by
Norio Fujinami
Special Adviser to the Minister of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries on International Affairs (Fisheries)
Japan
1. IMPACT OF 200 MILE REGIME ON JAPANESE FISHING INDUSTRIES
Japan had made continuous progress in its fisheries yield since 1945 and attained an epoch making catch over 10 million metric tons in 1972. This was an outstanding achievement in comparing with only 1.3 million metric tons catch in 1945. The production, however, has become stagnant thereafter for various reasons. The catch composition, on the other hand, has been changed conspicuously after 1972, namely increased catch in both coastal and offshore waters and decreased catch in distant waters as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - Yield of Japanese Fishing Industries after 1970 (Unit: 1000 metric tons)
|
Year |
Total Catch |
Marine Catch |
|||||
|
Sub-Total |
Distant |
Offshore |
Coastal |
Culture |
Others |
||
|
1970 |
9,315 |
9,147 |
3,429 |
3,279 |
1,889 |
549 |
168 |
|
1971 |
9,909 |
9,758 |
3,674 |
3,541 |
1,934 |
609 |
151 |
|
1972 |
10,123 |
10,048 |
3,905 |
3,594 |
1,902 |
648 |
165 |
|
1973 |
10,763 |
10,584 |
3,988 |
3,984 |
1,820 |
791 |
179 |
|
1974 |
10,808 |
10,627 |
3,698 |
4,178 |
1,874 |
880 |
179 |
|
1975 |
10,545 |
10,346 |
3,168 |
4,469 |
1,935 |
773 |
199 |
|
1976 |
10,656 |
10,455 |
2,949 |
4,656 |
2,000 |
850 |
201 |
|
1977 |
10,757 |
10,549 |
2,657 |
4,924 |
2,107 |
861 |
208 |
|
1978 |
10,828 |
10,600 |
2,134 |
5,559 |
1,990 |
917 |
228 |
|
1979 |
10,590 |
10,359 |
2,035 |
5,488 |
1,953 |
883 |
231 |
|
1980 |
11,122 |
10,901 |
2,121 |
5,751 |
2,037 |
922 |
221 |
|
1981 |
11,336 |
11,120 |
2,042 |
5,916 |
2,207 |
955 |
216 |
It is obvious that the decrease of the catch in the distant waters started before introduction of the 200 mile regime by majority of the coastal States in 1977.
The fall of the distant water fisheries of Japan is attributed to several factors such as: (i) increased operation costs due to the fuel oil price hike; (ii) increased prices of fishing materials; (iii) increased wage of crew; (iv) application of the concept of the Law of the Sea before proclamation of the 220 mile regime.
In fact, in 1955 approximately 80% of animal protein intake of Japanese people was from fisheries products, but the percentage has decreased down to 45% in 1980. This means that the increase of animal protein intake of Japanese people in the past quarter century has been dependent on meat and dairy products, as shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 - Change of food habit of Japanese people
|
Year |
Total animal protein (unit:g) |
Fisheries Products |
Dairy Products |
Others |
||||||
|
Total |
Fresh frozen |
Salted smoked |
Canned |
Total |
Meat |
Eggs |
Milk |
|||
|
1955 |
16.9 |
13.0 |
- |
- |
- |
3.4 |
1.1 |
1.3 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
|
1960 |
21.2 |
14.6 |
- |
- |
- |
5.6 |
1.7 |
2.2 |
1.7 |
1.0 |
|
1965 |
26.9 |
15.1 |
5.9 |
8.9 |
0.3 |
10.5 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
3.0 |
1.3 |
|
1970 |
31.8 |
15.8 |
5.6 |
10.0 |
0.2 |
15.2 |
6.0 |
5.2 |
4.0 |
0.8 |
|
1975 |
36.6 |
17.5 |
6.8 |
10.3 |
0.4 |
17.6 |
8.5 |
4.9 |
4.2 |
0.6 |
|
1980 |
39.1 |
17.7 |
7.0 |
10.1 |
0.6 |
21.2 |
11.2 |
5.1 |
4.9 |
0.2 |
This trend has been accelerated as the costs of operation of fishing vessels has increased due to the fuel oil crisis and fishing industries have been obliged to raise the price of fisheries products to make both ends meet in their fishing operation, if it were all possible.
It was unfortunate that the 200 mile regime started under serious economic crisis caused by repeated increases of fuel oil price and when the fishing industries lost capability to cope with the additional expenditures of the new regime. The coastal States have gradually realized the difficulties encountered by the distant water fishing nations and found that they can not expect so much from the access fees. The situation has inevitably led the coastal States to shift their efforts from imposing large sum of access fees to plan participation to fishing operation by themselves.
The situation, in turn, resulted in change of Japanese fisheries policy, and more efforts are being placed nowadays to exploit its own 200 mile waters as well as the public seas. This policy has so far been successful and the catch lost in the distant waters have been replaced by the increased catch in the coastal and offshore waters as already shown in Table 1.
2. NATURE OF ACCESS FEE AND THE SYSTEM OF PAYMENT
(a) Nature of access fee
There have been several different concepts on the nature of the access fee. Some consider that the access fee is payment against the expectation of possible catch in the waters to operate and therefore it should not necessarily be related to the actual amount of catch achieved in the waters, but rather should be related to the amount of resources available in the waters. The others consider that it should be a payment to the amount of catch obtained in the waters and therefore if the actual catch is different from the assumed amount then the balance should be squared when the fishing operation is completed. Some others take position that the access fee is compensation against the expenditures of the coastal States for administration and surveillance of the fishing operation of the vessels of the distant water nations.
Whatever concept is applied, a simple fact is that if the amount of the fee is beyond the capability of payment of the distant water nations, it prohibits the fishing operation.
Another point which calls attention is the fact that, at the beginning of the new regime, nations concerned paid more attention to Article 62 of the Law of the Sea and placed importance on the optimum utilization of the resources and prevention of socio-economic dislocation of neighbouring nations as well as nations traditionally operating in the waters due to the new regime. This basic concept has gradually been replaced by the right of the discretion of the coastal States over their 200 mile zones. Whatever concept is applied to the nature of the access fee, it should be remembered that the fisheries resources are living resources which can be recovered if optimum utilization is designed, and both the coastal States and distant water nations should pay every effort to make the best use of the resources so that they can not be wasted.
(b) Lump sum fee versus per vessel fee
The access fee is normally imposed in the form of lump sum fee or per vessel fee, and both the lump sum fee and the per vessel fee have advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of lump sum fee are: (i) payment of the fee is made in one lot or two lots during the agreement period and therefore both the payer and payee are free from the burden of complicated administration which otherwise is required to collect the money frequently from the fishermen; (ii) the recipient nation can have firm idea on the total amount of revenue in advance and therefore they can plan the best use of the income.
Disadvantages of the lump sum fee are: (i) somebody in the paying nation must take responsibility to collect money from individual fishermen and therefore a well established organization is required in the paying nation covering the participating fishermen; (ii) the lump sum fee level never correctly corresponds to the value of fish actually caught and complaint arises either from the payer or from the payee, and this is especially true in case of highly migratory fish; (iii) the system requires collection of equal amount of share from all participating fishermen but the catch of individual fishermen will be all different and therefore fishermen can not help feeling that they are paying opportunity costs; (iv) opportunity costs can be paid so far as the amount of the share is reasonable, but if the fee level is raised, fishermen who rely upon other fishing grounds and expect less opportunity of fishing in those specific waters, then others will drop out from the system and the amount of share of the remaining fishermen will further increase and finally the organization will loose its capability of collecting the lump sum. The lump sum system actually has often led the access negotiation to the unfortunate break-off.
It has been proven through experience that a per vessel fee, more specifically a per-vessel per-trip fee coupled with machinery to adjust the fee level automatically based on the change of fish prices, is the fairest and accordingly most stable system of payment of the access fee, although it requires more sophisticated administration.
3. ACCESS CONDITIONS
(a) Prohibited waters, prohibited fishing seasons, prohibited fishing methods and prohibited species
Prohibited waters are normally established where conflicts exist between the local fishermen and distant water fishermen, or where protection is required for the resources due to, for example, existence of spawning areas or fish aggregating devices. In some countries, the prohibited waters are arranged for environment protection.
Prohibited fishing season is designed mainly for protection of resources during the spawning season, and in some cases for the purpose to avoid seasonal conflict of fishing operation between the coastal State fishermen and distant water fishermen.
A specific fishing method may be prohibited when such method is too efficient and introduction of such method may cause destruction of the resources or economic dislocation of traditionally operating fishermen in such waters.
Prohibition of catch of certain species has been applied either to protect species which otherwise may be destroyed or to protect interest of specific industries such as sports fishing. It is, however, often technically difficult to catch certain fish species selectively.
Prohibitions on specific waters, seasons, fishing methods, species imposed as conditions for access have sometimes caused dispute between the coastal State and the distant water nation, mainly due to the difference of view concerning the abundance of resources, evaluation of the environment and specific interest of specific people, and the conflict of the view should be solved through more careful research of the resources as well as improvement of mutual understanding on different customs in different societies.
(b) Keeping licence on board
To keep a fishing licence on board is a basic condition for access as it is beneficial for both the coastal State and the distant water nation to avoid unnecessary confusion.
In some cases, it is technically not possible to follow this condition as fishing vessels could be on the sea when the licences are issued, and there is no means to deliver the licences to those vessels. If a licence is for a long period, such as one year, it can eventually be delivered to the vessel when the vessel returns from the voyage or when the vessel enters into a port abroad for refueling, provisioning or landing the catch. It is, however, not possible if the licence is for a short period, for example, per trip, and in such a case the licence number will be informed to the vessel by means of telecommunication so that it can be produced against inspection, as evidence to comply the condition of access.
(c) Reporting
Several different types of reporting have been imposed to vessels of the distant water nation operating within the 200 mile waters of coastal nations, such as: (i) report of entry and departure to and from the 200 mile waters; (ii) catch report on arrival to the landing sites; (iii) periodical catch report during the fishing operation within the 200 mile waters; (iv) report on commencement and completion of fishing operation within the 200 mile waters; (v) report on change of fishing location within the 200 mile waters; (vi) report for non-operation, if a vessel has obtained a licence and not operated at all within the 200 mile waters during the licensed period.
These reportings are designed for several different purposes such as: (i) collection of data for resources management; (ii) gathering information to determine reasonable fee level; and (iii) to keep track of the movement of fishing vessels to facilitate surveillance. Reportings are essential for eventual improvement of resources management. It should, however, be realised that if too many reportings are imposed beyond the capability of fishermen on board small vessels, the accuracy of the reports may inevitably be lowered and therefore hamper the original intention. The simpler the better is especially true to deal with fishermen who should work under severe conditions which are entirely different from those for the workers on land. In this connection, it is advisable to limit the reportings to most important and useful ones such as the catch report on return to the landing site and entry and departure report.
To facilitate efficient reporting, it is vitally important to have telecommunication facilities. In fact, however, it is often the case that developing nations are not equipped with necessary facilities such as radio stations and telex stations. Japanese telecommunication facilities are well developed and approximately 650 land stations are exclusively used for radio communication with Japanese fishing vessels.
Difficulties of Japanese fishing vessels are: (i) direct international radio communication is allowed only if the vessel is manned with a radio operator who has a licence for international telecommunication, but (ii) such high class operators are not on board small fishing vessels and therefore the reports from the fishing vessels must first be addressed to the land stations in Japan and be relayed to the coastal States. This causes inevitable delay of the communication and costs money if telex facilities are not available in the coastal States.
Another problem involved in the reportings is the formats of the reports, which have been different from country to country due to different demands of coastal States. As well understood, even minor difference of the formats requires additional efforts when correct reporting is intended. This is especially true for fishermen who operate within 200 mile waters of several different coastal States during one fishing trip, as often are the cases of fishing of highly migratory fish. The idea of the Nauru Agreement countries to use a single format among them seems to be beneficial for both distant water nations and coastal nations.
(d) Keeping up-to-date catch records on board
Before the 200 mile regime, it had been common practice among fishermen to keep catch records on private notebooks of skippers, and such records were considered as the properties of the skippers. It was, therefore, considerably difficult when attempt was made to have them write their catch records in such a way as everyone could understand. It has, however, been gradually accepted to use fixed formats for record keeping and nowadays many fishermen follow the new system. The situation will be further improved when old fishermen who have relied upon the genius instinct for detection of good fishing grounds are replaced with younger generations who have full command on all the modern fish detecting devices.
(e) Restrictions on amount of catch, number of fishing vessels, transshipment of catch and rotation of crew
The restrictions on the total amount of the catch, the total number of vessels to operate, transshipment of the catch and rotation of the crew which have been imposed by some coastal States are all designed to control the size of the fishing efforts.
If there is any justifiable reason to restrict the fishing efforts, the logical sequence is to impose restriction on the amount of the catch. It is, however, often impracticable to establish complete surveillance system therefore. In theory, it may be possible to design a perfect system of surveillance, but expenditure involved in such a system may totally discourage commercial operation of fishing vessels.
Although it is an indirect approach, a more practical and practicable way is to limit the total number of fishing vessels to operate in the waters. The restriction of the total number of fishing vessels has also been applied for the purpose of establishing a ceiling on the amount of catch in case of a lump sum payment, so that a balance can be maintained between the amount of the lump sum and the amount of catch for the benefit of the coastal States. The restriction on the amount of the catch and the number of vessels has not much meaning for operation of fishing vessels catching highly migratory fish under per vessel system of payment of the access fee.
(f) Boarding of Observers
Boarding of observers has two purposes, namely: surveillance, and scientific or practical study of fishing operation.
The practical problem involved in boarding of observers is how an observer can be placed on board a fishing vessel and how he can be collected after finishing his duties. If a vessel was required to enter a port to pick up and release the observer, it will cause loss of many fishing days and in case of skipjack pole-and-line boats such entry to a port may result in death of the live bait fish due to the change of water temperature in the bait tanks, thus making the operation not commercially feasible.
In practice, observers of developed nations where they have their own means of transportation may be placed and collected on the sea by high speed surveillance vessels, but in the case of countries where such means of transportation are not available, observers are placed on the ports of departure and released in the ports of landing of the catch, and the nature of observation is surveillance in the former cases and studies in the latter cases.
(g) Vessel identification mark
Through a few years of experience, it has been accepted by both the coastal States and distant water nations to paint the radio call sign or the signal letters if radio call sign is not available, and the system is working satisfactorily. The only technical difficulty is the fact that there is no space on the hull above the water surface to paint large letters of one metre high for small fishing vessels, and the Japanese fishing vessel registration mark is used for identification of the vessel.
(h) Radio equipment
Some coastal States impose obligation of installation of radio equipment with a specific frequency allocated to that country, so that they can communicate to the vessel when required. The radio frequencies are internationally allocated and therefore Japanese fishing vessels are equipped with radio with those frequencies allocated to Japanese fishing vessels together with internationally allocated emergency frequencies. Additional frequencies means, therefore, installation of additional equipment and additional watch to the required frequencies, and such additional watch is in some cases technically difficult as already established watching schedule is normally quite tight.
Another difficulty concerning the radio equipment is the fact that the radio on board can be operated only by a licenced operator, and therefore it is not allowed for the observers or inspectors of the coastal State to use the radio. The message of such officials may be transmitted by the licenced operator on board, but the contents of the message are restricted by the relevant laws and regulations of Japan.
(i) Summary
The Appendix attached is a numerical analysis concerning access conditions that tells itself in a very simple way which access conditions are more useful, practicable, and commonly applied than others.
4. TECHNO-ECONOMIC COOPERATION
Techno-economic cooperation is often requested by the coastal States in conjunction with the access for Japanese fishing vessels to the 200 mile waters of the coastal States, such as training of local people, services of Japanese experts, partial landing of the catch on local sites, and establishment of joint ventures.
The basic concept of most of the coastal States in providing access for the distant water nations is: (i) to place the first priority to the fishing operation of their own nations, if it is at all possible; (ii) to place the second priority to some forms of joint operation, such as partial landing of the catch of the fishing vessels of the distant water nations; and (iii) to place the last priority to the access for distant water nations.
This concept is justified as they try to make best use of the resources for the benefit of their own nations. Unfortunately, many coastal nations are not yet prepared to expand their own fishing operation and they have not enough knowledge even to make partial participation by means of processing of partially landed catch or by means of joint venture operation.
Being one of the most developed fishing nations, Japan has been providing various sorts of techno-economic cooperation for many years even before commencement of the 200 mile regime, jointly by the government and industries. Many trainees are accepted in the field of fisheries every year and expert services are provided, and Japan has established well organized machinery to cope with the request of technical assistance as well as economic cooperation.
An important point of Japanese cooperation is that any cooperation of commercial nature is outside of the government intervention, and it must be made by industries at their own expenses. An example of this sort of economic cooperation is the joint venture in fisheries. The joint venture operation in fisheries is nothing new, and at the moment 184 joint ventures are operating all over the world as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 - Fisheries joint ventures as of 1982
|
Areas |
Trawl fishing |
Tuna and skipjack fishing |
Other fishing |
Fish culture |
Cold store |
Proces- |
Total |
|
Central & South America |
13 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
24 |
|
Asia & Oceania |
21 |
6 |
19 |
31 |
10 |
15 |
102 |
|
Africa |
7 |
2 |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
13 |
|
Europe |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
North America |
- |
- |
5 |
1 |
- |
38 |
44 |
|
Total: |
42 |
10 |
27 |
33 |
17 |
55 |
184 |
It is often questioned how fisheries joint ventures can be established. The answer is rather simple, namely, joint venture will be welcome if it assures profitable operation. In fact, however, most joint ventures have not been profitable operations due to: (i) the risky nature of fishing operation in general; (ii) unstable political climate of the recipient country; (iii) economic instability of the recipient country; (iv) social insecurity of the recipient country; (v) unrealistic technical standard imposed on vessel design.
The joint venture operation is not a matter which can be forced as a condition of the access, but it should be determined based on commercial judgement of the fishermen concerned.
5. OBLIGATION OF COASTAL STATES
The most serious concern of the distant water nations in the case of violation of the 200 mile regime are: (i) the vessels seized and crews arrested are promptly released; (ii) crews are not imprisoned; and (iii) prompt notification is given to the flag States of the action taken by the coastal States, in accordance with Article 73 of the Law of the Sea. The delay of the notification and lack of preciseness of information have often caused confusion among people concerned, which otherwise could have been avoided.
APPENDIX - Analysis of Access Conditions (Case applied/Total arrangements)
|
Access Conditions |
Target Fish |
||
|
Highly migratory fish |
Other pelagic fish and demersal fish |
||
|
1. Type of arrangement: |
|||
|
|
Government/Government |
10/16 |
10/10 |
|
Government/Industries |
3/16 |
0/10 |
|
|
Unilateral |
3/16 |
0/10 |
|
|
2. Access fee: |
|||
|
|
Lump-sum |
7/16 |
2/10 |
|
Per-vessel |
9/16 |
3/10 |
|
|
No-fee |
- |
5/10 |
|
|
3. a. Prohibited waters |
11/16 |
10/10 |
|
|
Prohibited fishing seasons |
2/16 |
5/10 |
|
|
Prohibited fishing methods |
7/16 |
- |
|
|
b. Keeping licence on board |
15/16 |
9/10 |
|
|
c. Reportings: |
|
|
|
|
Entry and departure |
9/16 |
6/10 |
|
|
Catch report: |
|||
|
|
On arrival to the landing sites |
12/16 |
2/10 |
|
During the fishing operation |
6/16 |
6/10 |
|
|
Commencement and completion of fishing operation |
1/16 |
2/10 |
|
|
Change of fishing location |
2/16 |
0/10 |
|
|
Non-operation |
2/16 |
0/10 |
|
|
d. Keeping catch records on board |
15/16 |
8/10 |
|
|
e. Restrictions on fishing effort: |
|||
|
|
Amount of catch |
5/16 |
9/10 |
|
Number of vessels |
8/16 |
6/10 |
|
|
Transshipment of catch |
10/16 |
3/10 |
|
|
Rotation of crew |
1/16 |
0/10 |
|
|
f. Boarding of observer |
12/16 |
5/10 |
|
|
g. Vessel identification mark |
8/16 |
10/10 |
|
|
h. Radio equipment |
1/16 |
4/10 |
|
