The complex and bureaucratic formal system of modern Japanese fisheries management and sea tenure evolved during the twentieth century. But it has a long historical legacy, with its codification clearly embedded in the early-Feudal Era (1603–1867 A.D.). Formalization of systems of sea tenure by the feudal or Edo government must have been based on precedents in customary usage, particularly the manorial system, although this can only be inferred.
For convenience this section has been divided into three periods. They embrace widely differing timespans, and the data available for each are also grossly uneven. The first I have called the “pre-feudal period” (pre-1603 A.D.), the second is the commonly accepted feudal or Edo Period (1603–1867 A.D.), and the third I have designated, given its many continuities with that immediately preceding, the “post-feudal period” (1868–1949). Apart from the second period, these do not conform with any commonly accepted practises of Japanese historiography.
PRE-FEUDAL TIMES
Abundant and diverse shellmounds, particularly around Tokyo Bay, demonstrate that by the Middle and Late Phases of the Jomon Period (4,500–2,000 years ago) permanent fishing and shellfish-gathering settlements were established, at least on the Pacific coast of Eastern Japan, and that they were specialized according to whether they exploited the aquatic resources of fresh-, brackishor shallow, inshore marine waters. Such specialization according to resource habitat, together with a fairly regular distribution of shellmounds at approximately 2 km intervals along former coastlines (Akazawa, 1981; Oikawa and Koyama, 1981), may demonstrate territoriality with respect to aquatic resource use. Inceasingly specialized and larger-scale fisheries are revealed by the shellmounds of the ensuing Yayoi Period (2,000–1,500 years ago), with particular emphasis on abalone (Haliotis sp.) collection (Koyama, 1969).
Further inferences can be made from information contained in the Account of Three Kingdoms (San Kuo Chih), an official Chinese document compiled before 297 A.D., that in the section dealing with the Wei Dynasty (Wei Chih) mentions abalone as being a tribute item sent from Japan to China. Many marine resources were important as tribute or tax items in early Japan, including salt, various seaweeds, salmon and many species of small fish, in addition to abalone, as is confirmed by numerous mokkan (lit. “wooden tablets”), which may have been tribute or tax lists, excavated at the eighth-century palaces at Nara and Asuka (Koyama, 1969).
It is not difficult to imagine, then, that in parts of Japan some form of management must have been applied to the exploitation of marine species, at least in specific habitats, starting about two millenia ago. Since once a particular item is specified for tax, revenue or tribute purposes, measures must be taken to secure a continuous and stable supply.
More concrete evidence is supplied for the Kansai Region of Western Japan, the cultural heartland of early Japan, by official documents pertaining to Lake Biwa (Kada, 1984). Although the largest lake in Japan, Lake Biwa has always been regarded administratively as a ko-umi (lit. “small sea”). Ninth-century documents concerning fishing on Lake Biwa reveal that an unidentified emperor awarded the exclusive rights to a particular community to establish fishing weirs where the Seta River enters the lake, in return for an offering of fish or money. Similarly, during the Nara and Heian periods (7th–12th centuries), various emperors granted rights to exploit fishing grounds at points where several specified rivers either flow into or out of the lake. As the manorial system of administration became widespread in the region emperors ceased to grant exclusive fisheries rights. Instead such authorization became the prerogative of powerful shrines, and in return the shrines received a share of the catch.
Kada's research on Lake Biwa fishing communities also provides a vivid illustration of the continuity of these ancient fisheries traditions, and the manner in which centuries-old rights still stongly influence present-day activities. One particular village was granted set gear rights in 1098 A.D., by the Kamigamo Shrine, in Kyoto. During these 900 years the fishing territory of that village has not changed, and has been conserved over the centuries by the strict access rules (vide infra).
Those earliest documents relate only to rights for fisheries using set gear. Mention of the exclusive right to offshore fisheries using hook-and-line and netting techniques appear considerably later, in documents from the 13–16th centuries. Further, although commoners are also known to have had rights to fisheries during those early times (this is known through one document that mentions a conflict between the owner of private gear and one with exclusive rights given by a shrine), there is no known document pertaining to the fisheries tenurial situation of the lower classes.
During the century before the beginning of the feudal era major political leaders, such as the Ashikaga Shogunate and Oda Nobunaga, became the patrons of fisheries rights holders. During this period exclusive offshore fisheries rights were granted to particular privileged communities by such leaders in return for the provision of warships, sailors and warriors in lieu of the previously offered fish or money.
EVOLUTION OF SEA TENURE DURING THE FEUDAL ERA
During the feudal era, or Edo Period (1603–1867 A.D.), all sectors of Japanese society were strictly controlled and carefully organized according to a rigidly hierarchical system. Most of the country was divided into large fiefdoms (han), many the forerunners of present day prefectures, each of which was privately owned, in effect, by a regional lord. Apart from the han and areas reserved directly for the central government (tenryo) only a few agriculturally unproductive mountainous areas remained in the public domain, for common use. A nationwide cadastral survey was conducted prior to 1610 by the central government of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, as well as by each fief government, to establish the economic productivity of each village and so to fix its taxable level. At that time village boundaries were clearly demarcated, based largely on customary usage, as were the sea boundaries of coastal villages (Hara, 1977), most probably also to facilitate tax collection.
Apart from areas with particularly productive fishing grounds, which provided an important source of tax revenues, most fief governments were little interested in fisheries (Yamaguchi, 1948). In the early decades of the feudal era, as the richer fishing grounds were assimilated into the fiefs, regulations were gradually introduced, especially for species with high economic value and those required for taxes and tribute (Ninohei, 1981). At the same time coastal villages were classified into two types, jikata, “farming villages,” and urakata, “fishing villages,” thereby defining their duties towards the ruling classes. In general, although not in all cases, farmers were prohibited from engaging in fisheries and were forced to concentrate on the production of rice, the all-important tax commodity, against which the value of other primary products was assessed.
Although there remains a wealth of primary historical sources dealing with Japanese coastal fisheries, none provides an exact date for the beginning of an institutionalized system of village or local sea tenure in Japan proper. However, it is generally assumed to have occurred sometime during the early part of the Edo Period (Yamaguchi, 1948), since during that time villages became increasingly specialized in particular types of coastal fishery and started to claim their own fishing grounds.
For present day Okinawa Prefecture, however, the information is more concrete (Akimichi and Ruddle, 1984). In the Ryukyu Islands, according to ancient customary law, the generally acknowledged sea territory of each coastal village was simply a seaward extension of its terrestrial territory (magiri). In 1719 this became codified, at least as far as Okinawa Island and other main islands were concerned, when the government of Satsuma fief instructed each Okinawan village to proclaim and define its own sea territory, by the umi-ho-giri law (lit. “Sea Division Law”), regardless of whether or not fishing was an important economic activity in any particular settlement. From that time each coastal village legally retained the exclusive right to exploit the resources of its adjacent sea territory, as the common property of all its residents (Nakayoshi, 1915).
Concurrent with the instruction to villagers to “divide the sea” was the appointment by the Satsuma government of village officers (umiatai or umigamae) responsible for village marine affairs via the enforcement of government regulations. The principal intent of umi-ho-giri was not to regulate coastal fisheries per se, but rather the local level control of marine affairs and the provision of corvee labour, as is clearly revealed by the three main duties of the umiatai, which were: (1) to inspect the shoreline and to notify the village guard of “any objects drifted ashore;” (2) to protect and guide government vessels transiting a village sea territory; and (3) to supervise the villagers' fishery activities and to ensure that tribute goods were offered to the fief government and to the village lord, as specified (Nakayoshi, 1915). The performance of corvee and the confirmation of exclusive rights to an coastal sea territory went hand-in-hand, since in return for their labour villagers were confirmed in their exclusive fisheries rights to a particular territory.
Based on time-honoured customary laws, the 1719 law upheld a village's right to manage its adjacent coastal waters. This law also upheld the customary practise whereby outsiders could not work a village's sea territory unless an agreed fee was first paid to the umiatai of the village whose territory was to be fished. The boats and gear of fishermen from another village apprehended working illegally were confiscated and were returned only after a fine had been paid. Similarly, poachers of octopus or shellfish were fined and then returned to their own village. Further, only householders enjoyed free access rights to a village sea territory, whereas tenants had to pay an annual fee to exploit octopus and shellfish (Ryukyu Government, 1968). Another important customary right acknowledged by the 1719 law was that of the farmers of the largely infertile and impoverished Okinawan countryside to collect hondawara seaweed (Sargassum spp.) and sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) for use as fertilizer.
During the feudal era one characteristic of present day coastal fisheries was paramount -- and even at that time it must have been based on precedents in customary usage -- and that was the noteable lack of nationwide uniformity in the definition of coastal fisheries and their regulatory procedures. In other words, despite an increasingly centralized and bureaucratized government during the Edo Period, coastal fisheries had only a local fo&cgrave;us and were closely adapted to local physical, biological and socio-economic conditions, a dominant feature that persists to this day. This inevitably led to considerable variation throughout Japan in their organization and conduct.
(1) The Local Importance of Fisheries
The local importance of coastal fisheries varied considerably throughout Japan during the Edo Period, although, in general, compared with agriculture they commonly were of minor concern to most fiefs. Despite some fisheries generally being a particularly important source of revenue, in most instances marine products were recorded in local tax books as “miscellaneous items.” From the mid-Edo Period, however, the central government took as a tax on the fiefs all the abalone, kelp, sharkfin and sea cucumber produced throughout Japan for export to China (Nose, 1980).
Where coastal fisheries were important to a fief's treasury, and particularly the highly capitalized, large-gear using fisheries, strict regulations were generally imposed on the number of entrants, via the licensing of gear. This was also done to conserve stocks and limit, via taxes, exploitation by outsiders. This is well illustrated by the regulations adopted by Uwajima fief, in southwestern Shikoku Island (Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.), where the sardine fishery was a major source of revenue, and in the Fukuoka Domain of Kyushu (Kalland, 1984).
At the other extreme were conditions in parts of the Ryukyu Islands -- now Okinawa Prefecture -- such as in the Yaeyama archipelago. Historically, Yaeyama has been a poor, remote and neglected part of the Ryukyus, a situation that the islanders could not remedy by developing the rich fishery resources, since under the Ryukyuan monarchy the exploitation of marine fisheries was limited to the use of stone weirs (Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.). That situation continued when the islands passed to the control of the Satsuma fief (based at Kagoshima, southwestern Kyushu), in 1609, since the Satsuma regarded fishing as a low caste activity, and entry to the sea was strictly forbidden. Thus marine resources were barely exploited, using only rudimentary techniques and for subsistence purposes (Kishaba, 1975). However, in other parts of the Ryukyus highly specialized fishing communities, such as at Itoman, on Okinawa Island, existed and strengthened their position throughout the feudal era (Akimichi and Ruddle, 1984; Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.).
(2) Division into “Jikata” and “Urakata”
As noted above, Japanese villages were classified either as farming (jikata) or fishing (urakata) settlements. So strict was this classification that some coastal villages which formerly had a mixed economy were divided into two separate villages, one for the farmers and the other for the fishermen. Although most such distinctions were based on occupation, some settlements, such as Shingu, in Kyushu, were physically relocated to ensure a strict separation of functions (Kalland, 1981). But, as in Fukuoka, for example, the separation between fishing and farming villages was never complete. In that fief not all 39 urakata were fishing villages, since some that formerly had been were later principally engaged in shipping, and another had ceased fishing without being reclassified. Further, for reasons not elaborated, some farming villages were classified as fishing villages (Kalland, 1984).
Although the situation was not uniform throughout the country, the inhabitants of jikata were usually prohibited from claiming the right to engage in fisheries -- except for the collection of seaweed for use as fertilizer -- even though their village might front on the sea. In some fiefs only poor villagers were permitted to fish in nearshore waters. And in other settlements, where the economy was based on a mixture of agriculture and fisheries, only members of the lower caste were permitted to fish. In general only specialized fishermen resident in urakata were granted the hereditary right to exploit nearshore marine resources in the common waters of the village, on payment of a tax or tribute to the fief. In many instances fishermen could also fish in waters off agricultural villages.
(3) Boundaries of Sea Territories
The formation of village inshore sea territories did not occur either at the same time or at the same rate throughout Japan. In part this stemmed from the socio-political history of the regions and partly it was a consequence of such regionally varying factors as geographical circumstances, level of market development and the general economy (Arai, 1970).
As already mentioned, although village sea territories were formed largely during the feudal era their historical roots penetrated much deeper. The antecedent manors (shoen) had levied duties in labour and kind on their fishermen, in return for which the manor protected their territories against outsiders. This was reinforced when the manors developed into small fiefs during the Warring Period (1467–1568). Around Osaka Bay, where markets and the manorial system developed early, a village sea tenure system had evolved prior to the feudal era. But in more peripheral regions village sea tenure emerged later, since, according to Arai (1970), fisheries and fishing villages developed later and hence there was no pressing need to develop inter-village boundaries.
Usually, as the early-Edo Period codification established or reconfirmed, a particular local fishing ground belonged to a single village, but some were the shared property of several settlements. Generally, those old shared village territories correspond to present day common rights fishing grounds. Virtually without exception, the coastwise extent of such village sea territories was defined by the projection seawards of the terrestrial boundaries of the village, although the angle at which these boundaries were projected was sometimes a cause of friction between villages. In some instances conflict arose between villages that had formerly fished the same grounds but were henceforth limited to separate areas as a consequence of the artificial boundaries established by the feudal administrators. (This was a precursor of several incidents that followed the passage of the 1901 and 1949 fisheries laws [vide infra].) Such boundaries which were often defined for administrative convenience rather than being based on customary usage, were particularly problematical, especially if men from one community were thereby excluded from areas formerly of vital importance to securing a livelihood, as in the case of exclusion of beach seine operators from critically important sandy beach areas (Kalland, 1984).
On the other hand whereas coastwise territories were precisely defined the seaward limit of a village's territory, i.e., the boundary between coastal and offshore fishing grounds, was not defined with precision nationwide, and the criteria for establishing it varied. This was perhaps a reflection of the importance of defining rights to sandy beaches in particular, which were critical to beach seine operations, whereas offshore areas were of lesser importance. In the Ryukyus, shallow water in which an adult could walk (naba, lit. “fishing ground”) was reserved by the adjacent village for the exclusive use of its inhabitants. In most instances in the Ryukyus the area of the naba largely coincided with that of the reef flat. The deeper water beyond the coral reef could be used freely by all Ryukyuans living in an area wider than the adjacent village (Shimabukuro, 1971). In Japan proper various criteria were used in different places to define the seaward boundary. A fairly common criterion was the number of fishermen with access rights. This was often a cause of considerable variation in fixing the seaward boundaries. Along the relatively sparsely populated Sea of Japan coast of Honshu, for example, a large sea territory was available, and the seaward boundary of coastal fisheries was set at 20–30 Chinese li (some 12–18 km) from the coast. But around the densely populated Inland Sea, where demand for access was heavy, the boundary was set at only one Japanese li (3.92 km) from the high tide mark. In yet other cases no geographical boundaries were delimited, either along the coast or seawards.
(4) Shared Usage
In feudal Japan the concept of shared land (iriaichi) used jointly by several or more villages within a fief for the collection of fuelwood, thatching materials and the like, was widespread. This same concept was also extended to the sea territories, particularly in bays which would have been difficult to divide among villages, and fishing rights in fishing villages (Hara, 1977). Within the shared fishing territory (iriai) the use of a given technology or the harvest of a particular species was reserved for one village, whereas other species could be taken using different gear, regardless of where the fisherman lived, provided that his residence was in one of the settlements having rights to the shared fishing grounds, and particularly if it was a branch village founded by migrants from an older settlement.
The iriai concept applied to bays was controversial, particularly with regard to access to sandy beaches to which individual villages claimed exclusive rights. Many villages attempted to extend “their” areas at the expense of other communities. However, these claims to exclusive use rights within bays were seldom upheld by the authorities, who issued decrees to settle disputes, therby undercutting the basic concepts of a shared fishing territory (Kalland, 1984). Fundamental to the iriai concept was that a particular sea space was to be held jointly and equally by two or more villages. However, in Fukuoka the practise of granting reciprocal access rights (vide supra) or access in return for payment (vide infra) was more widespread.
Under other circumstances the iriai concept was applied among the fishermen of a single village where a portion of the village sea territory would be licensed to a particular individual for a beach seine operation. The remainder of the area would be regarded as iriai for the free use of non-netting techniques.
The open sea beyond a village sea territory was also known as iriai. These waters could be worked by boats from any village along the coast of a fief. However, access was controlled since owners of these larger boats formed guilds, which were licensed by the fief in return for the payment of a tax, the performance of coast guarding duties and the transport of fief goods, on demand.
Prior to instituting reforms in coastal fisheries (vide infra), the Meiji government made an exhaustive search of feudal documents to establish the historical basis of sea tenure throughout Japan. This led to the government's postulation of a three-stage model for the development of village sea tenure during the feudal era (Hirasawa, 1979).
In the first stage, the privileged or “real” fishermen (i.e., full-time specialists) of an urakata village (Village A) could fish freely in the territories of neighbouring villages (B and C), which were jikata settlements whose inhabitants were prohibited from fishing. Later a need arose to regulate access when villages B and C claimed their own sea territories. However, since the inhabitants of A were still regarded, according to the implicit caste system, as “true fishermen” they retained limited exclusive rights within the territories of the adjacent villages, such as those to exploit benthos, for example, wheras the inhabitants of B and C henceforth held all other marine resource rights. The third stage was reached when each village decided to enforce exclusive rights to its own sea territory.
The processes postulated by that model appear to have developed gradually during the Edo Period, so that village sea tenure was widely established by the middle and later years of the period. At the very end of Japan's feudal age, just prior to the Meiji Restoration, in 1868, it appears that the second stage of the model was the dominant tenurial mode, that the stage one was still common, and that the final stage was just beginning to emerge in the most highly developed and productive fisheries. It was that final stage which was institutionalized by the Fisheries Law of 1901 (vide infra).
(5) Other Access Rights
Together with the provisions of the iriai system, the granting of other access rights functioned to make the bureaucratically rigid sea tenure system of the Edo Period more flexible. In that way it became better adapted to the heterogenous nature of different yet proximate fishing grounds by enabling fishermen to exploit a range of locations, to work year round and to specialize in particular fisheries.
A common reason for granting access rights to outsiders within an exclusive sea territory of a village was to afford fishermen from villages with small or resource-poor territories access to better fishing grounds (Kalland, 1984). Yet almost invariably restrictions were imposed on such fishermen. Most commonly this took the form of limitations on technology, boat and gear numbers, target species and seasonality and timing of operations. Further, fishermen granted access were required to pay a fee equivalent to 10–33 percent of the value of their catch taken in the waters to which they were given access. Since that was no small amount it may well be that the real motivation was to extract further rents than to provide more equitable access.
Access to sandy beaches located in exclusive rights territories was also commonly granted during the feudal era, since in beach seine operations these were critical sites for hauling and drying nets and for sun-drying fish. A fee was levied on those granted such access for net- and fish-drying (Fukuoka Prefecture 1963, cited in Kalland, 1984).
(6) Licensing
Although fishing villages were either given or confirmed in exclusive rights territories during the early-Edo Period, it did not imply that all inhabitants thereby acquired equal access to inshore waters, since not uncommonly the fishing grounds were monopolized by local elites in return for tax payments. Access to fishing grounds was limited by restrictions on the number of fishing units and boats and on the number and types of gear that could be employed (Arai, 1970; Ninohei, 1978; Yamaoka, 1974).
Little documentary information exists on either restrictions placed on households or boats permitted to fish during the Edo Period, as such strategies were probably adopted within villages to solve only local problems. On the other hand there is substantial information to show that gear, and large gear in particular, was restricted by licensing in some fiefs, as in Fukuoka and Uwajima.
In neither fief were licenses required to operate such simple technologies as hook-and-line fishing, seaweed harvesting or shellfish gathering -- with the exception, among the latter, of the valuable abalone and turbo shells in Fukuoka (Kalland, 1984). Such fisheries appear to have been open to anybody who had access to a boat, gear and labour. Similarly, apart from being taxed, small nets, that included, inter alia, gill nets, set nets and fish traps, were apparently of little interest to fief authorities, although in Fukuoka local licenses issued by the village authorities were required for the operation of small net gears (Kalland, 1984).
But large, highly capitalized gear which yielded potentially major economic returns was strictly controlled and taxed by the fief authorities in both Fukuoka and Uwajima. In both fiefs the sardine catch using beach seines was the most important fishery during the Edo Period (Kalland, 1984; Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.), hence the control of these large nets was of great interest to the authorities.
Large net fisheries were capital intensive and demanded a major investment in boats and gear as well as a large labour force. Thus in the main they were feasible only to a few rich village entrepreneurs, commonly merchants. To guarantee a viable rate of return on the large investment, such fisheries needed unobstructed access to relatively large tracts of sea space, and thus had to be allocated specific and exclusive territorial rights to fishing grounds (ajiro) within a village's exclusive rights area. This led to the “privatization of fishing grounds” in what was theoretically a communal sea space, since the large net owners gradually acquired prescriptive rights to the ajiro (Habara, 1954). Thus in Uwajima fief, for example, special licenses were issued to members of the shoya class to operate beach seine nets to catch sardines within the sea territory of each village. (This class was a hereditary village elite generally composed of rich farmers, wealthy fishermen or merchants.) The owner of a beach seine (ami moto) received a special ajiro (lit. “territory of the net”) license from the lord, via the County Office Court, which gave him the exclusive rights to operate in a particular tract of sea, as well as the exclusive rights to use a stretch of the foreshore for hauling, drying and maintaining his net. Apart from that ami moto, which was hereditary, no other permanent fishery based on netting was permitted.
There existed, however, the concept of kogi ajiro (lit. “official ajiro”), which was regarded by the fief authorities as a potential site for establishing an ami moto at some future time. Prior to awarding a permanent ami moto for such sites, other village fishermen, or those from other villages, could apply to the fief for a temporary license to operate a beach seine in the kogi ajiro. These temporary licenses were known as hyakusho ami (lit. “common people's net” [i.e., “farmer's net”]), to distinguish them from the ami moto belonging to the higher status people (shoya). Gradually, in Uwajima, this dual licensing system led to an extreme overcrowding of the beach seine fishery, and eventually the commoners objected to the privileged position of the ami moto holder. In response, in 1831, the fief cancelled all exising beach seine licenses and issued only one ajiro territory for an ami moto per village (Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.).
(7) Other Regulations Imposed on Fishing
Strict regulations were drawn-up by the Uwajima fief to ensure the conservation of resources. The use of bottom gill nets for the benthos catch was prohibited, and fishing with a small mesh trawl net (“with a mesh like a mosquito net”) was forbidden. Piscicides were not permitted and night fishing with torches was regulated by season and sometimes prohibited. Seaweed harvesting was also banned during the spawning season because the eggs of some species of fish attach to the weeds (Ehime Pref., 1938, 1962; Ishige, 1975). Similar regulations obtained in other fiefs, such as Fukuoka (Kalland, 1984).
(8) Conflict Resolution
It is noteworthy that both the causes of conflicts and the processes employed to resolve them within and among villages during the Edo Period differ little from those still mainly used at present (vide infra). This constitutes an important part of the continuity of tradition fundamental to an understanding of present day Japanese inshore fisheries.
Fisheries disputes that occurred within villages are relatively poorly documented since they were generally of little or no importance to the fief authorities. Among the more serious of intra-village disputes were those over licensing and the allocation of de facto private fishing grounds for large nets. These kinds of disputes had profound social implications since their outcome determined whether a community would be monopolized by a small, wealthy elite or based on equitable access to grounds for all fishing units.
One such dispute that involved the use of mediation is described by Kalland (1984) for the village of Jinoshima, in Fukuoka fief. It concerned the use of small nets which were licensed by, and therefore could be controlled by, the village leader. In that way he sought to monopolize for himself the sand lance (Ammodytes personatus) and yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) fisheries. This man had virtually monopolized the former fishery from 1794 to 1835 via a written contract that the villagers had made with him in 1799, in which it was stated that no other villager could operate sand lance nets. A cheaper sand lance net that could be operated by one boat, and which was therefore financially more accessible to the ordinary fishermen, appeared in the region in the 1830s. The villagers proposed that 8 units be allowed to operate the new nets. The village leader refused, and the villagers took the case to the higher level district headman for mediation. Mediation resulted in a compromise; five new nets were permitted and the villagers made a written agreement that no more would be introduced. Nevertheless, three years later three more nets were brought into operation. In part the leader was defeated since the written agreements were not considered legally binding by the fief, which had issued edicts against the monopolization of fisheries (Kalland, 1984).
The payment of cash compensation was also used to settle or prevent intra-village disputes. In 1840, in Jinoshima, for example, one unit petitioned to operate a net for tuna. This was recognized as being detrimental to yellowtail-netting in the same waters. Conflict was avoided when the tuna net unit agreed to pay compensation to the yellowtail netters. Via an edict issued in 1772 Fukuoka fief authorities stated that large nets should benefit all fishing households and not just those of a few capitalists. While special considerations were given to large nets that were owned cooperatively, the owners of private nets were required to compensate the village for any inconveniences caused. The level of monetary compensation was often set at 10 percent of the value of the catch of the individual large nets, and was divided among the village households (Kalland, 1984).
Inter-village disputes during the Edo Period were better documented, at least in Fukuoka fief (Kalland, 1984), and arose principally over the boundaries to exclusive rights territories, rights to common fishing and the licensing of large nets. Some disputes arose over the rights to common fishing in bays, accompanied by varying perceptions of different village exclusive rights territories, particularly those to sandy beaches. These disputes can be viewed as an effort by one village to expand at the expense of another. In some cases villages attempted to acquire prescriptive rights via systematic poaching in the territory of another. Usually such problems were resolved by compromise agreements worked out by the district headman and a committee composed of the leaders of several neighbouring villages in addition to those of the villages in dispute (Kalland, 1984).
(9) The Direct Transfer of Fisheries Rights by the Government
The islet studded coast of Japan, and particularly the coralline environment of Okinawa Prefecture, presents a particular management problem in Japanese waters, especially since island waters are invariably resource-rich and not uncommonly located seawards of the exclusive territory of any one village. Accounts of conflicts occasioned by the rival claims to such environments occur frequently in the fisheries history of Japan.
In the case of Okinawa, resource areas and migratory species outside customary village sea territories, both before and after the 1719 law, were under the control of the fief government, that in some cases transferred use rights to them to either individuals or to groups of fishermen. Two examples will serve to clarify some historical processes involved.
In 1673 the Ryukyu government awarded the temporary use right to three reef areas off the coast of Naha, Okinawa Island, which were all rich in such schooling fish as fusiliers (Caesio spp.), sardine (Sardinella clupeoides) and damselfish (Pomacentrus spp.) to Itoman fishermen, for an annual rent of 100 kan (375 kg) of copper money. Five years later the government transferred the temporary title to these reefs to two other villages near Naha, in return for an annual rental of 240 kan (900 kg). Then in 1691 the rights to the reefs were returned to Itoman. In 1729 the two other villages petitioned the government and succeeded in having the rights withdrawn from Itoman and returned to them (Tamashiro, 1915).
Doubtedless the government eventually wearied of these claims and bickering, since in 1729 it appointed six umiatai officials (two each from three villages) to control fishing in the reef area. Eventually the reefs were granted as an hereditary right to the six officials on the payment of a tax to the government. At a still later stage access to particular fisheries in the reef areas was transferred as a permanent right to villagers. The right to net sardine and damselfish that seasonally enter the area in large shoals was transferred to one village near Naha, in return for 250 kan (937.5 kg of copper money), and the rights for collecting and fish trapping were sold to Itoman village for 120 kan (450 kg).
In 1676 use rights to Chiibishi, another reef area with three small uninhabited islands, located some 13 km west of Naha and halfway to the Kerama Islands, were rented by the government to a resident of Naha, for 100 kan (375 kg). In turn this person transferred the rights to one village in the Kerama Islands, for the same rental fee. Thereupon in its turn this village rented out to three other villages some of the use rights for the employment of specified techniques and sometimes to take particular species. Net and line fishermen from one village were permitted to employ these techniques in Chiibishi on the payment of 70 kan (262.5 kg); those from another village were given the right to use drive-in nets for fusiliers, for 100 kan (375 kg); and in return for a rent of 100 kan those of another village were given the right of trapping (source unclear on the exact technique) as well as to collect sea cucumber (Holothuria spp. and Stichopus spp.).
Thus in Okinawa during feudal times the ownership rights and control of inshore fisheries developed exclusively upon the inhabitants of adjacent villages. But villagers were, in return, obliged to pay tribute from their territory to both the fief government and to their village lord. These rights could be extended to members of other villages on the payment of entry fees. Similarly, rights to exploit the fisheries of offshore reefs and uninhabited islands belonged to the government, which transferred them either permanently or temporarily to either individuals or to villages, in return for a cash payment. Then, as now, the transfer of rights was effected and enforced through monetary payment and contractual obligations.
Feudal era documentation of fisheries is far from complete for any part of Japan, and that which is available rarely mentions intra-community conditions, largely because they were not recorded by fief officials, who left villagers responsible for village affairs. Nevertheless it is apparent that during the Japanese feudal erà the control of coastal fisheries was, at the first level, regulated in broad terms by the fief, and particularly for large-scale netting operations. However, the details of implementation resided with the village, and particularly with the village officials and elites. Further, there is considerable evidence from some localities to show that despite a strong overall feudal organization the rights of the smallscale operator vis-a-vis village elites were upheld (Kalland, 1984). That resembles the present day FCA ethos. Further, and again like the Japan of today, there existed considerable heterogeneity in fisheries organization, as a consequence of the essentially local control. Thus in Japan's feudal era there existed well developed systems of local fisheries administration, themselves based on earlier precedents, that provided a traditional basis for the subsequent reform and modernization of fisheries organization.
THE POST-FEUDAL PERIOD (1868–1948)
With the Meiji Restoration of 1868 the feudal order collapsed throughout Japan. Disputes erupted within the fisheries sector and chaos reigned as the new Meiji government experimented with administrative structures.
In 1876, after the dissolution of the fiefs, the ownership of all fisheries reverted to the central government, which permitted operations on the payment of a use tax by the individual fishermen. A free-for-all ensued as new entries into coastal fisheries increased vastly, since agriculturalists clamoured for entry and a widespread effort to develop commercial fisheries arose. This led to the common occurrence of disputes over access and traditional rights among hitherto exclusively farming and exclusively fishing villages. And the highly capitalized big operator, generally a rich village merchant, bettered his position against the small-scale fisherman. Controversy and dispute in the fisheries sector intensified in the 1880s, owing to an economic depression consequent on the government's deflation policy, adopted to curb the inflation caused by the Civil War. As a result the central government was obliged to abandon its revolutionary system.
The traditional system that had persisted throughout the feudal era was revived, and de facto ownership of existing fishing grounds reverted to each prefecture, the administrative division that replaced the fiefs after the Meiji Restoration (Yabuuchi, 1958). In 1887 the Ministry of Agriculture, Commerce and Administration (Noshomusho) directed, via the “Standard Rules for Fisheries Association,” the establishment of fisheries cooperatives to coordinate the use of coastal fishing grounds. That was the only intervention by the new central government in the fisheries sector during the nineteenth century. Thus until the first national Fisheries Law was enacted, in 1901, Japanese fisheries were controlled entirely by the local governments, just has they had been during the feudal era.
To maintain order and peace in the fishing communities, the 1901 law was based on traditional practises that had either developed or had been reinforced during the long feudal era. Many of the privileges of the large-scale operators, and therefore the inequities, were also perpetuated. However, the feudal rights were supplemented by the 1901 law. Since, in general, feudal rights had specified closely the extent of territorial rights and target species there remained room for the issuance of additional rights. Thus the 1901 Fisheries Law reflected both traditional rights stemming from the feudal era and those newly granted. Regardless of origin, all such rights were categorized into those for captural fisheries, beach seines, set nets, and mariculture.
In feudal times fishermen worked as members of a fishing village guild, membership in which was rigidly limited to persons born in a particular village. All members had to follow strictly the regulations of the guild, which established fishing zones, set seasonal limits and imposed restrictions on gear and methods. These traditional practises were incorporated into the 1901 law. The new law took the old guilds as the local administrative nucleus, designated them as Fisheries Associations (FAs), and charged them with carrying out fisheries management via the granting of fisheries rights and the issuance of licenses within the sea territory of a village or a group of villages. That law was amended in 1910 to permit the FAs to engage in economic activities, including cooperative marketing. But their principal function remained, as indeed it still does, the administration of fishing rights in coastal waters.
Implementation of the 1901 Fisheries Law seems to nave done little or nothing to alleviate the economic plight of the smallscale fishermen, which owed much to their exploitation by middlemen and fish wholesalers. Further, owing to motorization and gear modernization, which began in the 1920s, efficient offshore boats started to fish in coastal waters. This led to serious conflicts with coastal fishermen whose economic conditions were further worsened by the operations of the larger, offshore commercial boats.
Economic distress in fishing communities reached a peak during the Great Depression, at which point the government attempted to break the grip of the middlemen by encouraging cooperative marketing by the FAs. Movement in that direction was reinforced after 1937 as Japan shifted to a war footing and the government increasingly controlled food distribution. At the same time the FAs were reorganized as part of the centrally-controlled wartime economy. One Association was established per village or town, and its president was appointed directly by the prefectural governor. During the 1930s, also, a movement began to stabilize the livelihood of coastal fishermen by extending the joint fishing rights areas further offshore and to concentrate all such rights under the Fisheries Associations. In this way the coastal operators would be protected against the offshore fishermen and resource conservation would also be enhanced.
Despite centralized administration under a wartime economy, from the late-1930s, with the great decline in the number of middlemen, wholesalers and money lenders, many of the residual elements of feudalism were essentially eliminated from Japanese fishing villages and fish landing ports. Henceforth the fishermen themselves were the masters of the coastal fishing grounds and their own communities, a circumstance that would soon be confirmed by post-war democratization, undertaken at the direction of the U.S. occupation authorities.
THE DEFINITION AND CODIFICATION OF VILLAGE SEA TERRITORIES
The post-feudal processes involved in the definition and codification of village sea territories, largely the local results of the passage of the 1901 and 1949 fisheries laws, can be traced for various parts of Japan by analyzing various sets of 20th-century documents. Akimichi and Ruddle (1984) have traced these processes for Okinawa Prefecture for three periods: 1907– 1940 (“First Period”), 1964 (“Second Period”) and 1974 (“Third Period”). These periods represent important stages in demonstrating the evolution of local level fisheries organization. The first was characterized by the implementation of the 1901 Fisheries Law (the so-called “Meiji Fisheries Law”), when Fisheries Associations were being formed, feudal era customary regulations being replaced or complemented, local regulations codified, fishing territories registered and inter-Association entry rights contracts formally legalized. The mechanics of these processes were studied via an examination of all the available “Exclusive Fisheries Rights Documents” for each Okinawan Fisheries Association. The “Joint Fisheries Rights Registration Documents” of the second period reveal the situation when the processes of inter-FCA territorial consolidation and aggregation were almost complete, following passage of the 1949 Fisheries Law. The final period, examined through the latest available “Joint Fisheries Rights Registration Documents” of each FCA, which cover the last decade, provides a detailed picture of the emergence of the territorial situation prevailing today.
The First Period (1907–1940)
Starting in 1902, with the nationwide implementation of the Fisheries Law, passed the previous year, village sea territories established during the feudal era were mapped, codified and registered, in the case of Okinawa Prefecture at the Okinawa Prefectural Fisheries Office.
Typically, these boundaries coincided with those established through prior customary usage, extending a fixed distance offshore between the seaward projection of a village's terrestrial boundaries at the high tide mark (fig. 2). In Okinawa, as in other areas, this presented no problems on the smaller islands, where the characteristic pattern that emerged was a seaward fisheries rights tenurial boundary set at a fixed distance offshore around the entire coastline. The distance of this boundary was not uniform throughout the prefecture (e.g., that of Tarama Island was set at 1.8 km offshore; Minna Island fixed 2.5 km and Yonaguni established a 0.9 km boundary [Fig. 3]), but invariably was fixed to ensure that all the resource-rich waters within a fringing coral reef together with the reef slope were included within a village's sea territory. In that way the exclusive right to a particular tract of reef fishing was ensured to a given Association, unless separate access agreements were also made with members of another Association(s) (vide infra). In many instances also included within these sea territories were tracts of adjacent deeper water beyond the reef slope in which separately licensed long- and deep line fishermen from the same Association alone could operate. This pattern of establishing a seaward boundary at a fixed distance offshore along an entire village coastline was not limited to independent islands. It was also adopted by several villages on the Okinawa “mainland,” (e.g., Motobu, Nago and Onna Associations [Fig. 4]), where again the seaward limit was determined mainly by the distance of the outer reef slope from the shore.
The sea territories of other Fisheries Associations on Okinawa Island were defined somewhat differently during this first period, by the use of a base point(s), a precursor of what was to occur later. These base points were either the village terrestrial boundaries at the high tide mark, or some prominent onshore landmark clearly visible from the sea, such as a lighthouse, cape or a distinctive mountain peak. In establishing such boundaries a series of imaginery points were fixed on the sea surface -- their position being defined as a given distance along a specific angle from the base -- which were then linked-up to create a seaward boundary. Typical examples were the territories of Kunigami, in northernmost Okinawa and those of Naha, Itoman and other Associations along the southwest coast (Fig. 4). In most instances sea territories remained relatively loosely and simply defined during the first period, and continued to reflect predominantly customary laws.
The Second Period (1964–1974)
By the second period all the sea territories of FCAs in Okinawa Prefecture had been defined by the second method described above, i.e., by the use of base points and projected lines. All had contracted sharply compared with the first period such that in most cases, except where the shelf was narrow and deep water fairly close inshore, only relatively shallow areas, up to 50 m in depth, were included within the tenured waters of an FCA.
Figure Notes: Location of Fishing Ground: Seashore waters of Yonaguni Village, Yacyama Province, Okinawa Prefecture. Areas of Fishing Ground: Seaward limit of no more than 500 ken (9.09 km) from the highest tide mark, at the full moon, on Yonaguni Island.
Figure 4. Boundaries of FCA- tenured areas around okinawa Island during the first and third periods
By this period, too, a certain amount of territorial integration had occurred combining the formerly separate territories of different FCAs. In the remoter and poorer parts of the prefecture this reflected predominantly the high rates of rural depopulation that had taken place, as in the Yaeyama archipelago in the extreme southwest of the prefecture, where the formerly independent village FCAs were merged into the single Yaeyama FCA, for example.
On the other hand, in areas where large numbers of fishermen operated and where fisheries were more productive, territorial integration represented a simplification of a multitude of bewildering, mutual inter-FCA access agreements. This was particularly evident in the administratively complex and conflict-ridden waters of Nakagusuku Bay and its associated offshore islands, and in the southwest of Okinawa Island, where several smaller village FCAs were incorporated into the Itoman FCA (Fig. 4).
The Third Period (1974-present)
The integration process that commenced after the first period continued into the third. Some formerly separate FCAs were merged into a single unit, whereas although others retained their own individual administrative identity henceforth they had to share their tenured waters with other separate Associations. In many instances on Okinawa Island this was a simple arrangement that involved the sharing of sea space by just two FCAs (as in the case of Katsuren FCA and Yonagusuku FCA, for example, or that of Ishikawa FCA and Kin FCA). Other administrative arrangement were far more complex, the most complicated occurring in one section of Nakagusuku Bay, where seven independent FCAs share use rights.
As would be expected, this sharing of sea space has occurred only in the most productive and heavily claimed areas and in which conflict has been most frequent and intense. On the other hand where historically there has been little inter-FCA rivalry for resources, individual village FCAs have retained sole rights to a particular tract of inshore water, as in the case of the remote Kunigami FCA, in northernmost Okinawa Island.
This sharing of sea space has been one of the administrative mechanisms employed by Okinawa Prefecture to resolve the many tenurial and customary law conflicts that arose between and among FCAs over the most productive and conveniently located fishing grounds. The prefectural Fisheries Agency designated the territory to be shared and then left it to the FCAs concerned to formulate, implement and monitor the detailed executory rules concerning access, gear and representational authority to the higher administrative levels. It should therefore be recalled that in Japanese coastal fisheries the direct control and organization of fisheries by the prefectural and national governments extends only to the basic rules, licenses, rights and the fundamental conservation regulations issued to the FCAs. Beyond that it is up to the local FCA or federation of FCAs to organize their own allocation and use of the sea space to which they have tenure. However, if inter - FCA conflicts cannot be resolved locally, then the prefecture intercedes to mediate.
One example, that of the four separate FCAs of Haneji, Nago, Motobu and Nakijin, which all share a common sea space, will serve to illustrate how this system operates. The execution contract among these four Associations for the use of their jointly tenured waters shows clearly that the primary control of the formerly separate sea territories of the individual FCA is still retained by that FCA. The document also reveals that in reality the joint sea space has been created more for the convenience of the prefectural administration and that no real merger in terms of completely unimpeded use of the shared sea space by members of all four FCAs has taken place. In effect, all that this document has achieved is the codification in a modern context of an old-established practise, i.e., the customary right of one village, on payment of a rental, to exploit the sea territory of another for either specified target species or using only a stipulated technology (vide supra).
Thus the Haneji FCA has reserved the right to employ drivein nets in its area solely for its own members. But Haneji FCA and Nakijin FCA have a reciprocal agreement that, apart from the use of drive-in nets, permits their members to freely work each other's territory. Nakijin FCA and Motobu FCA have a reciprocal agreement that permits their own gill netters to work in specified areas of each other's territory. Members licensed for lift netting for live bait from any one of the four FCAs can operate freely throughout the entire shared sea territory. Finally, and again for administrative convenience, one FCA, in this case Nago, has been designated as the representative of the four Associations at the prefectural level.
Again, these joint use rights of several FCAs to a particular tract of coastal waters follows long-established precedents. In 1924, for example, mutually accepted rules were agreed on by the Executive Committees of the Nakijin, Haneji and Ogimi FCAs for the sharing of the marine resources of two reef areas. (Although these rules are not spelled-out in the 1927 registration document of the Ogimi FCA, that document clearly states that Ogimi fishermen must obey them in their fishing activities.)
THE FOUNDATION FOR PRESENT ENTRY RIGHTS
For Okinawa Prefecture customary use rights in, and entry rights to, the sea territories of other FCAs were examined for the same three periods discussed in the preceding section, based on the same three sets of FCA documents (Akimichi and Ruddle, 1984).
Entry Rights during the First Period (1907–1940)
With the implementation of the 1901 Fisheries Law, Fisheries Associations had to legally claim and register their own sea territories. At the same time, any Association (or individual) that wished to obtain rights within the tenured waters of another Association had to officially register those rights, after first reaching an agreement on the terms and conditions of the entry contract with that Association.
The specialized fishing community of Itoman, which was established as a Fisheries Association in 1903, was particularly active in seeking and making entry agreements with other Associations, and by 1907 had settled contract agreements with five other Associations (Itoman City Office, 1982). As other villages gradually established their own Fisheries Associations, Itoman made contracts with them also.
The Fisheries Association registration documents of the first period are illuminating with regard to the way in which customary use rights of other villages within the newly registered sea territories of the Associations were acknowledged and permitted to continue. These documents also reveal the geographical range of the activities of the highly specialized community of Itoman fishermen, and the manner in which their customary usage of other village's sea territories was acknowledged and codified.
In the 1927 registration document of the Ogimi Fisheries Association, for example, it was stated that local fishermen could not prevent the entry of those from Itoman who engaged in the collection of turbo shells (Marmarostoma argyrostoma) and the kaininso seaweed (Digenea simplex), “… Because Itoman fishermen observe the conservation rules agreed upon by the Ogimi Fisheries Association.” (Unfortunately these conservation rules are not stated in the agreement, and no other document concerning them has been located.) Similarly, because of adherence to local conservation regulations, the 1927 registration document of the Uken Association also permitted Itoman fishermen access to collect turbo shells, although in this instance only 40 persons were allowed to operate.
In other cases Itoman fishermen were permitted entry to conduct only closely specified techniques and for only specific target species. Thus the 1921 registration document of the Chinen Fisheries Association, for example, permitted them to collect sea cucumber, turbo shells and four other types of shellfish (Lunatia marmorata, Tectus pyramis, T. niloticus and a Tridacnidae), as well as to harvest kaininso seaweed, provided that the Itoman fishermen obeyed the conservation rules of Chinen (unstated in the document). In addition, they were permitted to conduct two types of drive-in netting, sardine netting and fish spearing in Chinen's waters.
During this period Itoman fishermen were also able to extend their claims into the sea territories of the remoter, southwestern Miyako islands and the Yaeyama archipelago. The latter case is particularly noteworthy since it represents an example of oldestablished genealogical links among highly specialized fishing communities being utilized to gain entry to the waters of other Associations, earlier generations of Itoman fishermen having settled the Yaeyama communities of Tonoshiro and Arakawa, on Ishigaki Island, in the 1880s, from which they initiated the commercial fisheries of Yaeyama (Ed.Comm.Yae., 1954; Makino, 1975; Ruddle and Akimichi, n.d.).
In the Yaeyama archipelago, for example, according to its 1918 registration document, the Taketomi Island Fisheries Association permitted Itoman fishermen the right to collect all the shellfish and to harvest all the seaweeds that were open to exploitation by its own members, as well as to operate gill nets and fixed nets for reef fish, to net sardines, to trap reef fish and to spear octopus. The rights granted to the Itoman fishermen in Yaeyama appear to have been noteably freer of restrictions than were those granted elsewhere. This is a reflection, perhaps, of the long-enduring extended family organization characteristic of Okinawan society.
In comparison, in the Miyako Island group the contracts made with the local fisheries associations were closely restricted. In 1928, for example, the Miyako Fisheries Association permitted Itoman fishermen the right to use two types of drive-in net in its waters, but only one net of each type was allowed (i.e., only two fishing units were allowed to enter). Similarly, in the same year the Hisamatsu Association, also in the Miyako group, permitted Itoman men to use only one drive-in net in its waters (i.e., only one fishing unit was permitted to work in Hisamatsu's waters).
Neighbouring Fisheries Associations made more frequent entry claims than did the specialists from Itoman. In many instances these became highly complex and overlapping, as in the waters of Nakagusuku Bay and the nearby islands off the east coast of Okinawa Island. In that area, for example, the 1927 registration document of Kudaka Island Fisheries Association shows that fishermen from the four neighbouring associations were permitted access to its waters. On payment of an entry fee, 16 fishermen from the Ou village Association were permitted to collect five types of shellfish; 5 boats from the Minatogawa Fisheries Association were allowed, on payment of an entry fee, to conduct squid-jigging in Kudaka's waters; based on customary rights, and provided that an entry fee was paid and using a maximum of 10 nets, men from Tsuken Island Association were permitted to conduct fish driving for juvenile rabbitfish (Siganus spp.); and men from the Chinen Association were allowed to spear reef fish in Kudaka's waters.
It is apparent from the registration documents examined that these inter-Association entry contracts made during the years following the implementation of the 1901 Fisheries Law basically followed customary practise. That is, where exclusive fishery rights were claimed by an Association or an individual, fishermen from other Associations, or other individuals, had to pay an entry fee for such temporary access and use rights. Further, in most cases close specifications were set on the gear that could be employed, the target species that could be sought and on the number of fishing units permitted entry.
,
Miyako Province, Okinawa Prefecture.
Location of Basepoints: basepoint 
-the boundary between Agari-Nakasone and
Nishihara Sections of Hirara Ch
-the boundary between Nishihara
and