JAPAN FISHERIES ASSOCIAITON SUBMITS COMMENTS ON THE POTENTIAL U.S. PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION AT COP 11

On September 6, Japan Fisheries Association submitted to the Department of the Interior the following comments of the Japanese industry on the potential proposals that the United States is considering submitting for consideration at COP 11 scheduled in April next year. Japan Fisheries Association is going to cope with the coming CITES as appropriate, strengthening ties with the related national and international industries including International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA)

Japan Fisheries Association Comments on Federal Register Vol. 64, No.130 regarding COP 11 of CITES

The Japan Fisheries Association (JFA), on behalf of Japan's commercial fishing industry, appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed U.S. resolutions and agenda items for the 11th regular meeting of the Conference of Parties to the CITES published in the captioned Federal Register notice on July 8th, 1999. We would request the U.S. Government to give due consideration to our comments. I. Basic comments A. JFA supports the intent of the U.S. Government to not propose Atlantic swordfish for inclusion in CITES Appendix II in recognition of the fact that ICCAT, the regional fishery body, has adopted a number of management measures. B. We oppose any U.S. government proposal to list marine fish under the CITES Appendices because a listing will adversely affect CITES as a sound and reasonable organization as explained below. 1. The management of marine fish is under the mandate of regional fisheries management organizations that have the scientific information and expertise to deal with marine fish. UNCLOS confirms this. The trade measures to be used as a supplementary measure for conservation and management of resources should also be dealt with by regional fisheries management organizations and/or FAO because their management measures are the most effective and practical to ensure the sustainable use of marine fish. These management measures should be properly appreciated and any duplicate work by CITES should be avoided. 2. The task of CITES is to protect certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade by taking appropriate measure limiting international trade. It is not conceivable that there is any marine fish, above all, commercial marine fish, subject to a CITES Appendix listing. A CITES decision whether or not to list a certain species should be based on relevant scientific evidence resulting from an appropriate scientific assessment of the status of the species. If CITES should decide to list any species which is not conceivably subject to a CITES listing, CITES would lose its credibility, especially its scientific credibility, and it would face difficulty in fulfilling its genuine purpose. II. Specific comments A. Recommendations for Resolutions and Agenda Items for the United States to Consider Submitting at COP 11 1. Secret ballots We note that the U.S. prefers the secret ballot to be eliminated or made more difficult to obtain. JFA oppose such view. We believe that the secret ballot is the only practical system which allows nations in Africa, Asia and Central-South America, that are subjected to unreasonable pressure by powerful nations and extreme environmental groups, to freely express their will. We believe it is necessary to maintain the secret ballot. 2. Reaffirmation of the Synergy between CITES and the IWC (a) Submission of IWC resolution (51/43) to CITES or its members by the U.S. would unfairly mislead CITES since it conveys an unjustified anti-whaling position. (b) It is inappropriate for CITES to refer to any of IWC's decisions if they have no scientific basis. The institutional credibility of the IWC has been seriously compromised by its decisions which have ignored the advice of its Scientific Committee. The following are examples of such IWC decisions. (i) The zero catch limit, which was adopted in 1982, even prohibits the catch of abundant whale species such as the minke whale. The decision had no scientific basis since the Scientific Committee did not recommend it as necessary for conservation purposes. Minke whale's abundance estimates were agreed by the IWC's Scientific Committee in 1991. This included an estimate of 760,000 animals in the Antarctic. The Scientific Committee also calculated that the more than 2000 minkes could be harvested annually without any risk to the resource. (ii) The Southern Ocean whale sanctuary, which was adopted in 1994 by the IWC is another clear example of a decision with no scientific basis. In addition to the fact that the Sanctuary is not required for conservation purposes, the Schedule of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling clearly prescribes that "This prohibition applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary". B. Recommendations for Species Proposals for the United States to Consider Submitting at COP 11 1. Great white shark and Whale shark We oppose the submission of proposals for the inclusion of these species in the CITES Appendices because of the following reasons. (a) Fundamental and objective information on these species, such as information on their biology, population size, international trade, etc., is lacking. Even information to justify the inclusion of these species in the CITES Appendices based on the current criteria is not available, although we are doubtful the current criteria can be applied to marine fish. We note the U.S. government points out the rarity of the great white shark as one of the main reasons for submitting the proposal. The rarity has not been defined, and concrete and objective information on the degree of decline and the past trends in fluctuation and basic catch data are not available. It would be irrational to decide to submit a proposal. The intention of the U.S. government might be questioned by the international community. Moreover, we wish to point out that no objective data are shown to justify the statement that mortality of the great white shark results from commercial by-catch in large-scale commercial longlining and gillnetting operations. No fair judgment could be made without any objective data. (b) The FAO Committee on Fisheries at its twenty-third session in February 1999 adopted the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in order to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use through effective and practical measures. The U.S. government supported such initiative taken by the FAO. Each nation is now working to take appropriate action according to the International Plan of Action. If the U.S. government should propose to include sharks in the CITES Appendices under such situation, such action would discourage other nations which intend to properly work for the conservation and management of sharks in accordance with FAO's action plan. We believe the management issue of sharks should be entrusted to the FAO and any intervention to preclude FAO's initiative should be refrained. 2. Patagonian toothfish Fishery resources are managed by international fisheries management organizations, and stock assessment and management of all fishery resources should principally be left within the competence of such international fishery management bodies. As far as toothfish stock is concerned, CCAMLR is the authoritative international fishery management body and has taken various conservation and management measures. CCAMLR is at present considering the establishment of a toothfish catch certificate program for the process of distribution and trade in order to collect fisheries data outside CCAMLR's regulation which is necessary for scientific assessment of the toothfish stock. Besides, amendment of the CITES Appendices for marine species requires consultation with related inter-governmental bodies. Accordingly, listing in CITES Appendix II Patagonian toothfish, a CCAMLR-regulated-species, necessitates the CITES Secretariat to consult CCAMLR, the related inter-governmental body in accordance with CITES 15.2(b). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the U.S., as a party to CCAMLR, to consult the Convention before submitting the proposal to the CITES Secretariat. Further more, an export permit entailed by trade in Patagonian toothfish under CITES is only to be issued by the exporting country to prove that the fish has been caught in a proper manner. The permit cannot provide necessary information which contributes to the conservation of the Patagonian toothfish stock and it even deprives the related countries of their incentive to support the CCAMLR conservation measures. The U.S. Government has made clear its intent not to propose Atlantic swordfish for inclusion in CITES Appendix II giving respect to conservation measures of the ICCAT, the regional fishery body. If the U.S. does not take the same position on toothfish, its standpoint will be inconsistent. The JFA urges the US government not to propose listing toothfish in CITES Appendix II because it simply hinders conservation efforts by CCAMLR rather than contributes to it. III. Additional information concerning southern bluefin tuna A. Southern bluefin tuna has been internationally managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) since 1994. In fact, ever since 1989 until today, the global catch has been maintained at 11,750 metric tonns annually. The fact that such a large amount has been constantly caught is realistic evidence to confirm that southern bluefin tuna is not facing extinction at all. There is no reason to include southern bluefin tuna in any agenda item of CITES. B. There have been considerable differences of views between the scientists in Japan and Australia concerning the current status and future projections of the southern bluefin tuna stock. Because of a drastic reduction of the total allowable catch in 1989, Japanese fishing vessels were obliged to reduce their fishing grounds to limited areas. Accordingly, there occurred some areas where no fishing activities have been conducted in recent years. The difference in the interpretation of these areas causes different views on the stock assessment between Japan and Australia. Australia puts emphasis on the hypothesis that there is almost no or few Southern bluefin tuna in areas lacking recent catch data. Based on such hypothesis, Australia thinks that the recovery of the stock is uncertain. In the meantime, Japanese scientists put emphasis on the hypothesis that there exists a certain level of southern bluefin tuna stock even where no fishing has been conducted in recent years. Accordingly, the stock is obviously on a recovery trend. Japan therefore has insisted to increase the total allowable catch about 3,000 metric tons. In order to break the deadlock causing such different views, Japan conducted an experimental fishing program in 1998 in areas where no fishing activities have been conducted in recent years. The result confirmed that these areas do contain southern bluefin tuna at a certain level and that the Australian hypothesis is wrong. Moreover, it certainly confirmed the trend of the stock condition is on the recovery. It should also be pointed out that even Australia has never insisted to reduce the total allowable catch despite the difference of views. We are convinced that there is no reason to include southern bluefin tuna in the CITES Appendices. C. The IUCN classified the southern bluefin tuna as "critically endangered" in its 1996 IUCN Red List. However, it should be noted that the IUCN has recognized the inappropriateness of its criteria to be applied to marine fish due to their biological nature, such as their fecundity and vast range of distribution. The review of the criteria is now being made. We believe it is inappropriate to refer to the IUCN Red List in such situation. We are concerned that misunderstanding by the public on the stock condition of southern bluefin tuna will be expanded with such inappropriate information. END of Comment