Institutional and Economic Analysis of Japanese Fisheries ... · tance of uncertainty in typical types of fisheries in Ja-pan. Several models from coastal and offshore fisher-ies

AGri-Bioscience Monographs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–24 (2017) www.terrapub.co.jp/onlinemonographs/agbm/

Received on March 31, 2014Accepted on April 29, 2015Online published on

February 28, 2017

Keywords• economic model• ecosystem conservation• fisheries management• institution• uncertainty• UNESCO World Natural

Heritage

© 2017 TERRAPUB, Tokyo. All rights reserved.doi:10.5047/agbm.2017.00701.0001

proach. The objective of this assessment is to identifythe institutional advantages and challenges of expand-ing Japanese fisheries management to encompass eco-system conservation. Then, as a case study, I apply theresults to the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage areato assess its Marine Management Plan and AdaptationPlan for Climate Change (Section 5).

2. Institutional analysis of fisheries managementin Japan

2-1. Institutional history and its international fea-tures

The Japanese people have been fish-eaters for thou-sands of years. As the abundant and diverse shellmounds all over the Japanese peninsula demonstrate,permanent fishing and shellfish-gathering settlementshad been established by the middle and late phases ofthe Jomon Period (10,000 to 300 BC). In the YayoiPeriod (300 BC to 300 AD) there were specialized andlarger-scale fisheries (Ruddle 1987).

The first legal provision relating to fisheries opera-tion is found in the Yoro Code (718 AD), which waspromulgated in order to build a centralized governmentemulating the administrative framework of China’s

AbstractHere, I first summarize the history of Japanese fisheries institutions and their social andecological background. I then use the results to introduce empirical economic models tosupport decision-making in the face of uncertainty. Ecosystem conservation is among themost urgent issues affecting the future of fisheries management. On the basis of the Eco-system Approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity, I identify the institutionaladvantages and challenges for Japanese fisheries management systems. As a case study, Iexplain the Marine Management Plan and Adaptation Strategy for Climate Change in theShiretoko World Natural Heritage area.

Institutional and Economic Analysis of JapaneseFisheries Management and Its Expansion intoMarine Ecosystem Conservation

Mitsutaku Makino

Fisheries Research AgencyJapane-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction

The Japanese people have used fisheries resourcesfor a long time, and today seafood is still very impor-tant in Japanese food culture. It reflects the variety ofJapanese marine ecosystems, from the sub-arctic inHokkaido to the tropical in Okinawa. Throughout his-tory, the Japanese people have tried hard to utilize fish-eries resources in sustainable ways. The next sectiongives a historical overview of Japanese fisheries insti-tutions from the 8th century until now. I believe thatthe fisheries institutions in any area or country reflectthe inter-relationship between society and marine eco-systems. Therefore, in the latter part of Section 2, byusing statistics, I discuss the social and ecological fea-tures behind Japanese fisheries institutions. I thenbriefly introduce economic studies to show the impor-tance of uncertainty in typical types of fisheries in Ja-pan. Several models from coastal and offshore fisher-ies are presented (Section 3).

Ecosystem conservation is one of the most urgentissues affecting the sustainability of Japanese fisher-ies and food culture. In Section 4, I briefly introducethe Ecosystem Approach of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity (CBD). I then assess Japanese fish-eries management on the basis of the ecosystem ap-

2 M. Makino / AGri-Biosci. Monogr. 7: 1–24, 2017

doi:10.5047/agbm.2017.00701.0001 © 2017 TERRAPUB, Tokyo. All rights reserved.

Tang dynasty (618 to 907 AD). In this provision, re-source use of mountains, rivers, bushes, bogs, andcoasts was basically open to all and free from levies(in contrast to the terrestrial farmland situation, inwhich specific land-users were identified and levieswere imposed by the central government). In otherwords, these areas were for common use and weremanaged by local users themselves (Makino andMatsuda 2005). This basic idea was passed down to,and adopted by, successive rulers. Table 1 summarizesthe history of Japanese fisheries institutions.

Under such principles, community members whosatisfied certain local criteria (e.g., place of residence,assignation of community duties, amount of tax paid)were entitled to engage in fisheries activities (Ninohei1978). The role of the community—effectively an au-tonomous management body of fishers—constitutedthe basis for subsequent present-day Fisheries Coop-erative Associations (FCAs).

There have been at least two important events in therecent history of Japanese fisheries institutions. Thefirst was modernization (by introduction of the Euro-pean legal system) after the Meiji revolution of 1868,and the second was fisheries reform under occupationby the Allied Powers after the end of World War II in1945.

In 1853, Commodore Perry of the United States ar-rived in Japan, bringing an end to the country’s na-tional seclusion policy of more than 200 years. The

feudal era (Tokugawa Dynasty) was ended in 1868 bythe Meiji revolution, and the new government radicallyreformed the whole national institutional framework.The constitution and all the laws and administrativesystems were replaced by European-style ones.

During this reform, the government declared nation-alization of the seas, introducing a centralized fishinglicense system in 1875 (Ninohei 1978). This consti-tuted a top-down system of rent for the use of nation-alized sea areas. In this system, each fisher was ex-pected to maximize his benefit within the limitationsand regulations set by the central government. This wasa completely new arrangement for Japanese fishers, andmany individuals who had not previously fished suc-cessfully applied for licenses. Seven years later, an-nual real fisheries production had tripled (Akiyama1960).

From these facts, we can deduce several points aboutfisheries management under the feudal system before1874. First, the recruitment of large numbers of newfishers from 1875 onward implies that fisheries haduntil then been recognized as a “good business” or a“last resort”. Second, the observed dramatic growth infisheries production meant that, in the feudal era, fish-ing pressure had been well controlled and resourceswere above certain levels. Finally, this rapid increasein fishing effort after the reform could easily have ledto overfishing.

Presumably as a result of overfishing, the sharp rise

Period Fishing areas Institutional framework

Up to the Edo era(-1603)

The marine areas were for common use, and managed by local users themselves.

Early Edo era(1603-about 1700)

Coastal areas Communities controlled the areas, and were responsible for establishing appropriaterules governing the use of these areas.

Offshore Basically open access. Anyone could operate, regardless of the location of the homecommunity.

Later Edo era(about 1700-1868)

Coastal areas Development of labor-intensive and capitalized fisheries. A few wealthy fishermenmonopolized fishing operations.

Offshore Large-scale fisheries operators established their own guilds and made rules, protectedby feudal lords.

Modernization period(1868-1901)

The government tried to introduce a top-down fishery management system, but the scheme failed.There was a return to the customary arrangement in which local fishermen controlled and managedlocal fishing operations.

Meiji Fishery Law(1901-1949)

Coastal areas Fishing rights, as exclusive real rights, were granted to both Fisheries Societies

Offshore Fishing licenses were issued to individuals or juridical persons.

Present Fishery Law(1949-)

Coastal area Fishing rights, as limited real rights, are granted to both Fisheries Cooperative

Offshore Fishing licenses are issued to individuals or juridical persons.

Table 1. Historical changes of Japanese fisheries institutions (modified from Makino 2013).

M. Makino / AGri-Biosci. Monogr. 7: 1–24, 2017 3


in fisheries production following the institutional re-forms turned out to be a temporary phenomenon, andharvest levels soon dropped. Because many more fish-ers had been recruited under the new system, wide-spread conflict emerged and many people were killed.To deal with this chaotic situation, the Bureau of Fish-eries of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerceenacted the Fishermen’s Union Regulation in 1886, bywhich fishers were encouraged to establish local fish-ers’ unions in each village. This regulation was the firstformal recognition of fishers’ organizations that couldoperate as management authorities (Hirasawa et al.1992).

In summary, the introduction of top-down fisherymanagement had failed, and formal institutions re-turned to the customary arrangement by which localfishers controlled and managed fishing operationsthemselves.

Then, in 1901, the Meiji Fishery Law was enacted(amended in 1910). This law put fishing rights and li-censes, for the first time, in statutory form. Fishingrights were granted to both Fisheries Societies (i.e.,local fishers’ organizations) and individuals. Therewere four categories: (1) set-net fishing rights; (2) spe-cific fishing rights for beach seines, boat seines, etc.;(3) aquaculture rights for oysters, pearls, etc.; and (4)exclusive fishing rights (Yamamoto 1995). These fish-ing rights operated as property rights. Especially afterthe 1910 amendment, fishing rights became exclusive,real rights that could be sold, leased, transferred, orcollateralized. This naturally led to the concentrationof fishing rights in the hands of money lenders (manyof whom were merchants or middlemen), who effec-tively acted as landlords controlling coastal areas.Many fishers without fishing rights were exploited by

absentee owners of rights.The second important event in the recent history of

fisheries institutions came at the end of World War II.The Allied Occupation brought dramatic and sweep-ing institutional changes to Japan, including the adop-tion of a new constitution. The General Headquartersof the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers re-quested the reform of fisheries institutions in a demo-cratic manner, and the current Fishery Law was en-acted in 1949. Under this law, marine fisheries rightswere classified into three categories: (1) fishing rightsfor coastal fisheries; (2) fishing licenses for offshoreand distant water fisheries; and (3) free fisheries.Coastal fishing rights were classified, in turn, as 1(a)common fishing rights (only for Fisheries CooperativeAssociations); 1(b) large-scale set-net fishing rights;and 1(c) aquaculture (demarcated) fishing rights(Makino and Matsuda 2005; Makino 2011a).

According to official documents made available in1963 (Fisheries Agency 1963), the principal aims ofthis fisheries reform under the Allied Powers were todevelop fisheries productivity in order to cope with thedomestic food shortage and to improve the economicstatus of fishers actually engaged in fishing operations.In order to achieve these goals, the concept of “holis-tic fisheries coordination” was introduced into the cur-rent Fishery Law of 1949. This term refers to the ar-rangement and coordination of various fishing opera-tions within a certain area from an overall perspective,not simply from the viewpoint of each economic unit.Therefore, various levels and scales of coordinatingorganization have been instituted in a nested mannerto coordinate cross-scale issues and maximize the ho-listic benefits (Table 2).

In addition to these formal coordinating organiza-

Level Organizations Functions

National Fishery Policy Council The advisory body to the government for national level fisherycoordination, design of national fishery policy, internationalissues, etc.

Multi-jurisdictional Wide-area Fisheries CoordinatingCommittees (WFCCs)

Coordination of resource use and management of highly migratoryspecies. Also addresses resource recovery plans.

Prefectural Area Fisheries CoordinatingCommittees (AFFCs)

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

Local Fisheries CooperativeAssociations (FCAs)

Composed of local fishermen. They establish operationalregulations (FCA regulations) that stipulate gear restrictions,seasonal/area closures of fishing grounds, etc.

More specialized Fishery ManagementOrganizations (FMOs)

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

Table 2. Cascade system of the coordinating organizations in Japan (modified from Makino and Matsuda 2005).



tions, local fishers organize Fishery Management Or-ganizations (FMOs). According to the Fisheries Cen-sus (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries2010), an FMO is a group satisfying the following fourconditions: 1) is composed of more than one fisher; 2)implements autonomous management measures; 3) hasformulated written rules; and 4) is closely affiliated

with FCAs. An FMO is often formed by a group offishers within an FCA. Sometimes, FMOs are organ-ized by fishers from several neighboring FCAs or evenfrom FCAs from several prefectures.

Therefore, in the current fisheries managementframework, local fishers themselves manage fishingoperations, subject to resource and ecosystem condi-

Country or area name Fisheries production by volume(tonnes)*

Total number of fishers** Per-fisher production(tonnes/fisher)***

China 17,190,201 1,286,799 0.1Peru 8,178,363 65,290 120.7USA 4,959,275 290,000 20.5Indonesia 4,639,326 4,649,153 1.0Chile 4,593,475 75,367 84.5Japan 4,440,150 278,200 26.6India 3,680,819 5,958,744 0.8Russia 3,241,117 n.a. n.a.Thailand 2,824,466 438,934 8.0Norway 2,649,158 22,916 149.3Philippines 2,197,587 990,872 2.8Viet Nam 1,885,598 3,030,000 0.5Iceland 1,789,424 6,300 353.8Republic of Korea 1,666,571 180,649 18.1Myanmar 1,590,768 580,962 1.4Mexico 1,362,649 258,850 6.1Malaysia 1,285,864 100,666 12.4Bangladesh 1,240,546 1,320,480 1.0Canada 1,120,344 84,775 13.1Denmark 1,069,481 4,792 359.7Chinese Taipei 1,028,689 297,523 n.a.Argentina 986,820 12,320 104.8Morocco 934,065 96,708 8.2Spain 878,002 75,434 18.8South Africa 798,481 10,500 52.3Brazil 748,663 290,000 2.2United Kingdom 654,503 19,044 51.8France 653,596 26,113 35.6Faroe Islands 586,950 2,761 127.4Namibia 579,760 2,700 99.4New Zealand 540,382 2,227 325.9Turkey 516,896 33,614 19.4Nigeria 499,395 481,264 0.9Netherlands 499,299 3,711 148.2Venezuela 489,487 39,621 12.7Pakistan 485,791 416,405 1.5Senegal 423,009 51,197 9.9Egypt 394,985 61,977 7.4Cambodia 388,571 73,425 1.6Ghana 384,018 230,749 2.1

Average 2,101,914 560,283 58.2

Table 3. Profile of the fisheries sector in the top 40 production countries in the world (modified from Makino and Matsuda2011).

*The average production volume (tonnes) for 2002 to 2006 by FAO FISHSTAT.**Based on the total employment in FAO (1999).***The production data is from FAO FISHSTAT of the year when the employment data was collected in FAO (1999).



tions in their areas. There have been several recentamendments and further items of legislation relatingto fisheries management and resource management.These include the “Resource Management AgreementSystem” (1990), “Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Sys-tem” (1996), “Total Allowable Effort (TAE) System”(2001), and “Resource Recovery Plan” (2001). Formore details, see Makino (2011a).

2-2. Natural and social background

In the previous sub-section, I briefly reviewed theinstitutional features of Japanese fisheries manage-ment. In this sub-section, by using international com-parisons, I discuss the social and ecological reasonsfor the development of this type of fisheries manage-ment system in Japan.

Table 3 shows fisheries production volumes, totalnumbers of fishers, and per-fisher production in thetop 40 fisheries countries (Makino and Matsuda 2011).Per-fisher production is very high in Iceland, NewZealand, Denmark, and The Netherlands. It is also highin Norway, the Faroe Islands, Peru, and Argentina(>100 t/fisher). On the other hand, production in all ofthe fisheries countries in the Asia-Pacific area, includ-ing Japan, is well below the average. This means thatfisheries operations in the Asia-Pacific region are con-ducted on a small scale.

Figure 1 shows the diversity of fish taxa caught, ascalculated by using the diversity index H¢, by OECDcountries over the period 2002–2006. The data are ar-ranged by capital city latitude. H¢ was calculated byusing the Shannon function (MacArthur and MacArthur1961) on the basis of FAO FISHSTAT data. Because

Fig. 1. Diversity of species harvested in OECD countries using the Shannon function (source: FAO FISHSTAT).



the details of fisheries statistics reported to FAO de-pend largely on the domestic statistical system used ineach country, only the OECD countries are compared.The figure shows that that the mid- to low-latitudecountries utilize a wider range of species than do thoseat higher latitudes. This can be understood as reflect-ing the higher biodiversity in these lower-latitude ar-eas.

Figure 2 shows the importance of seafood to nationalfood policy. It shows the percentage of seafood as asource of animal protein in the top 40 fisheries coun-tries. The Asia-Pacific countries, including Japan, havegreater reliance on seafood than on other sources ofanimal protein.

Finally, Fig. 3 shows the average number of marinefishers per kilometer of coastline, as of 1997. Peopleliving along the coast are the most direct stakeholdersin, and recipients of, marine ecosystem services (UNEPCBD 2000). Therefore, this figure suggests that the

Asia-Pacific region is rich in potential human re-sources, and local people can potentially play an im-portant role in local fisheries management.

The above comparisons reveal many social and eco-logical factors that are common to Japan and Asia-Pa-cific countries. Table 4 summarizes the comparisons.

Japan and other Asia-Pacific countries have largenumbers of small-scale fishers operating in their coastalareas. Also, these countries are located in the mid- tolow latitudes and therefore have a high diversity ofmarine species. These two facts mean that Top-downCommand and Control management is too costly forthe government to implement. Therefore, organizationsof local fishers, along with inter-scale coordinatingsystems (Fig. 2), can function effectively as bodies forlocal fisheries management, wherein the managementcost and authority are shared by the government andthe fishers. Also, seafood is very important from a foodsecurity perspective, and small-scale fishers are there-

Fig. 2. Percentage of seafood as a source of animal protein in the top 40 fisheries production countries (modified from Makinoand Matsuda 2011).



fore very important to domestic seafood supply andfood culture. From these perspectives, I strongly be-lieve that the Japanese fisheries management systemis a good reference for Asia-Pacific countries.

3. Economic analysis to support fisheries manage-ment in Japan

3-1. Cases from coastal fisheries

In the previous section, I discussed the institutionalfeatures of Japanese fisheries management. The keyprinciple is “resource management by local resourceusers.” So what kind of economic analysis should weconduct in order to help local resource users to imple-ment better management? What is the role of scien-tists in supporting autonomous fisheries managementby local fishers? This section briefly gives examples

of such works.First, science should theoretically summarize and

categorize the management measures to be imple-mented by local resource users. Then, fishers can pickand choose the most feasible measures for their fisher-ies operations. Table 5 is an example of such a sum-mary, namely the “Fisheries Management Tool Box”developed by the Fisheries Research Agency (2009)of Japan. It categorizes a total of 78 management meas-ures, and it plots target-based categories in the leftcolumn and approach-based categories in the top row.This Fisheries Management Tool Box is now appliedto several coastal fisheries FMOs in Japan.

From the Fisheries Management Tool Box, local fish-ers can select the best combination of managementmeasures according to their gear type and the biologi-cal and economic characteristics of the target species.The selection will also be influenced by the human and

Fig. 3. Average number of marine fishers per km of coastline in the top 40 fisheries production countries (source: FAO 1999;CIA 1997).



financial resources to be allocated to management ofthe target species. FMOs in coastal fisheries tend tolack such resources. Therefore, scientific estimationof management effects is essential for initiating dis-cussions regarding the autonomous management ofcoastal fisheries. To meet this need, Makino (2011b)constructed a model under uncertainty based on thebioeconomics proposed by Clark (1990) and simulatedthe effectiveness of the various management measuresin Table 5 in sea cucumber fisheries. Figures 4(a) to(d) gives examples of a 20-year simulation, calculat-ing changes in profits, resource levels, harvest volumes,and post-fishing-season resource levels.

3-2. Cases from offshore fisheries

A large degree of uncertainty is one of the funda-mental features of fisheries resource management.Therefore, in order to deal with uncertainties in fisher-ies management, the important task for science is todevelop adaptive decision-making guidelines for re-source users. One example of such work can be foundin the work of Makino (2004) which applied analyti-cal tools in financial engineering (real options analy-ses) to a bottom-trawling fishery (Fig. 5).

Another example from the offshore fisheries is theTAC (total allowable catch) system. In Japan, a TAChas been set for chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus)since 1997, but resource recruitment fluctuates fromyear to year. Therefore, protection of the strong-yearclasses is very important to increase resource levels.Makino and Mitani (2010) simulated the effects ofvarious adaptive management measures via the TACfor chub mackerel fisheries in the North Pacific (Fig.6). Their results shows that, if two strong-year classes(the classes of 1992 and 1996) had been protected for2 years each by setting the TAC at the level of the busi-ness management break-even point for the averagepurse seiner, then the chub mackerel catch volume andresource level would have recovered considerably by2000.

4. Institutional challenges for expanding fisher-ies management to encompass ecosystem con-servation

This section focuses on the Ecosystem Approach ofthe CBD. After outlining the Approach, I examine theinstitutional characteristics of Japanese fisheries man-agement (summarized in Section 2) from the perspec-tive of the Approach. The objective of the analysis isto define the advantages and shortcomings of Japanesefisheries management, and to derive logical founda-tions for the policy responses needed to achieve ma-rine ecosystem management.

4-1. Ecosystem approach of CBD

The CBD is the first global agreement on the con-servation of biological diversity and the sustainable useof its components. It was adopted in June 1992 at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and De-velopment, held in Rio de Janeiro, along with theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, the Rio Declaration on the Environment andDevelopment, the Statement of Forest Principles, andAgenda 21. The CBD set out a commitment for main-taining the world’s ecological underpinnings alongsideeconomic development. It established three main goals:(1) conservation of biodiversity; (2) sustainable use ofthe components of biodiversity; and (3) sharing of thebenefits arising from the commercial and other utili-zation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way.In order to deliver these goals, the Ecosystem Approachwas adopted as the primary framework for action un-der the Convention (Decision II/8).

The Ecosystem Approach is based on the applica-tion of appropriate scientific methodologies focusedon levels of biological organization that encompass theessential processes, functions, and interactions amongorganisms and their environment. It also recognizes thathumans, with their cultural diversity, are an integralcomponent of ecosystems. Decision V/6 endorsed the

Condition 1. Fisheries operations are small-scale (industrial profile condition).

Condition 2. Diversity in resource use is high, reflecting the high biodiversity of the surrounding sea (marine resourcecondition).

Condition 3. People largely rely on seafood as a source of animal protein (food security condition).

Condition 4. Fisheries sector is important as a source of employment (social security condition).

Condition 5. Rich in the potential human resource in the coastal area (human resource conditions).

Table 4. Social and ecological factors in common with Japan and Asia-Pacific countries (modified from Makino and Matsuda2011).



Fig.

4.

Si m

ulat

i on

resu

l ts

of f

our

sea-

cucu

mbe

r fi

sher

i es

man

agem

ent s

t rat

egi e

s fo

r 20

yea

rs (

mod

i fi e

d fr

om M

aki n

o 20

11b)

.



Fix

ed e

quip

men

t

Non-t

ransf

erab

le

Tra

nsf

erab

le

Fix

ed e

quip

men

t

Oper

atio

n

Tra

nsf

erab

le

Non-t

ransf

erab

le

Qual

itat

ive

Onboar

d

Aft

er l

andin

g

H. P

rom

oti

on o

f sc

ience

and t

echnolo

gy

Res

tric

tion o

f fi

shin

g e

ffort

(N

o. of

fish

ing d

ays,

No. of

fish

ing o

per

atio

ns,

No. of

net

s, e

tc.)

; I

EC

(in

div

idual

eff

ort

quota

); G

EG

(gro

up-s

pec

ific

effo

rt q

uota

); IO

Q (

indiv

idual

oil

quota

)

ITE

Q (

indiv

idual

tra

nsf

erab

le e

ffort

quota

) (w

ith/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

; G

TE

Q (

gro

up-s

pec

ific

tra

nsf

erab

le e

ffort

quota

) (w

ith/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

; I

TO

Q (

indiv

idual

tra

nsf

erab

le o

il q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

;

Indiv

idual

quota

Dev

elopm

ent

of

fish

ing g

ear;

D

evel

opm

ent

of

fish

ing m

ethods;

D

evel

opm

ent

of

fish

ing g

rounds

and r

esourc

es;

Dev

elopm

ent

of

appli

cati

ons

and p

roce

ssin

g m

ethods;

Under

stan

din

g, ev

aluat

ion a

nd p

redic

tion o

f nat

ura

l ec

osy

stem

mec

han

ism

Res

tric

tion o

n f

ishin

g w

ater

s or

tim

ing (

close

d f

ishin

g a

rea,

clo

sed f

ishin

g s

easo

n, m

arin

e re

serv

e);

Rota

tional

use

of

fish

ing g

rounds

TA

C (

tota

l al

low

able

cat

ch);

W

ater

- an

d s

easo

n-s

pec

ific

TA

C;

Fis

her

y-

and f

ishin

g m

ethod-s

pec

ific

TA

C

Res

tric

tions

on s

ize

of

catc

h (

length

); R

estr

icti

ons

on g

ender

of

catc

h;

Res

tric

tions

on f

ishin

g o

f m

ature

fis

h

Qual

itat

ive

D. C

onse

rvat

ion o

f re

sourc

es (

outp

ut

contr

ol)

Quan

tita

tive

Over

all

Quan

tita

tive

Oper

atio

n

IQ

(in

div

idual

quota

); I

VQ

(in

div

idual

ves

sel

quota

); G

Q (

gro

up-s

pec

ific

quota

)

IT

Q (

indiv

idual

tra

nsf

erab

le q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

; IT

VQ

(in

div

idual

tra

nsf

erab

le v

esse

l quota

)

(wit

h/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

; G

TQ

(gro

up-s

pec

ific

tra

nsf

erab

le q

uota

) (w

ith/w

ithout

tran

sfer

res

tric

tions,

wit

h/w

ithout

dea

dli

ne)

Res

tric

tion o

n t

ota

l to

nnag

e of

fish

ing b

oat

s; R

estr

icti

on o

n h

ors

epow

er o

f fi

shin

g b

oat

engin

es;

Res

tric

tion o

n t

he

size

of

fish

ing g

ear;

Res

tric

tion o

n f

ish t

ank c

apac

ity;

and R

estr

icti

on o

n l

ight

pow

er

G. D

evel

opm

ent

of

hum

an a

nd o

rgan

izat

ional

cap

acit

y

Pro

moti

on o

f re

duct

ion i

n f

ishin

g b

oat

s; P

rom

oti

on o

f sh

ifti

ng t

o o

ther

fis

her

y j

obs

or

oper

atio

n o

f tw

o o

r m

ore

jobs;

Red

uct

ion o

f ca

pit

al b

y m

ini

flee

t ar

rangem

ent

Im

pro

vem

ent

of

onboar

d t

reat

men

t

E. Im

pro

vem

ent

of

busi

nes

s oper

atio

nal

str

uct

ure

C. C

onse

rvat

ion o

f re

sourc

es (

input

contr

ol)

Res

tric

tions

on f

ishin

g g

ear

or

fish

ing m

ethods

(res

tric

tions

on t

he

type

of

fish

ing g

ear

or

fish

ing m

ethod, m

esh s

ize

rest

rict

ion, co

mpuls

ory

use

of

cert

ain f

ishin

g e

quip

men

t, e

tc.)

F. Im

pro

vem

ent

of

trea

tmen

t/dis

posa

l, p

roce

ssin

g a

nd d

istr

ibuti

on

Pri

ce s

ust

enan

ce a

nd a

dju

stm

ent

stora

ge;

D

evel

opm

ent

of

fish

ing p

ort

s an

d m

arket

s; P

rom

oti

on o

f ex

port

s;

Rat

ional

izat

ion o

f dis

trib

uti

on c

hai

ns;

Im

pro

vem

ent

of

added

val

ue

by n

ew p

roduct

dev

elopm

ent,

etc

.; Q

ual

ity s

tandar

diz

atio

n b

y h

ygie

ne

stan

dar

ds,

etc

. (b

rand v

alue

enhan

cem

ent)

; R

educt

ion o

f dis

trib

uti

on c

ost

; A

ccum

ula

tion a

nd i

mpro

vem

ent

of

pro

cess

ing a

nd d

istr

ibuti

on

tech

nolo

gie

s

Est

abli

shm

ent

and c

han

ge

of

man

agem

ent

org

aniz

atio

n;

Dev

elopm

ent,

use

and r

ecru

itm

ent

of

hum

an r

esourc

es

A. M

ainte

nan

ce a

nd re

stora

tion o

f ec

osy

stem

On l

and

Aquaf

ore

st;

Wat

er q

ual

ity m

anag

emen

t; D

am r

epai

r; S

edim

ent

and q

uic

ksa

nd m

anag

emen

t

In t

he

wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion a

nd r

esto

rati

on o

f se

awee

d b

eds

and w

etla

nds;

S

eabed

til

lage;

In

stal

lati

on o

f fi

shin

g b

anks;

Pes

t co

ntr

ol

or

thin

nin

g

B. A

ddit

ion a

nd e

nhan

cem

ent

of

reso

urc

esR

elea

se o

f se

eds

Tab

le 5

. F

ishe

ries

Man

agem

ent

Too

l-B

ox d

evel

oped

by

Fis

heri

es R

esea

rch

Age

ncy

of J

apan

(20

09).



1,2

,3,4

,5,5

85

9,6

3,6

0,6

26

46

57

17

07

27

37

41,2

,3,4

,5,5

8,5

9

,75,7

7

1,2

,3,4

,5,5

8,

59,7

8

Non

-

tra

nsf

era

ble

56

57

59

,60

,62

64

65

6,7

,8,9

69

,71

70

72

73

74

6,7

,8,9

,59,7

5,

76

,77

6,7

,8,9

,59,

75,7

8

Tra

nsf

era

ble

56

65

10

,11

,12

69

,71

70

72

73

74

58

,59

63

,60

,62

64

65

68

,69

,71

70

72

73

74

13

,58

,59

,75

,77

13

,58

,59

,78

56

14

,57

,59

60

,61

,62

64

65

68

,69

,71

70

72

73

74

14

,15

,59

,75

,

76

,77

14,1

5,5

9,7

8

16

,17

,18

60

,62

64

65

66

68

,69

,71

70

72

73

74

75

,76

,77

78

Non

-

tra

nsf

era

ble

56

60

,62

64

65

19

,20

,21

68

,69

,71

70

72

73

74

19

,20

,21

,75

,77

19

,20

,21

,78

Tra

nsf

era

ble

56

65

22

,23

,24

68

,69

,71

70

72

73

74

25,2

6,2

760.6

26

46

56

8,6

9,7

17

07

27

37

425,2

6,2

7,7

5,7

725,2

6,2

7,7

8

C. A

dd

itio

n a

nd

en

ha

nce

men

t of

reso

urc

es

60

28

,64

,67

68

,69

72

73

74

75

,77

28

,78

30

,31

,32

29

,31

,32

,

63

,60

64,6

76

56

8,6

9,7

17

27

37

42

9,3

0,7

5,7

729,3

0,7

8

33

33

,34

, 6

0,6

33

5,3

6, 6

4,6

76

56

8,6

9,7

17

27

37

43

3,3

4,3

5,3

6,

75

,77

33,3

4,3

5,3

6,7

8

37

,38

,39

,60

,

62

,63

37

,38

,39

,64

,67

72

73

74

37

,38

,39

,77

37

,38

,39

,78

40

,60

,63

40

,64

,67

40

,68

,69

,71

72

73

74

40

,77

40

,78

43

,44

,45

,46

,

48

,60

,63

41

,42

,43

,44

,45

46

,47

,48

,64

,67

46

,48

,68

,69

,71

72

73

74

41

,42

,45

,46

,48

,77

41

,42

,43

,44

,

45,4

7,4

8,7

8

49,5

04

9,5

049,5

0,6

0,6

2,6

349,5

0,6

4,6

749,5

072

49,5

0,7

5,7

749,5

0,7

8

51

,52

,53

,54

,

55

,60

51

,52

,53

,54

,55

,64

,67

55

55

55

,72

55

,75

,77

51

,52

,53

,54

,

55,7

8

Regu

lati

on

/

rest

rict

ion

1. A

dm

inis

tra

tive a

pp

roa

ch

Overa

ll

Quantitative

Lega

l

pro

tect

ion

Qu

ali

tati

ve

Conservation of resources

Fix

ed

eq

uip

men

t

Operation

A. Input control

Qualitative

Op

era

tion

Fix

ed

eq

uip

men

t

Pro

moti

on

Off

icia

lly

pre

scri

bed

Individual

quota

Quantitative

F. Im

pro

vem

en

t of

trea

tmen

t/d

isp

osa

l, p

roce

ssin

g a

nd

dis

trib

uti

on

B. Output control

Pri

va

teG

uid

an

ce/

ord

er

E. Im

pro

vem

en

t of

bu

sin

ess

op

era

tion

al

stru

ctu

re

Neu

tra

l

4. J

ud

icia

ry a

pp

roa

ch

Neu

tra

lP

rom

oti

on

2. E

con

om

ic a

pp

roa

ch5

. A

uto

nom

ou

s a

pp

roa

ch

Mit

iga

tion

Mit

iga

tion

Pu

bli

c

On

e-w

ay

com

mit

me

nt

3. In

form

ati

on

ap

pro

ach

G. D

evelo

pm

en

t of

hu

ma

n a

nd

org

an

iza

tion

al

cap

aci

ty

H. P

rom

oti

on

of

scie

nce

an

d t

ech

nolo

gy

D. M

ain

ten

an

ce a

nd

rest

ora

tion

of

eco

syst

em

In t

he w

ate

r

Ab

oa

rd t

he b

oa

t

Aft

er

lan

din

g

On

lan

d



description of the 12 principles of the Ecosystem Ap-proach and the 5 operational guidelines for its appli-cation (Table 6).

4-2. Assessment of Japanese fisheries manage-ment

In this sub-section, I use an analytical framework ofsix interconnected themes provided by the United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP) CBD (2003)to assess and examine Japanese fisheries management(Makino 2005). The themes are 1) provision of envi-ronmental goods and services (What is being managedwithin ecosystems and for what purpose?); 2) buildingconsensus (Who will undertake the management?); 3)providing incentives for management (What are theincentives for management?); 4) balancing conserva-tion and use of biotic resources (How can differentmanagement objectives be reconciled and integrated?);5) cross-scale integration (How can we best integratemanagement across multiple scales of interaction andresponse?); and 6) building adaptive capacity (How canwe best develop the capacity to initiate, learn from,and thereby sustain, activities?).

Provision of environmental goods and services (Prin-ciple 5): Marine fisheries are industries that use ma-rine ecosystem services. Consequently, the conserva-tion, use, and management of fisheries resources takeplace in an ecosystem context. These activities have

potential consequences in terms of changes in the struc-ture and functioning of the marine ecosystem of whichthe fisheries resources are part. The main focus of Japa-nese fisheries management has been target species; ithas not paid much attention to the ecosystem context,per se. However, recent legislation such as the BasicAct on Fisheries Policy (2001) or the Basic Act onMarine Policy (2007) recognizes that fisheries re-sources are components of the marine ecosystem andrequire conservation. Therefore, in recent years, eco-system management has become an important policytask in Japanese fisheries policy.

To achieve marine ecosystem management, scientificunderstanding of marine ecosystems first needs to befacilitated. The most important topics are, among oth-ers, the interactions between target resources and theecosystem, the impact of fishing operations on the eco-system, and effective measures for ecosystem conser-vation. The next step is for institutions to coordinatedecision-making between fisheries targeting prey spe-cies and those targeting predator species, on the basisof the results of monitoring of the ecosystem structureconcerned.

Building consensus (Principles 1, 11, 12): Each per-son views the world around him/her in different waysand emphasizes his/her own economic, cultural, andsocietal interests and needs. Hence, determining themethods of use or conservation objectives of marineecosystems inevitably becomes a highly social issue.

Fig. 5. Adaptive management options at every phase (modified from Makino 2004). X: Shelter construction by public fund(irreversible), R: Autonomous ban of operations (reversible).



Therefore, the objectives of marine ecosystem man-agement should be a societal choice (Principle 1). Inthis regard, marine-resource users and local commu-nities are especially important stakeholders, as they liveoff the resource and can more directly affect its future.

Their rights and interests have to be appropriately rec-ognized and incorporated into management planning.At the same time, the involvement of all relevantstakeholders and technical expertise in planning andcarrying out joint activities and sharing management

Fig. 6. Simulation results of adaptive management options for chub mackerel in the North-Western Pacific (modified fromMakino and Mitani 2010).



resources is essential for effective management (Prin-ciple 12). This system can be established as an exten-sion of the current fisheries-coordinating organizationby incorporating various stakeholders into the organi-zation, or it can be separately established with the fish-eries industry as a constituent. One example of such asystem, in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area,will be introduced in the next section.

There are specific marine-ecosystem functions andstructures in each geographic area and each set of sea-sonal conditions. Local fishers and their organizations

have a lot of explicit and tacit knowledge of their localareas that has accumulated for generations. This localknowledge should be utilized in ecosystem manage-ment (Principle 11). Daily catch data are also an im-portant source of ecosystem information, as shown inthe section below on the Shiretoko World Natural Her-itage area. However, information provided by localfishers is not sufficient to achieve the conservation ofecosystem functions and structures. Subsequently, arole-sharing scheme should be devised for data col-lection and monitoring among local fishers, the gov-

Principle 1 The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice.

Principle 2 Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Principle 3 Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and otherecosystems.

Principle 4 Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage theecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely 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 ecosystem services, should be apriority target of the ecosystem approach.

Principle 6 Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

Principle 7 Ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

Principle 8 Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectivesfor ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

Principle 9 Management must recognize the change is inevitable.

Principle 10 The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation anduse of biological diversity.

Principle 11 The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific andindigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

Principle 12 The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Guidance 1 Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems.

Guidance 2 Enhance benefit sharing.

Guidance 3 Use adaptive management practices.

Guidance 4 Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralizationto lowest level, as appropriate.

Guidance 5 Ensure intersectoral cooperation.

Table 6. Principles and operational guidance of the Ecosystem Approach (UNEP CBD 2000) (for more details, see the CBDwebsite http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/).



its (thresholds for change) in different ecosystems. Theexternalities raised from other sectors add more com-plexity. Under such circumstances, management—whether for conservation or for planned sustainableresource use—should be adaptive and flexible.

Cross-scale integration (Principles 2, 3, 7, 8): Prin-ciple 2 states that natural resource management is bestdone at the level of the resource-production system.This is a variation of the subsidiarity principle, whichstates that higher—tier authorities should not assumefunctions that can be carried out more appropriatelyby lower-tier associations—or, alternatively, problemsare best resolved at the level of organization at whichthey occur. This principle is in line with the currenttrend toward increasing the devolution of responsibil-ity for natural resource management to local institu-tions on the grounds of greater efficiency, effective-ness, and equity (UNEP CBD, 2003). As described inSection 2, the basic concept of Japanese fisheries man-agement is that of resource management by the resourceusers themselves. Therefore, the challenge is to incor-porate ecosystem viewpoints into the management sys-tem on an ecologically meaningful scale of area andtime.

Scale, however, is a serious matter in ecosystemmanagement (Principles 7 and 8). How the componentsare perceived to be arranged spatially depends partlyon the scale of observation. There is no single level oforganization at which to understand and best manageecosystem functioning. Likewise with time: at one timescale (e.g., monthly or annually) a component or proc-ess may appear to exhibit constant periodicity, whereasat another, longer or shorter, time scale the temporaldynamics may appear to be episodic or chaotic (un-predictable). In addition, ecosystems are not closedsystems (Principle 3). They are largely open and con-nected to other systems through the flow of energy,matter, and information and the movement of organ-isms. In order to cope with these scale problems, ef-fective management institutions should be devised atmultiple levels that are connected (McGinnins andOstrom 1996).

There are various levels of Japanese FMO, from thelocal community level to the national level (Table 2).To surpass jurisdictional boundaries, FMOs are organ-ized by members from several prefectures in accord-ance with the biological nature of the target species.Therefore, the Japanese management system has thepotential to cope with geological-scale problems. How-ever, again, the current system focuses mainly on tar-get species. For example, in regard to Principle 3,nearly 80 species are being artificially propagated andreleased along Japanese sea coasts in order to enhancefisheries resources, but the potential effects on adja-cent and other ecosystems are now under investiga-tion.

Time-scale problems are highlighted by fishers’ ten-

ernment, and members of the public.Providing incentives for management (Principle 4):

Marine ecosystems provide economically valuablegoods and services, thus predicating the need to un-derstand and manage ecosystems in an economic con-text (Principle 4). In that sense, organization of localfishers as resource managers provides an incentive tomanage the resource effectively so as to cut associatedcosts or gain additional benefits from enhanced eco-system services. Indeed, in Japan, there have been tra-ditional activities that can be appraised from an eco-system point of view. For example, in some coastalareas, fishers have voluntarily planted sea grasses andestablished coastal nursery grounds and protected ar-eas. Others have afforested upstream hills. These ac-tivities have a long history and are worthy of remarkand research. However, they are motivated mainly bytheir potential effects on target species, and these ef-fects are directly related to the ecosystem concerned.In other words, these activities can be seen as “conser-vation of fishery grounds” and are conducted in aneconomic context. They should be combined in a com-patible manner with other measures from the perspec-tive of “environmental protection” for marine ecosys-tem conservation.

Balancing conservation and use of biotic resources(Principles 6 and 10): Principle 10—appropriate bal-ance between conservation and use—is the very sameconcept as the resource management. However, itsmain scope is, again, limited to economically valuablespecies. This theme should be combined with othermeasures (environmental protection, endangered spe-cies protection, etc.) to conserve ecosystem structuresand functions in a balanced manner. A system of ma-rine protected areas (MPAs) is one of the most effec-tive measures to ensure the conservation of marineecosystems. Within a system of MPAs, a range of meas-ures can be applied along a continuum, from ecosys-tems that are strictly protected, through mixed re-source-use systems (of which ecosystem conservationand sustainable use are both part), to areas that havebeen wholly utilized by human activities, includingfisheries. A system of MPAs is not antagonistic to fish-eries operations; it can be viewed as an ecosystem-based resource-enhancement system that enables mul-tiple and responsible use of ecosystem services, includ-ing fishery operations.

Likewise, limits to their functioning (Principle 6) aredeeply acknowledged in fisheries management as faras target resources are concerned. The TAC or TAEsystem is a formal measure designed to keep fisheriespressures within limits. Again, the task is to incorpo-rate ecosystem perspectives into TAC/TAE formula-tion protocols. The limits of ecosystems are not staticbut may vary across sites, through time, and in rela-tion to past circumstances and events. There is consid-erable uncertainty and ignorance about the actual lim-



dency to follow short-term incentives because they facemany uncertainties, including resource fluctuation, fishprice changes, and oil cost rises, and their discount ratesfor the future tend to be high. Political interests alsotend to focus only a few years into the future, becausethey are based on political outputs leading up to thenext election. Some institutional arrangements there-fore need to delivered to guarantee long-term conser-vation objectives. To resolve this time-scale inconsist-ency in decision-making, performance indicators thatsummarize data on complex environmental issues toindicate the overall status and trends of marine eco-systems would be useful tools. Competitive fisheriesoperations based on economic incentives should beutilized as long as these long-term performance indi-cators are within scientifically and transparently de-termined ranges.

Building adaptive capacity (Principle 9): Ecosystemchanges, including changes in species composition,population abundance, and human-resource interaction,are both natural and inevitable. Management needs toadapt to these changes. Building the flexibility andcapacity to adapt to new situations is critical for suc-cess in management. In Japanese fisheries manage-ment, in which local fishers are the principal decision-makers, management decisions can be changed accord-ing to the information gained via daily operations. Inother words, there is some flexibility in managementdecision-making. In addition, local FCA or FMO of-fices are used as capacity-building and informationcenters for management. Hence, Japanese fisheriesmanagement is potentially capable of adaptive deci-sion-making. The future task is to develop infrastruc-

ture for data collection and monitoring, in which localfishers and their organizations should play an impor-tant role, and to incorporate ecosystem perspectivesinto these adaptive decision-making processes.

Table 7 summarizes the above discussions. This sec-tion points out that, from the viewpoint of the Ecosys-tem Approach of the CBD, Japanese fisheries manage-ment has many advantages, including a decentralizedmanagement system, adaptive management processes,the use of local and scientific knowledge, multi-scaleand interlinked management, and the promotion ofsustainable resource use in an economic context. Toexpand the Japanese fisheries management system to-ward ecosystem conservation, these institutional ad-vantages should be fully utilized. At the same time,supplemental policy measures should be introduced tofill the gap between fisheries management and eco-system conservation.

5. Ecosystem conservation in the Shiretoko WorldNatural Heritage area

5-1. Social and ecological systems in Shiretoko

The Shiretoko Peninsula and its surrounding marineareas (hereafter, the Shiretoko WNH area) lie at thesouthernmost limit of seasonal sea ice in the NorthernHemisphere (Fig. 7).

The area has a complicated marine character createdby the East Sakhalin cold current, the Soya warm cur-rent, and the intermediate cold water derived from theSea of Okhotsk. The Shiretoko WNH area is home to amarine ecosystem to which a welter of organisms mi-

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 fishing operations.- Promotion of sustainable resource use in an economic context.

Challenges towards marine ecosystem conservation- Ecosystem perspectives: progress in scientific knowledge should be facilitated. Careful examination of the appropriatenature of fishing rights/licenses and deliberate discussion of the role of the fishery industry in marine ecosystem-basedmanagement are required. The formulating protocols of TAC and TAE can also include ecosystem perspectives.- Stakeholder involvement: new institutions should be set up to allow a wide range of stakeholders to be involved intransparent decision-making processes. The viewpoint of watershed management is also important.- Data collection and monitoring: identification of priorities in ecologically necessary data, and role-sharing in datacollection and monitoring should be established.- Indicators: Development and reference to long-term indicators should be promoted. Fisheries should be operated withinthe allowable ranges of the indicators.- Use of MPA systems: MPAs are not a synonym for no-take zones, but can be understood as an ecosystem-based resourceenhancement system which enables multiple and responsible use of ecosystem services, including fishery operations.Economically and ecologically meaningful MPA systems can be devised and should be installed where necessary.

Table 7. Advantages and challenges for the Japanese fisheries management towards marine ecosystem conservation (modifiedfrom Makino 2005).



grate, and in which they live (MOE and HokkaidoGovernment 2007). In early spring, the sea ice meltsand ice algae and other phytoplankton bloom. Thisprocess is the most characteristic of the lowest trophiclevel of the Shiretoko ecosystem, which supports awide range of species, including marine mammals,seabirds, and commercially important species (Sakurai2007). Another distinguishing character of this ecosys-tem is the interrelationship between marine and ter-restrial ecosystems. Many anadromous salmonids runup rivers on the peninsula to spawn. These fishes serveas an important source of food for upstream terrestrialspecies such as the brown bear, Steller’s sea eagle, andthe whitetailed eagle (Fig. 8). Also, the peninsula is animportant stopover point for internationally migratingbirds (IUCN 2005).

People have been living in this area for more than2000 years. Archaeologists have found many clay pots,as well as the bones of Steller sea lions, seals, and fish,in the area. For a long time, Shiretoko, which literallymeans “the utmost end of the earth” in the local Ainulanguage, remained out of the jurisdiction of the feu-dal government of mainland Japan. According to “Areport of Yezo” (Relatione del Regno di Iezo) by anItalian missionary priest, Geronimo de Angelis, in1618, the local Ainu people of the time had no conceptof government (Rausu Town History Editing Commit-tee 1970). Today, about 20,000 people live in the towns

of Shari and Rausu. The main industries are fishing,agriculture, and tourism.

Commercial fisheries in Shiretoko began in 1790with the foundation of a fisheries market by the feudalgovernment (Tokugawa Dynasty) on the mainland. Themain products at the time were salmon, trout, and her-ring (Shari Fisheries History Editing Committee 1979).After the end of the feudal era in 1868, offshore fish-eries started up, harvesting halibut and cod. After theSecond World War, the Shiretoko fisheries sector de-veloped rapidly (Shiretoko Museum 2001). Today,Shiretoko is one of the most productive fisheries inJapan, and the fisheries sector is among the most im-portant industries in the regional economy. Their maintarget species and gear types are salmonids by set net,common squid by jigging, and walleye pollock, cod,and arabesque greenling by gillnet. Catch volume datacompiled by three fisheries cooperatives in theShiretoko WNH area (Rausu, Shari-daiichi, and UtoroFCAs) are shown in Fig. 9. Analysis of commodityprices reveals that the dried kelp produced in this areais among the most famous in Japan and is traded athigh prices.

5-2. New measures for ecosystem conservation

After the nomination of the WNH area to theUNESCO World Natural Heritage, various new meas-

Fig. 7. Shiretoko World Natural Heritage.



ures were implemented for ecosystem conservationthere. One of the most important new measures was asystem for coordinating the wide range of sectors inthe area (Fig. 10). In October 2003, the ShiretokoWorld Natural Heritage Site Regional Liaison Com-mittee was established to discuss the management ofthe site, exchange information, and coordinate the in-terests of various sectors. The committee is composed

of officers from a wide range of ministries and depart-ments in central and local government (Table 8). FCAs,the tourism sector, the Scientific Council (describedlater) and NGOs also participate. The committee servesas the core arena for policy coordination among ad-ministrative bodies.

To provide scientific advice on formulation of themanagement plan and on research and monitoring ac-

Fig. 8. Marine food web of the Shiretoko WNH area depicted by the Marine Working Group of the Scientific Council (AG:arabesque greenling; BT: bighand thornyhead; F: flatfishes; G: greenlings; O: octopus; OP: ocean perch; PH: Pacific herring;PS: Pacific saury; R: rockfish; S: seals; SC: saffron cod; SF: sandfish; SL: sand-lance).

Fig. 9. Composition of production values in the Shiretoko Peninsula (Rausu, Shari-daiichi, and Utoro Fisheries CooperativeAssociations).



tivities, the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site Sci-entific Council was established in July 2004. The Sci-entific Council and Working Groups are composed ofnatural and social scientists, as well as representativesof ministries and departments in central and local gov-ernment, FCAs, and NGOs. The Shiretoko NationalPark Committee for the Review of Proper Use, foundedin 2001 and extended in 2004, has conducted researchand discussions on rules for appropriate use of the areaby tourists.

These organizations and their interrelationships havehelped to ensure participation, to exchange informa-tion and opinions, and to build consensus among thewide-ranging interests of multiple users of the ecosys-tem services, thus enhancing the legitimacy of themanagement plans and rules. This is the core institu-tional framework for the conservation of Shiretokoecosystems.

For conservation of the marine ecosystem, the Mul-tiple Use Integrated Marine Management Plan (here-after, the Marine Management Plan) was drafted bythe Marine Working Group of the Scientific Councilin December 2007. It includes strategies to maintainmajor species, monitoring methods, and policies formarine recreational activities. The objective of theMarine Management Plan is “to satisfy both conserva-tion of the marine ecosystem and stable fisheries

through the sustainable use of marine living resourcesin the marine area of the heritage site” (MOE andHokkaido Government 2007). The fisheries sector hasparticipated from the beginning of the drafting proc-ess. Because the ecosystem is unclear, uncertain, andcomplex, the Marine Management Plan introducedadaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986;Matsuda et al. 2009) as a basic strategy. Monitoring isthe key to adaptive management, but it is usually oneof the most challenging and expensive tasks. To moni-tor the Shiretoko marine ecosystem, the Marine Work-ing Group first drew up a food web (Fig. 8), identifiedindicator species (i.e., salmonids, walleye pollock, ara-besque greenling, Pacific cod, Steller sea lions, seals,spectacled guillemot, slaty-backed gull, Japanese cor-morant, Steller’s sea eagle, and white-tailed eagle) andthen specified monitoring activities. We have more than50 years of catch data compiled by local fishers, in-cluding data on most of the indicator species and othermajor marine species in the Shiretoko food web. Inaddition, for some species, more detailed informationsuch as size, time and place of catch, and maturity havebeen accumulated autonomously by local fishers. Thisinformation has become an important foundation formonitoring changes in the functions and structure ofthe Shiretoko marine ecosystem. More importantly, thelocal fishers (and therefore humans generally) are rec-

Fig. 10. Coordinating system for the ecosystem conservation in the Shiretoko WNH area (modified from Miyazawa andMakino 2012).



ognized as an integral part of the ecosystem, and theircatch data are used officially to monitor the ecosystemcost-effectively.

Of course, catch data cannot cover the entire marineecosystem. Therefore, the Marine Management Planspecifies the public monitoring of non-harvested spe-cies, as well as basic environmental indices such asweather, water quality, sea ice, and plankton. A futuretask is to develop reference points representing theoverall status and long-term trends of the ecosystem,to be adaptively referred to in the overall management

scheme.There are other new measures that have been intro-

duced for marine ecosystem conservation in theShiretoko WNH area. From a practical perspective, fi-nancial resources are among the most important chal-lenges for achieving ecosystem conservation (Banesand McFadden 2008). Table 9 summarizes the addi-tional costs for conservation of the Shiretoko WNHarea in 2006, including the terrestrial ecosystem(Makino et al. 2009). Fisheries production in 2006brought in 22,966 million yen, and tourists spent an

Source: Makino et al. (2009).

Policy measures Legal basis Management authority

Fisheries management - Fisheries Law of 1949- Fisheries Resource Protection Law of 1951- Law Concerning the Conservation and Management ofMarine Life Resources of 1996

- Fisheries Agency (Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

Pollution control - Law Relating to the Prevention of Marine and AirPollution from Ships and Maritime Disasters of 1970- Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law of 1970- Water Pollution Control Law of 1970

- Coast Guard (Ministry of Land,Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism)- Ministry of the Environment

Landscape conservationand material circulation

- Law on the Administration and Management of NationalForests of 1951- Natural Parks Law of 1957- Nature Conservation Law of 1972

- Ministry of the Environment- Forestry Agency (Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

Species protection - Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties of 1950- Law for Conservation of Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora of 1992- Wildlife Protection and Appropriate Hunting Law of 2002

- Ministry of the Environment- Ministry of Education, Culture,Sports, Science and Technology

Cost item Amount(JPY million)

Activities

Running costs for Scientific Council andWorking Groups

17.5 Giving scientific advice on management plan

Running costs for the Committee for theReview of Proper Use and Shiretoko Eco-tourism Association

15.1 Development of strategies for suitable tourism

Research and monitoring activities 54.7 Monitoring and research into adaptive management

River improvement 284.9 Modification of river constructions

Personnel 101. 8 Administrative staff at the Ministry of the Environmentand Hokkaido Prefecture

Total 473.5

Table 8. Major legal basis and management authorities relating to the Shiretoko WNH area (modified from Makino et al.2009).

Table 9. Costs for the management of Shiretoko WNH area in 2006.



estimated 36,617 million yen. Therefore, the total ad-ministrative cost corresponds to 0.8% of this income.Intuitively, this value seems reasonable as the total costof bringing ecosystem conservation into practice.

5-3. Adaptation to climate change

Nutrients are provided by vertical mixing and sea-sonal upwelling in the Shiretoko WNH area and sup-port the rich and diverse marine ecosystem (Sakurai2007). Figure 11 is a time-series of 65 years of changein the number of days of sea-ice cover at the AbashiriLocal Meteorological Observatory, which is located 50km west of the Shiretoko Peninsula. It very clearlyshows a long-term (30 to 50 years) decreasing trend.Over this period, the 10-year average of the number ofdays of sea-ice cover decreased by 22%, from 95.8 daysthrough 1946–1955 to 74.6 days through 2001–2010.Ohshima et al. (2001) maintained that the current levelof nutrient supply is sufficient to support the Shiretokomarine ecosystem, but if this decreasing trend contin-ues, the long-term impact on the Shiretoko ecosystemscould be substantial.

Only a small number of studies have investigated theeffects of long-term climate change on the main fishresources of Shiretoko fisheries. Chum salmon has beenidentified as a species decreasing in abundance(Kaeriyama 2008; Kishi et al. 2010). Ocean acidifica-tion could have negative effects on invertebrates

(Kurihara 2008), such as the short-spined sea urchin.Walleye pollock (Sakurai 2009) and Pacific saury (Itoet al. 2010) in the Shiretoko area are considered to beresilient to such long-term climate changes. The Kichijirockfish (Sebastolobus macrochir) is thought to be re-silient, because it typically lives deeper than 100 m,where such changes have little influence (Kuwaharaet al. 2006). Japanese common squid (Rosa et al. 2011)and Pacific herring (Megrey et al. 2007) are expectedto increase in abundance over the long term.

Most importantly, strict and cautious resource man-agement needs to be implemented for species increas-ing in abundance, such as Japanese common squid andPacific herring. This increase should be seen not as atemporary bonus, but rather as part of the process offorming the main components of future fisheries inShiretoko. In contrast, in the case of species decreas-ing in abundance, mitigating measures need to be in-troduced. For example, most of the chum salmon har-vested in Japan are from stock hatched artificially, withless genetic diversity and a narrower spawning periodthan wild stocks (Nagata 2011). To enhance the ge-netic diversity of species, therefore, restoration of theriverine environments in which natural spawning oc-curs is important as a medium-term adaptive measure.For more detailed discussions on the adaptation strat-egy in the Shiretoko WNH area, see the work of Makinoand Sakurai (2012).

Fig. 11. Changes of sea-ice days observed at Abashiri Local Meteorological Observatory from 1946 to 2010 (modified fromMakino and Sakurai 2012).



6. Conclusion

The Japanese people have used fisheries resourcesfor a long time. Even today, seafood is very importantin Japanese food culture. It reflects the variety of Japa-nese marine ecosystems and local cultures, from thesub-arctic in Hokkaido to the tropical in Okinawa. Ateach moment in history, the Japanese people have madetheir best effort to use fisheries resources in sustain-able ways. The fundamental principle of the Japanesefisheries institution is “resource management by theresource users themselves.” Even under the currentfisheries institutional framework, local fishers them-selves manage fishing operations, subject to the re-source and ecosystem conditions of the area. Accord-ing to Copes and Charles (2004), Japanese manage-ment can be categorized as a kind of “community-basedco-management,” which acknowledges fishing peopleas the primary participants in management; moreover,the involvement and support of the broader commu-nity is seen as essential. This management system isopen to considering a wide range of needs in the hu-man community; it therefore lends itself to the imple-mentation of a balanced mix of biological, social, andeconomic objectives.

The current institutional framework in Japan has beenrationalized to meet particular social and ecologicalconditions, such as resource diversity, the importanceof seafood as a source of animal protein, the economicscale of fisheries operations, and the total number offishers. These conditions are common to those of otherAsia-Pacific countries in which Top-down, Command,and Control management is too costly to implement.In this way, an organization of local fishers can func-tion effectively as a body for local fisheries manage-ment. Also, small-scale fishers are very important todomestic seafood consumption and food culture, es-pecially in developing countries. These are not the ex-port-oriented fisheries operations typically operated ata large-scale in offshore areas. From the above discus-sions, I strongly believe that the Japanese fisheriesmanagement system is a good reference for other coun-tries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The institutional framework shapes decision-makingprocesses. Therefore, different institutions require dif-ferent types of scientific knowledge for fisheries man-agement. Under Japan’s institutional framework, eco-nomic analysis that effectively supports fisheries man-agement is the decision-support system for fishers. Inthis monograph, I have introduced the concept of aFisheries Management Tool Box, which summarizeswide-ranging management measures to be selected byorganizations of local fishers. Economic analysis ofadaptive management is important for dealing withuncertainties in resource fluctuation or the marine en-vironment. In this monograph, I have introduced sev-eral case studies in which, on the basis of daily fisher-

ies operations, organizations of local fishers can se-lect the best scenarios from among the options pre-pared by economic analysis.

Ecosystem conservation is one of the most urgentissues affecting the sustainability of the fisheries in-dustry and Japanese seafood culture. Japan’s fisheriesinstitutional background has naturally resulted in anecosystem conservation framework that is differentfrom, for example, those of Iceland or New Zealand,where market-based individual transferable quotas arethe central policy tools. There is no unique path to-wards conserving marine ecosystems and sustaininglivelihoods. What is required is a careful assessmentof the existing institutional frameworks and the poten-tial role of the fisheries sector in marine ecosystemconservation. According to the Ecosystem Approachof the CBD, Japanese fisheries management has manyadvantages, including a decentralized managementsystem, an adaptive management process, the use oflocal and scientific knowledge, multi-scale andinterlinked management, and the promotion of sustain-able resource use in an economic context. In order toexpand the Japanese fisheries management system toencompass ecosystem conservation, these institutionaladvantages should be fully utilized. At the same time,supplemental policy measures should be introduced tofill the gap between fisheries management and eco-system conservation; these measures could include theintroduction of ecosystem perspectives, widerstakeholder involvement, ecosystem monitoring andindicators, and marine protected areas.

The Shiretoko WNH area has applied the above-men-tioned measures and has fully utilized the advantagesof existing fisheries management systems; other envi-ronmental policy measures have been used to deal withthe challenges described above. Local fishers are notsomething to be eliminated from Natural Heritage eco-systems; instead, they are at the very core of marineecosystem conservation. The 37th session of theUNESCO World Heritage Committee, held in PhnomPenh in August 2013, applauded the Shiretoko Ap-proach as a “bottom-up approach to managementthrough the involvement of local communities andstakeholders.” This approach, together with “the wayin which scientific knowledge has been effectivelyapplied to management of the property through theScientific Council and working groups, [has] beencommended by IUCN and the UNESCO World Herit-age Centre and provide[s] an excellent model for themanagement of World Heritage properties elsewhere”(UNESCO World Heritage Committee Statement2013). We hope that the knowledge gained in settingup in the Shiretoko WNH area can contribute to futureecosystem-based management in the Asia-Pacific re-gion, where large numbers of small-scale fishers uti-lize a wide range of species.

One of the main messages of this monograph is the



importance of the social-ecological system perspective(Berkes et al. 2014). I showed here that Japanese fish-eries management institutions and the decision-mak-ing processes that underlie them reflect the ecologicaland social background of Japan. Therefore, in anycountry or area, I believe that a clear and deep under-standing of the social and ecological background is aprerequisite for articulating new fisheries managementmeasures for emerging issues such as climate change.A good policy measure that has shown success in onearea or country cannot be copied to other social andecological settings.

Similarly, an appropriate process for integrating fish-eries management and ecosystem conservation shouldbe devised to suit the social and ecological background.One of the most difficult issues in such integration ishow various stakeholders can work together. Reed etal. (2014) showed the importance of building trust andeffective flow of information. In this respect, as theShiretoko World Natural Heritage area case shows (Fig.10), a coordinating system participated in by variousstakeholders can be a good arena for building trust andeffective information flow among stakeholders.

However, how can we share a common interestamong various stakeholders? Or, in other words, whatis the common interest that needs to be shared by awide-range of stakeholders? I think that a clue can befound in the words of the leader of an environmentalNGO that is currently conducting conservation activi-ties in Japanese coastal areas with various stakeholders,including fishers. He said that “even with very widegaps in values or beliefs among participants, I thinkwe can at least share the importance of education forlocal children ... in that sense, we cannot omit chil-dren’s experiences in catching and eating seafood inthe field. This is very important.” (Citizen Group Meet-ing for the Promotion of Nature Restoration 2005). Hisopinion is deeply influenced by, and embedded in, theJapanese social context—i.e., the average Japanese eatsa lot of fish (Fig. 2). This is another reason why weneed the social—ecological system perspective forbetter ecosystem conservation planning.

AcknowledgmentsThe author appreciates all the discussions held with co-

authors’ and co-researchers’ on each studies included in thismonograph, such as Y. Kitabatake, W. Sakamoto, H.Matsuda, Y. Sakurai, T. Tomiyama, S. Glecich, J. C. Castilla,S. Oyamada, Y. Ueno, K. Kotani, M. Hirota, T. Kaneko, Q.Grafton, R. Hilborn, D. Squires, M. Williams, S. M Garcia,T. Groves, J. Joseph, G. Libecap, A. G. Rossberg, A.Cabanban, S. Jentoft, Y. Miyazawa, H. Uchida, T. Komatsu,Y. Machiguchi, H. Saito, S. Kim, A. Velikanov, K. Criddle,T. Funamoto, J. Kolding, J. Rice, M. J. Rochet, S. Zhou, T.Arimoto, J. E. Beyer, L. Borges, A. Bundy, D. Dunn, E. A.Fulton, M. Hall, M. Heino, R. Law, A. D. Rijnsdorp, F.Simard, A. Smith, D Fluharty, I. Perry, to just a few. Theirstipulations and comments were significantly valuable. Also,

the discussions at the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage SiteScientific Council offered us insights into the concept ofadaptation. Finally, we wish to acknowledge kind and warmencouragements from Dr. Katsumi Aida, Professor Emeri-tus of University of Tokyo, and Dr. Tadashi Tokai, Profes-sor of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology,which were the very valuable motivation of this monograph.

ReferencesAkiyama H. Legislative history of the Meiji Fishery law.

Gyogyo Keizai Kenkyu 1960; 8(3): 1–30 (in Japanese).Barnes C, McFadden KW. Marine ecosystem approaches to

management: challenges and lessons in the United States.Marine Policy 2008; 32: 387–392.

Berkes F, Armitage D, Ibarra, MA, Charles T, Loucks L,Graham J, Seixas C, Makino M, Satria A, Abraham J.Guidelines for Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems(http://www.communityconservation.net/ses-guidelines/).2014.

CIA. The 1997 World Fact Book. 1997.Citizen Group Meeting for the Promotion of Nature Resto-

ration. Nature restoration activities linking forests, sato(villages), rivers, and ocean: lessons from 13 advancedcases in Japan. Chuohoki Publishers, Tokyo 2005 (in Japa-nese).

Clark K. Mathematical Bioeconomics. John Wiley & Sons,Inc., New Jersey. 1990.

Copes P, Charles A. Socioeconomics of individual transfer-able quotas and community-based fishery management.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2004; 33:171–181.

FAO. Number of Fishers 1970–1997. FAO Fisheries Circu-lar 929. FAO, Rome. 1999.

Fisheries Agency. Historical Materials of FIsheries Funda-mental Policy Measures Volume 1. 1963 (in Japanese).

Fisheries Research Agency. The Grand Design of Fisheriesand Resources Management in Japan (http:/ /w w w. f r a . a f f r c . g o . j p / k s e i k a / G D e s i g n _ F R M /FinalReport_eng.pdf). 2009.

Hirasawa Y, Sato M, Yamamoto T. Fisheries cooperatives asthe core for development of coastal fisheries managementsystem—Japanese experience. In: Yamamoto T, Short K(eds). International Perspectives on Fisheries Manage-ment. National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Asso-ciations, Tokyo. 1992; 127–158.

Holling CS. Adaptive Dnvironmental Assessment and Man-agement. Wiley, New York. 1978.

Ito S, Rose KA, Miller AJ, Drinkwater K, Brander KM,Overland JE, Sundby S. Ocean ecosystem responses tofuture global change scenarios: a way forward. In: BarangeM, Field JG, Harris RP, Hofmann EE, Perry RI, WernerFE (eds). Marine Ecosystems and Global Change. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford. 2010; 287–322.

IUCN. Technical evaluation report. Shiretoko (Japan) ID No.1993. 2005.

Kaeriyama M. Ecosystem-based sustainable conservationand management of Pacific salmon. In: Tsukamoto K,Kawamura T, Takeuchi T, Beard TD, Kaiser MJ (eds).Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment .TERRAPUB, Tokyo. 2008; 371–380.

Kishi MJ, Kaeriyama M, Ueno H, Kamezawa Y. The effectof climate change on the growth of Japanese chum salmon



(Oncorhynchus keta) using a bioenergetics model coupledwith a three-dimensional lower trophic ecosystem model(NEMURO). Deep-Sea Research II 2010; 57: 1257–1265.

Kurihara H. Effects of CO2-driven ocean acidification onthe early developmental stages of invertebrates. MarineEcology Progress Series 2008; 373: 275–284.

Kuwahara K, Aketa M, Kobayashi S, Takeshita A, YamasitaH, Kido K. The anticipated changes in habitats of Japa-nese fisheries resources by global warming. ChikyuKankyo 2006; 11: 49–57 (in Japanese).

MacArthur R, MacArthur JW. On bird species diversity.Ecology 1961; 42: 594–598.

Makino M. Using real options to estimate a benefit of theadaptive resource management. Proceedings of the Inter-national Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade(IIFET) 2004. Tokyo. 2004.

Makino M. The Ecosystem Approach of the CBD and fish-eries management in Japan. Global Environmental Re-search 2005; 7: 95–104.

Makino M. Fisheries Management in Japan. Springer. 2011a.Makino M. A theory of the management options for sea cu-

cumber fisheries in Japan: a simulation analysis with man-agement objectives and area characteristics. Jpn. J. Fish.Econ. 2011b; 55(1): 149–165 (in Japanese).

Makino M. Institutional Analysis of Japanese Fisheries:Fisheries Management and Ecosystem Conservation.Kouseisya-Kouseikaku, Tokyo. 2013 (in Japanese).

Makino M, Matsuda H. Fisheries co-management in Japa-nese coastal fisheries: institutional features and transac-tion costs. Marine Policy 2005; 29: 441–450.

Makino M, Matsuda H. Ecosystem-based management in theAsia-Pacific region. In: Ommar RE, Perry RI, CochraneK, Cury P (eds). World Fisheries: A Social-EcologicalAnalysis. Wiley-Blackwells. 2011; 322–333.

Makino M, Mitani T. Fisheries management under speciesalternation: a case of the Pacific purse seiner off Japan.Proceeding for International Institute of Fisheries Eco-nomics and Trade (IIFET) 2010. Montpellier, France.2010.

Makino M, Sakurai Y. Adaptation to climate-change effectson fisheries in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area,Japan. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2012; 69: 1134–1140.

Makino M, Matsuda H, Sakurai Y. Expanding fisheries co-management to ecosystem-based management: A case inthe Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area, Japan. MarinePolicy 2009; 33: 207–214.

Matsuda H, Makino M, Sakurai Y. Development of an adap-tive marine ecosystem management and co-managementplan at the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site. Bio-logical Conservation 2009; 142: 1937–1942.

McGinnins M, Ostrom E. Design principles for local andglobal commons. In: Young O (ed). The InternationalPolitical Economy and International Institutions Vol 2.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 1996; 465–493.

Megrey BA, Rose KA, Ito S, Hay DE, Werner FE, YamanakaY, Aita MN. North Pacific basin-scale differences in lowerand higher trophic level marine ecosystem responses toclimate impacts using nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplanktonmodel coupled to a fish bioenergetics model. EcologicalModelling 2007; 202: 196–210.

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. FisheriesCensus. 2010 (in Japanese).

Ministry of Environment of the Government of Japan,Hokkaido Prefectural Government. The multiple use inte-grated marine management plan. December 2007.

Miyazawa Y, Makino M. Role of fisheries and ecosystem-based management: Shiretoko, Japan. In: Amareswar Galla(ed). World Heritage: Benefits Beyond Borders. UNESCOand Cambridge University Press. 2012; 253–263.

Nagata M. Sustainable use and conservation of Hokkaidosalmon. Proceedings of Japan-Russia Cooperative Sym-posium on the Conservation of Okhotsk Ecosystems.Hokkaido University. May 2011.

Ninohei T. Historical Overview of Japanese Fisheries.Ochanomizu-Shobou, Tokyo. 1978 (in Japanese).

Ohshima KI, Mizuta G, Itoh M, Fukamachi Y, Watanabe T,Nabae Y, Suehiro K. Winter oceanographic conditions inthe southwestern part of the Okhotsk Sea and their rela-tion to sea ice. Journal of Oceanography 2001; 57: 451–460.

Rausu Town History Editing Committee. Rausu Town His-tory. Rausu Town. 1970 (in Japanese).

Reed MG, Godmaire H, Abernethy P, Guertin MA. Buildinga community of practice for sustainability: Strengtheninga learning and collective action of Canadian biospherereserves through a national partnership. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 2014; 125: 230–239.

Rosa AL, Yamamoto J, Sakurai Y. Effects of environmentalvariability on the spawning areas, catch, and recruitmentof the Japanese common squid, Todarodes pacificus(Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae), from the 1970s to the2000s. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2011; 68: 1114–1121.

Ruddle K. Administration and conflict management in Japa-nese coastal fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 273.FAO. 1987.

Sakurai Y. An overview of the Oyashio ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research II 2007; 54: 2526–2542.

Sakurai Y. Effects of global warming on fisheries resources.In: Association of Japan Agricultural Scientific Societies(ed). Challenges of Agricultural Sciences on Global Warm-ing. Youken-dou, Tokyo. 2009; 49–73 (in Japanese).

Shari Fisheries History Editing Committee. Shari FisheriesHistory. Shari Town. 1979 (in Japanese).

Shiretoko Museum. Fisheries in Shiretoko. Association forShiretoko Museum, Shari. 2001 (in Japanese).

UNEP CBD. Decisions adopted by the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its5th Meeting, UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23. 2000.

UNEP CBD. Review of the principles of the ecosystem ap-proach and suggestions for refinement: a framework fordiscussion. UNEP/CBD/EM-EA/1/3. 2003.

UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Adoption of Retro-spective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value(WHC-13/37.COM/8E) 2013.

Walters CJ. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources.Macmillan, New York. 1986.

Yamamoto T. Development of a community-based fisherymanagement system in Japan. Marine Resource Econom-ics 1995; 10: 21–34.

Documents

Institutional and Economic Analysis of Japanese Fisheries ... · tance of uncertainty in typical types of fisheries in Ja-pan. Several models from coastal and offshore fisher-ies