Another Japanese firm, Tokai Denbu, amiounced its 

 intention to establish a surinii plant in Thailand during 

 1991.^' Otlier joint ventures in Thailand focus on 

 processing and mariculture operations (appendix UU). 



Vietnam: In 1992, Shinto Bussan announced its 

 plans to begin surimi production in Vietnam." This 

 plant, and otliers like it in southeast Asia, processes 

 local "trash" fish, such as threadfin breani, which are 

 less expensive than Alaska pollock, the dominant 

 surimi species caught in the North Pacific. 



D. Oceania 



Australia: Japanese tuna longliners fish in 

 Australian waters under an agreement first signed in 

 November 1979. During 1992/93, a maximum of 250 

 Japanese longliners could fish for tuna in the Australian 

 EEZ for a fee of $2.8 million, a 3 percent decrease 

 from the 1991-92 season. Tlie Japanese quota for 

 Southern Bluefin Tuna (SET) in the Tasmania region 

 will remain at 400 t, unchanged from 1991/92. In the 

 tuna fishery off the Australian east coast, the number 

 of Japanese longliners granted access to yellowfin and 

 bigeye tuna remained at 50 vessels, unchanged from 

 1991-92. The number of Japanese longliners granted 

 access to grounds off the Australian west coast, 

 however, was reduced from 40 to 20 vessels.'* 



Japanese investment in Australian fisheries is 

 limited to two areas, pearl culture and tuna longlining 

 (appendix VV). Of major significance to this study is 

 a joint venture company called Australia Japan Tuna 

 Pty., Ltd., with Japanese capital from Nikkatsuren, the 

 major Japanese tuna industry organization. This joint 

 venture, formed in 1989, should allow continued 

 Japanese access to the Australian tuna resource. 



French Overseas Territories; A government-to- 

 government agreement was initially reached between 

 Japan and France in July 1979. The agreement allows 

 Japanese tuna fishing in the waters off Polynesia, New 

 Caledonia, and Wallis-Futuna. The 1991 agreement 

 allowed 99 Japanese longliners to catch 5,000 t for a 

 fee of V 1 55 million off French Polynesia; 40 longliners 

 and 12 pole-and-liners to catch 2,225 t for a fee of ¥47 

 million off New Caledonia; and 3 longliners and 3 

 pole-and-liners to catch 460 t for a fee of ¥8 million off 

 Wallis and Futuna.'" 



Negotiations for the 1992 agreement broke off 

 when the two sides could not reach agreement on the 

 amount of access fees. Japan reported a sharp decrease 

 in the tuna catch in French Overseas Territories' waters 

 during 1991-92 because of the El Nino phenomenon. 

 Consequently, Japan expected less industry interest in 

 this fishing area and requested lower access fees. 

 France, however, insisted on maintaining the same fee 

 level as in 1991-92.'" 



There are two distant-water fishing joint ventures 

 in New Caledonia. One of these companies, called 

 Caledonie Kaiun S.A., was established in 1985 with 

 investment from Matsuya and is engaged in tuna 

 longlining (appendix VV). The other company, Societ6 

 Caledoi^mme des Peches Industrielles, was formed in 

 1989 with investment from Nissui and is engaged in 

 trawling operafions. 



Kiribati: Tliere is a private agreement for tuna 

 longliners and skipjack pole-and-liners which took 

 effect in July 1978. During 1991, a total of 40 

 Japanese tuna vessels caught 3,000 t in Kiribati waters. 

 Recent negotiations concerning extension of tlie 

 agreement between the Japanese tuna industry and 

 Kiribati ended with Kiribati declaring tlie agreement to 

 be null and void as of August 3, 1993.*' 



The Marshall Island^: A government to 

 goveniment agreement was reached in April 1981 and 

 fees are currently paid on a per vessel per trip basis. 

 There is apparently one joint venture company called 

 Nankatsu Corporation Inc. which was established in 

 1984 by Nanyo Shigen for skipjack fishing and 

 processing in the Marshall Islands (appendix VV). 



Federated States of Micronesia (FSM): Japan 

 first gained access to the FSM tuna resource in January 

 1979 when a private agreement became effective. The 

 original agreement was based on a lump-sum payment 

 system where vessels paid a single fee to operate in the 

 Micronesian EEZ during the agreed period. A per 

 vessel per trip system was introduced in 1984, by 

 which vessels pay an amiual registration fee and permit 

 fee each time they enter the Micronesian EEZ. Japan 

 paid Micronesia nearly $31 million in access fees 

 between 1979-90, accounting for over 75 percent of 

 total FSM revenue obtained from access fees."' 



A joint venture company has been established 

 between the Okinawa Inshore Tuna Association and the 



39 



