As discussed in each of the previous sections, the multispecies resources inhabiting the coastal waters around Japan are largely native species.1 A large number of species are involved and their biological features differ greatly. These features determine (i) the species composition of the various fish communities harvested in specific waters, (ii) the amount of catch to be taken for each species and as a whole, and (iii) the fishing methods and types of gear employed. Needless to say, variations in this framework of exploitable resources are determined also by environmental conditions in each of the specific waters in the region. Therefore, when the management strategy for a multispecies resource in a specific water is planned, the environmental conditions of the water need to be taken fully into account.
The coastal waters around Japan are characterized by their highly favourable environmental conditions for biological and fisheries production, benefiting from their geographical location (boreal to subtropical) and several prominent sea currents (the Kuroshio, Tsushima Warm Current, Oyashio and Liman Current, etc.). For instance, a variety of stocks are available to the fisheries, including boreal stocks in the north, temperate stocks in the central zone and subtropical stocks in the south. The potential harvest of some stocks is huge (e.g. Alaska pollack, Japanese sardine, Japanese chub mackerel, etc.), and various fish of high commercial value are also available although the potential catch is small for each (e.g. bastard halibut, red sea bream, Japanese Spanish mackerel, kuruma prawn, abalone and sea urchins).
The combination of the available species and their catchability varies greatly according to local conditions of the fishing ground (latitudinal location, topographic and oceanographic conditions) annual and seasonal fluctuations in the environment. In some cases, the improvement or worsening of environmental conditions can result from activities entirely irrelevant to fishing, as in the Seto Inland Sea (see Section 6). In short, the history of Japanese fisheries is that of the infinite adaptability of fishermen to various local conditions and their changes from one place/time to another, as discussed in each of the section of this paper (see particularly Section 1).
Another peculiar feature of multispecies problems in Japanese waters is the close relationship between so-called pelagic and demersal fish species. They are sometimes difficult to separate by habitat. These problems originate mostly from the eurybath nature of a few species (e.g. Japanese anchovy, largehead hairtail, Japanese sea bass and filefish) and partly from the complicated inter-species relationships among them (prey predator relationships). For assessment and management purposes, therefore, the so-called pelagic and demersal fish species need to be dealt with together. The Seto Inland Sea complex provides a typical example of this (see Section 6).
Furthermore, the neritic pelagic fish stocks around Japan show a strong multispecies nature within their habitat. Japanese sardine, Japanese chub mackerel, Japanese Jack mackerel and Japanese anchovy have historically formed a complicated fish community in which inter-species relationships might have played an important role in the dynamic change in their abundance. The management of the fisheries for the first three species has, therefore, generally been dealt with as a package for all three. The fisheries for Pacific saury and Japanese flying squid have been treated separately for management purposes because of the highly specific fishing gear employed. However, biological similarities between these species and the above mentioned pelagic fish community means there is competition between them for space and food (as well as prey-predator relationships). Therefore, they also need to be dealt with together in some cases, especially for assessment purposes (see Section 5).
The multispecies fisheries around Japan are multi-gear fisheries. They can, however, be roughly grouped into two categories according to their size and which fishing grounds they are permitted to use: (1) large to medium-type fisheries in offshore waters and (2) small-scale fisheries in nearshore waters (see Section 2 and Table 2).
The structure of the first group is rather simple, being composed of a few types of highly efficient gear. These include offshore trawls (larger than 15 gross tons), larger one- and two-boat purse seines (over 40 gross tons), medium-type purse seines (5–40 gross tons), saury stick-held dipnet and squid-jigging fisheries. They are not allowed to co-operate in nearshore waters. The second group is a complex of smallscale fishing gear forming a highly complicated multi-gear fishery in each of the nearshore waters where fishing is permitted. The fishing vessels employed in the second are mostly less than 5 gross tons except the small-scale mechanized trawls in defined sea areas and the boat seines in the Seto Inland Sea (5–15 gross tons for each fishery).
We can say, therefore, that these fisheries have a two-layered structure. However, if the situation is looked at in detail, especially that in nearshore waters, the structure can be further divided and becomes multi-layered, with fisheries being defined and characterized by various fishing rights and licences. This includes not only capture fisheries but also aquaculture (see Sections 2, 3, Tables 1 and 2).
The structure of the fisheries and the deployment of their fishing operations in each of the defined sea areas are, of course, the results of the management decision currently taken by central and local governments. However, they are, at the same time, the results of fishermen adapting to the natural conditions in each area throughout the long history of the development of the fisheries. In other words, they currently reflect the tradition and customs kept to throughout the history of each fishing community on the coast. These customs have been shared not only by fishermen but also by almost all social and economic sectors of the fishing communities. They are particularly strong in nearshore waters, a typical example being provided by the “Notsuke” fisheries co-operative (see Subsection 3.2).
As is well known, Japan is one of the traditional fishing nations in the world, where fishing has been one of the most important industries, providing not only subsistence for fishermen and a supply of animal protein for the nation but also a global improvement in the social and economic status of fishing communities and the entire nation (Nagasaki, 1983, Chikuni, 1985, Yamanaka et al., 1988). In this regard, tradition and customs have functioned fairly positively in maintaining social tranquility in each fishing community, and have been extremely effective in resolving conflicts among fishermen (Ruddle, 1987).
This deep-rooted philosophy is shared not only by the people in fishing communities but also by the nation as a whole. This is one of the reasons why, in establishing modern, democratic legal arrangements (laws and acts), those traditions and customs have had to be taken into account (see Section 2). This is also one of the main reasons for the success in organizing various fisheries co-operatives as autonomous co-ordinating bodies at a grass roots level (Nagasaki, 1983, Yamanaka et al., 1988).
The main components of the management scheme in Japan 1 completely cover the management of multispecies resources and multi-gear fisheries as well as the other fisheries in Japan (see Section 2, Tables 1 and 2). There are four distinctions to be made between this system and those in other countries. They are (1) measures are highly complicated, detailed and comprehensive, (2) flexibility in engaging in different fishing operations is allowed within a defined fishery in a defined sea area, (3) a combination of the limitation of total fishing intensity and various conservation measures is the standard and universal regulatory system, and (4) the active participation of fishermen in the management of resources and fisheries is mandatory and the self-regulatory scheme has been widely established by fisheries co-operatives.
These arrangements have been made aiming to cope with target resources that vary greatly over space (regionally and locally) and over time (annually and seasonally) and complex of fisheries with double- and multi-layered structures.
So far as the coastal resources are concerned, almost no measure has been employed in Japan aimed at managing only a single stock. A regulation or directives has usually been designed to cross-refer to other measures or directives. The entire system can thus cover all resources and fisheries with measures whose functions overlap. This is another reason why a catch-quota system is impractical in Japan.
The discussions in Sections 4 and 5 refer to the double-layered structure of large- and medium-type fisheries (trawls and purse seines) in offshore waters and those in Sections 3 and 6 to the multi-layered features of smallscale fisheries (multi-gear capture fisheries and aquaculture) in nearshore zones.
Permission to engage in different kinds of fishing is granted only when detailed and comprehensive measures are strictly enforced covering all resources, fisheries and fishing/farming grounds (including aquaculture). In the Japanese system, such permission and the strict measures are not contradictory but complimentary to one another.
For instance, the economic loss to fishermen caused by various seasonal closures (grounds or fishing) for conservation purposes can be offset by allowing the fishermen to engage in other fishing. However, arbitrary shifts in fishing by fishermen beyond the regime established by the authorities or fishing communities are strictly prohibited. In other words, the management measures in a specific sea area have to be based on comprehensive knowledge of both the resources to be utilized and the fishing communities that will exploit in the area. The latter includes the structure of fisheries and types of gear, profitability of each fishery and type of gear, tradition and customs in the area.
In Section 3 the successful employment of “successional fishing” governed by fishermen themselves is discussed, and in Section 6 a comprehensive management scheme employed in a limited sea area is examined. In both cases it is clear how important the acquisition of such information is for management. The latter case includes examples of both failure (overfishing, pollution and contamination) and success (recovery of depleted stocks and rehabilitation of the environment).
The allowance of flexible fishing has also worked out well for coastal pelagic fish fisheries when a drastic change in the abundance of a specific fish stock has taken place for natural reasons (see Section 5).
This is quite unique, and a controversial issue when discussed on a worldwide basis. As already noted, the catch-quota system has rarely been applied in Japan but the control of the total fishing intensity has been applied to all fisheries (see Subsections 2.2 and 3.2).
It should be stressed here again that the Japanese system has been derived from both (1) the complicated structure and biological features of the target multispecies resources and (2) the complex and varied structure of the fisheries, and socio-economic conditions of the fishing communities. The system is, therefore, highly theoretical in terms of its biological and sociolegal concepts, but it tends indirectly to control fishing mortality by making use of analytical methods to calculate population dynamics which have been commonly applied to fisheries in the other advanced fishing countries.
The strong and frequent argument employed against the Japanese system is the “untimeliness” of measures or the “time lag” before they take effect. That is, control of total fishing intensity sometimes tends to be too late to cope with a rapid decline in stock abundance, especially that caused by overfishing. This is true, first because the formalities necessary for a reduction in fishing intensity (a reduction in the number of vessels or the number of days they can fish) take some time to be completed and agreed upon, and second because a reduction in the expected catch of the target species is a somewhat vague idea since fishing would be continued in some way.
However, it is also true that catch limitation is generally impractical and is sometimes inapplicable to the coastal fisheries around Japan, as seen in Subsection 2.2. There is no doubt about the effectiveness of a catch quota or catch-limitation system as a direct measure if applied when monitoring and surveillance can be properly carried out. Even in Japan, such measures have been taken when these conditions were satisfied, although these have mostly been on a local basis and limited to a few species (see Subsection 3.2).
Apart from the question of practicability, measures to control total fishing intensity involve a few critical disadvantages from a biological point of view. First, expectations of a reduction of a specific catch may not always be fulfilled, owing to fishermen's preferences; second, the process involved in the reduction of a catch is generally a vague one, lacking a clear visual evidence; third, recovery of depleted resources requires a long time enough to allow the process to continue over a few generations. The time required will depend on the life cycle and reproductive potential of the stocks in question.
However, the system has worked quite well for a few depleted stocks of commercial value in a highly complicated multispecies fish community harvested by various multi-gear fisheries. The recovery of three stocks of commercial value in the Seto Inland Sea provide a firm evidence for the above (see Subsection 6.3.3). This recovery has taken a long time (10–20 years). However, the fisheries have survived by changing to other types of fishing, employing the successional fishing that is another distinctive feature of Japanese multispecies fisheries (see previous Subsection and Section 3).
The time required for stocks to recover can be shortened if stronger regulations are employed and strictly enforced, but such action is not always practical in Japan from a socio-economic point of view. This is because multispecies resources in coastal waters around Japan, which support a huge fishing population along the coast, are continuously harvested by various fisheries allowed to perform successional fishing. Fisheries administrations must have up-to-date information all the time on the status of stocks in question, and they must examine carefully all the likely effect of measures, particularly sever ones, that may be adopted; but the decisions on the kind and magnitude of regulations to be employed are not only technical. They are the responsibility of the political sector, and are decided according to the priority areas regarding local and national policies.
This subject has already been discussed in all sections of this paper. The authors therefore highlight here only two issues.
First: the fishermen's (including their families) active participation in fishery management and co-ordination has been achieved depending completely upon the socio-economic conditions of the fishing communities and the general philosophy conceived by the entire nation. The tradition and customs upheld by the fishermen have been fully taken into account in political arrangements and they are all understandable and generally acceptable to most of Japanese society.
It can be said that tradition and customs providing harmony, fairness and equity always preceded the legal arrangements or political action taken by governments during the initial stages of fisheries development. Then modernization and democratization were incorporated into the system in accordance with the development of the fisheries (in terms of technologies, economic returns and living standards), acquisition of knowledge on resources (see next paragraph) and overall improvement in industry and national economy. That is, various political arrangements were made to maintain the position of the fisheries sector among other national industries.1
Second: enough information on the details of (i) the resources and environment (biological, ecological, oceanographic and topographic) and (ii) fisheries (technological, functional, traditional, and socio-economic) in question is indispensable for both the establishment and the enforcement of the self-regulatory measures. In other words, the governments (national and local) have to provide adequate advice on a continuing basis on both the biological and practical aspects of the management to be employed. In Japan, a service able to provide this has been given top priority in the resources research and assessment being carried out by both national and local institutes.2
The authors present here brief general guidelines for the management of multispecies resources and multi-gear fisheries for countries where a suitable management scheme has not yet been established or modification of those currently employed is being planned. These guidelines have been derived from the case study presented in this paper. They cover issues, strategies and tactics mostly experienced or examined in Japan. There may, therefore, be other items or subjects for which reference needs to be made to other papers.
Generally speaking, the complexity and instability of multispecies fish resources may be universal to the world's oceans, although the magnitude of the diversity and variability differs greatly from one region to another. The fishermen and fisheries, in any part of the world, who intend to harvest a multispecies resource, therefore have to adapt to the manifold local conditions. The Japanese case presented in this paper is merely an example of adaptation to natural conditions (in this case, settled in the waters around Japan); but intensive research and studies on the resources and the environment must first of all be carried out to meet requirements for the management of multispecies resources.
In contrast to the biological and environmental features, there may be few universal elements involved in the fisheries, especially those in coastal waters. This is chiefly because of the highly tradition oriented nature of local fisheries. This nature tends to be strongest in countries where fishing has historically contributed to both the local and national economy and welfare (a so-called “fishing nation”). This important fact must be taken into account when a management scheme is established or adjusted in such a country. The factors that must be taken account of in setting up such a scheme naturally differ greatly from one nation to another.
In a country where fishing has been performed without such tradition or social involvement (a so-called “non-fishing nation”), the fisheries are more simply structured being governed mostly by the economic principles (industrial profitability) or by political concepts (e.g. the need to provide a supply of animal protein or employment opportunities). The management issues and strategy are therefore quite simple, and are probably limited to considering how to maximize profits and/or ensure a sustainable yield. However, the management measures to be employed are not simple even in these cases, from a technical point of view, if the fisheries are composed of various types of gear with different selective functions.
In any case, enough information on fisheries is indispensable to decide the kind and magnitude of management measures required. The the coverage and quality of the information is specifically crucial for management purpose in the first case.
In a “fishing nation” the socio-economic condition of fishermen (including their families), and the fishing community, and the relationship between that community and local society are critically important to establish an adequate strategy and tactics. Organizations or associations of fishermen (and fisherwomen, wives), if soundly established, are extremely useful for all kinds of activities important to the community but not falling under the heading of management of resources and fisheries (e.g. extension, education, training, making arrangements for security, mutual and social welfare, etc.). However, the organizing of such bodies needs to be based on a thorough knowledge of the socio-economic conditions of the fishing communities.
Making provision for harmony, fairness and equity among fishermen and fisheries is the most important consideration. Studies on conflicts and their history could make a most useful examinations to help in sorting out practical approaches.
The kind of organizations to be established will vary according to the conditions (e.g. socio-economic, structural, legal, etc.) in the country and the fishing communities in question. These should be considered case by case.
The establishment of an adequate strategy is the responsibility of the fisheries administrations at both national and local levels. The issues discussed in the previous subsection must be taken fully into account in establishing a strategy. The tactics to be employed, which discussed in the following subsection, are also indispensable elements in establishing the strategy. In short, a global and thorough examination needs to be made.
For instance, overfishing of specific fish stocks may not always be crucial to the fishing community, society or country. On some occasions, a political decision needs to be made on whether to aim for (i) a larger catch of less commercial value, (ii) a smaller catch of high commercial value, or (iii) a combination of these. Furthermore, such a choice needs to be flexible in accordance with changes in resources and fisheries. This is not easy, especially when the guiding principles of harmony, fairness and equity must be borne in mind.
Management and conservation measures applicable to resources and fisheries vary greatly from one case to another. The applicability of all the conceivable measures should be examined in connection with the issues concerning in the resources and fisheries. Thus a comprehensive list of all appropriate and applicable measures could be made. For instance, if the situation allows, a system based wholly or partially on catch-quotas could be introduced. If not, alternatives like the Japanese system or a combination of these two could be introduced.
There may be no simple or easy-to-apply measure in managing multispecies resources and multi-gear fisheries, with the probable exception of a drastic regulation like “total ban” of a particular fishing gear. The situation is more complicated when the strategy is chosen to combine the “large low-value catch” and the “small high-value catch” mentioned above. In such a case, a comprehensive scheme with various complicated and detailed measures is required, as it is in Japan.
In short, a combination of all measures that can applied to the local conditions in each of the communities in question should be employed. Besides the technical aspects of the measures, their acceptability to fishermen and the costs and benefits to governments need to be taken into account.
Apart from the general arrangements that have to be made by governments, the authors would like to draw the readers' attention again to (i) the selfregulatory system run by fishermen themselves and (ii) the resources research and communication with fishermen.
The authors believe that the Japanese-type fisheries cooperative system is one of the best ways to organize the self-regulatory system. Such a system, if it can be applied, must contribute toward management and conservation in other countries too. However, the Japanese system is closely related to the Japanese socio-economic conditions and is partly a result of Japanese policy including various incentives arranged by both central and local governments. Careful studies of the socio-economic conditions and legal framework in the country are strongly recommended in this regard too.
The communication between the research institutes and fishermen is another element to be highlighted in the effective enforcement of resources and fisheries management. In Japan there are eight national and regional fisheries research laboratories and more than 150 prefectural and local fisheries experimental stations round the coast. The national institutes are rather academic, but the local institutes are highly fisheries oriented, communicating regularly with the local fishermen. Each of the prefectures bordering the sea has three to six stations dealing with research on fishery resources and aquaculture, fish farming and artificial seeding for fish culture, etc. Daily communication with fisheries co-operatives and their members is routine. Under such circumstances, the information from the stations is regarded by fishermen as their own. This has been very important to success of the self-regulatory system. If such information and encouragement had not been provided by public institutes, none of the co-operatives could have established biologically sound self-regulation or achieved proper enforcement of it.
In conclusion, when planning the establishment or adjustment of multispecies fisheries management, careful examination of all relevant factors has to be undertaken by the government, specifically (1) the environmental conditions and resources available, (2) the structure of the fisheries, (3) the socio-economic conditions of the fisheries and fishing communities, (4) the governmental infrastructure, (5) the costs and benefits of the enforcement of management.
These have to be done according to (i) the availability of funds and technical capabilities (research and enforcement), (ii) the current status of resources and fisheries, (iii) the socio-economic conditions in fishing communities and the status of the fishing industry among national industries, (iv) the outcomes expected in resources and fisheries and (v) the priority areas regarding national policy in the country.
