The Urgent Need for Japan to Establish an Ocean Policy

The idea that an official policy on the ocean could play a central role in its overall national policy is something little appreciated in Japan, making it difficult to clearly demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with countries around the world who are actively pursuing a new international legal regime for the oceans. Unless we work to overcome our neglect of ocean issues and formulate policies in line with the emerging conception of ocean governance, Japan will inevitably fall further behind as this worldwide ocean initiative proceeds apace.

Introduction

In response to the increasing importance of ocean issues, the Nippon Foundation two years ago established an Ocean Governance Working Group to undertake research into the various policies Japan has adopted concerning the ocean. In its evaluation of these polices, this group of experts has made comparative studies with those of other countries, undertaken discussions with ocean related institutions both domestically and abroad, hosted research seminars aimed at researchers, government administrators and the media, and carried out a national survey on ocean policy. Based on the fruits of this research, we have released the "Proposal for Japan's Ocean Policy in the 21st Century." I would like to take this opportunity to briefly explain the background leading to this Proposal, as well as to outline initiatives being taken in other countries and the necessity for an ocean policy for current conditions.

The Widening Gap between Japan and other Countries in their Approach toward Establishing a National Ocean Policy

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into effect in 1994, the product of ten years' discussion at the 3rd U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, at which it was adopted in 1982. At present, there are 137 member countries to the Convention, with nonmember states, such as the U.S., adhering to it as customary law, making UNCLOS a comprehensive international legal regime for the oceans.
In its establishment of a framework and rules for an international legal regime, UNCLOS was an epoch making Convention and was guided by its philosophy that "ocean problems are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole." UNCLOS removed many long-standing problems by standardizing the breadth of territorial waters at 12 nautical miles, and by instituting an archipelagic waters regime and Exclusive Economic Zone. It also re-defined coastal countries' rights to the Continental Shelf, recognizing large increases to those rights, while preventing further claims to increase those areas, and placed great emphasis on the marine environment by assigning responsibility to states to protect and preserve the marine environment. Finally, it designated the deep seabed and the mineral resources therein to be the common heritage of mankind. It is a significant fact that, in advance of terrestrial law, the web of a comprehensive legal regime now spreads over all the oceans, an uninhabited 70% of the earth's surface.
In 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a declaration for sustainable development was made and Agenda 21-A Programme of Action was adopted. This obliged states to carry out comprehensive management as well as sustainable development of the oceans and coastal areas under their administration. Ten years after Rio, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), to be held this year in Johannesburg, S.A., will review the accomplishments since 1992 and discuss directions that future initiatives should take.
Against this background then, since entering the 90's, attention has been focused on the oceans by countries around the world, with especial interest in comprehensive management initiatives in ocean and coastal zone areas. The U.S. can be considered as having been a leading ocean governance nation since the end of the 60's, with initiatives towards the setting of an ocean policy, enactment of legislation on coastal management, establishment of marine protected areas, and the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Furthermore, in 1999, at the direction of the President, a comprehensive report on the oceans was drawn up, with recommendations for ocean and coastal zone policy, and, most recently, a special congressional commission was established for the purpose of creating a new national oceans policy.
In Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible not only for fisheries and the environment, but maritime transport and policing of the coastal zone as well, a comprehensive and cross-sectoral approach to management reflecting enactment of its Oceans Act of 1996. Also, in 1998, Australia established its Ocean Policy, whereby a ministerial board serves as the decision-making body on all matters concerning ocean policy. This board is headed by the Minister of the Environment, and also includes the ministers for Science, Resources, Tourism, Fisheries, and Shipping, and is supported by a National Oceans Office. A particular policy aim of the board is the encouragement of sustainable use of the oceans, based on the eco-system approach.
In addition, the number of countries currently undertaking ocean and coastal zone comprehensive management is a rapidly increasing one, including New Zealand, China, Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, and others.
Against this background, the Japanese response is particularly difficult to account for. In contrast to the fervency it displayed during the Conference on the Law of the Sea, as the new international regime of UNCLOS was becoming a reality during the crucial period of the nineties Japan seems to have forgot that the oceans are the base of its future development and the significance of the new oceans regime.
In 1996, Japan became the 95th country to deposit its instrument of ratification and become a party to the Convention. Aside from fishing matters however, it took almost no actions at this time to set out an ocean policy in line with UNCLOS, neither establishing a basic oceans law, nor creating an administrative organ for promoting comprehensive ocean management. In fact, almost none of the actions called for by UNCLOS were undertaken. This neglect of the oceans unfortunately continues in Japan, resulting in an ever-widening gap with the responses of other countries.

Now is the Time for Japan to Undertake Sustainable Ocean Development and Use Initiatives

As an island nation, there can be no debate that the oceans are key to Japan's future development. Against the background of unprecedented levels of global trade, the biological and mineral resources of the ocean and the ability to transport them safely and economically by ship are prerequisites for our future development. Moreover, international consultation on ocean issues, cooperation, and technology transfers are fields in which Japan should rightly be playing leading roles, given its prominence in technology and commerce. Japan should exercise leadership in these ocean initiatives to meet growing expectations in the international community.
However, as stated above, Japan has failed to realize the national importance of adopting an ocean policy, and has therefore not developed a clear stance, amidst competition and coordination, on how to participate with other countries in the creation of a new international legal regime on the seas. As a result, it has been most difficult to communicate effectively and develop appropriate responses at the many United Nations fora and other international conferences on the oceans held in recent years.
This year is an important turning point, as the twentieth year since the adoption of UNCLOS and the tenth since the World Summit at Rio. Now is the time for Japan to remedy its long neglect, set out an ocean policy based on the new philosophy of ocean governance, and, along with creating an infrastructure to implement sustainable development and use of the oceans, to exercise an international leadership role as an ocean nation. It is my hope that our policy recommendations might be useful in bringing about these changes. Otherwise, it is inevitable that Japan will be left behind in the global initiatives now being undertaken, and risk losing the very base of its future development.

International Comparison of Exclusive Economic Zones

The first calculation of EEZ areas for the world's coastal states appeared in a document released by the U.S. State Department in August of 1972, "Limits in the Seas-Theoretical Area Allocations of Seabed to Coastal States." According to this document, the EEZ area of Japan totaled 1,120,600 square nautical miles, approximately 3,860,000 sq. kilometers, to rank seventh in the world. In the accompanying table, data for all the countries except Japan were taken from the U. S. document, after conversion from sq. nm. to sq. km. (The "Times- Kodansha World Atlas 1984" lists the area for Japan as 3,861,000 sq. km., while "Jane's Exclusive Economic Zones, Third Edition, 2001-2002" lists the same as 1,120,600 sq. nm.).
The first trial calculation of Japan's EEZ carried out by the Research Institute for Ocean Economics resulted in an area of 4,510,000 sq. km. (see "Kaiyo Sangyo Kenkyu Shiryo", Vol. 6, No. 1) for a ranking of sixth in the world. This is the figure used in the present table, which accounts for the difference in ranking from that shown in the State Department document. The same document lists the former U.S.S.R. as sixth, with an area of 1,309,500 sq. nm. or 4,490,000 sq. km., but also notes that this figure is based on control over land areas over which it exerts effective control regardless of other countries' claims, thus clearly including the four disputed islands north of Japan. If the EEZ area for these disputed islands is subtracted from the former USSR's claim and included in the 4,510,000 sq. km. figure cited above for Japan, the figure for the former USSR would be reduced to roughly 4,200,000 sq. km. Subtraction of the EEZ areas for the now independent Baltic republics further reduces this figure, leaving Japan in clear possession of the sixth position.
(Explanation:Research Institute for Ocean Economics)