[Feature: Marine Sustainability / Mini-Feature: 150th Anniversary of the Yochisha Elementary School] Roundtable: Preserving the Ocean's Bounty for Future Generations

Thank you all for joining us today despite your busy schedules. Today, as marine ecosystems and fishery resources face a crisis, I would like to hear from you, as experts in marine issues, about how we can change the tide and address various challenges.

Recently, we often hear news about the marine environment, such as marine plastics. I hope we can discuss various issues regarding marine sustainability that you encounter in your daily work.

First, could we start with Mr. Makino? Please share your perspective on the current state of the oceans, along with a brief self-introduction.

My specialty is the study of fishery resource management and systems and policies related to marine biodiversity conservation. From that standpoint, my honest feeling looking at the current state of the oceans is that the marine environment is steadily worsening and deteriorating.

First, regarding marine pollution, it is not limited to marine plastics; there are issues with nitrogen and phosphorus, and in recent years, pollution from pharmaceuticals has also been drawing attention. I have the impression that pollution caused by human influence is spreading. Marine plastic is a prime example, and there are concerns about various impacts on marine life and ecosystems.

I also feel very strongly about the impact of global warming on the ocean. The species of fish caught in the waters around Japan are constantly changing. In addition, phenomena such as ocean acidification, deoxygenation (the loss of oxygen in the water), and marine heatwaves—where extremely hot seawater clusters and stagnates in one location—are occurring and having a major impact.

In addition to these changes in the marine environment, there is the problem of overfishing of global and Japanese fishery resources, also known as "overexploitation," and I believe the situation requires improvement. Particularly in terms of fishery resource management, since Asia accounts for about 70% of the world's fishing production, I believe Japan's role within Asia is extremely important.

The "Sustainable Development Report," which shows the degree of achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is released every year. In the latest 2023 report, Japan's rank was 21st, a steady decline from 11th in 2017.

Among these, Japan's weaknesses are pointed out as SDG 5 (Gender Equality), 13 (Climate Action), and 14 ("Life Below Water"). That is how much of a challenge marine issues are for Japan. Conversely, if we tackle this properly, Japan's contribution and evaluation will rise significantly. In other words, there is a lot of room for growth. Furthermore, in terms of the blue economy (marine economy), opportunities for economic development are now emerging.

You have given us a very comprehensive overview of the marine issues we are currently facing. Within that, you mentioned the blue economy, which is exactly Ms. Hasegawa's area of expertise.

I work as an Environmental Specialist at the World Bank, currently focusing on blue economy projects and analytical work primarily in Morocco and Tunisia. Before joining the World Bank, I was involved in the coordination of regional seas conventions and the Global Partnership on Marine Litter at the United Nations Environment Programme.

Regarding the current state of the oceans, I agree with Mr. Makino and feel a great sense of crisis that the situation is worsening. We often hear about the "triple crisis" of climate change, the biodiversity crisis, and environmental pollution. However, there are other new crises in the ocean. For example, as an initiative related to climate change, there is a technology called ocean alkalinity enhancement, which involves adding alkaline substances to seawater to promote carbon absorption, but I am a little concerned as its impact on the environment is not yet known.

There are also concerns about how deep-sea mining—the extraction of minerals from the seabed—will affect the marine ecological environment in the future.

Furthermore, in the Middle East where I work, it is said that security issues may also be having a negative impact on the environment. For example, in the Red Sea, security problems such as attacks on commercial ships have emerged, and I believe there are impacts on the ocean, such as fuel spills.

On the other hand, the discussion around the blue economy has been gaining momentum since around the 2010s. The ocean is called the "last frontier," and the idea has emerged that investing in the ocean will lead to economic development and job creation. However, we are moving forward in a situation where the balance between economic development and environmental conservation is unclear, making it very difficult to judge how sustainable the blue economy actually is.

The definition of the blue economy itself is ambiguous, and it is difficult to see how much it maintains the marine environment and leads to sustainable development, so I believe we must approach it with caution.

Next, I would like to hear from Ms. Takimoto.

I have built a career in science communication and currently work in the Marine and Fisheries Group of the environmental conservation organization WWF Japan. My focus is on the challenge of how to communicate marine issues to the general public and the media to encourage behavioral change.

Currently, like Mr. Makino and Ms. Hasegawa, I recognize the deterioration of the marine environment. WWF has an index called the "Living Planet Index" that indicates biodiversity, and that index shows that marine biodiversity has halved compared to the 1970s. Furthermore, regarding global fishery resources, more than 30% are in a state of overfishing (overexploitation), and I recognize that the deterioration of the marine environment and resources is in a quite critical state.

My current activities are centered more on the consumption side, but despite this situation, we humans continue to consume biological resources at a rapid pace. We are approaching not only individual consumers but also procurement companies to ensure traceability and improve sustainable procurement.

This is not limited to the ocean, but for the Ecological Footprint (an indicator that measures the load of human activities on the natural environment), last year's Earth Overshoot Day (the day when a year's worth of resources are exhausted) was August 2nd. In about half a year, humanity has used up the biological resources that the Earth produces in a year. Even with all the talk about environmental issues and the SDGs, the current state of the consumption side is not heading in a good direction at all, and Overshoot Day is moving earlier every year.

In addition, WWF is focusing on the issue of IUU (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing as something that exacerbates the problems of fishery resources and marine ecosystems. This relates to overfishing and resource management, and the dumping of fishing gear at sea to hide operational realities also contributes to the marine plastic problem.

Furthermore, IUU fishing involves human rights issues, such as being a hotbed for slave labor. There is a possibility that we are eating fish caught in such a manner. I believe there is an issue where Japanese people, as a consuming nation, are unknowingly complicit in this.

The point that we might be unknowingly complicit in slave labor in the fishing industry is something that will likely shock our readers.

Now, I would like to hear from Mr. Takeda.

I currently teach science at Keio Shonan Fujisawa Junior and Senior High School, while also conducting research on marine microplastics as a working doctoral student at Kyushu University Graduate School. Since my profession is a junior and senior high school teacher, I also conduct research on science classes and education.

Even with beaches and oceans that look clean, when I tell children, "Actually, there is a waste problem" or "The ice in the Arctic Ocean is melting," they quickly reach conclusions like "It's better not to have global warming" or "It's better not to throw trash in the ocean." But that is just a reaction of "there's a problem, so we shouldn't do it," and it's not that the children are thinking based on any evidence.

If this continues, there is a risk that even as adults, they will act based on campaigns without scientific evidence, which I believe is not very good for education. Until my master's degree, I participated in Arctic voyages with JAMSTEC (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) and studied the Arctic Ocean, so I recognize that we must properly conduct education regarding the global environment.

However, in the actual Japanese educational curriculum, from elementary school to high school, there are almost no opportunities to study marine science in science classes. This is overwhelmingly low compared to the United States and Europe. Finally, in the high school subject "Basic Earth Science," about 3 hours out of the 70 standard credit hours are dedicated to the ocean, but in reality, it's probably only touched upon for one or two hours at most. Moreover, since only about 30% of high school students in Japan take "Basic Earth Science" to begin with, children are becoming adults knowing almost nothing about marine science.

Therefore, at our school, we believe it is important to study "Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Science" in a balanced way. Under the Director Yoshikazu Onoe, we recently established "Basic Earth Science" to understand the global environment, and within that, we ensure about 8 hours are dedicated to teaching the marine field.

One of my current challenges is how to expand this knowledge to the education of children throughout Japan.

Thank you all. Next, I would like to consider the point of "what is necessary for the conservation and utilization of the ocean." First, I will briefly talk about the UN SDGs.

Before arriving at Keio University in 2021, I handled marine issues at the UN Office of Legal Affairs and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and I was involved in the creation and implementation of SDG Goal 14.

Originally, the SDGs originated from the creation of the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) based on the "Millennium Declaration" issued at the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. At that time, there were eight goals in total, but only the seventh one was directly related to the environment.

Later, in 2012, an agreement was reached at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development to create sustainable development goals, which culminated in the "2030 Agenda" in 2015, the goals for the international community until 2030. As part of that, the SDGs, consisting of 17 goals and 169 targets, were agreed upon.

One of those, Goal 14, is the goal related to the ocean. The campaign logo says "Life Below Water," and the conservation part is highly emphasized. However, in reality, as mentioned in Ms. Hasegawa's talk earlier, we are required to achieve both conservation and sustainable use in a balanced manner.

Goal 14 has 10 targets, covering various issues. Broadly speaking, they include those related to ecosystems and fishery resources, those related to pollution, and those related to climate change, all of which are interrelated.

First, regarding climate change, it was pointed out earlier that seawater temperatures are changing and the fish being caught are also changing. In addition to this, I believe there are various impacts of climate change on the ocean. Mr. Takeda, who was conducting observations in the Arctic Ocean, could you speak about this, including what kind of solutions might be possible?

Climate change and marine fluctuations are, of course, natural when viewed over the Earth's long history, but rapid fluctuations within the time scale of us living on this Earth as humans are a very important theme.

Within that, whether it's the ice in the Arctic Ocean, marine plastics, or ocean acidification, the impacts and causes are not singular, or the causes are complex, and the results lead to further results. I think the biggest challenge is that it's not the kind of thing where everything will get better if you just improve one aspect.

From the standpoint of teaching junior and senior high school students, I am very concerned that the current situation in Japan does not have a curriculum that fosters the literacy to understand the complex relationships surrounding the ocean. They hardly study the ocean at all, and regarding environmental issues, the fact that textbooks only go as far as saying it's a problem because polar bears will die is one issue.

Is the correct answer to stop climate change, or to live with it without stopping it and ultimately think of better measures on that path? These will be the next challenges for human society. For example, if the ice in the Arctic Ocean melts, on one hand, the Northern Sea Route can be developed, connecting the sea from Japan through the Bering Sea to Europe, which actually has aspects of being efficient.

On the other hand, if that happens, then what about territorial waters and the routes of other countries? Since political considerations also come into play, marine environmental issues actually lead to social and political problems, and I think that's where it gets difficult.

The issue of what happens if a route is created in the Arctic Ocean, which you just mentioned, is exactly a legal and political issue. The current international legal order concerning the ocean is based on the contents of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, often called the "Constitution of the Oceans," and countries must act according to this treaty framework.

Within that, there is only one article that specifically envisions the Arctic, and this is precisely the part concerning the environmental protection of the Arctic Ocean. Russia occupies most of the sea area in the Arctic that will likely be developed as a route in the future, and the recent political situation is significantly affecting the use of this route.

It is truly a field where policy discussions and natural science discussions, as you mentioned, are intertwined from both sides.

Since we were just talking about policy, Mr. Makino, what are your thoughts?

I truly agree with Mr. Takeda's talk. Climate change is said to be a typical "Wicked Problem" in the context of environmental conservation, environmental science, and sustainability science.

In Japanese, it is often translated as "yakkaina mondai" (troublesome problem). Things like climate change and biodiversity loss have immediate challenges as well as global-scale challenges. Furthermore, they are urgent problems for today and tomorrow, as well as problems with a long time span of several decades. Moreover, the mechanisms involve various factors, and it is currently almost impossible to scientifically understand the whole picture.

Future predictions will yield numbers if simulated, but the uncertainty is extremely large. Furthermore, when evaluating the impact, there are so many stakeholders with diverse values and diverse social backgrounds that it is very difficult even to agree on what the problem is. Climate and marine issues are exactly Wicked Problems.

So, what should we do to deal with these problems scientifically? It is natural for the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences to collaborate, but even if we only use science, the problem probably won't be solved.

There are various types of knowledge in the world, and scientific knowledge is merely one aspect of the knowledge humanity possesses. In addition to scientific knowledge, we need to bring together various types of knowledge, such as local knowledge, knowledge in the business world, and knowledge held by the government. I believe we must conduct research on how to discuss together, define problems, and perform "Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM)" with scientific findings for those problems.

This kind of research approach is recently called transformative science, but in short, even if researchers only study inside a laboratory, it will never lead to a problem solution.

Far from a solution, we cannot even properly define the problem. I recognize that the challenge now put before us is how to design and execute science together with the business world and citizens, and how to implement that in society and link it to policy. In that sense, I believe science communication, like what Ms. Takimoto is doing, is an important topic.

Communicating the wicked problems Mr. Makino mentioned is an even more wicked challenge. Now, both climate change and marine issues are becoming increasingly complex and are becoming very distant problems for the general public. We are in an era where there are no longer topics that everyone knows. Each person has their own interests, and if it doesn't get caught in the mesh of those interests, they don't know it at all. How to communicate things outside of a person's interest is a huge challenge.

For example, I use the story of eels to talk about how climate change is affecting the state of the ocean. Eels are an endangered species, and their fry, glass eels, are traded at high prices, but it is said that climate change also affects them. Japanese eels are born near the West Mariana Ridge, about 2,500 km across the sea from Japan. The larvae (leptocephalus) born from eggs cannot swim on their own and are carried by ocean currents to the coastal areas of East Asia, where they migrate up rivers in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

Due to the rise in seawater temperature caused by global warming, spawning locations and current branches have changed, and quite a few individuals end up going south and no longer come to East Asia. From this, we can talk about global warming and further connect it to how we consume and eat today. Also, eels traded at high prices have a high risk of IUU. People are very interested in the dynamic ecology of eels, so it is a case I often use as an entry point when talking about various problems.

Also, separate from the way of communicating, when people ask what they are doing for SDG initiatives, many say, "We are utilizing underutilized fish." That initiative itself is not bad, but underutilized fish might be bycatch (capturing organisms other than the target fish) that were caught along with the target species and discarded (not used). It rarely becomes an activity that goes as far as how to manage the resources of underutilized fish.

It is also a challenge that SDG initiatives become superficial in a sense. As Mr. Makino said, tackling the immediate challenge might have a negative impact on long-term problem-solving. I think there are cases where things proceed without thinking that far ahead.

There is the talk of positive interlinkages, where one action affects the achievement of other SDG goals, and conversely, there is the possibility that an action taken with good intentions might have a negative impact in other areas.

In Ms. Hasegawa's opening remarks, there was mention of ocean alkalinity. There are various actions for climate change mitigation, and I believe various proposals using geoengineering have been made recently. Ms. Hasegawa, what are your thoughts on that?

I very much agree with the sense of crisis everyone has regarding climate change. Originally, I think climate change was a story of science and technology—reducing fossil fuel subsidies, transitioning from fossil fuel energy use to renewable energy, and reducing carbon dioxide.

Regarding the marine plastic problem, the root cause of the abundance of plastic products is that the cost of making plastic from oil is too cheap due to fossil fuel subsidies, so I think the fundamental problem is the same as climate change. However, recently, I feel that the discussion of climate change is shifting from a scientific problem to a story of business opportunities.

Furthermore, energy issues are becoming related to national security. For example, with solar panels, it is changing into a problem where business and national security are complexly intertwined. It seems to me that the talk of climate change is gradually moving away from environmental issues.

As I mentioned earlier, discussions like ocean alkalinity and "we can solve the problem if we reduce CO2" are emerging. Rather than whether it is good or bad for the environment, a way of thinking is emerging that as long as we reduce CO2, it's fine. I feel that perhaps the quality of the climate change problem itself is changing and becoming more complex.

However, there are real problems that climate change is causing to the ocean, and urgent action is needed. For example, in Tunisia and Morocco, coastal erosion is a major problem. In Tunisia, the coastline is receding by about 70 centimeters a year, affecting not only tourism but also urban planning. This is a concrete problem that requires action.

The need for adaptation measures (acts to mitigate the impact on the environment caused by human activities) as well as mitigation measures is increasing. As an adaptation measure for coastal erosion, for example, artificial structures are sometimes built to prevent erosion on one beach. However, as a practical matter, such measures are causing erosion to progress even further on other beaches.

It is said that nature-based adaptation measures should be utilized more, and the World Bank is supporting the conservation of coastal forests in Morocco and supporting coastal and beach erosion control projects. However, since these initiatives are public works, it is difficult to continuously invest funds.

Then, there is talk that using blue carbon (carbon captured by marine ecosystems) to fund such adaptation measures would make them sustainable, but the market is still developing, and the flow of using blue carbon to lead to large-scale conservation projects has not been well established.

Of course, I think there are many opportunities, but I feel it is extremely difficult to balance climate change measures with environmental conservation while also looking at social and economic issues.

The topic of blue carbon came up, and I believe there is a discussion in Japan as well about whether we can respond to climate change by restoring coastal ecosystems. Mr. Makino, I would like to ask about successful examples among the initiatives being carried out in Japan regarding ecosystem conservation.

I hear that Japan is quite advanced in the world in the social implementation of blue carbon using seaweed beds and carbon credits. Seaweed beds are called "cradles of the sea," but they decreased significantly in Japan during the period of high economic growth. Particularly on the west side of Tokyo Bay, from Tokyo to Kawasaki and Yokohama, almost no natural coastline remains. Most of it consists of vertical seawalls, where fish cannot lay eggs, and larvae and fry cannot grow.

Therefore, even if the goal is carbon credits, if we increase seaweed beds through blue carbon, natural regeneration will occur there, increasing biodiversity and fishery resources. There are co-benefits, meaning various secondary positive effects.

Furthermore, by identifying such places as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and conducting activities to protect them intensively, local residents, especially children, can participate, hold observation sessions with scientists, and plant eelgrass. This has the effect of allowing them to learn about the environment by making environmental issues more of their own problem.

As Mr. Takeda said, the key is how to change the awareness of junior and senior high school students and how to work on their literacy. In that sense, blue carbon activities are an example with interesting possibilities even in Tokyo Bay.

Another Japanese activity evaluated globally is that Japan has various ecosystems, from the subarctic sea of Shiretoko to the tropical sea of Ishigaki. Many fishermen have lived there for generations for hundreds of years, building various cultures and technologies while living with those ecosystems.

Based on the knowledge they have accumulated in those regions, they are carrying out various initiatives for ecosystem conservation and the propagation of biological resources. There is high expectation now that there might be quite interesting wisdom within these diverse bottom-up initiatives.

I think research on how to find scientific innovation from so-called local ecological knowledge is also drawing attention.

The topic of MPAs came up, and you spoke about the need to involve residents and children.

Mr. Takeda, you mentioned earlier that how to get junior and senior high school students interested is a challenge. Are there any activities outside the classroom that can be undertaken with SFC junior and senior high school students to help promote an understanding of the ocean?

Regarding marine education, there is currently almost no mention of it in Japan's Academic Advisory Board guidelines. On the other hand, in the United States, there are movements such as listing seven items for children to acquire marine literacy between kindergarten and high school graduation.

I think it is important to have children encounter knowledge and experiences many times through various activities. It's not that "doing this class will foster this literacy," so I believe that what they acquire through various activities are things like literacy and competency.

However, the themes that are currently issues in actual society are not written in the textbooks children use. In other words, they learn content that is divorced from society, and as a result, when they go to university and enter society, they gradually realize, "This is actually a story intertwined with business" or "I have to think about the law too."

In that sense, while I want to give students various experiences, currently it is difficult to take them outside regarding the ocean. Especially since Keio does not own a ship, and there are no oceanography professors at the university, it is difficult. However, I am currently thinking about and preparing initiatives where children can actually pick up sand at the beach and, for example, collect microplastics.

I think interest in plastic waste and marine waste in general is higher than ever in Japan, but this is a difficult problem to address.

For example, by picking up trash on the beach, you can deal with the trash that is there now, but that alone will not lead to a fundamental solution. I think we must also look at the more fundamental parts.

Currently, the creation of a treaty on plastics is underway under the UN Environment Assembly, and I think both these global processes and familiar challenges coexist. What kind of initiatives can Japan and the international community take regarding this marine plastic? Ms. Hasegawa, what are your thoughts?

I think the news that an international treaty on plastics is likely to be established is very good, but we know well from the discussion on climate change that the creation of a treaty does not mean the problem is solved. I believe that initiatives at the national, regional, and individual levels will be very important.

Regarding plastics, it is often said that initiatives across the entire supply chain, from upstream to downstream, are necessary. This means that it is no use doing only one or the other; action must be taken at every stage of the plastic value chain.

In my opinion, marine debris has often been viewed as a waste management issue in the past, but international public opinion is gradually realizing that recycling is not the only solution. Even looking internationally, the recycling rate for plastics is less than 10%, and it is not realistic to raise this to around 90% in two or three years.

If that is the case, it is almost impossible to rely solely on waste management, so the challenge will be how to reduce plastic production and use through upstream initiatives.

This is a difficult problem. In Morocco and Tunisia, which I support, alternative materials—such as bamboo spoons in Japan—are not produced much, and even if they are available, they are imported from Europe and are more expensive than plastic, making them difficult for the market.

Furthermore, because new plastic is cheaper than recycled plastic, products using recycled plastic do not become widespread. Because the market does not yet function well, reducing the use of plastic is difficult at this stage.

National initiatives sometimes include banning the use of plastic shopping bags, for example, but it ultimately comes down to a matter of law enforcement. In places like Kenya, police were cracking down on people carrying plastic bags, but without the power of law enforcement, reduction is quite difficult. Therefore, I think we must use market functions to some extent to move toward reduction. If some kind of market mechanism can function well within the framework of the new treaty, we might see some hope.

The World Bank is also issuing Principal-Protected Plastic Waste Reduction-Linked Bonds, and there are new mechanisms that provide financial returns linked to plastic credits generated by waste collection and recycling. These kinds of new financing mechanisms are gradually emerging.

However, there are also concerns that this new financing might lead to greenwashing (deceiving people into thinking something is environmentally friendly), and while there are various issues, I believe that if new financing mechanisms are established, they will lead to the reduction of marine debris.

Exactly, it is about how to use the market to advance policy.

Subsidies can sometimes become a bottleneck for conservation. For example, in the context of fisheries, an agreement for the discipline of fisheries subsidies was adopted by the WTO the year before last. This is based on the point that subsidies for fuel oil and other items lead to fishing that should not be profitable from an economic efficiency standpoint, increasing pressure on fishery resources.

Also, speaking of market power, for example, there are various eco-labels in Japan, and measures for the conservation of fishery resources are being carried out in a way that involves consumers using those labels. Mr. Takimoto, what are your thoughts?

Fisheries subsidies are also said to be "harmful" in some parts because they lead to overfishing. I think it will be necessary to review their allocation in the future so that they lead to the conservation and recovery of fishery resources, such as subsidies for fisheries that consider sustainability. While measures for management stability are necessary in some aspects given that fuel costs are currently rising significantly, we must avoid a situation where the industry becomes weak because it is addicted to subsidies.

In terms of market power, WWF also recommends international certification labels such as MSC and ASC certification from the perspective of ensuring sustainability.

When ordinary people buy fish, the supply chain is currently so long and complex that it is difficult to confirm "when, who, how much, and how it was caught," so I think there is a sense of security provided by these certification labels. If a label is attached, it serves as proof that the fish was caught or farmed while ensuring sustainability and that it entered the supply chain without being mixed with other products. It is a very good system.

This also relates to marine education, but consumer education is not done much in Japan, and many people do not know much about the certification systems themselves. To begin with, Japanese people do not look much at what is written on product labels. They probably look at freshness and price, but few people are conscious of things like "how is it for the environment?" or "where and how was this fish caught?"

I am currently on a business trip to Spain and Greece, and in the supermarkets here, there are more products with certification labels than in Japan. Even without a certification label, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) major fishing area number was shown, making it clear which sea area the fish was caught in. Regarding the catching method, while pole-and-line fishing is sometimes written in Japan, here I saw many items that also listed methods like purse seine or trawl fishing.

I think it is important for consumers to seek information in that way, to look at products critically, and to take an interest in how the biological resources we eat were caught or produced. I think it would be good if marine education could be done as a set with consumer education.

When expanding MSC/ASC certification, if consumers do not know about the environment or resources, the initiatives of producers who consider the environment will not progress. Consideration costs money, but if that cost is reflected in the price, consumers who only look at the price will not choose those products.

After all, unless everyone from the upstream to the downstream of the supply chain raises their awareness, the situation will not change easily, and stakeholders in every supply chain must bear that cost. I believe the current situation is quite critical if humans are to continue enjoying the resources of the sea.

I would like to change the perspective slightly and hear your thoughts on the point: "Who does the sea belong to? Can we transcend nationalism?"

We mentioned the crackdown on plastic bags earlier, but I think it is quite difficult to ensure that legal frameworks regarding marine issues are properly followed. In particular, regarding international law frameworks, it is difficult even in areas called territorial waters or EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones) where countries have rights and jurisdiction, and in places called the high seas beyond that, no country can exercise rights exclusively, which I think makes the problem even more complex.

For example, Mr. Makino mentioned Marine Protected Areas earlier. Last year, the "Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction" was adopted at the UN, and a framework was agreed upon to allow for the creation of Marine Protected Areas even on the high seas.

I believe that Marine Protected Areas, not just on the high seas, are a very important framework for marine conservation. I would like to hear Mr. Makino's thoughts on how we can use this framework of Marine Protected Areas effectively.

In the context of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) or the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, a new concept called OECM (Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures) has emerged. These are areas that contribute to biodiversity conservation as a secondary effect even if biodiversity conservation is not the primary objective, and the Ministry of the Environment and the Fisheries Agency are currently moving forward with considerations in Japan as well.

I think setting aside areas as protected zones and protecting them intensively is one important way of thinking. When considering how to use the sea wisely and sustainably, there is a concept called Marine Spatial Planning. The sea belongs to everyone, and what is interesting—unlike land—is that it can be used in various ways depending on the depth. Also, it changes completely with the ebb and flow of the tide. The same sea surface can be used in various ways depending on the time or the season.

Since the sea is basically not something that anyone can occupy, how can everyone use this space called the "sea" and its functions skillfully? MPAs or OECMs are very important policy tools for wisely creating plans based on science to protect what should be protected and use what should be used.

I believe discussions on high seas MPAs will begin this year, but it is said that compared to coastal areas, it takes time for effects to appear even after they are established. Moreover, monitoring and enforcement cost money. If we make an area a sanctuary and completely ban fishing, there might be alternative income from tourism or blue carbon in coastal areas, but offshore areas often have no income other than fishing, so how can we protect them?

Furthermore, the further out into the open ocean you go, the more the benefits scatter elsewhere rather than returning to yourself. Therefore, how to sustain this in terms of the relationship between benefits and costs will require consideration from both natural and social sciences, and I think creating new financial means will also be an important initiative.

Finally, I would like you to speak about the necessity of environmental education, the roles of universities and research institutions, how we can raise awareness in civil society, NGOs, and business, and awareness-raising and public relations activities to protect the sea.

I think this is not limited to marine issues, but unless the idea of perceiving problems as one's own concern takes root in people's consciousness, it will not lead to problem-solving. For example, regarding the plastic problem, plastic is certainly a man-made object, so there is no doubt it is an environmental problem caused by humans. On that premise, the properties of plastic that humanity has perceived as merits—"cheap, light, and does not rot"—are becoming problematic. In short, I think the essence is that it has become a problem as a reaction.

I actually conducted a survey of students regarding marine plastics. To the question "Do you know about marine microplastics?", 93.3% of the students at this school answered "Yes." However, when asked "Have you actually seen them?", only about 14% had, and the rest had "seen them in some way," meaning about 80% had only seen them in photos or videos.

And there were just under 10% of students who knew the term "marine microplastics" but had never seen anything. There is a significant group that "knows vaguely but has never seen them." I feel the reality is that children are just accepting knowledge without understanding the essential parts.

If it just becomes a story of "it's bad to throw trash in the sea" so the person doesn't litter, the issue of nets from fishing becoming thin or things like agricultural capsules being released into the sea as microplastics will be overlooked. If we expand the scope of activity and look at it globally, it looks like a different problem. I think that perspective is also very important.

On the other hand, as for the role of natural science, we cannot have a discussion without the basic science of why trash washes up on the coast, what kind of dynamics move the trash, and how ocean currents work in the first place. Therefore, I recognize that the role of natural science, especially science subjects, in elementary, junior high, and high school settings is important.

Regarding these complex problems involving the entire ocean and humanities/social sciences, how and for what purpose should we conduct classes, curricula, and educational activities in schools with a cross-disciplinary perspective beyond just science?

As a teacher on the front lines of education, I feel that at the very least, the Course of Study needs to reflect this rapidly changing natural environment and adopt an attitude of perceiving problems complexly by crossing all subjects rather than through subject silos.

At WWF, we are creating tools that make it easy for various people to take an interest through outreach measures, but at the same time, I feel we must also focus on changing how the media covers these issues.

Regarding fish, there is often news like "this year there is a poor catch of this" or "a lot of fish that couldn't be caught here before were caught." When that is covered, I think we need to engage in activities to raise the literacy of media people so they can cover it a bit more deeply, down to "why is this happening now?" Otherwise, the essence of the problem and the sense of crisis will not easily reach the many people beyond them.

Also, until now, Japan has been surrounded by the sea and has been able to obtain rich and delicious fishery resources cheaply and abundantly, but considering the current state of biological resources, ordinary people also need to recognize again that this is no longer the case. Furthermore, we must create a society where money properly circulates to primary industries.

In order to review and change the social structure in that way, I think it is first important to properly communicate the risks of the major challenges humanity will face without exaggeration or undervaluation, and to create opportunities for society to face them.

From a technical standpoint, there are initiatives at various stages—national, regional, international, and individual—but I believe the vertical axis common to them is the comprehensive approach method called the integrated approach.

Until now, marine management has progressed by sector—fisheries people, tourism people, marine conservation people—but it is necessary to plan and manage the use of marine resources more comprehensively. For example, with the blue economy, I think it is important to properly look at the sustainability of the sea, not just the economic and social aspects. We must properly measure whether economic development using marine resources is serving as a model for sustainable development.

In a book by Jacques Attali I read recently, it said that when there is a major change in collective activity, it starts with individual behavior changing, and I thought that was true. Of course, social systems must change, but if we spend our lives in a situation where we are too busy to afford to think about the ocean or the environment, we are preoccupied with ourselves. So, first, everyone should take care of themselves, and then connect with the sea. If we do that, I think we will have the mental capacity to think about the sea.

If society becomes one with such capacity, I think the awareness to think and learn a bit more about the environment will sprout, and the idea of "maybe I'll change my behavior a little for the sake of other people's futures" will be more likely to be born.

Looking at my students, their interest in environmental issues is truly high. There are many students who say they want to get such jobs rather than work for large corporations. That may be because they have high awareness and knowledge from studying, but at the same time, I feel they sense a crisis as a species.

They seem to have a real sense that "Is humanity okay? For our survival, it's going to be bad if we don't seriously do something." Therefore, I am not that pessimistic about the future. I have expectations that "if these students work hard in earnest, we might manage somehow."

Another thing is that, like Keio University, recurrent education is growing significantly at universities. In my laboratory, for example, there are people in administrative positions in the government, people from environmental NGOs, and consultants. When these people go out into society and work, and they truly need science or education, we can provide it. I believe universities should be such institutions. I think that will also lead to science-based policymaking.

Another role of the university is to "communicate the charm of the sea" to children and society. Talking about dreams of the sea is one of our important jobs as researchers. "The sea is interesting, you can make money," "The next Bill Gates or Soichiro Honda will come out of the sea."

The last thing I want to convey most is the point raised earlier: "we can transcend nationalism." The sea connects countries, it connects people and organisms, and it is a place that connects cultures. I believe that firmly sending the message to society from universities and research institutions that "thinking about marine sustainability is so much fun and full of dreams" is a small contribution I can make.

You have summarized it very well. Hearing from everyone about what we must do and how we need to approach various actors has been very educational for me as well.

Thank you very much for having such an important discussion today despite your busy schedules.