The Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Pacific

Last September, amongst many unresolved points of conflict, the MHLC Convention on the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean was adopted. For such resource management to be effective, littoral and shipping countries must persistently search for acceptable common ground. Furthermore, Japan needs to follow developments closely and further discussions domestically on the approach to be taken towards any issues.

MHLC's Purpose and the Background to its Adoption

The "MHLC Convention", or the "Multilateral High Level Conference on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific" when expressed in full, is at a glimpse slightly difficult to comprehend. However, put in simple terms, its purpose is to form international rules on the means and volume of catch for the Tuna and Bonito that migrate in the Pacific Ocean.
Different to land, the sea, and in particular the high-seas, were regarded for a long time to be universally owned by all on earth and their resources viewed as open game on a first-come-first served basis. Countries with large fishing industries would send their fishing fleets out far beyond the horizon, and without any restrictions they would fish and trawl under the noses of other nationalities and islands. However, amongst growing nationalism that began in the early 1970's in regard to marine resources, the 200 nautical-mile international ruling on exclusive economic zones (EEZ) became firmly established, recognizing the rights of littoral countries for at least the fishing resources that surround their islands. Consequently, in order to fulfill their required catch, major fishing countries negotiated with the littoral countries concerned and began paying for the fishing rights to their waters. Through this process, not only were littoral countries presented with economic benefits, but it also provided a means for controlling the fishing takes in their nearby waters, and preventing the depletion of fishing resources.
On the other hand, however, the establishment of EEZ's didn't resolve the issues that previously existed in terms of how and by whom fish stocks that migrated inside or outside the 200 nautical-mile zones should be managed. Due to the rapid increase in deep-sea fishing by Asian countries during this period, concern for resource depletion grew amongst littoral countries, and in order to establish a sustainable level of utilization, the formation of international arrangements between the related countries became an urgent necessity for coastal nations. To this effect, "The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna" (ICCAT) and "The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission" (IOTC), to both of which Japan is also a member, were established to formulate such resource management frameworks. In the meantime, however, talks on a framework for the Pacific Ocean fell behind, leaving Japan in constantly deep concern over uncontrolled fishing in the Pacific.
Finally, in 1994 discussions began on the formulation of international regulations for the Pacific. In an effort to generate agreement on a multilateral treaty for the region, a number of talks were undertaken between littoral countries and territories from the Central and Western Pacific and states with fishing operations in the region, with representation at the meetings from 28 countries and territories in total. The result of these deliberations was the "MHLC Convention", which was adopted in Hawaii on September 4th, 2000 at the seventh meeting between the parties.
However, Japan, which initially advocated the importance of resource management and participated proactively in the treaty discussions, in conjunction with Korea, opposed the adoption of the convention in its final form (20 countries for, 2 against, 3 abstentions), and refused to become a signatory party. This was to say that the talks developed in such a way that Japan's points of view weren't incorporated and so it was unable to accommodate the convention

The Reasons Behind Japan's Opposition

Asahi Newspaper reported Japan's disapproval in the following manner. "Based on regulatory controls such as the tighter setting of fishing quotas and the increased authority of inspectors who board ships, the nature of the convention is very demanding". However, Japan holds strong desires for the suitable management of fishing quotas. The biggest issue for Japan that invites its opposition, is the decision making format of the convention, in conjunction with the waters targeted, the means of dealing with disputes and the tightening of regulatory controls as mentioned above.
Amongst the participating countries of the convention, it is clearly obvious that littoral countries hold an overwhelming majority in terms of numbers, which means that when it comes to majority decisions, the notions of the littoral countries are more than strongly reflected. However, it is stipulated in the convention that maintaining consistency between management measures for within the EEZ and those outside in open waters is an important priority, so the possibility arises that coastal fisherman, in addition to deep-sea fisherman, will also be affected by regulations that are based on the notions of foreign countries. So as not to follow in the footsteps of the whaling issues, where the "Power of Numbers" is nullifying Japan's "Power of Logic", Japan requires the right of objection to be withheld when a majority decision is made on measures that are unreasonable for fishing countries. However, this was ultimately has not been granted, and despite many conflicts being left unresolved, the chairman's draft that leans in the favor of littoral countries has ended up being adopted. This process raises many concerns in relation to the continual and complete rejection of fishing country's notions on the presence of the "Power of Numbers", especially during the discussions on measures for storage management, which are closely related to the fishing quota's that will supposedly be decided after the convention has been put into effect.
From another point of view, there is also a strong sense of uncertainty surrounding some littoral countries that regard their immediate fishing rights as being more important than any resource management. Therefore, if adverse claims are accommodated, there are concerns that regulatory measures for the conservation of resources will effectively be watered down by the objections of fishing countries. In either case, the fact that the adoption of this convention was forced through without enough careful deliberation of the member countries, or the thorough search for acceptable common ground, will no doubt create problems for the future.
In order to dispel the concerns of the fishing countries involved, since the adoption of the MHLC Convention Japan has approached each member country about these issues. However, with many of the littoral countries holding a firm stance on their agreement to the convention, regrettably these activities have gone in vain. Furthermore, Japan also chose to overlook participating in a meeting held in April this year to deliberate on the convention's operational regulations. In the event that Japan and other fishing countries were to oppose participation in the convention, the resource management objectives of the agreement would lose all their effectiveness. Surely this emphasizes the need for littoral countries to reconsider the real objectives of the convention and to sit down with the member fishing countries for further talks on the unresolved matters at hand.
For Japan, the Central and Western Pacific Ocean targeted by the convention contains nearly 80% of Japan's take of Tuna and Bonito. Therefore, in terms of the potential effect on the dining tables of the Japanese people, here hides an issue that by far exceeds any disputes involving international whaling. Sadly, the Japanese media has failed to pick up on the importance of the "MHLC Convention" and so it has no doubt gone unnoticed by most citizens of Japan.
Judging by the required conditions for validation and the attitudes of each country, the "MHLC Convention will probably be brought into force sometime between 2003 and 2004. Before this, Japan must maintain persistent pressure on the other member countries to acknowledge its stance and move towards the amendment of the present agreement. Regardless of the result of any such efforts, in 3 years time Japan will be faced with the difficult choice of accepting or rejecting the convention. While airing all related issues to the general public, during this time Japan needs to follow developments closely and further discussions domestically on the approach to be taken