereNGOs have participatory rights gives NGOs an increasing
say in world governance at the expense of the sovereign
rights of States provided for under the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. By calling for theA driftnet fishing vessel being scrapped, a victim ofenvironmental movement

Page 3

ISARIBI NO.44
establishment of new
internationalorganizations and new
Matters coninternationallaws, thecerning fisheries
current resolution is partshould be dealtof that process.
with by the FAO
Why, for example,and RFMOs.
does the current
resolution confine itself
to the high seas, whenalmost all trawling activities are taking place in waters undernational jurisdiction? It is a fact that there is virtually nobottom trawling on the high seas except in such localized
areas as the Flemish Cap in the Northwest Atlantic regulated
under the NAFO Convention or specific areas in theSouthern Oceans under the CCAMLR. And there is little
prospect of further development of these fisheries becauseof the topographic and oceanographic features of the highseas. In other words, the substance of the resolution is not
the important point. The important point is that NGOs areachieving their objective: increased involvement in thegovernance of ocean resources.
In the 1980s, environmental NGOs lobbied hard for theimplementation of the ban on drift nets with advertisements
referring to drift nets as “curtains of death” and managed
to make drift net fishing a political issue by misusing scienceand abusing the precautionary principle. The same tactic isFEBRUARY 2005
now being applied to the issue of deep sea trawling. Just as
there was no scientific evidence that drift net bycatches
were having a negative effect on the populations of fish,sea birds or marine mammals caught in the driftnets, there isno scientific evidence to demonstrate the sweeping
statement in the resolution that bottom trawling is a
“Destructive fishing practice.” The strategy of those
opposed to fishing is clear.
They have bypassed the FAO and regional fisheries
management organizations with competence on mattersconcerning fisheries management and science and instead,used the highest political institution of the United Nations
system.
No one would argue that fisheries harvesting practices
should be sustainable and that management can beimproved. Much effort and considerable resources are being
expended at the national and intergovernmental level toachieve these objectives through scientific research
programs and, among other things, implementation of theUN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Committee onFisheries’ “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries”(UNFAO 1995). Fishing is a major food security issue forJapan and the major supplier of protein to much of thedeveloping world. The increasing trend towards banning
fisheries on the basis of exaggerated claims of resource
depletion and destruction of fisheries habitat is therefore aserious concern.

ABUSE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
PRECAUTIONARY
Finally ISARIBI reminds readers of the precautionary
principle, which served as a logical foundation for adoption of the driftnet ban, briefly reexamines the justification
for its application to the ban, and cautions against future
abuse of the principle.
The precautionary principle that is most commonly
quoted can be found in ‘Agenda 21’ adopted in 1992 at
the Rio Earth Summit as follows: “Where there are threatsof serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.”
Was the application of the precautionary principle
legitimate? The introduced measure was hardly costeffective. At least 40,000 fishermen lost their jobs and 600vessels were scrapped. In the adoption of the driftnet ban,what was lacking was not full scientific certainty but
fundamental scientific verification of the effects of thedriftnet fisheries. Naturally, therefore, it remains extremely
doubtful that there were threats of serious or irreversible
damage to the marine ecosystem. As far as irreversibilityof damage is concerned, what is clear is that driftnet
fisheries on the high seas, one of the rational means toutilize renewable marine living resources, were irreversiblyeradicated. The lives of fishermen, as well as those of theirwives and children, who had been engaged in their callingwith self-esteem were irreversibly affected or disturbed in
the name of environmentalism.
It is the wish of ISARIBI that the global community learns
from this mistake and the UN prudently handles futureissues of conservation and management of marine livingresources.

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