Alternative outcomes under different fisheries management policies: A bioeconomic analysis of Japanese fisheries

The status of climate change adaptation in fisheries management: Policy, legislation and implementation

“…Moreover, with the amendment Japan has established a commitment to implement more vigorous stock assessments to move towards the use of MSY reference points and to expand the scope of TAC managed fisheries (Tokunaga et al, 2019).…”

“…Commercial fisheries in Japan are categorized into three types that entail different management schemes—coastal, offshore and distant‐water fisheries (Makino, 2011). Coastal fisheries are predominantly managed by input control in terms of total allowable effort (TAE) (Table 3), established and distributed by local Fishery Cooperative Associations based on advice from fisheries scientists (Makino, 2011; Martí et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2019). Offshore fisheries operate widely within the Japanese EEZ and represent the largest sector in terms of annual production volume; however, only a few are managed by TACs (~7 stocks) in combination with individual fishing quotas (Makino, 2011; Martí et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2019; Tables 2 and 3).…”

“…Coastal fisheries are predominantly managed by input control in terms of total allowable effort (TAE) (Table 3), established and distributed by local Fishery Cooperative Associations based on advice from fisheries scientists (Makino, 2011; Martí et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2019). Offshore fisheries operate widely within the Japanese EEZ and represent the largest sector in terms of annual production volume; however, only a few are managed by TACs (~7 stocks) in combination with individual fishing quotas (Makino, 2011; Martí et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2019; Tables 2 and 3). TAC‐based fisheries are based on scientifically estimated stock sizes, taking historical catch levels and estimations of potential future catches into account (Martí et al., 2017; Tokunaga et al., 2019).…”

Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in marine fisheries: Has there been progress in the last 20 years?

“…As examples, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Norway have all been working towards improved management of fisheries over the last two decades, including the adoption of new legislation in some cases (Gullestad et al., 2017; Hutchings et al., 2020; Mace et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014; Tokunagaa et al., 2019). As a consequence, good progress has been made in maintaining or rebuilding stocks to target levels in Australia, New Zealand and Norway but Canada and Japan are reported to be doing less well, with less than one third of Canada's major fish stocks reported as being in a “healthy” condition (Hutchings et al., 2020) and Japanese fisheries described as underperforming biologically and economically (Ichinokawa et al., 2017; Tokunagaa et al., 2019). A common challenge across the countries discussed here are the failures to date to give sufficient management attention to species of lesser commercial value and for which information is limited.…”

“…The costs of effective management of fisheries catching such species compared to the benefits of management is an important factor contributing to this problem (e.g. Gullestad et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2014; Tokunagaa et al., 2019). A second factor that was addressed in some of these examples but not covered in others was the social and economic impacts of fisheries management.…”