LICENCE LIMITATION REGULATIONS: THE JAPANESE SYSTEM

by

Y. Asada
Fisheries Agency
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Tokyo, Japan

GENERAL REVIEW

History of Fishery Regulations

In Japan fishing has been a long-established profession practised by numerous fishermen. The fishing grounds used and the resources exploited were subject to the technological level reached at a given period. Fishery regulations evolved accordingly and, as early as the 18th century, fairly good control measures were developed locally in many parts of Japan to protect resources and to maintain orderly fishing operations. However, it was not until 1901 that the national Government established a unified system of regulations covering the whole country. The purpose of this legislation, called the “Old Fisheries Law”, was to coordinate fishing activities mainly in coastal waters, to prevent fishing conflicts, and to protect fish resources. This Law recognized and legalized a major part of the traditional institutions and practices. Subsequently, offshore and deep-sea fisheries were developed as an outcome of the growth of the productivity of coastal fisheries and the mechanization of fishing craft. This gave rise to frequent conflicts over fishing grounds. To solve these the “Old Fisheries Law” was amended several times and various regulations regarding offshore and deep-sea fisheries were established.

In 1949 the current law was enacted to replace the Old Fisheries Law. It reflects the “democratization” of Japan after World War II, and aims at increasing fishery productivity and the democratization of the fisheries regime through coordinated use of public waters by fishermen. The new law was substantially revised in 1962 to meet the changing fisheries situation.

Current Legislation

The current legal system consists of the basic Fisheries Law and related laws, such as the Fisheries Resources Conservation Law and the Fisheries Cooperative Associations Law; in addition, a number of control and coordination regulations, based on the laws, have been issued to provide further details of operation and control.

From a legal viewpoint, as Table 1 shows, fisheries are broken down into three main categories: Fishing Rights Fisheries, Licence Fisheries, and other fisheries. In respect of fishing grounds, the coastal fisheries consist mainly of Fishing Rights Fisheries and fisheries licensed by Prefectural Governors, while the main offshore and deep-sea fisheries are licensed by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. The relative importance of the three types of fisheries in 1970 is shown in Table 2. In terms of production, fisheries licensed by the Minister constitute as much as 60.1 percent, Fishing Rights Fisheries 14.8 percent, fisheries licensed by Prefectural Governors 9.6 percent, and other fisheries 15.5 percent. Around 1940 “Fishing Rights Fisheries” constituted as much as 65 percent of the total production. Thus, the relative importance of licence fisheries has gradually increased, particularly since the late 1950s. In terms of value, their relative importance is respectively 45.6, 26.4, 17.2 and 10.8 percent. It should be mentioned here that most of “other fisheries” were formerly free fisheries (where neither Fishing Rights nor licences are required). More recently, however, squid angling and the saury stick-held dipnet fishery, which together constituted more than 50 percent of “other fisheries”, have become the fishery automatically authorized by the Minister, so that the relative importance of the “free fisheries” has been considerably reduced.

In terms of the number of fishery management units (enterprises), there are approximately 6,000 licensed by the Minister, representing only 2.6 percent of the 228,000 units in existence. The Fishing Rights Fisheries and those licensed by the Prefectural Governors are far more numerous.

Table 1 System of fishery regulations in Japan

A. Legal classification

B. Illustration of the system

Table 2 Production by fisheries under fishing rights and licences (1970)

Fisheries Based on Fishing Rights

The Fishing Rights system is the basic institution controlling the coastal fisheries of Japan. Fishing Rights are broken down into: Common Fishing Rights; Set-net Fishing Rights; and Demarcated Fishing Rights.

Common Fishing Rights are those that enable fishermen to exploit a certain area of water in common: to harvest shellfish, seaweeds and other sedentary animals; to operate small types of fixed fishing equipment; or to operate small mobile fisheries such as beach seines and seines set from non-motorized craft.

Common Fishing Rights are granted only to fishermen's cooperatives made up of coastal fishermen. Details of operation of Common Fishing Rights are decided at a general meeting of the fishermen's cooperative. Common Fishing Rights, the duration of which is usually 10 years, have been granted for all the coastal waters of Japan.

Set-net Fishing Rights are rights to operate set-nets where the main part of the net is fixed in water more than 27 m deep. These rights are granted to fishermen or entrepreneurs who meet certain requirements, i.e. who agree to abide by fishery regulations, not to hinder the democratization of fishing communities, etc. First preference is given to fishermen's cooperatives, and second to fishing cooperatives, whose members live in the local coastal area. The duration of the rights is usually 5 years.

Demarcated Fishing Rights enable holders to engage in fish culture within a given coastal area. In the case of marine fish culture, including breakwater and pearl culture, the rights are granted to applicants who fulfil certain qualifications. For laver culture, oyster culture, and yellowtail culture, priority is given to fishermen's cooperatives in the local area. The members of the fishermen's cooperatives engage in culture operation according to regulations decided upon by the cooperatives. Duration of the rights is 10 years for pearl culture and for marine fish culture with breakwater, and 5 years for other culture operations.

Fishing Rights are monopolistic and exclusive rights to engage in certain fisheries in certain areas of public waters. Consequently, they are regarded as “Rights in rem” (property rights), and the same provisions concerning land are applied to them in legal transactions, except that there are certain restrictions on lending, transfer, and mortgage. Prior to granting fishing rights the Government (normally the Prefectural Governors) draws up, after consultation with the “regional fisheries coordination committee”, an overall programme for the utilization of each area, and defines the rights to be granted. These fishing rights are then granted to qualified applicants according to the established priorities.

Fishermen's cooperatives that have been granted Common Fishing Rights or Demarcated Fishing Rights may, by contract, give outside fishermen “Entry Rights”, which enable them to operate in the area.

Fisheries Based on Fishing Licences

Legally, a fishing licence exempts an individual from general prohibitions declared for the purpose of conservations or the maintenance of order in the exploitation of fishing grounds. There are two categories of fishing licences: those granted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and those granted by Prefectural Governors.

Fisheries for which licences by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry are required

Fishing licences granted by the Minister are required in order to engage in fisheries for which national control is considered necessary, because of the large size of the vessels employed, the wide area of fishing operations, the existence of international fisheries agreements, the nature of the fishing grounds, etc. These fisheries are designated by the National Government by means of a cabinet ordinance, after consultation with the Central Fisheries Coordination Committee. The following 17 fisheries ¹ have been designated according to the above procedure:

1. Offshore trawl fisheries employing vessels of 15 gross tons or more

2. Trawl fisheries in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea employing vessels of 15 gross tons or more

3. Deep-sea trawl fisheries employing vessels of 15 gross tons or more

4. North Pacific longline/gillnet fishery

5. Factory-ship trawl fisheries

6. Large or medium purse seine fisheries normally employing vessels of 40 gross tons or more, but 15 gross tons or more for certain fishing grounds

7. Large-scale whaling, with catcher boats of 100 gross tons or more

8. Small-scale whaling

9. Factory-ship whaling

10. Deep-sea tuna longline fisheries, with vessels of 70 gross tons or more

11. Offshore tuna longline fisheries, with vessels from 20 to 70 gross tons

12. Factory-ship tuna longline fisheries

13. Medium-scale salmon gillnet fisheries, with vessels of 30 gross tons or more

14. Medium-scale salmon longline fisheries, with vessels of 10 gross tons or more

15. Factory-ship salmon fisheries

16. Factory-ship crab fishery

17. Pearl shell fisheries

¹ All these fisheries are defined in the relevant Laws and Regulations by size of vessel, fishing gear, equipment, or fishing area, but details are not given in this paper.

The procedures for licensing are the following:

1. The number of vessels to be licensed is determined for each fishery after consultation with the Central Fisheries Coordination Committee by size-class of vessels, by fishing area, and by periods of operation. The decision on the number of the vessels is based on such considerations as conservation of fish resources, maintenance of order in fishing operations, the number of fishing units already engaged in the fishery, and managerial and financial aspects.

2. The number of vessels to be licensed is announced publicly.

3. Applications for licences are made.

4. The Government examines the applicants' qualifications, which include evidence that: the applicants will abide by the laws and regulations concerning fisheries and labour; the vessels meet necessary technical standards; applicants possess sufficient capital to engage in the fishery concerned.

5. Those who meet the qualifications are given licences according to the following order of priorities: first priority is given to those already engaged in the fishery in question; if there is room for new entrants, an important consideration is whether the applicant is transferring from another fishery and whether such a transfer would have a favourable impact by decreasing pressure on resources and by lessening operational conflicts among fishermen. Favourable consideration is also given when a fisherman who is employed in the fishery in question proposes to become an independent entrepreneur by obtaining the licence.

The above procedure is used at the time of general renewal of licences. At other times licences are granted automatically in the following cases: when someone engaged in the fishery whose vessel has sunk or ceases to be used applies for a licence for a vessel of the same size; when an applicant has purchased a vesel already licensed for the fishery in question. (Advantage is taken of this procedure in order to increase the size of vessels. The licences are transferable at a certain market price; this aspect will be touched on later in this paper.)

Fisheries for which fishing licences are required from Prefectural Governors

The fisheries for which licences are issued by Prefectural Governors are broken down legally into those specifically designated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to be licensed by Prefectural Governors, and those licensed by Prefectural Governors on their own initiative.

The first category includes fisheries considered sufficiently important for the coordination of nation-wide activities that the Minister fixes the maximum number of vessels to be licensed for each of the prefectures. These fisheries comprise those next in importance to fisheries licensed by the Minister. They include small-scale trawl fisheries employing vessels of 15 gross tons or more, medium-scale purse seine fisheries with vessels from 5 to 40 gross tons, trawl fisheries in the Seto Inland Sea with vessels of 5 gross tons or more, and small-scale salmon gillnet fisheries with vessels of less than 30 gross tons.

The second category covers those fisheries that Prefectural Governors feel should be regulated in order to coordinate fishing operations at the prefectural level - coastal or offshore fisheries such as gillnet fisheries, troll fisheries, pot fisheries, octopus fisheries, and fisheries using diving equipment. Governors' Licences are issued, as in the case of Minister's Licences, both on fisherman/entrepreneur and on vessel bases. Where the total number of vessels in a fishery is fixed for the purpose of coordinating fishing operations, certain qualifications and priorities are used.

Restrictions and prohibitions

Fisheries licences are subject to certain restrictions and prohibitions, which constitute a part of the licence. Some examples are:

1. Prohibited areas:
   Operation in certain areas is prohibited in trawl, purse seine and salmon fisheries, with a view to coordinating with the operation of coastal fisheries.

2. Closed seasons:
   During certain periods of the year fishing is prohibited in offshore trawl fisheries, small-scale trawl fisheries, purse seine fisheries and saury stick-held dipnet fisheries, for resource conservation and the coordination of fishing operations among fishermen.

3. Restrictions or prohibitions regarding vessels or equipment:
   These include restrictions on vessel tonnage and engine horsepower in small-scale trawl fisheries; mesh size regulations and limitations on the number of nets used in trawl fisheries in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea and the salmon gillnet fishery; and limitations on the power of lights used in purse seine fisheries and saury stick-held dipnet fisheries.

4. Other:
   Restrictions are placed on species that may be caught, minimum sizes of fish retained, and ports of landing; taking female crabs is prohibited, etc.

Fisheries Coordination Committees

The fisheries control system aims at increased fishery production and the democratization of fisheries. The fisheries coordination committees in which fishermen/entrepreneurs actively participate are instruments for achieving these aims.

There are three kinds of fisheries coordination committees: Regional Fisheries Coordination Committees, Joint Regional Fisheries Coordination Committees, and the Central Fisheries Coordination Committee.

A “Regional Fisheries Coordination Committee” has been set up in each of 64 areas (in principle, one for each prefecture). The Committee functions to advise the Prefectural Governor to draw up an overall plan for utilization of fishing grounds, and to establish or amend Prefectural Fisheries Regulations that provide for granting of fishing rights or licences, or to take other legal action; to prohibit or control fishing operations whenever this is necessary to ensure proper use of fishing rights, to coordinate fishing operations or to prevent conflicts in the use of fishing grounds; and to arbitrate the establishment or amendment of the rights of a third party to participate in fishing in the area concerned.

The Committee normally consists of 15 members; 9 are elected from among fishermen/entrepreneurs and employee fishermen, 4 are men with knowledge of and experience in fisheries, appointed by the Governor, and 2 represent interests of the community, also appointed by the Governor. The term of office is 4 years.

A “Joint Regional Fisheries Coordination Committee” is set up as needed, to deal with specific problems arising between regions. A Committee consists of members appointed from among the members of the Regional Fisheries Coordination Committee concerned, equal numbers of members from each. Joint Regional Fisheries Coordination Committee have been established in the Seto Inland Sea, the Ariake Sea, and the Genkai, where fishing grounds are exploited by fishermen from a number of different regions.

The “Central Fisheries Coordination Committee” is an advisory organ for the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and is consulted on certain important matters concerning enforcement of the Fisheries Law. The Committee consists of 25 members with knowledge of and experience in fisheries.

The Minister consults this Committee when he issues or changes ministerial regulations dealing with the designation of fisheries to be licensed by the Minister, such as the number of vessels to be licensed and the establishment of criteria for licensing and regulatory measures.

Regulations of Freshwater Fisheries

Special features of the inland fisheries control system include coordination of interests of commercial fishermen and sports fishermen, and provisions for obligatory fish breeding activities to be carried out by holders of fishing rights.

FISHING OPERATIONS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF REGULATIONS

Japanese Fisheries that Permit no New Entries

The Japanese fisheries, including the coastal, offshore and deep-sea fisheries, are controlled and coordinated as a unit. This reflects the fact that, in their development from coastal fisheries to offshore and deep-sea fisheries, they have always faced the problems of fishing effort in relation to fish resources available, and conflicts of interest among fishermen both within the same fishery and between different fisheries. Almost all fisheries are controlled and limited. The only fishery of importance where entry is still open is the coastal angling fishery using small boats. In most other fisheries there have been few if any increases in the numbers of licences issued. Although the domestic demand for fish has considerably increased in relation to supply in the last 10 years, causing a considerable rise in fish prices and increased imports, the total number of establishments decreased from 235,000 in 1960 to 228,000 in 1970 (Table 3). During the same period, the number of units engaged in offshore and deep-sea fishing with vessels of more than 10 gross tons has scarcely changed. The total number of fishing vessels increased slightly from 1960 to 1965 but, since then, a downward trend can be observed, both for coastal and for offshore/deep-sea fisheries (Table 4). In particular, there is very little possibility of new entries in fisheries licensed by the Minister, since the number of vessels is fixed with respect to each fishery and, as noted above, at the time of renewal of licences priority is given to those who are already engaged in that fishery. Thus, to enter these fisheries, an individual must first have been a fisherman employed in the sector, and he must purchase a fishing licence from an existing licence holder.

Table 3
Number of fishing establishments * (in thousands)

Table 4
Number of fishing vessels (in thousands)

In fisheries under ministerial licence, these rules have served to control fishing effort, to expand individual enterprises, and to increase the size of fishing vessels and modernize their equipment.

Control of Fishing Effort

Fishing effort is controlled when it is considered to be too great for the available fish resources in the light of results of research, or when reduction of fishing effort is required as a result of international agreements. In fisheries licensed by the Minister there have been many instances where fishing effort has been cut by a reduction of the number of fishing vessels. Two different patterns have been employed. Where other fisheries were capable of expanding their effort, the Government arranged for the excess fishing power to be transferred to them. Where such an arrangement was not possible, fishermen/entrepreneurs who had to leave the fishery were compensated by those who remained, and benefited by the reduction of fishing effort.

The Fisheries Law stipulates that, at the time of renewal of a licence, if the number of applicants engaged in the fishery exceeds the announced number of vessels to be licensed, new licences will be issued taking into consideration the number of vessels owned by the applicant, the fishing record of the applicant, and the extent to which he depends on the fishery. Licences are renewed every five years without charge for the number of vessels considered reasonable from the viewpoint of resource conservation; legally, therefore, the Minister can reduce the number of vessels without any compensation to former licence holders. However, because of the priority given to those actually engaged in the fishing, continuation of a licence is practically assured. Investments are made and loans are extended by financial institutions taking licences as security. Without the system of compensation, non-renewal of a licence would be a considerable financial loss to its holder.

Reduction of the number of fishing vessels by means of transfer to other fisheries

In the offshore trawl fishery, which is a long-established one, the number of vessels licensed increased rapidly in the years of food shortage immediately after the second world war, and excessive fishing effort became noticeable around 1951. Since 1953 the Government has taken every opportunity to reduce the number of vessels.

In 1953 offshore trawling vessels were transferred to the tuna longline fishery which, at that time, was expanding rapidly. Government subsidies were given for remodelling the trawlers into tuna boats. By 1955 the trawler fleet was reduced by 111 vessels. In 1954, when factoryship salmon fishing started, licences for the catcher boats were granted only to those who withdrew from the offshore trawling. As a result there were 318 fewer trawlers by 1956. When deep-sea trawling developed in the North Pacific area from 1961 to 1964, 126 offshore trawlers were withdrawn and transferred to the new operation. Also, when licences were issued for deep-sea trawling in the South Pacific are, some were set aside to decrease the number of offshore trawlers by requiring the withdrawal of at least 50 gross tons. Furthermore, an offshore trawler owner was required to withdraw a corresponding tonnage from offshore trawling when enlarging the size of his vessel. By these measures the number of licensed vessels decreased from 2836 in 1951 to 990 in 1970 (Table 5).

Table 5
Number of licensed vessels in the offshore trawl fishery

It should be noted that, in recent years, enlargement of vessels has been aimed mainly at improving accommodations for the crew, and does not imply any great increase of fishing power of the vessels.

In order to ensure effective transfer measures it is necessary to place a new fishery under government control at an early stage of its development, and to specify the conditions of entry.

The normal procedure followed by the government is first to allow a limited number of vessels to carry out exploratory fishing. If the fishery is found to be feasible, it is placed under government regulation, and licences are issued only under certain conditions. Later the total number of licences may be gradually increased in the light of a careful review of operational results. Thus adequate but not excessive fishing effort is maintained.

Reduction of the number of vessels by means other than transfer

As the possibility of developing new fisheries has gradually decreased, it has become difficult to reduce fishing effort by means of transfer to other fisheries. It has therefore become necessary to reduce fishing effort by other means. This has created problems due to the practice of respecting the right of those already engaged in the fishery. When the system of regulations was established, it was suggested that fees be charged for granting fishing rights and licences. This proposal was abandoned because of the strong opposition of fishermen, who maintained that it would cause accumulation of rights and licences by those who have financial power, and that the fees might not be fed back to the fishing industry. Since licence holders do not pay fees, the Government is not legally required to pay compensation for cancelling the licences. Therefore, reduction of fishing effort has to be followed by mutual compensation among fishermen entrepreneurs. To facilitate this, however, the Government has assisted the industry by arranging loans and by granting subsidies for interest payments.

The trawl fishery in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea is cited as an example. Although in this fishery some reduction has been made by transfer of vessels to the deep-sea trawl fishery and by strict mesh size regulations, fishing effort is still considered excessive. The financial position of fishermen entrepreneurs has been deteriorating, and this has prompted the industry to reduce the fishing effort by 15 percent of its own accord. The Government assists the industry by arranging loans and interest subsidies for those who remain, and must pay compensation to operators forced out.

In the light of the above experience, it appears that it would have been better if a system had been provided in the law so that fees are charged when granting fishing rights and licences, and the income used for compensation of those leaving. The principle of respecting the right of those currently engaged in the fishery has succeeded in preventing new entrants but, on the other hand, has constituted an obstacle to the reduction of fishing effort.

Improvement of Efficiency of Individual Vessels

Fishing effort is controlled primarily by limiting the number of fishing vessels licensed, by size (gross tonnage). When required, additional restrictions are made regarding fishing grounds, gear, seasons, number of nets, mesh size, horsepower, etc.

Direct control of the amount of catch has been exercised only on those species, such as salmon and whales, for which the Government has obligation by international agreement to limit the catch. Technological developments and increasing distances to fishing grounds usually require progressively larger fishing vessels, which normally result in an increase in total fishing effort. A “tonnage supplement system” has been developed to deal with this.

The Fisheries Law provides that licences can be inherited in case of the death or merger of licence holders, and that a licence for the same fishery can be transferred from a vessel that founders or ceases to be used to another vessel having the same specifications. It also prescribes that the Government shall issue a licence to anyone who purchases or rents a licensed vessel and applies for the fishery. The Government can give permission for alternation of the specifications contained in the licence, such as increase of tonnage of the vessel, change of the fishing area, etc.

The Licence System and Free Competition

There is need to ensure free competition among enterprises in fisheries in order to promote technical development even while total fishing effort is strictly regulated. Each country must find a system appropriate to it, since technical, social and economic conditions in the fisheries differ widely. In Japan the current system has evolved against the historical background that the Japanese fisheries have gradually developed from coastal to offshore and then to deep-sea fisheries. The amount of fishing effort has been brought under control in all three sectors in an integrated manner, with due consideration given to the rights of fishermen/entrepreneurs who are already engaged in the fishery, to the need for limitation of new entries, and the desirability of rationalizing enterprises and the competition among them. The system of tonnage supplements has been one means of ensuring competition among fishermen/entrepreneurs and of encouraging technological development. As the enlargement of fishing vessels has progressed, the total number of vessels has decreased, and the total fishing effort has been maintained at almost the same level.

PERSONAL VIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS ON FISHERY REGULATION SYSTEMS IN THE LIGHT OF JAPANESE EXPERIENCE

Significance of the Licence System

The purpose of controlling fisheries is two-fold. One purpose refers to resource management, to ensure the “maximum sustained yield”, by preventing either over-exploitation or under-exploitation of resources. Another is to guide the fishing industry so that both enterprises and fishermen can play their proper roles in the national and international economies. The Fisheries Law therefore aims at the coordinated use of fishing grounds to increase fishing productivity, to provide a basis for resource conservation, to coordinate fishing activities, and to maintain order among fishermen and entrepreneurs.

Generally speaking, direct catch controls may be the simplest and most effective way to manage resources. This can be done by establishing a maximum total catch and leaving the catch of individual fishing vessels to free competition (the so-called “Olympic method”); or, by setting quotas for individual vessels.

The former method greatly facilitates technical advancement by encouraging competition among enterprises, but it eventually leads to excessive competition, over-investment, and financial difficulties. In the latter method competition among enterprises is not created so acutely but, since new entries are freely allowed, profitability falls and the industry stagnates. When fish prices rise constantly, as they do in Japan, new entrants will always be attracted, causing reduction of quotas for individual vessels. This is clearly an over-investment from the social viewpoint. Some sort of limitation on new entries is therefore required for both resource management and socio-economic considerations.

With respect to resource management, it may be argued that the Japanese system on controlling fishing effort by means of total tonnage allowed in a fishery is less effective than a direct catch control. However, the present level of skill in making estimates of resource size makes management based on catch control less accurate than one might expect in many cases. Also, from the viewpoint of enforcement of regulations, control of the number of vessels and their tonnage is much easier than control of catch by individual vessels, at least in Japan.

Although enterprises are limited by the total tonnage allowed in a fishery, there remains enough room for competition among them to encourage technological development, and this has led to fewer vessels of larger size. At the time of renewal of licences, the total number of vessels is determined in respect of the management of fish resources and commercial enterprises. In the case of new fisheries, the number can be increased gradually to avoid over-exploitation and over-investment.

Licence Fees

Restricted entry sometimes results in licence holders enjoying more than average profits. One way to deal with such a situation is for the government to regain the excess profits in the form of licence fees. If such fees are levied equitably, there will not be any fisheries that are particularly profitable, and the reduction or transfer of fishing effort will then be easier. It will also be possible to use the income from licence fees to compensate fishermen and entrepreneurs who withdraw from the fishery.

Although the system is not used in Japan, tenders for licences for fixed terms constitute a means of fixing reasonable fees. In order to ensure equitable distributions of licences, it would be necessary under such a system to limit the number of licences for individual fishermen/entrepreneurs to one each, and to make payment easier by allowing them to be made by instalments. When the term expired, tenders would be invited again. Anybody could bid and there would be no discrimination against the new entrants, but those already engaged in the fishery would usually be in a more favourable financial position.

The Japanese experience suggests that consideration of a licence fee system through tender would be worthwhile in countries where limited entry fishery regulations are being newly established.

The modernization and increased efficiency of fishing vessels has been encouraged in Japan by shortages of labour and the consequent rise of wage levels and need to improve labour conditions. A system of licence with limited entry stimulates such improvements.

Various Forms of Restrictions and Prohibitions

Japanese regulations include detailed restrictions and prohibitions for each fishery, e.g. the maximum number of vessels for each tonnage class, the legal fishing grounds, gear, seasons, amount of catch, etc. The more detailed and complex regulations are, the more opportunities arise for violations, and the more difficult enforcement becomes. It is thus desirable to keep the regulations to the minimum essentials.

From the viewpoint of administering the licence system, it would be desirable to restrict control to the indirect fixing of catch by limitation of fishing effort, and not to use direct catch controls except where considerable fluctuations of resources are expected. However, indirect control of fishing effort by fixing the total tonnage of fishing vessels requires the “tonnage supplement system” to facilitate the free choice of vessel size, thus contributing to technological advances. When, as a result of enlargement of size of vessels, an increase in fishing effort occurs that is considered to be too great, the supplementary tonnage required should be adjusted upward so that total fishing effort can be kept at the same level.

If the upper limit of enlargement of fishing vessels is set too low, owners may try to put extra equipment on the vessels and to enlarge the fish hold beyond proper capacity, so that accidents occur. It is advisable to fix the maximum limit of vessel tonnage at reasonable levels in consideration of distances to the fishing grounds, fishing methods, and equipment used.

The Japanese licence system started as a measure to prevent conflicts among fishermen/entrepreneurs and to encourage balanced development of the industry. The system evolved further by aiming at the coordinated utilization and management of fish resources. The character of the system is fixed by the special circumstances in Japan where, from ancient times, people have been heavy consumers of fish, where almost all fishes are marketable, and demands for various species can be substituted for each other. Under these circumstances, the approach to resource management has been somewhat different in Japan compared with other countries. As an example, the regulations concerning the purse-seine fisheries for sardines, mackerels and horse mackerels are joint limitations on fishing effort for all these species, which are thus treated as a single mixed resource. This is because they migrate in the same area and there is evidence of a close mutual relation in their abundance fluctuations. Only for certain species of high price such as crabs, for which fishing effort may therefore be concentrated, have additional measures such as catch limitation had to be taken. In this respect the Japanese fishing situation is different from that of many other countries where fishing has often developed on a single species. Then a licence system like that developed in Japan might not be applicable.