Japan is renowned as the world's leading marine fishing nation and for its large and modern distant water fleet that ranges worldwide. Yet the mainstay of its fishing industry are the offshore and coastal operations that, with an annual catch of 10 million tons, now account for almost 90 percent of the nation's fish production and employ 94 percent of its over 200,000 fishing establishments.
Further, although coastal fisheries are responsible for only 26.4 percent of Japan's total fisheries production, in terms of value they yield 41.2 percent of the total, owing to a concentration on the capture and culture of high value species. The offshore fisheries, on the other hand, although producing 53.3 percent of the total catch contribute only 30.4 percent of the total value, since the offshore and distant water fisheries focus mostly on species of low economic value. In fact, the six species that together constitute the main catch of these fisheries, Alaska pollack, mackerel, sardine, squid, skipjack and tuna, are, with the exception of the latter, all low value fish. Together they comprise 63 percent of the total Japanese catch, of which 30 percent is accounted for by sardine alone.
The marine fisheries of Japan are divisible into coastal, offshore and distant water components. These distinct fisheries have never been legally defined, however, since legislation for the fisheries sector has been enacted for all three combined. But through the licensing system they have, in effect, been administered and managed as distinct components. Nevertheless, an operational distinction can be made. The distant water fishery is that which operates beyond the Japanese EEZ and in those of other nations; the offshore fishery, usually employing boats larger than 10 gross tons, operates seawards of the coastal fishery but still within the Japanese EEZ; and the coastal fishery, for the most part using boats of less than 10 gross tons, and which includes mariculture, operates landwards of the offshore fishery. This study is concerned only with the coastal fishery.
The small-scale fisheries policies of most countries are in various stages of chaos over the issue of private versus public rights. In most industrialized nations a whelter of recent regulations, such as catch quotas and limited entry, have been imposed, principally for the purpose of stock conservation; whereas in many developing countries unmodified legislation, in large part inherited from colonial administrations, exists in theory but is hardly ever put into practise. Conflicts between traditional, small-scale fishermen and modern, large-scale operators are rife and have usually been resolved in favour of the latter. In developing nations this has led in large part to the disinheritance and impoverishment of traditional fishing communities.
By contrast in Japan, through a fisheries rights system, small-scale fishermen have legally-guaranteed equitable access to, and “ownership” of the living aquatic resources in coastal waters. No conceptual distinctions exist between land holdings, or land tenure, and sea holdings, or sea tenure. And as is unambiguously set forth in the Civil Code, fisheries enjoy a legal status equal to that of land ownership.
According to the Fisheries Law of 1949, fisheries rights to a sea area under the jurisdiction of a Fisheries Cooperative Association (FCA) are the bona fide personal property of the individual members of the Association, to whom they are distributed by the Association. Each Association establishes regulations for the control and operation of various types of fishery in an equitable, efficient and sustained manner, as local conditions dictate. This situation had its origins in both village customary law and in the formal legislation of the Japanese feudal era, although the full play of democratic processes and equitable treatment had to await the sweeping institutional reforms that followed World War II.
Sea tenure in Japanese coastal fisheries is a complex subject that is little known in the West. It involves time-honoured customary procedures that have gradually been incorporated into modern legislation, after appropriate modification.
An understanding of the operation of the present day system of sea tenure in Japanese inshore waters thus requires a good grasp of its historical context, since the degree of continuity of traditional management practises is an outstanding characteristic. Chapter 1 is therefore devoted to describing and providing detailed examples of the historical antecedents of the present day situation. The present day formal administration of coastal fisheries in Japan is described in Chapter 2.
Further, and certainly not unique to Japan, is that systems of sea tenure, at least those governing coastal waters, are far from being mere formal systems, institutionalized at the various levels of government. Rather, they consist, inter alia, of the intimate interplay of community rules of conduct, local social sanctions and the interpersonal behaviour of fishermen together with the formal institutions, that in the Japanese case range from the village FCA to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Those less formal, but nevertheless binding rules of conduct among small-scale fishermen are, in general, not well understood for most parts of the world. This is a serious “sociological knowledge gap” that severely constrains the design and implementation of viable systems of sea tenure.
The manner in which linkages are effected and maintained from the individual fisherman through to the national government varies considerably among cultures, and is, of course, deeply embedded within the behavioural norms of each specific society. In the Japanese case, at all levels, they involve much face-to-face contact and prolonged discussion, and they appear to be governed less by the rule of relatively inflexible law to which most Westerners are accustomed. These factors must also be well understood in order to comprehend the way in which inshore water sea tenure operates in Japan. They are discussed at length, with particular reference to the problems of conflict management and resolution.
Understanding the processes governing the behaviour of Japanese coastal fishermen, the mechanisms by which order is maintained within fishing communities and how disputes are settled and conflicts resolved by both formal and informal channels, requires a basic knowledge of some of the ways in which competition arises among fishermen and how conflict resolution takes place both within fishing and other small communities as well as in Japanese society in general. Although now something of a cliche, it is important to realize that such important values as harmony together with community or group orientation still strongly influence Japanese social behaviour. This traditionally has resulted in something quite different from the many litigous and individual-oriented Western societies. However, concomitant with the massive changes that have occurred in Japanese society since 1945 many of the traditional norms of Japanese fishermens' behaviour have broken down and litigation has become an increasingly common, if not still totally acceptable, means of settling disputes.
Traditionally, collective unity for the attainment of group goals was predominant in both moral philosophy as well as in practise. This had been reinforced during the long feudal era, when Confucian values and a national ideology put down deep roots in a Japan that was firmly closed to outside influences. That solid tradition was utilized by the Meiji government after the Restoration of 1868, when self-sacrifice and devotion to the modernization of the country formed an integral part of an explicitly stated national development policy.
Those ideals were severely strained by Western values that challenged Japanese society as a whole during its modernization, but they were tenaciously retained at the interpersonal level. Militarism and war restored them to the national level for a decade from the mid-1930s. Whereas defeat and occupation together with chaotic conditions and the rapid restoration of society and the economy during the two decades after 1945 shattered those ideals at the national level, it reinforced them at the village, small group and small organization level. There, interpersonal relationships remained close knit and were a vital source of psychological and economic support during some twenty years of rapid change. Indeed, to the present, these traditional cultural values continue to remain important at the lower social levels, where the concepts of harmony and conflict avoidance remain idealized norms.
But too much can be made of this ideal value of harmony and all that it entails. Social harmony and collective unity based on consensual decision-making and hierarchically-ordered interpersonal relationships has been one of the major themes emphasized in most post-war social science research conducted in Japan by foreigners. The fallacy of this widespread external perception of Japanese society has not, in general, been exposed by either Japanese social scientists or by the informants who have worked with foreign researchers (Smith, 1978). In large part this stems from the understandable desire to portray one's nation in the best light and from the common practise, even by Japanese interacting among themselves, of “putting a lid on smelly things.”
However, to anybody familiar with the recurrent peasant uprisings throughout Japanese history and with the history of the nation since the Meiji Restoration, the shortcomings of the “harmony” model are readily apparent. While undeniably harmony and related qualities are a major force in Japanese society, Japan has, as it still continues to do, experienced periods of tremendous internal conflict. Indeed, no less should be expected given the furious rate of change that has occurred in the nation over the last 120 years. And much of that change has both stemmed from and led to conflict. This is demonstrated in Chapter 4 for intra-sectoral conflict stemming from administrative and technological changes in fisheries, and with respect to inter-sectoral conflicts involving environmental pollution and fisheries.
In brief, the “harmony model” of Japanese society, which has recently been refined in a spate of highly influential publications, such as those by Nakane (1970), Kaplan (1972) and Vogel (1979), needs balancing and integrating with a “conflict model”, as several studies have revealed (e.g., Packard, 1966; Tsurutani, 1977; Steiner et al. [eds.], 1980; McKean, 1981; Krauss et al. [eds.], 1984), lest the gap between theory and empirical research widen yet further.
In reality, harmony and conflict go hand-in-hand in Japan, as undoubtedly they do in most if not all other societies. Harmoney is a cultural ideal, a value that often cannot be, or is not, put into practise. Harmonious relationships are more obvious in comparatively static societies, such as small groups within relatively isolated, traditional village communities that have been less exposed to the tumultuous forces of change. In such communities the ideal of harmony remains strong at the interpersonal or private level, where conflict or confrontation is often sensitively anticipated, contained and managed. But even in such tight-knit communities although interpersonal conflict might not be expressed openly, antagonisms are nevertheless communicated (Lebra, 1984) or subconciously displaced (Yoshida, 1984).
On the other hand, more conflict than harmony is often apparent at higher and public levels in Japanese society. This is not uncommon in inter-village relationships among smaller villages, among groups within larger communities and within large and complex institutions, between different economic sectors, between and among prefectures, and between, say, the fishing village and the prefecture and between prefectural and national level organizations. Such inter-level, or inter-institution at the same level, conflict is particularly common owing to ideological polarization, political tension, resource use incompatibilities and differential access to resources. It is also more common in the more complex and dynamic higher-order elements of society than at the simpler and relatively static lower levels. This not uncommon occurrence of conflict at the higher levels has often been obscured by the tendency of earlier scholars, particularly the anthropologists among them, to generalize from their findings in small groups to Japanese society as a whole.
Thus an understanding of small-group solidarity and the maintenance of harmony and equity within the group is fundamental. A small—scale fisherman usually belongs to a number of social groups whose membership overlaps (e.g., kin, age-grade, specialized fishing, drinking, shrine maintenance, and the like) and must be sensitive towards the feelings of other group members, particularly with regard to their feelings about him. This demands the suppression of disruptive, egocentric behaviour -- although not inhibiting individual achievement -- and requires a sense of the various levels of social boundaries that serve to delimit other social groups. Coupled with group orientation is the abhorrence of isolation and the extreme psychological trauma suffered by members pushed out of their group as a consequence of persistent anti-social behaviour.
The importance of the small-social group should not be underrated, since whereas in practical matters on the sea one can disregard the regulations of the larger society (non-group) without incurring severe social sanctions, the flouting of the local community's (group) customary rules of behaviour is hazardous to one's position within the community. Thus violaters of the law are punished by the authorities if caught, but unless local customary rules are also broken the community response is generally one of unvoiced sympathy rather than blame, accompanied by an admonition to be more careful about obeying the law in future.
Nevertheless, despite the seemingly many constraints, Japanese society provides ample scope for individuality, although clearly not egocentric individualism. With this is linked the notion of pride, often veiled by humbleness, in doing a craftsmanlike job. Among Yaeyama fishermen, for example, the social recognition accorded the achievements of a successful fisherman, together with his more important social role, rather than a monetary rate of return, per se, is a great source of pride, not just for the individual fisherman alone, but for the entire community. But since his group is a constant source of emotional and other support, the successful fisherman must, in turn, be generous and tolerant towards other members.
Of course, such basic social forces impinging on an individual fisherman do not act in isolation. Rather they function as overlapping and interlocking sets that affect all decisions about fishing behaviour and fisheries problems with potential social significance.
Another main force in contemporary Japanese society is the concept of egalitarianism together with adherence to the principles of democracy and the notion that nobody must be deprived of the right to make a living. The concept of egalitarianism is deeply ingrained in Japanese contemporary social behaviour and is upheld by the law, which in the fisheries sector, for example, ensures equitable access within the fishing community to marine resources of the fishing rights area. But such principles do not inhibit personal advancement through dint of hard work, and, perhaps paradoxically, were it not for other principles elaborated below, educational and occupational elitism abounds. In turn this is controlled by such “levelling mechanisms” as death duties and property and inheritence taxes which guarantee that the relatively wealthy are “… reduced again to the middle class after three generations.” On a more short-term basis peer and similar pressures serve effectively to control excessive selfishness, pride and exhibitionism.
Since the law promotes and upholds egalitarian principles, obedience of the law is another dominant feature of modern Japanese society. Yet this, too, is tempered by other factors, such that whereas the spirit of the law is closely observed practise may differ according to particular circumstances. Among these tempering factors is a strong aversion to absolutism and contractualism, and a sense that everything is situationally relative. Thus in setting disputes a middle way is invariably sought to balance contending interests and claims.
In chapters 3–4 the problems of conflict management and resolution are discussed, proceeding from the personal and smallscale level to the impersonal prefectural and national levels. In Japan the most frequent, effective and culturally legitimate methods employed to manage and resolve conflict are informal and personal. These are operationalized via small-group discussion, verbal communication and the use of go-betweens. Such mechanisms, which ensure that a conflict remains localized and centred directly on the contending parties, are employed not only to manage conflicts that arise between two fishermen, but also in highly formal situations such as arise in the judicial process, for example.
As is discussed in chapter 3, using the example of fishermen in the Yaeyama archipelago of southwestern Okinawa Prefecture, many traditional techniques of territorial behaviour by individual fishing units function to provide an equitable access to resources and to reduce interpersonal conflict. They are reinforced by two explicit techniques for minimizing conflict, avoidance behaviour and the priority rights of a first-comer to work a given fishing spot. Despite such techniques that serve to anticipate sources of conflict, disputes nevertheless do arise. These are generally amenable to resolution through interpersonal techniques, with an acknowledged expert fisherman generally acting as a go-between, reinforced by peer group pressure and various sanctions, the ultimate among which is social ostracization.
The pesistent breaking of customary rules that involve financial loss to a victim are mediated by a more formal yet still informal means, and are settled by both symbolic acts that demonstrate the shame of the guilty party plus the payment of monetary compensation to the victim. When informal community mechanisms are inadequate for solving a particular conflict, especially one having broad implications for access to resources, the Executive Committee of the FCA will formulate a solution which it presents to the Annual General Meeting for ratification. Nevertheless, even in this latter process considerable personal interaction is involved in mediating an acceptable solution.
Similarly, for problems that require formal solution at higher levels personal interaction and other traditional techniques form an important and integral part of the resolution process, which involves protracted and open discussion, mediation and compromise designed to reach a mutually acceptable consensus. Failure to adhere to such a process invariably means that conflicts become entrenched and impossible to solve. In chapter 4 the formal resolution of conflicts at the local, inter-prefectural and inter-sectoral levels is examined, as is the use of compensation payments in solving them. To illustrate the variety and complexity of inter-prefectural fisheries conflicts, and to outline some of the techniques typically employed in their settlement, three of the so-called “Seven Greatest Fisheries Incidents in Japan” are described.
The recent evolution of legal safeguards for coastal fisheries was enmeshed in the evolution of Japanese environmental legislation. Despite modernization of the processes involved, one of the outstanding characteristics of the history of post-war conflict management and resolution involving coastal fisheries has been the persistence of the traditional techniques and mechanisms of mediation and compromise to achieve settlement, as well as a devolution from higher to lower administrative levels. Therein lies an abiding strength.
Map of Japan
Figure 1. Location of Okinsawa Prefecture
