International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Marine Protected Areas in Japanese Fisheries:

Case Studies in Kyoto, Shiretoko and Ise Bay.

Hiroyuki Matsuda1*, Mitsutaku Makino2, Juan Carlos Castilla3, Hiroki Oikawa1, Yasunori Sakurai4, Minoru Tomiyama5

1 Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University

2 National Research Institute of Fisheries Science, Fisheries Research Agency,

3 Pontificia Universidad Catolica De Chile

4 Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University、Japan

5 Fisheries Division, Aichi Prefecture、Japan

*matsuda@ynu.ac.jp

Japan has once played an important role of the international institution for marine protected

areas (MPAs). Marine park system was established in Japan after the 1st Conference for World

Natural Parks in 1962, Seattle. The first International Conference for Marine Parks was held in

1975, Tokyo, Japan. Despite of it, it is few known MPAs in Japan because fishers and Japan Fisher-

ies Agency do not like to use the term MPAs, rather than fishing ban areas. This is because fishers

did not seek legal fishing-ban areas but they did establish fishing-ban areas by themselves. We

briefly introduce the institutional history and features of Japanese coastal fishery management, in-

cluding the past decade’s major legislative developments.

Unlike fisheries in modern countries, there is no centralized top-down management in tradi-

tional fisheries. After Japan was modernized in mid 1960s, the government attempted to centralize

the fisheries institution. However, these attempts resulted in a great deal of confusion and distur-

bance within fisheries societies; thus, Japan still has a decentralized co-management system involv-

ing fishers and the government, and ca.98% of Japanese fishers are artisanal. The transaction costs

for fisheries management constitute one of the strongest arguments against top-down management

systems. In the co-managed system, the costs for monitoring, enforcement, and compliance are

shared between the government and local fishers and are remarkably lower than in systems with top-

down regulation (Makino and Matsuda, 2005).

Kyoto Snow Crab Fisheries

Snow crabs are harvested using bottom trawlers. The Kyoto Prefecture Fishery Coordinating

Regulation sets the official season for bottom-trawler fishing. Harvests of Kyoto’s snow crab have

followed a typical boom and the largest harvest volume of 369 t was ecorded in 1964. Landings de-

clined dramatically afterwards, to less than 100 t in the late 1970s and 58 t in 1980. Overfishing was

said to be the cause of the decline. Various resource–recovery measures by the Kyoto Bottom

Trawlers' Union were introduced beginning in 1983. Specifically, a combination of permanent and

seasonal marine protected areas (MPAs) were introduced as marine reserves or no-take zones and

have been expanded since 1983. Permanent MPAs are meant to provide sanctuaries for snow crabs

from fishing and were established around the snow crab’s critical habitats. Seasonal MPAs are

aimed mainly at avoiding bycatches of low-value crabs. Kyoto prefecture government supported

these activities with funding and scientific research and advice. As a result, the landing increased

from 58 t in 1980 to 195 t in 1999 and the total yield increased from US$914 500 in 1980 to $3 578

000 in 2001 (Makino 2008). In March 2008, The Kyoto Danish Seine Fishing Federation snow crab

and flathead flounder fishery has been certified under the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) stan-

dard as a sustainable and well-managed fishery.

C-5

59

International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Fig. 1. The area of MPAs and the percentage of temporal fishing ban area of the total fishing

ground in snow crab fisheries, Kyoto Prefecture (Makino 2008).

Fig. 2. Food web of the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area as depicted by the Marine

Area Working Group of the Scientific Council. AG: arabesque greenling; BT: bighand

thornyhead; F: flatfishes; G: greenlings; O: octopus; OP: ocean perch; PH: Pacific her-

ring; PS: Pacific saury; R: rockfish; S: seals; SC: saffron cod; SF: sandfish; SL: san-

deel. Grey circles represent taxa that are used by fishers or human, and those catch

statistics are compiled.

60

C-5

International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Shiretoko World Natural Heritage

Shiretoko is a very famous fisheries production area in Japan, and the fisheries sector is the

most important industry here. To maintain responsible fisheries, local fishers have implemented a

wide range of autonomous measures under a co-management framework. Since the nomination of

the peninsula and its surrounding marine areas for UNESCO World Natural Heritage, various meas-

ures have been implemented to conserve its outstanding ecosystems. The approach was not to elimi-

nate local fishers from the area, but to place their activities at the core of the management scheme to

sustain ecosystem structure and function. That is, fisheries co-management was expanded to ecosys-

tem-based management to achieve ecosystem conservation. In addition, the management plan details

the vast food web structure of the Shiretoko site (Fig. 2). Fishers compiled the catch and yield of

these taxa of fisheries resources. Most of all species are exploited. Like stomach content monitoring

of the top predator, the catch statistics are informative to evaluate ecosystem status (Makino et al.

2008).

Fisheries co-management in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage site was expanded to eco-

system-based management, in which the fisheries sector plays an essential role in management. A

marine management plan was drawn up to define the management objectives, strategies to maintain

major species, and methods for ecosystem monitoring. A network of coordinating organizations

from a wide range of sectors was established to integrate policy measures. Experience from this case

could inform ecosystem-based management in other countries where large numbers of artisanal fish-

ers take a wide range of species under a fisheries co-management regime.

Adaptive management based on daily operations can be found in autonomous MPAs construction in

the Shiretoko WNH area. In 1995, local fishermen divided fishery ground into 34 areas based on

local knowledge and experiences, then introduced temporal MPAs into 7 of the 34 areas to conserve

fishery resources. One of the spawning grounds of Walleye Pollock was also included in the pro-

tected areas. In 2005, additional 6 areas were designated as protected areas (Fig. 3). These protected

areas are introduced in voluntary bases, and re-examined every year based on the results of previous

year’s performance and scientific advices from the local research station. Therefore, it can be said

that this decision-making process is adaptive. The important next step would be scientific verifica-

tion of its validities (Matsuda et al. 2008).

Sandeel fishery in Ise and Mikawa Bays

Ise Bay is a shallow semi-closed bay located around Nagoya City, Japan, facing Pacific Ocean. One

of the major fisheries resources in Ise Bay is Pacific sandeel, Ammodytes personatus. Sandeel juve-

niles are used in Japan and mainly caught by pelagic trawl fleets. Stock of sandeel in Ise Bay has

once collapsed late during 1978 to 1982 because of over-exploitation and environmental deteriora-

tion. After this collapse, fishers and local scientists began to conduct the regulatory measures in

1980 on a basis of the collaboration between Aichi and Mie prefectures surrounding Ise and Mikawa

Bays. In 1990, the fishers decided three measures, (1) establishment of fishing-ban area (MPA) dur-

ing the fishing season, (2) decision of the opening day and (3) closing day of sandeel fishery. Be-

cause sandeel has a unique spawning behavior of borrowing into sand for aestivation during May to

November, we can control the number of spawners by the closeing day of fishing. Protecting spawn-

ers for successive reproductive seasons, establishment of autonomous MPA during fishing season is

important for adaptive management (Tomiyama et al. 2005). This is because the area of the MPA

changes with the escapement stock during the fishing season, according to consultation by local sci-

entists earned by these prefectures (Fig. 4). To operate these adaptive management measures, fisher-

ies cooperative associations of sandeel fishers in Mie and Aichi Prefectures play an important role.

61

C-5

International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Fig. 3. Seasonal fishing ban areas for walleye Pollock fisheries in east coast of Shiretoko

Peninsula, Japan (map is provided by Rausu Fisheries Cooperative Association).

Grids 11, 12 and 16 are spawning ground. Grids 4, 8, 11, 14 and 23-25 are seasonal

fishing ban areas since 1995. Grids 1-3 and 5-7 are seasonal fishing ban areas since 2005.

Fig. 4. Fishing-ban area (MPA) for sandeel fisheries in 2005, Ise and Mikawa Bays, Japan.

The area of MPA changed weekly. Grey zones in the right bottom panel represent

fishing ground for sandeel in Japan (Tomiyama 2009).

62

C-5

International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Management for Marine Biodiversity in Asia, January 14-15, 2010, Kyoto, Japan

Discussion

There are several similarities between Japanese fisheries and Chilean fisheries (Castilla, in

preparation); artisanal fisheries, and territorial use rights in fisheries. However, there are again sev-

eral differences between them. One of the biggest difference is legitimacy of MPAs. Japan’s MPA is

often determined by fishers, while Chilean MPA is defined by the government. Japanese fishers do

not like legal regulation but seek autonomous management among fishers. Chilean fishers like to

add MPAs after they realize the effect of MPAs on sustainable fisheries. In the case of sandeel fish-

eries in Ise Bay, the area of autonomous MPA is flexible. However, there may be some institution of

legally-defined MPA whose area can change weekly.

References

Makino M (2008) Marine Protected Areas for the Snow Crab Bottom Fishery off Kyoto Prefecture,

Japan, In Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504.

Rome, Italy, 211-220.

Makino M & Matsuda H (2005) Co-management in Japanese coastal fishery: institutional features

and transaction cost. Marine Policy 29:441-450

Makino M, Matsuda H, Sakurai Y (2009) Expanding Fisheries Co-management to Ecosystem-based

management:A case in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area, Japan. Marine Policy 33:207-

214

Matsuda H, Makino M, Sakurai Y (2009) Development of adaptive marine ecosystem management

and co-management plan in Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site. Biol Cons 142:1937-1942.

Tomiyama T (2009) Use of zoning in coastal resource management. Kaiyo (Oceanography), Tokyo,

in press.

Tomiyama T, Lesage C-M, Komatsu T (2005) Practice of Sandeel Fisheries Management in Ise Bay

toward Responsible and Sustainable Fisheries. Global Environmental Research 9:139-150.

63

C-5