Download Marine protected areas in Japan: their main characteristics and

International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan
C-4
Marine protected areas in Japan: their main characteristics
and spatial/temporal distributions
Nobuyuki Yagi
Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences,The University of Tokyo
[email protected]
Recent discussions on MPAs
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are gaining increased attention in the world. In 2002 the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) called for establishing a global system of MPA
networks by 2012. The G8 summit in 2003, held at Evian, France, also called for the ecosystem networks of marine protected areas by 2012, consistent with international law. The 5th World Park Congress called on the international community to create a global system of MPA networks, and to include strictly protected areas at least 20-30% of habitat. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed in 2004 for the establishment and maintenance MPAs to
contribute to a global network. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2005 agreed to develop technical guidelines on the design, implementation and testing of marine protected areas as a
fisheries management tool.
United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution (Oceans and the low of the sea, A/
RES/63/111) in 2009 and reaffirmed the need for States to continue and intensify their efforts, directly and through competent international organizations, to develop and facilitate the use of diverse
approaches and tools for conserving and managing vulnerable marine ecosystems, including the possible establishment of marine protected areas, consistent with international law, as reflected in the
Convention, and based on the best scientific information available, and the development of representative networks of any such marine protected areas by 2012.
United Nations General Assembly also adopted another resolution (Sustainable fisheries, A/
RES/63/112) in 2009 encouraging accelerated progress to establish criteria on the objectives and
management of marine protected areas for fisheries purposes, and in this regard welcomes the proposed work of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to develop technical
guidelines in accordance with the Convention and the Code on the design, implementation and testing of marine protected areas for such purposes, and urged coordination and cooperation among all
relevant international organizations and bodies.
MPAs are also mentioned in the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy of the Government of Japan
(Cabinet decision in March 2008). It specifically notes “as one of the means to ensure the biodiversity and realize sustainable use of fishery resources, the government should, in accordance with the
Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements, clarify how to establish marine protected areas in Japan under coordination between related ministries and appropriately promote the establishment thereof”.
55
International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan
C-4
Figure 1. Control scheme for the coastal fishery in Japan
Figure 2. Nature of self-imposed agreement
Cost of resource
conservation
(present cost of
decreased catch
shared by small
group)
Benefit of
resource
conservation
(future
increased catch
shared by small
group)
Free Riders (external players)
1
56
International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan
C-4
MPAs in Japan
There is no fixed legal definition on the term MPAs in Japan, although the term itself is
used in the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy. The following areas in Japan can be regarded as MPAs,
taking into account the definitions used by the IUCN or CBD:
(1) National parks established under the National Parks Act;
(2) Nature conservation areas established under the Nature Conservation Law;
(3) Protected Waters established under the Fisheries Resource Protection Law;
(4) No-take zones of particular fishery resources established under the Fisheries Law; and
(5) Voluntary no-take zones self-imposed by local fishers within their co-managed coastal
fishing areas.
Although no official statistics on the number of these areas exists, the total number of the
above five categories in Japan can be estimated about more than 400 areas. Of these, the total
number of the voluntary no-take zones (area (5) above) can be estimated more than 280, according to a survey result (unpublished) conducted by Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association.
Nature of self-imposed regulations
Coastal fishermen in Japan, under the right based-management scheme (or TURF: territorial use right fishery in FAO terminology), usually operate within the fixed coastal fishing areas
and the form of operations (area, season, and gears) are agreed among the members of small
fishermen’s group (less than 100 persons in many cases). In other words, coastal fishermen who
belong to the same local fishery cooperatives are divided by several small groups of fishers who
are targeting for the same species, and the cooperative regularly facilitates decision makings
(including self-imposed no-take zones and other management measures) of such small groups.
The agreements are not usually published, because (i) the agreement is only effective among the
fishers small group and there is no need to disseminate it to outsiders, and (ii) decisions are often made immediately before the opening day of fishing season and enough time is available to
publish them. In this sense, the internal rules among the fishers tend to less transparent to outsiders.
Figure 1 above indicates the control scheme for the coastal fishery in Japan. In the face
value, the control is a top-down approach: local prefectural governments issue fishing licenses
to local fishery cooperatives based on the national law; and local fishery cooperatives let the
member fishermen to exercise the fishing rights according to their own rule. However, the actual situation can be described as bottom-up approach in fishery management, where detailed
control measures are agreed and self-imposed among the small-group members of the same fisheries cooperative (as explained in the previous paragraph).
Fishermen in most cases fully comply with their own self-imposed measures, because (i)
cost and benefit of the conservation are shared by the same fisher’s group (see figure 2 above),
(ii) the purpose of the protected areas is clearly defined (such as protecting spawning or nursery
ground of certain fish species), and (iii) the status of the agreements are monitored by the peer
fishermen. Outsiders are not allowed to operate fishing in the same area since they have no fishing right, and the problem of free riders (see figure 2 above) is less explicit.
57
International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan
C-4
Conclusion
Self-imposed MPAs are relatively common in Japanese coastal waters, while they should
be less common in North American or European countries. This difference can be explained
through the dissimilarity of control mechanism of coastal fisheries between Japan and other
countries.
As for the effectiveness of the voluntary protected areas, it is considered that such selfimposed no-take zone can be a powerful tool when cost and benefit of the conservation are
shared by the same interest group (fishermen) and when no free-rider problem exist. In reality,
some of the protected areas actually contributed to stock recoveries while some others have not
yet materialized their conservation effects. Using clearly defined performance evaluation criteria, a detailed study is awaited on the effectiveness of the protected areas is awaited.
Notes:
Full title of the resolution is “Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments”
IUCN resolution 19.46 adopted in 1994 notes that MPA means “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlaying waters, and associated
flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or
other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.”
COP7 of CBD in 2004 notes that “Marine and Coastal Protected Area’ means any
confined area within or adjacent to the marine environment, together with its
overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including
custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a
higher level of protection than its surroundings.”
The sizes of protected areas are relatively small (many of them are less than
several square kilo meters) and they are located in the coastal areas. Landing
sites of fish are generally limited and observed by local fishery cooperatives.
Thus, mutual surveillance is relatively easy.
58