[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 ask you, as experts in marine issues, to discuss how we can change the current course and address various challenges.

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

First, could we start with Mr. Makino? Please share your view on the current state of the oceans while introducing yourself.

My specialty is research on fishery resource management and systems and policies related to marine biodiversity conservation. From that standpoint, my frank feeling regarding the current state of the ocean is that the marine environment is steadily deteriorating and degrading.

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 been attracting 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 changing rapidly. In addition, phenomena such as ocean acidification, deoxygenation (where oxygen in the seawater disappears), 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 fishery resources globally and in Japan, often referred to as "overexploitation," and I believe the situation requires improvement. Particularly in terms of fishery resource management, Asia accounts for about 70% of the world's fishing production, so I believe Japan's role within Asia is extremely important.

The "Sustainable Development Report," which shows the progress 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, the areas pointed out as Japan's weaknesses are SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 14 ("Life Below Water"). Marine issues are that much of a challenge for Japan. Conversely, if we tackle this properly, Japan's contribution and evaluation will rise significantly at once. 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. People often speak of the "triple crisis" of climate change, the biodiversity crisis, and environmental pollution. However, there are other new crises in the ocean. For example, as part of efforts related to climate change, there is a technology called ocean alkalization, which involves adding alkaline substances to seawater to promote carbon absorption. The environmental impact of this is not yet understood, which is a bit worrying.

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 be having a negative impact on the environment. For example, in the Red Sea, security problems such as attacks on commercial vessels are emerging, and I believe this has impacts on the ocean, such as fuel spills.

On the other hand, talk of the blue economy has been gaining momentum since around the 2010s. The ocean has been called the "final 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 it is unclear where the balance between economic development and environmental conservation lies, 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 I am currently working in the Oceans and Seafood Group at WWF Japan. My activities focus on the challenge of what and 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 degradation of the marine environment. WWF has an index called the "Living Planet Index" that indicates biodiversity, and that index shows that marine biodiversity has been 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 degradation 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 regarding the Ecological Footprint (an indicator that measures the load of human activities on the natural environment), last year, August 2nd was Earth Overshoot Day (the day when a year's worth of resources are exhausted). In about half a year, humanity has used up the biological resources that the Earth produces in one year. Even as environmental issues and the SDGs are being championed, the current state of the consumer side is not heading in a good direction at all, and Overshoot Day is moving earlier every year.

Additionally, 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.

I think our readers will likely be shocked by the point that we might be unknowingly complicit in slave labor in the fishing industry.

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 the 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 come to 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 be swayed by campaigns and act without scientific evidence, which I believe is not very good for education. Since I participated in Arctic voyages at JAMSTEC (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) and studied the Arctic Ocean until my master's degree, I recognize that we must properly conduct education regarding the global environment.

However, in the actual Japanese educational curriculum from elementary to high school, there are almost no opportunities to study marine science in science classes. This is overwhelmingly low compared to the United States or Europe. Finally, in the high school subject "Basic Earth Science," about 3 hours out of the 70 standard credit hours are supposed to touch on the ocean, but in reality, it's likely only 1 or 2 hours at most. Furthermore, 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 the four fields of science (physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science) in a balanced way. Under Director Yoshikazu Onoe, we recently established "Basic Earth Science" to foster an understanding of 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 very much. Next, I would like to think about "what is necessary for the conservation and use of the ocean." First, I will briefly talk a little about the UN SDGs.

Before arriving at Keio 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.

The SDGs originally 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 regarding the ocean. The logo for the campaign says "Life Below Water," and the conservation part is highly emphasized. However, in reality, as Ms. Hasegawa mentioned earlier, it is required to achieve both conservation and sustainable use in a balanced manner.

Goal 14 has 10 targets, covering various issues. Broadly speaking, there are 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 has conducted 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 long history of the Earth, but rapid fluctuations within the time scale of our human lives on this planet 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 consequences. I think the biggest challenge is that these are not the kind of things where fixing one thing makes everything better.

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. There is almost no study regarding the ocean, and even regarding environmental issues, the fact that textbooks only go as far as "it's terrible because polar bears are dying" is one problem.

Is the correct answer to stop climate change, or to live with it without stopping it and ultimately think of better measures along that path? I think 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 political considerations come into play, such as what to do about territorial waters and the routes of other countries. So, marine environmental issues actually lead to social and political issues, and I think that is a difficult area.

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

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 the majority of the sea area in the Arctic Ocean that is likely to be developed as a route in the future, and the recent political situation is significantly affecting the use of this route.

I think it is a field where policy talk and natural science talk, 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 what Mr. Takeda said. In the context of environmental conservation, environmental science, and sustainability science, climate change is said to be a typical "Wicked Problem."

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, but also 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 you run simulations, 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 change and marine issues are exactly Wicked Problems.

So, what should we do to deal with these problems scientifically? It goes without saying that the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences must 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 possessed by humanity. In addition to scientific knowledge, it is necessary to gather various types of knowledge, such as knowledge from different regions, knowledge from the business world, and knowledge held by the government. I believe we must conduct research on how to discuss together, define the problem, and perform "Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM)" for that problem using scientific findings.

This kind of research approach is recently called transformative science, but the point is that 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 then implement that in society to 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 troublesome task. 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 when talking about how climate change affects the state of the ocean. Eels are an endangered species, and their juveniles, glass eels, are fish 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 born from the eggs (leptocephalus) 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, the spawning locations and the branching of ocean currents have changed. Quite a few individuals end up going south and are no longer coming to East Asia. From this, we can talk about global warming and further connect it to how we currently consume and eat. 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.

Another thing, though different from the way of communicating, is that when people ask what they are doing for SDG initiatives, many say, "We are utilizing underutilized fish." The initiative itself is not bad, but underutilized fish might be bycatch (capturing organisms other than the target catch) that were caught mixed with the target species and discarded (not used). These activities rarely go as far as how to manage the resources of underutilized fish.

It is also a challenge that SDG initiatives can 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 alkalization. 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. To begin with, I think climate change was a story of science and technology—reducing fossil fuel subsidies, transitioning from the use of fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, and reducing carbon dioxide.

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

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

As I mentioned earlier, discussions like ocean alkalization 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, which is 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) is increasing, not just mitigation measures. As an adaptation measure for coastal erosion, for example, artificial structures are sometimes built to prevent the erosion of one beach. However, as a practical matter, such measures are causing the erosion of other beaches to progress even further.

It is said that we should make more use of nature-based adaptation measures, 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 can be 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 there is a discussion in Japan as well that responding to climate change might be possible by restoring coastal ecosystems. Mr. Makino, I would like to ask about examples of successful ecosystem conservation initiatives in Japan.

I hear that Japan is quite advanced globally in the social implementation of blue carbon using seaweed beds (moba) 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 juveniles cannot grow.

Therefore, even if the goal is carbon credits, if we increase seaweed beds through blue carbon, natural regeneration will occur there, leading to increased biodiversity and fishery resources. There are co-benefits—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. By holding observation sessions with scientists or planting eelgrass, there is 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 seas of Shiretoko to the tropical seas of Ishigaki. Many fishermen have lived there for generations for hundreds of years, building various cultures and techniques while living alongside those ecosystems.

Based on the knowledge 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 attracting 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. Is it possible to conduct activities outside the classroom together with SFC junior and senior high school students that contribute to promoting an understanding of the ocean?

Regarding marine education, there is currently almost no mention of it in Japan's Course of Study. 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 activities that expose children to knowledge and experiences many times through various activities. It's not that "doing this class will foster this literacy," so I believe that literacy and competencies are things that they acquire through various activities.

However, the themes that are currently issues in actual society are not written in the textbooks the children are using to begin with. In other words, they learn content that is divorced from society, and as a result, when they go to university and enter society, things like "this is actually a story linked to business" or "I have to think about the law too" gradually come into view. That is the current situation.

In that sense, while I want to give students various experiences, the reality is that 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, there are difficult aspects. However, I am currently thinking about and preparing initiatives where children 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 before in Japan, but this is a difficult problem to address.

For example, while picking up trash on the beach can address the trash that is currently there, 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. Regarding this marine plastic, what kind of initiatives can be taken by Japan and the international community? Ms. Hasegawa, what are your thoughts?

I think it is very good news that an international treaty on plastics is likely to be established, but as we have seen with climate change, the creation of a treaty does not mean the problem is solved. I believe that national, regional, and individual initiatives will be extremely important.

When talking about 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.

Since it is almost impossible to rely solely on waste management, the challenge will be how to reduce the production and use of plastics 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, but ultimately it becomes a matter of law enforcement. In places like Kenya, the police have cracked down on people carrying plastic bags, but without the power of law enforcement, reduction is quite difficult. Therefore, I believe 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 has also issued Plastic Waste Reduction-Linked Bonds with principal protection, and there are new mechanisms that provide financial returns linked to plastic credits generated by waste collection and recycling. These new financing mechanisms are gradually emerging.

However, there are 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.

It is exactly 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 pay off from the perspective of economic efficiency, increasing pressure on fishery resources.

Also, speaking of the power of the market, 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 such labels. Mr. Takimoto, what are your thoughts?

Fisheries subsidies are also said to be "harmful" in that they lead to overfishing. I believe 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 to stabilize management are necessary in some aspects given that fuel costs are currently rising significantly, we must avoid a situation where the industry becomes weak due to being dependent on subsidies.

In terms of the power of the market, 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, which is a very good system.

This also relates to marine education, but consumer education is not done much in Japan, and many people are not well-acquainted with 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 "how it affects the environment" or "where and how the fish was 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 is 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 many items also listed methods such as purse seine or trawling.

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 in tandem with consumer education.

When promoting MSC/ASC certification, if consumers do not know about the environment or resources, the efforts of environmentally conscious producers will not progress. This is because while being conscious incurs costs, if those costs are reflected in the price, consumers who only look at the price will not choose them.

Ultimately, the situation will not change unless everyone from the upstream to the downstream of the supply chain raises their awareness, and every stakeholder in the supply chain must bear those costs. I believe the current situation is quite critical for humans to continue enjoying the resources of the sea.

I would like to change the perspective slightly and hear your thoughts on "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 the legal framework regarding marine issues is properly followed. In particular, regarding the international legal framework, it is difficult even in areas called territorial waters or the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) where each country has rights and jurisdiction, and in the areas beyond that called the high seas, 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 UN adopted 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," 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 limited to 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 have secondary biodiversity conservation effects even if biodiversity conservation is not the primary objective. Currently, the Ministry of the Environment and the Fisheries Agency are proceeding with studies on this in Japan as well.

I think setting aside a place as a protected area and protecting it 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. It also 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, it is about how everyone can skillfully use this space called the "sea" and its functions. MPA or OECM are very important policy tools for wisely creating plans based on science, such as protecting what should be protected and using what should be used.

I believe discussions on high seas MPAs will begin this year, but it is said that it takes longer for effects to appear after setting them up compared to coastal areas. Moreover, monitoring and enforcement cost money. If we make this 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 study from both the natural and social sciences, and I think creating new financial instruments will also be an important initiative.

Finally, I would like to ask you to speak about the necessity of environmental education, the role of universities and research institutions, how awareness can be raised for civil society, NGOs, and businesses, 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 the problem as one's own matter takes root in people's consciousness, it will not lead to a solution. For example, regarding the plastic problem, plastic is certainly man-made, so there is no doubt it is an environmental problem caused by humans. On that premise, the properties that humanity has perceived as benefits—"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 our 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. In that way, 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 matter of the individual not littering because "it's bad to throw trash in the sea," then the problem 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 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 various complex problems of the entire ocean that also involve the humanities and social sciences, we need to consider how and for what purpose we should conduct classes, curriculum, and educational activities in elementary, junior high, and high schools with a cross-disciplinary perspective beyond just science.

As a teacher in the field of education, I feel that at the very least, the Academic Advisory Board should reflect this rapidly changing natural environment and adopt an attitude of perceiving problems in a complex way while crossing over all subjects rather than keeping them in silos.

At WWF, we create 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 is a poor catch this year" or "a lot of fish that couldn't be caught here before were caught." When covering that, unless we also engage in activities to raise the literacy of media people so they can cover more deeply "why this is happening now," I think the essence of the problem and the sense of crisis will not reach many people beyond that.

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, the general public also needs to recognize anew 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 in the future, without exaggeration or underestimation, and create opportunities for society to face them.

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

Until now, marine management has proceeded 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 the activities of a group, it starts with the change in individual behavior, and I thought that was true. Of course, I think there are things like the social system needing to change, but if you spend your time in a situation where you are too busy to afford to think about the ocean or the environment, you are preoccupied with yourself. So, first, everyone should take care of themselves, and then connect with the sea. If they do that, I think they will have the mental leeway to think about the sea.

If society becomes one with such leeway, I think the awareness to think and learn a little more about the environment will sprout, and the idea of trying to change one's own behavior a little for the sake of other people's futures will be more likely to arise.

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 working 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 really bad unless we do something serious." Therefore, I am not that pessimistic about the future. I have expectations that "if these students work hard in earnest, we might be able to manage somehow."

Another thing is that, as is the case with Keio University, recurrent education is also 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 appeal of the sea" to children and society. Talking about dreams of the sea is also one of our important jobs as researchers. "The sea is interesting; you can make money," or "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 work with various actors has been very educational for me as well.

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