29/06/2007 - Traditional fisheries triumph over salmon

WEEKEND FEATURE: Traditional fisheries triumph over salmon

NORWAY
Friday, June 29, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


Norway within a short time has been the major arena for stock listed fishery and aquaculture companies. Within the last year a number of companies have been listed, including Peruvian fishmeal producer Copeinca, Norwegian salmon farmer Salmar, and the Norwegian owner of pelagic processing facilities and fishing vessel in Norway and South America, Austevoll Havfiske.

Other global players such as Marine Harvest and Lerøy Seafood Group, all large companies in the international salmon industry, have made the Oslo Stock Exchange their playground. As has Marine Farms ASA, a company involved in the development of aquaculture involving a number of species worldwide. Other companies include the semi-governmental controlled Cermaq, which in addition to controlling the fish feed producer EWOS are producing salmon in a number of countries.

The last year has been a triumph for shares in traditional fishery and seafood companies against the shares in the salmon farming industry.

Salmon prices have gone down, and are far below the prices of last year, but sales are rocketing in volume, as a result. Whether this is reflected in the value of share prices is unknown. Though, if compared with the general development of Norwegian shares, many investors would be a lot better off investing in many other sectors.

The general performance

The last 12 months have seen the average index value of Norwegian shares increase from 425 to 575 of Wednesday this week. This is an incredible increase in value. However, it is still what the fishery and aquaculture industry has for benchmarking. Nobody invests large sums of money just for their love of eating salmon. They do so because they believe in an increasing share value.


The value of the shares on Oslo Stock Exhange have incrreased last 12 months.




FISHERYCOMPANIES

Aker Biomarine ASA

The Oslo Stock Exchange has a number of different companies listed. Some are mainly involved in fishing, others in processing and other still in aquaculture. Some like Aker Biomarine are a newly listed company involved in the high risk activity of trawling for krill in the Antarctica and developing products from the catch. The company listed is a continuation of Natural ASA, a developer of fish oil products acquired by Aker Biomarine. The company changed name and ticker as recently as 6 June.



The last 12 months have seen this company more than double its share value.


“Aker BioMarine utilizes its unique krill harvesting position to develop its own downstream operations within the high value added nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals and aquaculture feed markets. The Company is also a leading surimi producer through its significant international harvesting operations.”

A year ago shares could be bought for NOK 26.00, and a couple of months later for as little as NOK 24.50. Since thae they have increased to a top of NOK 57.00 in January. As the hype around the krill fishery has died somewhat down, prices have on fallen further to NOK 47.50.

There are reasons to believe that shares will continue to fall until the company can present the market with some optimistic news. The shares are still to be considered winners. But the glory is fading, and the company has a market value of NOK 4.280 billion.

Aker Seafood ASA

Having shown a very positive development, increasing in value from NOK 30.00 to NOK 51.00 has made this company a winner. A week ago the shares listed at NOK 54.75 were on the top. The company has a market value of NOK 2.477 billion.







“Aker Seafoods activities are based on wild fish resources. The Aker Seafoods Group harvests, processes, and sells seafood from regulated fisheries that are and will remain renewable if properly managed.”

Austevoll Seafood ASA

The company has been listed on the market only since late last autumn, with shares as another winner on the market. Just after listing the shares did fall slightly to NOK 36.00, but since then the company without making much noice in the media, has been climbing steadily. Their shares were valued at NOK 60.25 a couple if days ago, but have fallen slightly back to NOK 58.00.

There are confusing signals in the fishmeal market about prices. They are staying high in Peru, but in Europe signs are contradictory. If fishmeal prices continue to rise, this will increase the value of this company.

They also acquired a 50 per cent share of Europe's largest pelagic processor Shetland Catch Ltd recently. These shares are already winners, and there are reasons to believe the top has not yet been reached. Their strength lies in their management team, all of whom have extensive experience at all levels of the fishery industry. The company has a market value of NOK 10.69 billion.





“The Austevoll Seafood group is a significant player in pelagic fishery, fishmeal/oil production, processing of fish for human consumption, sale of fish products and salmon farming”.

Copeinca ASA

This company was listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange end of January. It is not fair to compare the development with other companies that have been listed much longer. But in the nearly half-year period that the shares have been traded, they have increased from NOK 45.00 to NOK 69.50. This is a very good return on less than six months.





“Copeinca is one of most important fishmeal and fish oil players in Peru, the world's largest producer and exporter of fishmeal and fish oil. Copeinca owns a large fleet and several plants and exports most of its production, primarily to Asia and Europe.”

As for Austevoll Seafood future developments will depend a great deal on the development of fishmeal prices. In fact, the increased usage of land for production of bio-fuel raw material instead of proteins for use in animal feed and food for human consumption factor may put an upward pressure on fishmeal prices in a longer perspective.

So some of the fast growing aquaculture industries world wide are very dependent on large supplies of fishmeal. The company has a market value of NOK 10.64 billion.

Domstein ASA

This is a traditional Norwegian company. They have tried salmon, and more or less moved on to the whitefish and pelagic sector. Domstein is one of the main shareholders in the new gigantic pelagic company, Norway Pelagic, which has been operative within a matter of days, which will reduce the financial risk. Processing facilities are rented out to the new company.

With historically high herring quotas there is always a chance of collapse in herring prices, but the new company will function as a buffer against the risk.

Domstein is also a large exporter of mackerel to Japan. This market has been troublesome for some years. But again, the new company Norway Pelagic will reduce the risk.





"Domstein delivers raw materials and semi-finished products to the seafood industry around the world. In Scandinavia Domstein is one of the leading suppliers of value added products."

As a large supplier of value added products to the North European market Domstein has more than one leg. However, despite this, the shares have been of no value for long-term investors last year.

Short time in-and-out investors may have benefited from the up and down movement. The shares, which could be acquired for NOK 5.75 a year ago, are currently traded for NOK 5.35.

In January the value was as low as NOK 4.65, but was helped by the acceptable financial results and successful negotiations resulting in the formation of Norway Pelagic pushing the shares up to a maximum of NOK 6.50 before they started to fall back. The company has a market value of NOK 372 million.

AQUACULTURE COMPANIES

The largest salmon farming companies in the world, Cermaq and Marine Harvest, are listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. In addition there are a number of other salmon farmers and aquaculture companies listed. We will look only at the predominant salmon farming companies.

The value of the salmon shares is very much influenced by the salmon price. Small investors are watching the fluctuations from week to week in price, and are buying in on the hope that many investors believe a small increase in the salmon price will give a large increase in the share values.

Marine Harvest ASA

This is the world largest salmon farmer. It is a result of the merger of Pan Fish and Marine Harvest.

Pan Fish has been a company loved by day traders for years, and remains so.

Under the leadership of CEO Atle Eide, however, the company has gone from being close to bankruptcy to being blown into life reducing losses for the banks, and becoming the world most powerful player in the salmon market.

The shares were traded at NOK 7.30 one year ago. Since then have they been down to NOK 4.78 and as high as NOK 8.30. Wednesday this week the company was trading at NOK 6.20.

When shares started to fall from the top a couple of months ago, it dipped under NOK 5,00 before settling around the current value.

The next test will be later this year when the autumn salmon prices are settled. The company is valued to NOK 21.6 billion.





“Marine Harvest is the world's leading seafood company. We offer our customers and consumers a wide range of seafood products and produce one third of the world's farmed salmon and trout. The company is present in 20 countries and has 9 000 employees worldwide.”

Cermaq ASA

Cemaq has been a much better investment over the last 12 months than Marine Harvest. Shares bought at NOK 85.00 one year ago are currently worth 105.50. But as Marine Harvest, Cermaq reached a top earlier this year, at NOK 129.00.

The company has been a good investment seen in an historic 12-month perspective. Currently the shares have been affected by falling salmon prices, and new signs for developments in share value is not expected before the autumn sets in and salmon sales increases in volume.

With very large volumes already been emptied from Norwegian farms, there is reason to believe that the demand may get higher than the supply in November and December.

Saltwater temperatures are already high, and if the summer proves to be like last year, this could result in a reduced biomass growth. The winners will then be the companies that are able to deliver.

Cermaq has a larger share of the production in the North, than the situation of Marine Harvest. They have a cluster of farms in the southern county of Rogaland, an area very much exposed to high water temperatures in the summer. The company is valued to NOK 9.75 billion.





“Cermaq is a leading international group of companies with activities in fish farming, salmonid feed production and research in aquaculture. Cermaq has operations in Norway, Scotland, Canada and Chile.”

Lerøy Seafood Group ASA

Old traditions in trading and value adding have been merged into the salmon farming practices of Lerøy Seafood Group. After being publicly listed the company has grown fast by acquiring salmon farming capacity in a number of countries.

The shares are currently traded at NOK 121.00 that is three per cent down on NOK 125,00 a year ago. During the period the shares have been as high as NOK 143,00 and as low as NOK 98.25. To predict the future is difficult. The salmon price is the main factor. The company is valued to NOK 6.45 billion.





“Lerøy Seafood Group ASA is one of Norway's leading seafood companies with world-wide trade. The company has significant ownership in seafood production in Norway, Sweden and the UK.”

Salmar ASA

This is a medium-sized company on the Oslo Exchange, but is one of Norway’s larger salmon farmers. Since its listing 8 May, it has moved very little. The current value of NOK 39.00 is a bit higher than the NOK 38.00 at the day of being listed. It is a company to be watched. There are hungry dogs out there looking for a prey. The market capitalisation of NOK 4.02 billion makes it a realistic target for some.




“Salmar is a Norwegian farmed salmon producer. The company operates 46 wholly owned licences in mid-Norway and Troms. Salmar also owns 50 per cent of Scottish Sea Farms, the UK's second largest salmon producer, and operates a comprehensive VAP activity at Frøya in Sør-Trøndelag.”

Grieg Seafood ASA

The company is the second newcomer on the stock exchange, and was listed 21 June. Since then have it traded slightly above the value at the day of initial listing of NOK 23.50. After jumping to NOK 24.50 is it at time of writing down to NOK 23.60.




“Grieg Seafood ASA is an integrated Norwegian seafood company with operations within salmon fish farming and processing. The Company has operations in Norway, Canada and Canada with a total production capacity of 80,000 tonnes gutted weight.”

It should not surprise anybody if negotiations regarding a merger between Salmar and Grieg Seafood happens in the not to distant future. The alternative is that Cermaq acquires one of them. In both cases this will push share values up.

The consolidation in the salmon industry is far from over. And to meet the competition from giants like Marine Harvest and Cermaq there is one obvious solution. Lower prices on salmon may push such process to happen faster.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

22/06/2007 - The pangasius attack on whitefish

WEEKEND FEATURE: The pangasius attack on whitefish

WORLDWIDE
Friday, June 22, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


The production of pangasius is showing a higher growth rate in volume than any other high volume fish species. From 1997 until 2005 pangasius production increased from 22,000 tonnes to 376,000 tonnes, while export of fillets increased from 7,000 tonnes to 140,000 tonnes. This year its production, which mainly is centred in Vietnam, will increase to around an incredible one million tonnes.

Pangasius the quixotic resource

For most Europeans the pangasius has been seen as an exotic species. But with increasing volumes entering the European market, it is becoming an accepted and ordinary fare on many dinner menus. Whether it is competing against salmon or whitefish has not yet been determined, and there is no easy way of knowing for sure.

Salmon is showing an increase in consumption, while whitefish (bottomfish) species are facing lower catches. Meanwhile, the cod fishery in the North Sea and Baltic Sea is very restricted, and falling catches should result in increasing prices. The pangasius invasion in many markets worldwide has been putting pressure on cod prices.

Haddock have a different market than cod, but supply, a short time ago, was so high that Norwegian exporters were complaining of a dramatic fall in prices. But what is the situation if analysed in a longer perspective?

Russia imported around 40,000 tonnes of pangasius last year, while import to the European Union increased from 55,000 tonnes in 2005 to more than 110,000 tonnes last year.

Nearly all pangasius being exported to Europe goes through the Netherlands, and from there fillets are distributed trhoughout all of Europe. Most large retailers are able to offer boneless fillets without skin for EUR 2.50 – EUR 3.00 per kilo.

The pangasius is a fast growing fish, reaching commercial size in around six months, and compared with farmed cod its cost of production makes farmed cod take last place. It is a very competitive fish species along the parameters of price, availability, taste, growth, and so on.

While the price of cod fillets is higher, haddock filets are also more costly in most retail outlets around Europe and the United states. Still cod and haddock are far from losing market shares.

Different markets

The main reason for the prevalence of cod and haddock is the different uses given to those species. The Norwegian export of cod, and how it is used for products with long traditions in many markets, is it easy to see why cod, and also haddock, saithe, tusk, ling, atlantic redfish, hake and other whitefish is still being competitive.

Cod is sold fresh, salted, semi-dried and dried, as whole fish, fillets, portions, and several other presentations. Clipfish, the semi-dried salted cod product has long traditions in markets such as Portugal, Brasil, and Spain. Some 81 per cent of Norway's clipfish exports, also known as bacalao in the many markets, is exported to Brazil and Portugal. Portugal is also a large importer of salted and frozen cod, which is used for the production of bacalao.

Dried cod, also known as stockfish, is enjoying the two main markets of italy and Nigeria. Italy imports 61 per cent of the Norwegian production, but represent 81 per cent of the export value. Nigeria being the market for 24 percent of the production only represents six percent of the value. The reason is different qualities produced for the different markets.

In 2006 China imported 5,444 tonnes of cod from Norway. This was mainly small cod. China is a cheap place to process this cod into other products. Very much of the cod China imports from the North Atlantic is re-exported to Europe after processing.

The United Kingdom has a taste for filleted and fresh cod, and is an important market for Norway, Faroese Islands, and Iceland.


Export of different cod products - Norway 2006
Product
Market
Value in NOK million
Quantity in tonnes
% share of product export value
% share of product exported quantity

Clipfish whole
Portugal
1,027
18,500
58
58

Clipfish whole
Brazil
430
7,490
24
23

Stockfish
Italy
440
2,983
81
61

Stockfish
Nigeria
34
1,191
6
24

Salted
Portugal
487
12,070
50
50

Salted
Spain
233
5,992
24
25

Frozen whole
China
124
5,444
30
31

Frozen whole
Portugal
96
3,670
23
21

Frozen fillet
UK
398
9,304
48
48

Frozen fillet
France
195
3,674
23
19

Fresh whole
Denmark
246
8,583
45
48

Fresh whole
France
112
3,186
20
18

Farmed
France
40
1,052
29
29

Farmed
Netherlands
32
724
24
20



From 70 to 80 per cent of all pangasius imported to Europe is sold in the HoReCa segment, but is also available in supermarkets. Though it is still a novelty in major fish markets, it is available as fresh fish, the consumption of which has been growing faster in Europe than it has for frozen fish.

Prices are increasing

It is interesting to see the development in the prices on cod and haddock. Last year market prices was higher than in 2005, and for most sizes, products and qualities the highest recorded for the period 2002 until 2005.

Price examples
Cod 2002 - 2006
Faroese Island ex.vessel
Average price
Currency DKK

Average price
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Cod 7.0 kg
21.16
23.49
18.32
21.58
24.22

Cod 4.0 - 7.0 kg
19.57
21.42
17.90
21.37
23.45

Cod 2.0 - 4.0 kg
14.00
14.82
16.72
18.68
20.15

Cod 1.0 - 2.0 kg
10.58
10.51
11.25
13.98
16.47

Denmark auction average
Currency DKK

Cod
20.51
20.63
20.34
22.26
24.26

Denmark ex.vessel average
Currency DKK

Cod
18.17
15.50
15.12
16.96
17.51

Vest-Norges Fiskesalgsl ex.vessel
Currency NOK

Cod
not available 12.44
13.64
14.08
16.34

Export FOB Norway
Currency NOK

Cod, all products
37.12
35.64
40.63
40.52
45.06





Price examples
Haddock 2002 - 2006
Faroese Island ex.vessel
Currency DKK

Average price
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Haddock 1.0 - 2.0 kg
14.29
10.27
9.67
11.96
13.97

Haddock 0.5 - 1.0 kg
12.44
8.35
8.43
10.63
13.03

Haddock 0.0 - 0.5 kg
7.69
5.26
6.90
9.17
11.37

Denmark auction average
Currency DKK

Haddock
9.48
10.42
10.17
10.44
12.98

Denmark ex.vessel average
Currency DKK

Haddock
9.04
8.36
9.96
9.87
12.45

Vest-Norges Fiskesalgsl ex.vessel
Currency NOK

Haddock
na
8.25
2.37
10.13
12.76

Export FOB Norway
Currency NOK

Haddock all products
21.83
15.01
14.95
17.52
21.82




Prices on haddock were as high in 2002, and if figures are adjusted for inflation, prices were a bit higher. However, in 2003 prices dropped. And since than prices have increased steadily.

The figures above illustrate the price paid for landings in the Faroese Islands, to vessels landing cod in Denmark, and at all Danish auctions combined, along with the price paid to vessels in West-Norway, and also for all cod and haddock products exported from Norway, listed. The picture is very clear. They have not suffered very much because of the increased import of pangasius.

Future development

It looks as if pangasius has been absorbed in a way not affecting the whitefish market, neither in Europe nor in the United States. As long as the fish is supplied frozen the competition will not be great.

Falling cod quotas in most European fisheries, together with the reduction in illegal catches will continue to push the prices on cod and comparable species upwards. Probably the reduction in illegal fishery in the North Atlantic alone will create a large enough gap to fill in most of the pangasius being imported to Europe. If so, pangasius will continue to fall in price, at the same time that cod will continue to rise as long as the quotas are kept at the current level.


By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

15/06/2007 - Confusing rules may allow pirates to sail away

WEEKEND FEATURE: Confusing rules may allow pirates to sail away
EUROPEAN UNIONFriday, June 15, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
A report drafted as a result of a meeting of the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement (PECCOE) of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) held in Bergen in April, was tabled during the extraordinary annual general meeting of the NEAFC taking place in London Wednesday and Thursday this past week.
The PECCOE report points to a number of weaknesses in the legislation, which hinder the different NEAFC member countries when enforcing Port State Controls over landings or transhipments (in ports of NEAFCs Contracting Parties) of frozen fish caught in the NEAFC Convention Area by foreign vessels. These weak points make it difficult when trying to sanction fishing vessels operating illegally.
Russia, despite being a contracting party, does not have national legislation making it possible to comply with the NEAFC convention, according to the report. A new legislation will come, but until than vessels blacklisted by NEAFC can still change from any other flag to a Russian flag. This has happened with three vessels.
The PECCOE report from the meeting describes the problem this way:
“The Chair [Martin Newman] described the case of the Cephey (a reefer that left the NEAFC area at the end of October 2006 and has been observed in Ghana, Africa in March this year), the Pavlovsk in Tallinn and St. Nicolas in the port of Kristiansund, and a representative of the Russian Federation added the Dolphin, which had been granted a Russian flag last year in the port of Murmansk. Even if these vessels had been granted Russian flags, they are held back in port and have not received licences or permission to fish. Legislation has now been introduced to bring Russian regulations in line with international legislation on illegal unregulated, unreported (IUU) fishing.
The European Union (EU) representative asked what would happen with the vessels that have acquired Russian flags. The representative of the Russian Federation informed that the authorities were still investigating the three vessels Dolphin, Pavlovsk, and St. Nicolas. If it is found that they have not violated fisheries legislation, the Russian Federation will propose that the vessels be taken off the NEAFC lists for IUU fishery. Russia had the means to control vessels under their flag. The EU representative noted that under the Scheme a Contracting Party is not allowed to grant a flag to vessels on the B-list.
The representative of the Russian Federation informed that they were not happy with the situation, but new legislation would prevent repetition of such cases.”
To further illustrate the problems facing the member countries the report describes the situation of five vessels called the "Rostock Five":
“The Chair informed, that according to reliable information, the “Rostock Five” in Kaliningrad have been granted Cyprus flags and been hauled by a Polish tug for scrapping in Latvia. The Ulla that has also resided in that port will be sent to India for scrapping. He thought this was a tremendous outcome although the procedures bringing them to scrapping were in contravention of the Scheme on all accounts, for example entering a port of a Contracting Party, granting of a Contracting Party flag and services by a Contracting Party."
This was an example where the operation of the Scheme had been adapted to match reality.
"There was no doubt that scrapping of these pirate vessels was a very good result of the NEAFC Scheme and its system of blacklisting vessels that undermine NEAFC regulations. The EU representative felt that introducing special rules for the scrapping of IUU vessels could formally amend the Scheme. The Norwegian representative suggested that the rebuilding of vessels was another possibility if an IUU vessel was effectively rebuilt for a quite different us, for example an inspection vessel, it would also be a tremendous outcome”.
The position taken by the Norwegian representative was a surprise. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has their own blacklist of vessel. Many of these vessels are listed because they have been blacklisted by NEAFC.
According to the directorate is there is no opening for de-listing. A denial of licence based on appearance on the list will consequently be perpetual. But in the NEAFC meeting is Norway opening up for de-listing, which will be convenient for the country that now has the Nicolay Chudodvorets (Ex. St. Nicolas) laying in Kristiansund, denied any and all supplies. At the moment nobody is taking responsibility for the vessel, not Norway, not Russia and not the NEAFC. At one stage the vessel be an environmental hazard, if the vessel is not confiscated for other reasons other than being blacklisted.
In fact, despite Norway's own clause, not making de-listing possible, the NEAFC has an opening for de-listing of vessels. But it is far from clear. A number of vessels are now slowly turning in to a environmental problem because of unclear rules.
"The Chair referred to Article 44.4 c. setting out the rules on new owners. If a vessel is sold and it is re-flagged with a new owner, which fulfills all requirements, can the new flag state (which can now only be a non-Contracting Party) then give the assurances required?
There seems to be a conflict between Articles 44 and 45, especially with respect to transport vessels. The Norwegian representative was not in a position at this stage to discuss this in more detail. More time was needed for reflection. The EU representative pointed out that it was ultimately for NEAFC to decide that the requirements of Article 44 and 45 were fulfilled.
The Norwegian representative saw more problems than solutions for the moment. The question of ownership is not easily investigated because of the difference in transparency between flag states.
The Chair noted that it might simply be too difficult to find answers, but that was a decision for the NEAFC. He then went on to the question of whether legislation allowed the impounding of vessels in ports, which were left to rot by the quayside."
There are at present no exit strategies. There are vessels in Spanish and Portuguese ports, which may sink in the harbour. He invited delegations to reflect and come back with ideas addressing practical problems. The EU representative was not aware of any EU law dealing with this problem, but there might be Member State laws. The Norwegian representative found that these were questions of national law. It should be possible as a matter of insurance to bring the vessels from point A to B in national waters.
If a vessel is held back in a harbour, who can make the decision to scrap the vessel? The report clearly shows how unclear the situation is:
“The EU representative asked who was going to make decisions on scrapping? If the vessel owner had disappeared, should the flag state be involved? He found it an interesting but open question as to whether the port state has legislation in place.
The Norwegian representative noted that there may be national laws on payment or environmental risk in ports that allow the port state to get rid of a vessel, but initially it was a decision for the owner.
The Chair reminded the meeting of the situation of the Rostock Five in the winter of 2005. They received services and were allowed to leave later because of the safety of the port traffic. There should be a difference if they were allowed to leave for scrapping. The EU representative did not think that the present rules prohibited the vessel from leaving a harbour, if it was able to do so on its own.”
In other words, if an owner uses a tugboat, can a vessel, which is denied services in theory leave any European harbour? It was not clear when this was written whether the Extraordinary General Meeting of the NEAFC had any solutions to the problems presented.
But it is for sure a burning issue to have different national legislations changed and if possible streamlined so they not allow international agreements to be breached or circumvented. Until than the owners of vessels deemed to be blacklisted pirates will arm themselves with legal representation to find new ways to survive in what could be deemed a cat and mouse game being played out on the high seas.
Related articles:
-Troubled pirate vessel confirmed to be Russian-Blacklisted vessel in trouble maybe Norwegian-controlled-Illegal fishing vessels cut off from North Atlantic ports
By Terje Engoewww.fis.com

8/6/2007 - The inconvenient struggle against pirates

WEEKEND FEATURE: The inconvenient struggle against pirates
WORLDWIDEFriday, June 08, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
In Morrocco the unreported, unregulated, and illegal (IUU) reefer Polestar has been apprehended, and the crew are under arrest. Elsewhere, in Norway, a number of IUU vessels are being denied services at harbour. These vessels are now creating a headache for fishery authorities, given that a vessel lacking basic services and provisions very quickly turns into a stinking problem regarding the welfare of the crew and environmental issues. Despite discussions going on for years, it looks as if Norway was not quite prepared to handle the inconvenient problems arising from having a pirate ship on their hands.
FIS.com recently reported on the vessel Nicolay Chudotvorets when it was denied services and provisions and even had its electrical supply cut at Kristiansund in Norway. The actions taken since the vessel's blacklisting by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), are based on the Port State Control that now applies to landings or trans-shipments (in ports of NEAFCs contracting parties) of frozen fish, caught in the area covered by the NEAFC Convention for foreign vessels. In practise the vessel was denied entry to Norwegian territorial waters from the date the port state control was applied.
However, the situation is a catch-22, as the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has banned all provision of supplies and services to Nicolay Chudotvorets, the vessel, for lack of any food, water, electricity or fuel, is hindered from every leaving harbour.
“We are reporting to the NEAFC on this matter. We are not communicating with the owners. It is up to NEAFC to discuss this with the flag state, in this case Russia, regarinding what is to happen to this vessel," Gunnstein Bakke of the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries told FIS.com.
Untraceable owners
The directorate has some documents showing a St. Petersburg-based company, Okkervil LLC, as the owner, however, when searching the street address, listed as Artilleriyskaya, there are a number of buildings on the street, however none with the number 2. Calling the telephone number given in the documents does not go far either, upon asking for the company and recieving a "nyet-nyet". Needless to say, Okkervil is not to be listed in any telephone directory for St. Petersburg. Finally, a modern attempt trying out an e-mail address falls short as well, bouncing back with "permanent fatal errors.”
As reported earlier, the New Zealand Maritime Index linked the ship to a Norwegian company: “Port charges in Dunedin were being paid by Belemorskije Prornysiy of Petrozavodsk, Republic of Korelia, formerly part of the Soviet Union. (Another rendition noted is FSF Belomorsk Promysel). In November 2004 the vessel was purchased by Verfick Systems Inc., Panama, a company with ties to Nor Russ Trading A/S of Kristiansund, Norway. Eight crew, including the Master, arrived in Christchurch and joined the vessel in Dunedin at the end of January 2005.".
Denies involvement, however…..
Armed with the FIS report, the Norwegian Broadcasting Service contacted Ove Halvard Sjøvik Kanestrøm, manager director in Nor Russ Trading A/S. However, he denied that any such connection exists. When contacted by FIS.com, he also denied having any knowledge over the ownership of the vessel, saying: “I have been told that Nor Russ Trading A/S has been linked to the Pavlovsk and Nicolay Chudotvorets. But I do not know anything about such links. The company has not had anything to do with those vessels.
"Some years ago many people registered companies with the intention to do trade with Russian companies, as did Nor Russ Trading A/S, a company with only a small share capital,” Kanestrøm told FIS.com.
He admits that there may be a chance that the main shareholder, Alexander Kamarov could be involved the name of the company in activities he is not aware of: “Kamarov owns a small ship yard in Murmansk. He has lots of contacts and he is doing repairs on fishing vessels. He, perhaps, may have just allowed somebody the use of the company name for unknown reasons, and if so it is without my knowledge”, Kanestrøm said.
“Kanstrøm knows more than he is willing to say”, comments a representative of Norwegian authorities to FIS.com, adding that three other blacklisted vessels have requested permission to go to Kristiansund.
These vessels, the Dolphin, Ivanita, and Pavlovsk are all blacklisted by NEAFC, and all denied permission to enter the Norwegian harbour. The vessel Pavlovsk as is the Nicolay Chudotvorets is being linked to Nor Russ Trading A/S.
Lloyds links to pirate vessel
Alexander Kamarov is presently said to be in Russia, although he is not answering his mobile phone, which is a pity, as he could shed some light possibly on the case, with his knowledge.
If such a link is proven to be true, despite denials from Kanestrøm, this news is bound to make waves in the Norwegian fishery. Kanestrøm is, according to the Norwegian Company registry, the daily manager and chairman of the Board of Directors in Kristiansund Fiskeindustri AS - a company wholly owned by Sjøvik AS- one of Norway's largest seafood companies with activities through subsidiaries in Russia, the United Kingdom, and Morocco.
He is also director in Gc Rieber Oils AS, a subsidiary of the publicly listed Gc Rieber ASA, and upcoming director or daily manager for a number of other companies.
On Thursday, FIS.com had not yet been able get any further confirmation regarding any ties between Nor Russ Trading A/S and the Nicolay Chudotvorets. However, a print out from the Lloyds Shipping Registry on the blacklisted vessel Pavlovsk, as for Nicolay Chudotvorets blacklisted for illegal fishery in the Bering Sea, are listing Nor Russ Trading A/S as operator. As Nicolay Chudotvorets, Pavlovsk is also owned by a Panama registered company.
This makes it difficult to deny that Nor Russ Trading A/S has been involved as a owner, operator, or manager of those vessels. It is also indicating why a number of blacklisted vessels have been trying to go to Kristiansund for service and supplies. On the other hand, it is not possible to track any income from the role as operator of the vessels to the company.
Especially for Sjøvik AS, controlled by Odd Kjell Sjøvik, a senior figure in Norwegian fishing industry, it will be very awkward to be linked indirect via one of his closest employees to a number of black listed vessels. He is known as a serious fishery executive keeping his track clear of any illegal activities.
Blacklist now of value
Research by FIS.com reveals that the problem must also be of a political nature for Norwegian authorities. The Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs Helga Pedersen a number of times has explained to international audiences that Norway will be in the forefront in developing sustainable fisheries and cracking down on IUU fisheries.
She said: “1 May, 2007 will stand as a milestone in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the North-East Atlantic," the day the NEAFC introduced the new port-state control regime.
“This is a breakthrough in combating illegal fishing in our maritime areas. Port-state control of fisheries will give us a far better overview of the total volume of fish removed. Henceforth it will be difficult for vessels engaging in illegal fishing to land their booty,” Pederson said on 29 April.
Despite NEAFC doing what the minister deems is a breakthrough, the Norwegian authorities are blind to Norwegian involvement in the fleet they are trying to hinder in operating illegaly. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries some years ago published a list of blacklisted vessels. Lots of restrictions were put on these vessels. They would not be allowed to fish on quotas in Norwegian zona. They would not be allowed to be sold to Norwegian owners, and so on.
The Norwegian controlled vessel Nina was blacklisted by CCAMLR because of IUU fishery of Patagonian toothfish. It was subsequently blacklisted by the Norwegian Directorate of Fishery. Nina was owned by the Norwegian fishing vessel owner Oddvar Vea, an adventures fisherman known from different kind of operations worldwide. This vessel has passed trough a number of flags, including Vanuatu and Belize, and it is still owned by Vea. It is now sailing as Cevita with Norwegian flag.
Will it just sail off?
The situation is becoming very delicate. Norway and other European nations are all on the forefront in the, up until now, verbal war against what in public is called pirate vessels. The reefer Polestar was sent away from Europe without any country being able to take any real actions against it. Not before arriving in Morocco were any real actions taken against the vessel.
In Norway the authorities are reporting to the NEAFC, which in turn contacts the flag state. Next week the NEAFC will be blacklisting part of the proceedings during an Extraordinary General Meeting in the organisation. It is expected that Russia, as a member of NEAFC, will present their view on the situation.
The possibility exists that the vessel will be removed from the list as a result of pressure from Russia. If this happens, Norway may have to let Nicolay Chudotvorets sail off, following orders from the NEAFC. If Norwegian interests are involved they will just sail off with the alleged pirate vessel. At the moment the situation surrounding the Nicolay Chudotvorets is messy and inconvenient, while Norway awaits word from the NEAFC, which awaits word from Russia.
Greenpeace has called on the Norwegian Government to live up to their promises and tighten controls over Norwegian residents involved in IUU fishing activities.
"It is stunning to see how Norway, which likes to be seen as a leading actor against illegal fishing, can allow vessels like the Pavlovsk and Nikolai Chudotvorets use Norwegian ports like Kristiansund even without investigating if there are Norwegian ownership links to the vessels", Greenpeace's Truls Gulowsen told FIS.com.
"In this case, it seems there may also be material of interest also to tax and customs authorities that should be investigated. Norway cannot afford to be a safe haven for pirate owners", he also said. The Norwegian prime minister and the Fisheries minister announced an intensified campaign against Norwegian IUU interests in August last year. Since then not much has happened it seems, says Gulowsen.
Related articles:
-Blacklisted vessel in trouble maybe Norwegian-controlled-Troubled pirate vessel confirmed to be Russian-The Russian fishery circus continues to unfold-Trawler puzzles authorities
By Terje Engoehttp://www.fis.com/

1/6/2007 - Dangerously delicious from pristine waters

WEEKEND FEATURE: Dangerously delicious from pristine waters
WORLDWIDE Friday, June 01, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
It may taste good, but is it good to eat? Recent chemical analysis of tissue samples from organisms living in environments that were once considered “pristine,” such as the far northern waters, or the deep-seas, are showing worrying levels of accumulated toxins such as heavy metals. Is this an isolated phenomenon in a few isolated species, especially long-lived species, or is this a widespread environmental concern?
Masters student Inger Marie Tyssebotn at the University of Bergen, Department of Chemistry and the National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research (NIFES) is undertaking a fascinating research project to analyse the bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other environmental toxins in the flesh of the orange roughy, a popular menu item in North America and New Zealand. The name of her project is Metal content in deep water fish from the Mid Atlantic Ridge: Orange Roughy (Hoplostetus atlanticus). Tyssebotn is just one of a number of students working hand-in-hand with the Mar-Eco project.
Living far from land around seamounts and ocean ridges, the orange roughy was first commercially exploited in the 1970s, when concentrations were discovered and technology made the exploitation of such remote environments more economically feasible.
The fish quickly became a popular menu item because of its firm white flesh (that freezes well), mild flavour, and the fact that it is low in fat.
Today the fishery for orange roughy is conducted in many waters around the world, including along the mid-Atlantic Ridge, but the resource is limited and not very productive, so strict regulations have now been introduced in order to avoid the severe depletion of stocks observed in some regions.
Orange roughy fisheries have been described as a ‘boom and bust’ commercial phenomena. This is related to the orange roughy’s biology. Orange roughies are very slow growing, are long-lived. They are believed to grow as old as 150 years, and are believed to sexually mature only until around they are 30 years old. This characteristics, and the fact that they tend to aggregate to feed and breed, make them vulnerable to over-fishing, particularly to modern commercial trawling.
Tyssebotn’s project, however, will investigate another aspect of this fishery, that of food safety. It may be that such a long-lived species can accumulate toxins to levels that are harmful for human consumption.
She is using orange roughies collected on the Mar-Eco Project’s two-month-long research cruise along the northern mid-Atlantic Ridge back in the summer of 2004. There were not too many roughies in the collection, as this species, while targeted, proved difficult to sample in satisfactory numbers. However, the exploratory and multi-depth collection methods used meant that roughies from different age groups and of many different sizes were collected.
Sæthre explains that although there are relatively few fish being studied, Tyssebotn is undertaking analyses from a broader range of organs than is usual in this type of study including samples from muscle and bone and cartilage tissue, the liver, kidney, and gonads.
NIFES has long experience in food safety research. Tyssebotn will use their specially developed protocols to chemically analyse the roughy material to determine the presence of metals (manganese, cobalt, copper, zinc, molybdenum, cadmium, tin, mercury and lead), and non-metals (arsenic and selenium).
NIFES will run tests for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). When completed, the results will reveal valuable information about some food safety aspects of this vulnerable deep-sea fishery.
Some hard orange roughy facts
It is difficult to study the biology of deep-sea fish and their ecosystems, as they are both technically difficult and expensive. Many of the traditional methods used to study inshore fish species are of no avail. Despite this, some things are now known about the biology of the little orange roughy.
As many other deep-sea fish, orange roughy are long lived. Studies show that they may commonly live more than 100 years (data from both otolith zone counts and radio-isotope ratios). The long lifetime implies that they are late to mature (23-40 years of age), that they grow slowly (with an average size at maturity of 24 cm off South Africa and 42 cm in the NE Atlantic). They also have a low fecundity (reproductive rate) and may spawn irregularly.
While deep-sea fish species have these life history tendencies, researchers believe that orange roughy are the extreme low end of the productivity and high end of the longevity scales.
They are widely distributed throughout the deep-seas, between 500-1500-metres deep and near topographic deep-sea features. The range includes the Atlantic (from the NE to off north-west Africa), the western Mediterranean Sea, the south Atlantic (off Nambia) and through the ridges of the southern Indian Ocean from Africa to Australia, as well as the SW Pacific Ocean to east of New Zealand and the eastern Pacific, off Chile.
They tend to congregate, travelling as much as 200km, around topographic features such as seamounts, plateaus and canyons for spawning and feeding. Orange roughy populations may also be endemic, localised or resident, associated with specific topographic features and not tending to migrate over large distances.
All of these characteristics make the orange roughy highly vulnerable to exploitation. Field experience gained over the fishery’s 25 year history suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible for local populations to recover from over-fishing. It is not only the orange roughy themselves that are being destroyed. The fishery has very high by-catch levels. Mortality is nearly 100 per cent for these deep-water species, many of whom are unknown and poorly studied.
The mechanical effects of the fishery effort are also devastating to the deep-sea environment. Not only are the fragile, slow-to-recover, sea-floor communities of the trawl path destroyed, but the disturbance to the sea-floor sediments may spread the destructive effects over large areas. It is estimated that 40 per cent of today’s trawling effort occurs in the highly vulnerable and unexplored sea-floor zones deeper than the continental shelf.
Finally, researchers do not know enough about the deep-sea ecosystem to be able to even estimate the effects of removing of a mid-range predator, such as the orange roughy. The roughy is an opportunistic feeder and eats small fish, crustaceans and squid.
By Elinor BartleMar-Eco

28/5/2007 - A shift in the world's largest seafood market

WEEKEND FEATURE: A shift in the world's largest seafood market

JAPAN
Friday, May 25, 2007, 23:30 (GMT + 9)


The news spread on radio, TV, Internet, and newspapers in most seafood exporting countries around the world, and was carried by Agence France Press, Reuters, other news agencies, as well as on FIS.com: Japanese consumers are shifting their taste preferences from seafood to meat.

Seafood is too expensive, it is difficult to prepare, it carries an unpleasant smell, are only some of the many hard-hitting arguments Japanese consumers used to explain why they are increasing their consumption of meat and eschewing seafood, according to a Japanese Government whitepaper.

Is this recent development in Japanese seafood consumption unexpected? Hardly. In a world where many fisheries are in trouble, and an aquaculture industry is producing large volumes but with little variation in species, it is only natural.

Large populations in many countries are increasing their purchasing power. In China seafood is seen as a luxury item. As millions of Chinese are increasing their wealth Japanese consumers have to accept that even if they always have been willing to pay premium prices for quality, there is an increasing number of consumers in other countries also willing to pay top price for quality.

Japan Today sees it this way

But there is no real reason for deep concern about the Japanese market. It is still and will continue to be, an important market for many seafood exporters worldwide. Before looking at the supply and consumption of different seafood products in the Japanese market, it is interesting to look at how the Japanese newspaper Japan Today presented the governmnet findings this way:

“Household consumption of seafood here may be surpassed by meat in the near future because strong demand for fish in China and other countries is pushing up prices amid a growing taste for easy-to-cook meat, the government said in a report released Tuesday.

Japan should put the brakes on declining seafood consumption by diversifying its sales networks and expanding catches to stabilize prices, according to the fisheries white paper for fiscal 2006.

There is potential demand for seafood, given that health-conscious consumers tend to prefer fish over meat, the report notes. Citing a survey by the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry, the white paper says annual per capita volume of seafood purchased in Japan came to slightly less than 13 kg in 2005, marginally topping meat.

Seafood purchases have been on a downward trend since a per capita total of 16 kg was reached in 1965. Meat purchases have been above 12 kg since the mid-1980s, compared with 6 kg in 1965, it says.

The white paper says children are getting fewer chances to eat seafood. Busy parents are reluctant to prepare and cook fish and wash up afterward because all these things take time, it says.

Based on a survey by the government-backed Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Finance Corp., the report says 70 percent of housewives in their 30s do not fillet fish and 10 percent do not grill it.

In China, Europe and the United States, meanwhile, seafood consumption is increasing on the back of growing interest in fitness and health, leading to higher seafood prices on global markets and reduced purchases by Japanese importers, the white paper says.

Meanwhile, Japan's consumption of such fish as Norwegian salmon, US red salmon, and cod has fallen, it says.

According to the internal affairs ministry survey, young people eat less fish then their elders.

While in the past, people began to prefer fish over meat as they grew older, today's middle-aged consumers are eating more meat and less fish the same as the young, according to the ministry."

The message to the world is that the consumption of some species has fallen, but this is a far cry from all species experiencing a fall in consumption. For some products there is currently a lack of supply. A reduction in Japanese seafood consumption does not necessarily mean fewer opportunities for the world's seafood industry. It depends on Japan's own catches and aquaculture production.

Japanese catch volume has been relatively stable over the last four years. Larger variations in catch are mainly seen for pelagic species like anchovies, pacific mackerel, and Japanese sardines. In fact, Japan is, due to large catches of Pacific mackerel ,a large net exporter of this species.

Where Japan used to be a very important consumer of Norwegian mackerel, it is suddenly a large competitor for Norway in some markets.

Understanding the Japanese market is becoming more and more important so time is not wasted trying to sell the wrong seafood products to a finicky consumer.

Japanese packaging

A very important factor in understanding the behaviour of the Japanese market is knowledge about how products are presented to its consumers. When European and American consumers are buying seafood by the kilo, the Japanese consumers are more moderate, preferring to purchase nicely presented seafood in much smaller quantities.

Therefore sometimes lower catches of specific fish species result in the need for very quick imports, as the number of portions or consumer packs are reduced substantially. There is a lot more portions of sushi in a tonne of bluefin tuna than there are steaks of 200 grams.

A way to locate potential

What sort of information could give a good idea about the potential ad market conditions for products that exporters have for sale? Five easy points on a check list to stay abreast of the market trends:

What the local fleet is catching. This fish is usually fresh and will reach the consumers first.
What have been imported in the past and lately.
What have been exported in the past and lately
The latest frozen stock holding figures.
Price developments on Market Prices FIS.com.
Catches by Japanese fishing fleet

The easiest obtainable information on Japanese catches can be found in figures that gauge sales volumes and average ex.vessel prices in the main Japanese harbours. The authorities present them in Japanese, but the following table shows the catch figure for 2003 – 2006:

Landed volumes
by Japanese vessels in major ports
( tonnes) 2003
2004
2005
2006

Bluefin tuna
1,158
4,914
4,050
2,892

Albacore tuna
25,019
32,949
20,214
26,820

Bigeye tuna
10,142
11,668
9,413
14,776

Yellowfin tuna
11,163
7,557
8,703
8,626

Striped marlin
2,597
2,449
1,904
1,654

Swordfish
4,784
5,228
5,043
5,899

Skipjack tuna
89,733
58,905
95,455
78,964

Japanese sardine
37,597
27,927
9,763
39,171

Round herring
10,280
12,305
14,445
17,778

Anchovy
239,642
202,863
113,995
133,205

Jack mackerel
165,910
158,069
126,474
109,117

Mackerel-scad
22,190
16,292
12,072
17,603

Pacific mackerel
254,151
237,301
515,878
536,144

Saury
225,068
181,348
198,556
208,463

Cod
23,827
28,596
34,373
35,550

Pollock
125,620
121,480
98,195
100.395

Atka mackerel
112,608
138,526
111,056
79,336

Japanese flying squid
66,577
79,958
69,579
41,248

Flying squid
560
20
729
14

Yellowtail
27,530
25,469
20,433
28,822

Flatfish
12,178
11,395
11,469
12,569

Sea bream
6,483
7,520
6,938
5,879

Tanner crab
696
692
376
466

Octopus
6,982
6,222
6,631
6,578

FROZEN





Bluefin tuna
2,615
1,795
1,371
1,423

Albacore tuna
30,105
21,456
15,615
9,521

Bigeye tuna
22,307
23,066
22,339
20,767

Yellowfin tuna
32,712
29,565
30,584
32,180

Striped marlin
25
13
5
13

Swordfish
11
18
0
0

Skipjack tuna
198,861
207,497
246,460
220,431

Pollock
3,073
4,811
4,070
7,610

Japanese flying squid
distant water
19,768
4,040
5,476
6,332

Japanese flying squid
coastal
55,458
43,559
47,507
53,021

Flying squid
41,886
46,713
38,852
49,237

Total
1,889,316
1,762,186
1,908.023
1,812,209



Source: Japan Fisheries, FIS.com, NMFS

When there are important changes in catches information regarding the sudden shifts or even gradual tendencies are always available in FIS.com World News or Market Reports. The figures above are available monthly with approximately eight weeks delay. This is still fresh enough information to make us of when making decisions.

In addition to wild supply and fish from fish farms imported volumes are interesting to follow, and can be looked up on FIS.com, updated monthly with eight weeks delay. Check information by country, and just select Japan.

Frozen and salted inventories

To keep stable supply Japanese processors and importers are keeping relatively large frozen and salted stocks of products.

Frozen inventories
by 28 February 2007 Species
Tonnes
Change % 1 month
Change % 12 month

Albacore tuna
10,571
-9
-5

Bigeye tuna
16,932
-3
3

Yellowfin tuna
17,153
-4
-1

Other tuna
18,984
10
4

Skipjack
32,064
-
1

Salmon
109,319
4
1

Pacific pink salmon
11,731
-
3

Herring
16.068
-16
13

Sardine/anchovie
34,165
-6
35

Japanese Sardine
22,531
-5
53

Jack mackerel
39,299
1
-8

Mackerel
136,333
-7
21

Saury
42,700
-14
-26

Flatfish
20,434
2
-

Cod
10.974
6
30

Pollock
2,850
-3
-9

Sea bream
5,260
5
-18

Other finfish
214,518
-2
6

Clam
30,916
-1
17

Shrimp
87,877
-4
5

Squid common
47,733
-3
-4

Cuttlefish
8,332
-
-20

Other squid
31,964
-5
-12

Octopus
16,610
-4
-29

Pollock surimi
36,161
-7
-5

Other surimi
33,504
3
4



Source: Japan Fisheries, FIS.com, NMFS
These inventories have a significant nfluence on the interest or willingness to import new supplies.

Salted inventories by Feb 28 2007 Species
Tonnes
Change % 1 month
Change % 12 month

Salmon
10,573
6
48

Pacific pink salmon
1,692
-1
74

Pollock roe
21,769
-1
7

Salmon roe
6,541
-12
-22

Herring roe
3,247
-10
3



Source: Japan Fisheries, FIS.com, NMFS

Good opportunities

Using the holdings of frozen stocks is a guide to good opportunities for sales of sea bream and saury. For both species there is significant reduction in frozen stocks. In the following table there are some main species shown. It indicates movement of stocks from a 12-month and one month perspective.

Salted salmon is up 46 per cent on last year, and up six per cent in one month. It is a indication that the market for the salmonid species used for salting is getting saturated.

Sardine inventories dropped in a one-month term in February, but were up 53 per cent on last year. Another specie that currently has reduced market potential in Japan is a sardine. The reason is a bumper catch last year, therefore the frozen stocks are higher than the total Japanese catch in 2005.

It is important to keep in mind that inside each species group there are special products being imported despite high inventories. An example of this is large mackerel with high fat content. But the markets slows down as large volume of smaller mackerel is being pushed towards consumers with lower than normal prices.

Meanwhile, In February last year frozen mackerel stocks were 12 per cent higher than the same time one year earlier. This combined with good local catches of Pacific mackerel caused some trouble especially for Norwegian exporters.

The Japanese importers could simply not enter into negotiations before they were sure there was a market for imported mackerel.

February this year the stock of frozen mackerel was 21 per cent higher than by the end of February last year. There was more than 136,000 tonnes in stock. The positive aspect can be found in that there was a reduction of eight per cent in stock sfrom end of January to end of February.

However, a reduction was expected as catches of Pacific mackerel have been falling early in the first few months of the year. So this should not give too much hope to European mackerel exporters.


A look at the Japanese import figures for mackerel clearly shows a falling trend:

Japan Mackerel Imports Country
Tonnes 2004
Tonnes 2005
Tonnes 2006
Tonnes Feb-Mar 2004
Tonnes Feb-Mar 2005
Tonnes Feb-Mar 2006
Tonnes Feb-Mar 2007

Rep. Of Korea
804
1,463
430
525
86
174
85

China
2,023
1,474
1,027
717
538
303
270

Thailand
-
22
-
-
-
-
-

Philippines
-
103
-
-
103
-
-

Indonesia
-
10
-
-
-
-
-

Iceland
-
25
-
-
25
-
-

Norway
85,100
71,377
40,234
12,232
11,455
8,560
9,477

Denmark
1,173
2,019
847
741
1,460
729
496

United Kingdom
2,443
6,374
1,326
460
2,705
1,237
50

Ireland
3,477
3,485
682
813
246
421
35

Netherlands
1,507
550
195
54
10
9
-

France
34
222
12
-
-
12
-

Germany
221
79
-
210
41
-
-

Canada
3,018
6,599
3,205
583
1,979
2,637
236

USA
1,040
876
59
244
240
22
-

Chile
-
23
426
-
13
-
-

Argentina
-
13
-
-
-
-
-

New Zealand
116
167
6
34
84
-
-

Total
100,956
94,881
48,409
16,613
18,985
14,104
10,469


Source: Japan Fisheries, FIS.com, NMFS
If other factors like catch and export are added to the numbers above, it is easy to see why Japan is a buyer's market today, given the abundance of supply.

Mackerel market
supply (tonnes) situation
2003 - 2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 – 28 Feb

Catch
254,151
237,301
515,878
536,144
121,678

Import
128,269
100,956
94,881
48,409
8,904

Export
6,288
22,354
55,749
172,985
22,512

Net supply
376,132
315,903
555,010
411,568
130,582

Frozen stock
94,956
95,598
121,581
141,605
136,333



Source: Japan Fisheries, FIS.com, NMFS
Similar studies can be made on each species or species group, clearly indicating the market situation. What is certain is that, despite falling consumption is there are also rising opportunities in the Japanese market. However, for salmon and pelagic species there is currently a glut of fish on the market. For other products and species such as sea bream, cuttlefish, octopus, surimi, saury, pollock, and some tuna species there are falling inventories, increasing the chance of making a sale.

Related articles:

- Giant catches of mackerel making market tough to navigate
-Japanese mackerel importers in an unceremonious 'hara-kiri'
- Seafood companies facing off against meat in the market

More on Japanese market:

- FIS Import Statistics
- Market Prices


By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

18/5/2007 - A tiny little fish poised to increase our trust in scientists

WEEKEND FEATURE: A tiny little fish poised to increase our trust in scientists

WORLDWIDE
Friday, May 18, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)


The fishermen trawling for sandeel in the North Sea for a couple of years have had problems accepting the estimates of low stock churned out by scientists. From time to time Norwegian fishing vessels have been reporting an abundance of cod or redfish in waters supposed to be near depletion, not to mention capelin. When some weeks ago a research vessel located a large shoal of capelin close to the Norwegian coast, prompting the Norwegian Association Deep Sea Fishing Vessel Owners to push for a fishery to be opened up, the news spurned off further distrust in the scientist's estimations.

Many Australian and New Zealand vessels have made big money fishing the deep water species orange roughy. Some 25 years ago large trawlers just hauled loads of money up from the deep. The congregations of orange roughy were large and the density made trawlers worry over filling up their trawl holds to overflowing. This slow-growing fish however, which the scientists did not know much about, was being over fished. The scientists issued warnings based on the little knowledge about the growth of this fish with a lifespan similar to humans. Today, the orange roughy fisheries off Australia and New Zealand are in deep trouble.

When the Atlanto-Scandian herring was fished close to extinction along the coast of Norway in the 1960s this happened somewhat with the approval of scientists. Today is it official that the scientific advice was wrong.

The MAR-ECO project, an international exploratory study of the fauna inhabiting the northern mid-Atlantic, has been the focus of many reports by FIS.com. Scientists from 16 nations around the northern Atlantic Ocean are participating in this research in the waters of the mid-Atlantic Ridge from Iceland to the Azores. There is now more research being done on how to understand the life history of fish better.

Within MAR-ECO, Professor Mikko Heino undertook studies to extract life history information about fish from their length-distribution data. Often, he says, this is the only information that we have about fish stocks.

Elinor Bartle, who works in publishing the results of MAR-ECO activities has written the following:

Recently Heino, who holds a joint position at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research and the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen, was one of four young researchers who was awarded funding from this year’s Bergen Research Foundation’s recruiting programme. Mikko works in fishery science and will use the funding to establish a research group that will, among other things, establish a research model for studying life history evolution in commercially exploited fish populations.

Fish have a variety of life history strategies. Like many cold-blooded organisms, they generally have an ‘indeterminate’ or continuous pattern of growth, unlike that of warm-blooded organisms such as human beings, which have a ‘determinate’ pattern that stops at reproductive maturity. “The problem is not that simple,” explains Heino, who cites herring and mackerel or halibut as examples of fish with very different growth curves.

“After sexual maturity, herring continues to grow very slowly, while there are always reports of catches of especially large mackerel or halibut, which continue to grow unabated”, Heino explains.

Natural selection vs. fishing

What forces drive life's historical patterns and growth in particular? For thousands of years, fish populations have been affected by natural selection due to factors in their environment. For the last several hundred years the effects of these ‘natural’ conditions have been overshadowed by human influences, namely fishing. Instead of natural selection it is harvesting factors that have the greatest effects on fish evolution.

How can the evolutionary effects of harvesting be quantified? How can these effects on a population’s productivity or commercial viability be measured? How can fisheries be managed sustainable?Heino explains that the Norwegian cod fishery makes an interesting case study because it is historically one of the most important Norwegian fisheries and thus has some of the longest, most extensive data sets.

North East Atlantic cod has a life history strategy that involves returning to the coastal waters of northern Norway to spawn every spring. Historically, the cod fishery was mostly targeting spawning cod along the coast where the resource was aggregating to spawn and was easily accessible even with small boats.

One hundred years ago, this population had an average age of 9-10 years for attaining sexual maturity. This was probably an evolutionary adaptation as the feeding grounds in the Barents Sea were largely inaccessible to fisheries and the cod could feed there in relative safety.

The advent of technologically advanced fishing vessels has, however, changed all this, and since the WWII fishing pressure in the Barents Sea has been high. It is no longer evolutionarily advantageous to delay maturation, and the fish are investing in reproduction earlier and are not growing as large. In addition the spawning grounds have contracted and now are limited to waters around Lofoten.


Crash of a fishery

The Norwegian Institute of Marine Research is very concerned with understanding fish stock dynamics in order to be able to advise government agencies on how to manage these important natural resources. The crash of the Norwegian spring herring in the 1960’s and the crash of the Canadian cod fishery are lessons no one wishes to repeat.

The herring population has recovered and is an economically viable fishery today, and, if fact, this year’s quotas are the highest since the fishery’s collapse. However, the mechanisms of the evolutionary recovery are not fully understood. Heino’s group is going to develop a model population to study the effects of selective harvesting on population dynamics.

Modeling a population in the lab

Studying marine populations is difficult. Establishing a model population in the controlled setting of a research laboratory would enable scientists to test a number of assumptions they believe might affect wild populations.

Zebra fish and guppies are considered ideal lab models. Much is known about their biology. They have been successfully reared under laboratory conditions for many years. In fact, points out Heino, they may be too successful as lab models; too domesticated and not sufficiently “wild”! The Department of Biology at the University of Bergen actually has a small population of “wild” zebra fish from India, but researchers have not as yet been successful in breeding them.

Once Heino and his research group have established lab populations, they will conduct selective harvesting experiments to observe their effects on the population dynamics and productivity. They will also study effects on other life history characteristics such as egg size, growth patterns, behaviour etc.

Relevance to deep-sea populations

Heino’s work may be very relevant to newly developing deep-sea fisheries. These fisheries have been exploited for a relatively short period, explains Heino. In many ways they are similar to the coastal fisheries of several hundred years ago. Already data from projects such as MAR-ECO has shown that the length distributions of many deep-sea species are much different from that encountered in coastal species. Are deep-sea fish just different or do these differences reflect that these populations are as yet relatively unaffected by fishery pressures?

The results of Heino’s new project may be of great relevance to the sustainable development of both deep sea and coastal fisheries.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

Elinor Bartle
www.mar-eco.no

11/05/2007 - Seafood industry – when madness prevails

WEEKEND FEATURE: Seafood industry – when madness prevails
WORLDWIDE Friday, May 11, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
Poor fisherman! Poor processor! How can they sleep peacefully? No industry, with or without reason is caught in such mess of official and unofficial, governmental and non-governmental bodies trying to get in control. The fight for controlling this industry by different means is within reason resembling something close to madness. This is compounded with the threat of they influence they exercise over their own economic activities diminishing day by day.
In a perfect world local governments might exercise control over their fisheries and aquaculture industries, and agreements between countries might be managed by scientists as advisers, and administrated by regional fishery management organisations. Lobbyists and organisations with political, environmental, or other agendas or concerns, might be placed on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
However, distrust, open and hidden agendas, groups placing their interests over and above democratically elected bodies such as governments and parliaments incites actions such as boycotting of products, protests, and in some cases even more forceful actions used by groups not having the right powers granted them by democratic means. Militant groups are forcing their way into power, elected politicians are selling their moral principles, their ideology, friends and even soul, to get re-elected. These are all part of the modern world of pragmatism over ideals.
Australia portrays itself as an environmentally responsible nation, however, the government has found it easy to silence environmental lobbies by supporting them in fighting coastal inhabitants that still hunt whales. However, this is easy to do, since they never have been a whale-hunting nation. Science is shelved and the deep blue Howard Government aligns itself the politically correct groups, darkening a cloud on the country’s own mass slaughter and wastage of millions of kangaroos.
Mexican tuna fishers decided to change their fishing methods to reduce dolphin by-catch. However, this initiative was not for the sake of the dolphins, but to keep the door open to the lucrative and ever-hungry United States market. Only days ago, a three -judge panel from the Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco ratified the decision to prohibit sales of Mexican tuna in the US market with the “Dolphin Safe" label approved by the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (APICD).

So much for APICD. The Agreement on APICD, a legally binding, multilateral agreement, which entered into force in February 1999, established this programme to succeed the 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Dolphins (the La Jolla Agreement). However, the agreement has only been ratified by Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The US has not ratified this agreement and by definition then, they stand judgement-free to decide what they deem is correct within their own law.
The tuna case was reported this week here on FIS.com, whereby : “The Ninth Court agreed with what the Federal District Court stipulated after acknowledging that the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, at the time, “had been inadequately influenced” by political and not ecological issues when the decision was taken to lift the embargo in 2002.
The ruling imposes a virtual embargo on US tuna imports originating from Mexican fleets and from other countries that surround dolphins, swimming among the tuna, with nets for tuna harvesting.
The demand against Mexican tuna imports started in December 2002, when the Mexican tuna industry recommenced their exports to the US market with the "Dolphin Safe" label specifying their tuna was caught without causing a threat to dolphins.
After the embargo established from 1990 to 1999 for environmental reasons, the ecological group, Earth Island, sued Evans for “reducing levels” established by a dolphin protection law.
In January 2003, Telthon Henderson, the judge who in 1990 accepted the argument by the ecological organisation, again passed judgement as the group being in the right and assured that even though the dolphins survive the harvesting, they do suffer from “stress.””
In other words, by finding the right groups such as Earth Island, they place the jobs of maybe thousands of Mexican workers at risk. Not because they are killing dolphins, but because they are “stressing” the mammals. The correct measure would have been for the US to ratify the agreement and make international treaties and agreements monitor Mexican tuna vessels, protecting the dolphins from being slaughtered. The definition “stress” is a word that many US environmentalists will put to their chest. There is not many large fishing operations in the world not putting stress in one or another way on marine mammals.
The Norwegian herring fishery is disturbing killer whales feeding on herring. International krill fisheries are disrupting the quiet of the pristine Antarctic waters where whales for many years have been living with little disturbance from fishing vessels. So the same judge should be able to stop the import of both herring and krill oil. Creative anti-fishery groups are being given new opportunities to use US Law as jurisprudence to attack those living of off fishing or processing of seafood.

Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs) are doing their best to advise and control fisheries in the areas they are meant to manage. Environmentalist groups are calling for their right to help control fisheries. Some, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have adopted very mature ways of getting their views across. They are focusing on ways in which responsibility and sustainability can improve the economic situation for fishers whose needs are satisfied by fishing, not only today, but also for the future.
In the North Atlantic co-operation between environmental groups, fishermen’s associations, and governments has reduced illegal fishing considerably. The winners in the end are the fish stocks and the vessels operating legally within the framework drafted by Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and by governments.

A similar approach by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in the Antarctic region has resulted in a sharp drop in illegal fishery operations targeting Patagonian toothfish. Whether the decision handed down by the US judges will better tuna conditions,is an open question. If the market for Mexican tuna is made smaller, the vessels may feel forced to use other more efficient fishing methods, giving less attention to dolphin safety. There are currently no problems in selling tuna on the world market, but Mexican canneries will lose their largest market. Before then, however, tuna will be sold, and is this a victory for Earth Island?
This is just an example of the madness prevailing over the economic activities of fishers. It is not enough to have the Dolphin Safe label on tuna cans. In Sweden an organisation promoting and certifying ecological food products decided to introduce a new label certifying products to be climate friendly. This label will not have standards set by an international agreement ratified by nations. But it is probably encouraged by the somehow success of the certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which is a self-described: "independent, global, non-profit organisation whose role is to recognise, via a certification programme, well-managed fisheries and to harness consumer preference for seafood products bearing the MSC label of approval.”
They state that their certification is based on the following three principles:
Principle 1: The condition of the fish stocks. This examines if there are enough fish to ensure that the fishery. is sustainable.
Principle 2: The impact of the fishery on the marine environment. This examines the effect that fishing has on the immediate marine environment including other non-target fish species, marine mammals and seabirds.
Principle 3: The fishery management systems. This principle evaluates the rules and procedures that are in place, as well as how they are implemented, to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimised.”
So far 22 fisheries have been MSC-approved worldwide. The number of individual companies under each fishery is not impressive, with the exception of the Alaska Pollock fisheries. North Sea herring has been approved, but very few companies of many hundreds involved in trading this product have applied for accreditation to be able to use MSC logo. A good question is whether the MSC label is worth anything at all. It offers no international protection, and has even less value legally than the “Dolphin Safe” label disapproved by the US Court.

However, there are different views in the industry on such labels. Tim Kosteczka ,responsible for quality control in the German fine-foods company Füngers Feinkost GmbH & Co told FIS.com: “There are no visible results for our company yet, because we are not using the logo on our products.”
Andreas Kremer of Deutsche See GmbH explained a more active use of MSC accreditation to FIS.com: ”Deutsche See has got the basic principal of sustainability in the company strategy. The company fully supports the Marine Stewardship Council. We will start a MSC-Range in September with 20 certified MSC-Products mainly based on, for example, Alaska-pollack, hoki, herring, salmon. The company is very positive about the future success of MSC-certified fish-products in the German market and we intend to enlarge the MSC-Range step by step within the next months and years. This includes a number of species like cod, haddock and pike-perch."
The decision handed down by the US court is in fact reducing the value of labels to a mere promotional stunt. Logos guaranteeing that fish are caught in sustainable fisheries or in an environmentally friendly way are not a powerful tool. The court decision points to the need of forging international agreements between countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation has started to move their slow bureaucratic body in this matter. However, truths set by independent organisations will always be coloured by their ideology and goal, whehter they are hidden or transparent. The fishing industry, until real international treaties are put in place, certifying what is sustainable, acceptable fishing practises governed and controlled by accepted fishery management organisations on an international, regional or national level, will continue to have madness prevail. This will continue as long as everybody continues to want their say in the matter, but continue to implement any means they can in order to have their control over them.
By Terje Engoewww.fis.com