Fis Last Weekend News

09/11/2007 - When unsanitary processing becomes a corrupted political move

2007-11-10T02:28:00.000-08:00

Quality questions over fishery imports to Russia from Norway could be covering up a political agenda. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: When unsanitary processing becomes a corrupted political move

WORLDWIDE
Friday, November 09, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

A trade war could be in the making as a result of Russian sanitary inspectors earlier this autumn visiting Norway inspecting pelagic processing plants and in initial messages were said to be in good order, but then events turned around.

A tidy agreement had been drawn up during meetings between the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and Russian authority, the Rostechnadzor, as inspections should have gone on with no unexpected snags with the remaining factories to be inspected. However, suddenly the Russians announced the deal was off and now only seven Norwegian processing plants would be allowed to export herring to Russia after 15 November. In another about face this date was then suddenly changed to the 15 December, without further explanation.

The Russian about face

The mysterious turn about came when suddenly the Russian veterinary service announced that they had found salmonella, staphylococcus, and other dangerous bacteria in consignments from three Norwegian plants. As of 15 November they were told to stop further exports to Russia.

"We are taking these allegations very serious and will inspect those plants," announced director Roald Waage of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

He is speaking diplomatically to not further infuriate Russian authorities, because, if in fact the allegations were true, then the plants are not the only ones responsible for the mishap, and part the blame lands in squarely on the shoulders of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

It is difficult to believe the Norwegian authority's inspectors would be slumbering through quality controls over the past few moths as Russian inspectors were running up and down the coast inspecting Norwegian processing facilities. However, Waage can not blatantly call the Russians liars either. He knows, based on numerous media reports that there is a game going on in the Russian fishing industry. Foreign investors are concerned over how their Russian investments are at risk in the volatile business climate.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority has not published the names of the three processors being blocked from exporting to Russia. They only say that the bacteria found in Norwegian pelagic fish during inspections has been very low.

Herring is transported in RSW-tanks in Norway where water is chilled down to around zero degrees. On arrival to factories the fish is usually pumped directly into chilled storage tanks or directly into production facilities resulting in the fish being packed and frozen without being in contact with any open environment.

Salmonella contamination is usually a result of bird’s feces coming into contact with fish or production equipment. Staphylococcus contamination of seafood is usually a result of cooked seafood being contaminated by the bacteria Staphylococcus aurea. Bacteria is commonly known to contaminate raw seafood products are Clostridium perfringens, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp and Shigella spp.

Staphylococcus is thus a surprising contamination for frozen herring, as it is usually transmitted from the hands of humans handling cooked seafood.

This, however, is merely the tip of the iceberg of a larger drama that is unveiling.

Media reports slander imports

The Russians have more ammunition against Norwegian seafood processors and fishery industry. At a press conference a week ago Igor Kapnulin chief inspector for Rostechnadzor announced that half of all fish sold in Moscow is below quality standard set by the authorities, and that the situation is even worse in other parts of the countries.

According the Russian press bureau Izvestija a large portion of imported fish is contaminated, and some of it even by yellow staphylococcus.
They report that it is usually low quality fish that arrives to Russia from overseas. China, Thailand, Chile, Lithuania, Vietnam, Iceland and Norway sometimes delivers the poorest quality products to Russia, that include contamination with such bacteria as fetus bacteria, staphylococcus, and salmonella.

The news also quoted the chief inspector stating that most processing plants inspected in other countries have been found to be below the standard demanded by Russian sanitary regulations.

A news clipping from the Russia RIA Novosti last Wednesday stated: "Only seven out of more than 40 Norwegian companies will be allowed to export fish to Russia beginning 15 December." The Russian industrial safety watchdog (Rostechnadzor) stated in a press release that the embargo was being introduced following an inspection of Norwegian companies by Russian specialists.

Market analysts believe that this would have grave economic consequences for Norwegian exporters. According to official statistics, in 2006 Norway exported 197,300 metric tonnes of fish, including herring, mackerel, haddock and capelin worth USD198.6 million.

Experts said that the sanctions would not reduce fish supplies on the Russian market. Vladislav Kochetkov, an analyst with the Finam investment company, stated: "The market will be divided, with Norwegian companies approved by the regulator increasing supplies, and Russian producers boosting output." He said that the market re-division would raise prices of these fish by 5-10 per cent.

The embargo could be a result of officials' desire to support Russian producers, which are working at 30-50 per cent of their capacity. Some experts said that Norway often supplied fish illegally caught in Russian territorial waters and transferred abroad”.

The hidden agenda

The question remains over what is the real agenda behind the Russian actions, and why are representatives of Rostechnadzor changing their assessments over the sanitary conditions of the Norwegian seafood industry overnight?

There are big changes coming to the Russian fishery industry. The terrain is now being leveled out so the new industry can be built. “A monster-department for the Russian fishing industry. More power than a normal department. The risk of corruption is high, and the process is more than anything else a show of longing for the old Soviet Union”, writes the Russian analyst Pavel Kudjokin in the Russian paper Vedomosti.

According to the article in Vedomosti the new Russian fishing industry is to be financed through a credit line of RBL 50 billion (USD 2.42 billion) available for fishing vessels and processing plants. President Vladimir Putin's government wants to see Russian fishing vessels plying the oceans in hunt of fish far off from Russia shores, in a sort of expansionist policy.

The informed Norwegian-Russian speaking, fishery journalist Morten Vikeby last week, in an article in the Norwegian fishery paper Fiskeribladet wrote about changes to the political structure controlling Russian fishery sector.

“When somebody calls the new fishery management a monster with great danger of becoming even more corrupted, it looks like most experts with a point of view deem it is common sense to centralise all powers, from the 15 different ministries the industry has to relate to today, into one body. It still stands to see how a new fishery committee will function. Since early 1990s Russian fishery management has been reorganised a number of times and the leaders have been changed frequently.

Right now signs are looming of the intention of reinstating Russian pride as a fishery nation. Increased activity in all world oceans seem to be a priority. In august said Vice Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov that the number of departments that is dealing with the fishery industry is above any logic number. Prime Minister Fradkov, who is leaving his post, said it is necessary for one authority to take care of the needs of the industry,” writes Vikeby.

Campaign against Norwegian seafood

In other news reports marketing director Polina Druzjinina of the import company Rok in St. Petersburg has said that there is an ongoing campaign against Norwegian seafood imports, as Russian veterinary authority considers Norwegian fish as a possible health risk for Russian consumers.

“Norwegian fish have very good quality, and the last year we have had very few complaints in the consignments we received. On average we are 100 per cent satisfied with the products we receive from Norway, "says Druzijinina to the paper Fiskaren.

Rok imports herring, salmon, and trout from Norway, and it is her opinion that there is a slander campaign against Norwegian seafood as the government seeks to rebuild the Russian domestic fishery sector.

Russian President Putin has declared that he will have a stop the illegal fishery and has also said that as much fish as possible caught by Russian vessels in Russian economic zone has to be landed in Russia.

The Chairman of The Russian Fishery committee, Andrej Krajnij earlier was quoted by media as saying that Norwegian salmon is farmed in containers. He also allegest that Norway has also received fish feed from China containing bovine meal.

This is a far cry from reality, however, and could be distorting the truth win over opinion, or perhaps he is simply showing a lack of knowledge when talking about the industry in other countries. This would substantiate the Rostechnadzor blocking of seafood imports, which is a tough measure for a nation's authorities to take against another country.

The Rostechnadzor either must prove that Norwegian fish is contaminated, or they will be deemed as corrupted by their government looking for ways of stopping Norwegian products without coming up against international trade rules. When similar actions were taken against Norwegian salmon, they could not prove their charges.

Russians are not prone to involve themselves in such procedures as substantiating what they allege, in a tradition that goes back to the old communist era, and even farther back to when they were a peasant nation ruled by aristocratic despots.

Not only Norway is affected by such traditions that permeate their policies, and manifest in the Russian veterinary authorities and their allegations. Their inspectors have been visiting companies world wide for the same reasons, to see whether they fulfill Russian sanitary regulations. The problem is, nobody has been issued a translated copy, or for that sake, a Russian language copy either, of Russian regulations by which to comply.

Corruption uncovered?

What is possibly more interesting is the fact uncovered by the Innovation Norways office in Moscow. Responsible for the seafood sector, Lubov Bychkova, showed the journalist Vikeby a request from a Russian company written one week before the Rostechnadzor announced its new rules effective as of 15 November, and later changed to 15 December.

This request has the internal figures for the seven companies allowed to continue to export. The question rmains as to why one importer is granted a favour, making it possible to place orders quickly before others are even informed? Less exporters will give less production capacity intended for the world 'slargest herring market, and possibly result in higher prices for Russian importers, except for those told beforehand. They can reap bountiful profits because of their prior knowledge.

Vikeby dos not say so, neither does Bychkova, but the looming stench of corruption is so powerful that Russian authorities should take a look into the sanitary conditions inside Rostechnadzor. Even if this authority were to be helping the Putin government actively raise seafood prices in the Russian market to make it easier to finance the rebuilding of the Russian industry, there is no reason to allege outright that Putin condones any form of corruption.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority will be kept busy finding the facts. If they have been too careless in keeping controls with Norwegian processing plants, or are they just seeing the result of a Russian game?

Russian authorities have to present the international seafood industry with concrete facts, and clean away the bad stench that has permeated the air of fair trade. It is not easy to find the truth, and sift through what is fact and what is fiction in the current situation.

Until the facts are revealed, the Russian consumer is the one who is losing most, along with Russian importers, Norwegian fishers and processors, and the thousands of other seafood companies world wide who actively trade with Russia, during what seems to be an ever increasing volatile political climate.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

26/10/2007 - Global pelagic market meltdown

2007-10-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

Large Pacific mackerel was selling for USD 0.56 kg in Thai supermarkets in October. (Photo: T. Engoe)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Global pelagic market meltdown

WORLDWIDE
Friday, October 26, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

ICES has announced another bumper catch of Atlanto-Scandian herring for 2008, and even with a large percentage of the Atlanto-Scandian herring caught mainly off Norway, in Icelandic and Faroese waters, it is finding its way to fishmeal plants, as the world supply continues to rise in coming months.

Bumper harvests of Pacific mackerel have made the Japanese market nearly free of imports of Atlantic mackerel. They have instead started to push large volumes of cheap Japanese-caught mackerel into Asian markets.

Prices are and have been falling as mackerel and herring has been pushed onto existing markets, many already showing a glut, raising the question of whether the global market for small pelagic fish could be facing a meltdown.The other possibility is that increased resources in marketing and increased purchasing power of many emerging economies could make the pelagic industry turn the increased supply into profit.

Japan is expecting another year with very high catches of Pacific mackerel, as is South Korea, which is heavy handedly dumping mackerel onto other Asian markets. Retail prices in Thailand for Pacific mackerel during periods with discounted prices have been below USD 0.60 per kilo in large supermarket chains.

The table shows estimated imports for 2007, and includes sardines, sardinella, herring, mackerel, horse mackerel and other small pelagic fish. The increase in net imports by the world's leading importers is estimated to be around 2.5 million tonnes in 2007. This is a very large volume. The increased supply of herring alone this year represents around 10 per cent of the net imports by the main importing nations, and in addition remains the increased catches of Pacific mackerel, mainly by Japan.

Estimates for 2007
Net import of small pelagic fish
Country
Tonnes

Nigeria
370,000

Russian Federation
360,000

Netherlands
260,000

Japan
240,000

Ukraine
240,000

Ghana
220,000

China
180,000

Cote d`Ivore
110,000

Cameroon
80,000

South Korea
70,000

Egypt
70,000

France
60,000

Belarus
60,000

Kazakhstan
60,000

Romania
60,000

Malaysia
60,000

Total net import
2,500,000

Source: FIS.com, FAO, Eurostat and Japanese Customs
China market with potential
China is a small importer of pelagic fish if taken in to consideration it being the most populous country in the world. It is difficult to obtain reliable numbers. But import of herring is estimated to between 15,000 and 18,000 tonnes. The net import of all pelagic fish species accumulated is only 180,000 tonnes. Not much for a country the size of China. This is both because of the country’s own catches, and pelagic fish not traditionally being consumed in large volumes in most of China.

In addition there is herring produced from roe for the Japanese market, while whole herring is imported to China in transit. The herring roe is extracted and sent to Japan, while herring meat is sold locally.

Experience garnered from other markets has pointed to the Chinese market potential, but there is a need for large resources into marketing.

The Nippon factor in Thailand

The large Big-C supermarket chain in Thailand introduced herring into their fish assortment one year ago. A spot test undertaken some months ago by FIS.com revealed herring as being appreciated by Thai consumers, but were not purchasing the produce at the supermarkets; they didn't have a clue about the taste of the fish “plaa herring.”

Pacific and Atlantic mackerel have also been introduced to the Thai market, with great success. The product was called “plaa saba Nippon”, or Japanese mackerel.

Mackerel was riding high on the market and touted as Japanese, given that food from the Nippon is regarded as high quality by Thailand. This made “plaa saba Nippon” all the more popular with the high end market seafood segment in Bangkok. Consumption increase in the countryside, however, was slow, and herring was just herring, failing to conquer this market segment, despite riding on the back of trendy Japanese food.

The marketers of herring may believe it should have success just because of the low price of the fish, but herring will need more PR. If given the chance, it may sell in the tens of thousands of tonnes in Thailand within a couple of years.

The large West African markets

The West African nations of Guinea Bissau, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, and the Republic of Congo all import large volumes of small pelagic fish, as does their northern neighbour, Egypt. An estimated one million tonnes finds it way to these countries in total. Even a country like Angola, who has a long coastline with rich resources of pelagic fish, is an importer.

These countries import herring, blue whiting, and horse mackerel from Europe, mackerel and herring from the United States, sardine, sardinella, mackerel and horse mackerel from Morocco and Mauritania, and the list is longer.

The West African market, as well as the large Egyptian market, are not buying much in the upper end with regard to size and quality. The fish is staple food for populations with low incomes. With regards to sardinella the West Africa is the main market.

There is a big difference in the West African market and many other potential markets round the world. They are large consumers of sardinella and sardine, which are very similar to herring.

To introduce herring to consumers is a much more easy task than getting people in Laos or North China to try the fish. So even if the Norwegian Seafood Export Council has sponsored marketing campaigns for herring in China, European exporters of herring will be knocking on the doors to traditional sardinella markets. Sardinella is still competitive in price when considering large fish, but consumers in West Africa will be willing to buy smaller herring at a price at which sardinella is becoming expensive even if it is larger.

Unusual large herring

So far this autumn purse seiners and trawlers that fish herring in the Norwegian Sea have landed unusually large hauls of herring of 300 grams or more. Some catches have even had substantial share of herring around 400 grams. However, this fish will not end up in West Africa. Instead it heads mainly to Russia and Eastern Europe. The smaller herring of four to five fish per kilo, and even smaller, will be sold to markets in West Africa and Egypt.

Herring prices, if they fall, will have an impact on sardinella and sardine prices. Especially in the Egyptian market, the competition will affect the imports and prices of Moroccan sardines.

The catches of sardines off Morocco are reportedly down this year, making it easier for the herring to increase its market share as prices decrease. Herring is by most consumers regarded as superior to sardinella, but also as equal to sardines. If the enormous herring production forces sardinella prices down this will have a very negative impact on the profitability of the pelagic trawler fleet fishing off of North Africa. Sardinella is the main share of their catch.

Herring and sardinella together

Interestingly, the Dutch exporters have historically dominated West African markets. One reason is the large number of Dutch-controlled vessels trawling sardines, sardinella, mackerel, and horse mackerel off Morocco and Mauritania. Some of these companies operating these trawlers also catch herring in the Northeast Atlantic. They will fight to keep Norway from getting a strong foothold in these markets, even if it might cost them dearly, as they have no alternative markets for the sardinella.

Herring caught early in the autumn is suitable for some markets. If a market is to be developed in Southeast Asia, the herring caught early in the year stands a much better chance to win the hearts of the population. They prefer to grill the fish whole, and if there is a roe inside, all the better.

The Russian wild card

Large herring and mackerel from the Northeast Atlantic have traditionally received a premium price, but this year there is an unusual high supply of very large herring, and also of small mackerel. The Russian market especially welcomes large herring. By the end of this year Russian imports of herring could surpass 200,000 tonnes. But the increase comes at a price, in fact a falling price. Total consumption of Atlantic herring in Russia in 2007 will be around 500,000 tonnes, coupled with probably around 200,000 tonnes of Pacific herring.

So, the bumper harvest of herring to be caught next year adds to the already witnessed largest herring fishery in modern history taking place in the Northeast Atlantic and Norwegian Sea. In Norway, especially, there are very large frozen stocks of herring.

Russian imports have increased fast, but not fast enough to stop stocks from building. It is possible the Russians have imported more than usual because of increased demand, or they could be stocking up as there have been strong rumours of the government slapping restrictions on imports by enforcing much tougher sanitary rules. The chance of this happening is dissipating, however, and will now be interesting to see whether or not the demand from Russia will continue as strong as previously.

Russia is the wild card on the global herring market. It is by far the largest market for Norwegian herring. For 2007 Russia has by end of week 41 imported 111,850 tonnes of whole frozen herring out of a total exported volume 235,481 tonnes.

If the current trend continues it will probably amount to 50 per cent or more of the total Norwegian production of frozen whole herring that end up on Russian meal tables. Coupled with the volume of herring fillets, this is a reality that Russia is currently keeping the prices on herring on the up and up. If the demand falls sharply, beginning of 2008 may end up with a dramatic fall in the price on herring. However, even if the demand falls to a normal level this would increase pressure on herring prices.

Fillet prices halved

Early 2002 witnessed Norwegian exporters generate over NOK 12.00 (USD 2.23) per kilo for frozen herring fillets. Current price is around NOK 6.60 (USD 1.23) per kilo. Take in to considerations inflation, and prices are down more than fifty per cent. In comparison have prices on whole frozen herring been very stable. But export figures does not show the whole truth. It does not differ between large and small herring. In US dollars that are a widely used currency in the fish trade does the picture look a bit different. A low dollar is affecting exporters in many countries. Some of the importing countries have their currency pegged to the dollar. If the fall in the dollar is to be recovered by increasing prices, is there a risk of the markets reducing the volume.

So where is the world prices on small pelagic fish heading? They seem to be set for a fall, though it stands to be seen whether it will prove to be a dramatic decline. So far Russian demand has saved prices from collapsing or at least falling towards levels that make it as profitable to land the fish for fishmeal production as for human consumption.

If Dutch and Norwegian exporters spend their marketing money wisely, not battling each other by under-bidding in existing markets, prices could remain stable. The first half of 2008 will show whether the global market is able to absorb an increasing supply or we are headed for a global pelagic price meltdown.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

12/10/2007 - Seafood fraud: Something fishy going on

2007-10-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

Many species have distinguishing marks or specific origins, and an informed consumer can watch for the marks to ID the species. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Seafood fraud: Something fishy going on

UNITED STATES
Friday, October 12, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Disguise, swindle, or outright fraud, call it what you may, there is something going on with the seafood trade, and is well known to the industry, by any name. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States published a very detailed explanation of hoe illicit activies are carried out, and have given advice on how to uncover and protect against them. FIS.com considers the report essential reading for the industry, and is publishing the report in full:

Fresh fish for dinner tonight. Twelve dollars a pound is a bit pricey to experiment with a new recipe, but on ice in the market, the fish labeled "red snapper" looks fresh and inviting. So you buy it.

But how do you know the fish really is red snapper and not rockfish, its look-alike that generally sells for about USD 2 a pound? Such species substitution — selling a cheaper fish as though it were a more expensive one — is one of several kinds of economic fraud involving seafood sales, which troubles consumers, reputable dealers, and the FDA.

Because seafood is such a high-value product, it is a particularly attractive target for fraud. Overbreading, another form of economic fraud, has consumers paying shrimp prices for bread crumbs, and overglazing charges lobster tail prices for ice. Abuses such as these hit consumers squarely in the wallet. FDA has recently begun focusing more intensely on its mandate to reduce economic fraud in the seafood industry. In 1991, the agency established the Office of Seafood, with a 60 per cent increase in funding for seafood inspection, including an increase in resources for field offices.

The seafood industry doesn't like economic fraud either. A 1985 National Fisheries Institute survey report said, "There was general agreement among the industries (processing, distributing and importing firms) as well as retailers and restaurateurs that there is widespread abuse of overglazing and overbreading of fishery products, inaccurate net weights, and species substitution." In a presentation at the Atlantic Fisheries Technology Conference in 1990, the National Marine Fisheries Service said, "No matter what the reason, industry’s desire for a level playing field to combat fraud is strong, and consumers want full value."

Though there are reported incidents, the extent of seafood fraud is not well documented. Few databases are designed specifically to track economic fraud. The ones that do usually include data from the National Marine Fisheries Service seafood inspection laboratory (which analyzes samples upon request), state-directed surveys, and weights and measure programs, such as that of the US Department of Commerce.

Fraud is not always intentional. It can occur because of misunderstanding or lack of information, or it can be an honest mistake by a grocery store if the store bought a misrepresented product. Ignorance of the mislabeling does not excuse the violation, however, and FDA holds the seller responsible.

Mary Snyder, chief of the policy guidance branch of FDAs Office of Seafood, says the agency is doing what it can to educate retailers so they can guard against fraud. FDA advises retailers to be specific when ordering seafood and encourages them to take the initiative to learn about the products. In addition, FDA has put retailers on notice about the agency's emphasis on enforcement through letters warning about economic fraud. As a result, some supermarkets advised their seafood buyers that they would report abuses to FDA.

What Species Is It?
This question doesn't have to come up if a product is properly labeled. But it does, because species substitution is likely the most widespread abuse. Speaking to the National Fisheries Institute in April 1991, FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D., said: "There is no place in the seafood industry for those who substitute a less expensive or less desirable species of fish for one that consumers value more. We will seek out those who perpetrate fraud — and we will bring them to justice."

FDA is reeling in abusers making big profits. For example, in May 1992, FDA detained 1,200 pounds of fresh rockfish from Canada, invoiced at USD 1.50 per pound. According to FDA's Seattle district, it was labeled red snapper, the federally recognized name for a species that comes from the southern Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. FDA estimates the firm could have realized an excess profit of about USD 12,600 on that shipment alone over what it would have received if the fish had been properly labeled. In another case in 1989, FDAs Chicago district seized a 45,000 pound lot of oreo dory (average price USD 2 per pound), imported from New Zealand, bound for Ohio markets labeled as orange roughy, which also comes from New Zealand but generally sells for USD 6 per pound. FDA estimates the firm could have realized an unfair profit of about USD 150,000.

"It's not always possible to 'see' that a lesser product has been substituted for another," says Snyder, who is also FDA's species identification expert. Sometimes, FDA regulators must use laboratory verification such as identifying the fish scale and patterns, or isoelectric focusing, a technique that identifies a species by analyzing the pattern of proteins in the flesh. When charged with an electric current, the proteins form a unique pattern for each 7 species. The pattern from the species in question is then compared with the known pattern for that species, very much like comparing fingerprints.

Many species have distinguishing marks or specific origins, and an informed consumer can watch for the marks or ask the fish market manager where the fish comes from. Consumers can also check one of many well-illustrated seafood cookbooks. These have information on what species look like, and how to tell the difference between substitutes and the real thing. Usually there's also information about the texture and taste of a species. If a product isn't as expected after it's cooked, FDA advises consumers to discuss the problem with the fish market manager where the product was purchased.

To guide species identification, FDA maintains a seafood names list, which is being expanded this year to include shellfish. The list is used mostly by industry so it can uniformly label its products using FDA acceptable market names. Developed in co-operation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the list includes over 1,000 species currently sold in the United States or that have a strong potential for sale here. It does not list endangered species nor those prohibited for sale. For example, escolar, a fish commonly known as "castor oil fish," was deleted from the new edition after it was reported to cause diarrhea in many consumers.

The seafood list shows the acceptable market name, the scientific name, and any regional names. Regional names can cause confusion, sometimes deliberately, other times inadvertently. For example, rockfish is called "Pacific red snapper" in California. People in California know what to expect when they see "Pacific red snapper" but in other parts of the United States, consumers only know red snapper as a highly valued fish from the Gulf of Mexico. FDA does not allow rockfish sold across state lines out of California to be called anything other than "rockfish."

Sometimes regional names for fish are "made up" to make the fish sound better or of higher value, Snyder says. She gives the example of tilapia, a common imported fish that is also bred in the United States and other countries through aquaculture (on fish farms). Because it is also found in the Sea of Galilee in Israel, it traditionally has been called "St. Peter's fish," for the biblical fisherman of the New Testament. Importers have tried bringing it into this country labeled "St. Peter's fish," but FDA has informed them that it must be labeled tilapia.

Colors Added to Fish Feed
Some aquaculturalists have begun using the color additives canthaxanthin and astaxanthin, both derived from beta carotene, a vitamin A component that imparts an orange color. Canthaxanthin is approved for use in chicken feed — the color gives chicken flesh the yellow cast that some people find desirable. Astaxanthin has not yet been approved for any food or feed use

When used in feed for rainbow trout, these color additives turn trout flesh the color of salmon, a much higher valued species. In addition, some aquaculturalists grow the fish to larger than trout size, and then market it as "salmon trout." There is no such species and this is not an acceptable market name, Snyder says.

Color additive experts in FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition are aware that the regulation listing canthaxanthin to color food may lead some to think that it may be used in fish and fish feed. FDA did not intend to list this color additive for these uses. The agency is currently working on a regulation that would make it clear that the use of regulated colors in animal feed with the intention of coloring the animal flesh must have a specific listing for such use.

Water Added
Sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) is one of a family of phosphates the seafood industry may use as humectants, substances that maintain moisture in products. STP is used to process scallops, shrimp and lobster tails.

The phosphates are currently listed by FDA as "generally recognized as safe," a classification that means a food additive may be used for certain purposes. However, FDA is concerned that the seafood industry is using STP in ways that constitute economic abuse, especially in scallops. Atlantic sea scallops, for example, usually consist of 75 to 79 per cent water. They can lose a considerable amount of their moisture after the shellfish are harvested and the meat is removed from the shell.

Soaking in an STP-water solution keeps scallops from losing their natural water. Prolonged soaking, however, can result in Atlantic sea scallops with excessive water, adding to the product's total weight. Inspections of processing plants by FDA's Boston and Baltimore districts showed that some scallop processors were soaking the shellfish for up to 36 hours, resulting in a 4 to 5 per cent weight gain.

Consumers could be defrauded into buying water-augmented scallops at the same price per pound as scallops that are naturally larger. FDA met with industry representatives to discuss the use of STP. The industry agreed to determine the effects of various treatment times and STP concentrations on scallops, and to determine whether STP soaking provides benefits beyond restoring water loss, such as improving the texture of the scallops.

Excessive water has also been found in shelled oyster containers. FDA is concerned that this practice adulterates the product because the water is absorbed by the oysters, increasing their apparent weight. The agency is currently revising the regulation that defines the number of oysters and amount of liquid.

FDA does not object to the industry practice of using a frozen glaze of water to protect products such as frozen shrimp and lobster tails from freezer burn. Such glaze, however, cannot be pan of the net weight. FDA has sent warning letters to processors and trade associations saying that the agency will take regulatory action where evidence of this practice is found.

Over-breading and Fresh Thawed
It's disappointing to open a frozen seafood package and find more breading than fish. In 1991, the Connecticut state government surveyed breaded frozen shrimp products and found an average of 33.5 per cent shrimp — the rest was bread crumbs. The FDA standard for breaded shrimp requires that the product contain at least 50 per cent shrimp. The method for breading is included in the standard.

FDA is taking enforcement action against processors who overbreed. For example, in March 1991 in Mississippi, FDA seized 1,788 pounds of frozen breaded shrimp, valued at USD 5,000 (USD2.80 per pound), which contained only 41.4 per cent shrimp. With an 8.2 per cent shortage of shrimp, FDA estimated the firm could have realized a profit excess of USD 300 at the consumers' expense.

Sometimes, fish in the market is labeled "previously frozen." FDA allows the sale of thawed fish that has previously been frozen, but it must be labeled as such and cannot be labeled fresh. Fish spoils more easily than most flesh foods, and even in ideal storage conditions, it has a very short shelf life in its fresh condition. Therefore, to protect the product, many processors freeze fish as soon as possible, often at sea. This can be an excellent product. However, if a fish has previously been frozen and is then thawed for sale, the label must state that the product was previously frozen.

Is It Really Caviar?
Unless it's roe (fish eggs) from the sturgeon species, it's not caviar, FDA says in a policy established many years ago. Sturgeon roe sells for about USD 35 an ounce; roe from other species such as salmon or lumpfish sells for USD 1 an ounce. Two years ago, FDA issued a warning letter to a firm that had labeled whitefish roe as "American Golden Caviar."

FDA is working to protect consumers from fraudulent practices in the seafood industry. The agency gives talks to industry groups, displays at trade shows, and has open exchanges with state regulatory agencies, as well as increased training for its own field investigators. And a hot line is available to answer consumer questions. But FDA emphasizes that the best defense against fraud is the educated consumer.

How to Avoid Seafood Economic Fraud
To get the best value for your money when buying seafood, it's important to know what you're buying. Be wary of unusual bargains — some seafood is seasonal. If there is a considerable difference between the price of a fresh product and what you are accustomed to paying, it could be that it is from the last season's frozen inventory. Buy from a reputable dealer. And if the fish you choose looks or smells different from what you expect, discuss it with the fish market manager.

Look for firm, shiny flesh that bounces back when touched. If the head is on, the eyes should be clear and bulge, and the gills should be bright red. The fish should not smell "fishy" — it should smell like a fresh ocean breeze.

It's easy to miss the telltale signs of species substitution. Sometimes, taste or consistency is the only way to detect it. If you feel you have purchased something different from what was represented, tell your fish market manager.

Here's how to distinguish some common species:

Haddock has a dark lateral line along the skin surface.
Skinless cod fillets have a distinctive white papery membrane along the belly and a white line of fat along the lateral line of the fillet.
Shark and swordfish look alike, but shark has a dark streak of flesh in the center and rough skin along the edge.
Red snapper comes only from the southern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (ask your retailer where the snapper originated).
Orange roughy comes only from Australia or New Zealand and always arrives frozen. It may be sold thawed, but it must be labeled as previously frozen.
Scrod is not a type of fish. The term originated in the Boston area to describe the catch of the day. It is a fish under two and a half pounds that is either cod, haddock or pollock. Such fish should be labeled in the market or listed in a restaurant as "scrod cod," "scrod haddock," or "scrod pollock."
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
www.fis.com

06/10/2007 - Investors salivating over the poor man's fish

2007-10-06T13:01:00.000-07:00

Tilapia production for export could grow without affecting the volumes produced for domestic consumption. (Photo: T. Engoe)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Investors salivating over the poor man's fish

WORLDWIDE
Friday, October 05, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Tilapia has been considered a species mainly for poor farmers in the third world for a very long time. The members of the American Tilapia Association, which have long understood the importance of the resource, are eyeing its potential on the world market while recently the management of the world's largest salmon farming company, Marine Harvest has told the market that they are looking for new species to farm, and tilapia was mentioned as one of the species being considered.

Cheap to produce

The problem with the tilapia trade is the low price it commands, but many seem to forget that the production cost is also very low. Where salmon needs fishmeal and fish oil to grow on, tilapia is a vegetarian with feed costing just a fraction of the cost of salmon feed. If fact, too high fat content in tilapia feed will have a negative effect on the taste and texture.

Tilapia is an herbivore feeding on algae and even bacteria growing in water. Some farmers that are not producing for export are fertilizing the tilapia ponds with excrement from pigs or poultry. The excrement increases the growth of algae, and the algae is then eaten by the tilapia. In this way the fish also solve an environmental problem in many rural areas.

Tilapia is an herbivore feeding on algae and even bacteria in water. (Photo: T. Engoe )

Salmon is reported to have disease problems worldwide. Millions of dollars are spent on antibiotics, vaccines, and veterinarians. Tilapia meanwhile is not fussy. It will accept periods with very low water quality, and it is nearly free of any diseases. This is also the main reason for why China, the world's largest producer of tilapia have had no problem with their tilapia export. There is rarely any need to feed the fish with antibiotics or any chemicals.

More than 2 million tonnes

Last year was 2,350,000 tonnes of tilapia produced worldwide. Only carp is farmed in larger volumes, but no other farmed fish species has been creating more jobs and values in third world countries than tilapia.

In 2000 was tilapia the 11th most popular seafood in United States, with tuna, shrimp, pollock, salmon, catfish, cod, clams, crabs, flatfish, and scallops all ranked higher in consumption and popularity.

In 2001 it overtook the position of scallops, while in 2002 it had surpassed flatfish, and continued swimming upwards in the ranking. In 2003 it left clams behind, in 2004 did it make it leaped passed crab and cod. Finally, in 2006 it became more popular than catfish and is now the fifth most popular seafood in US where it retails for close to USD 20 per kilo for whole fish. In Europe the fish is increasing fast in popularity, and is now a regular species in most large fish displays in United Kingdom. Tilapia is penetrating market after market at a steady pace.

Investors moving into tilapia

Tilapia is mainly farmed in labour intensive economies at a low cost, where it is cheap to fillet and add value to products. In Thailand the mighty CP Group has contracted farmers all over the country, and have set up feed mills for fish feed in Thailand and a number of other Asian countries.

The Norwegian life science company Genomar AS is a leader in genetic selection of tilapia. They have branches in Philippines, China, and a number of other countries. Tilapia is on the verge of going from being a fish consumed by the economically impoverished to a fish being eyed by large corporations and investors.

AquaChile has invested in tilapia farms in Panama through the subsidiary Aquacorporacion Internacional in Cost Rica. The new planned farm will more than triple the Panamanian production of 5,500 tonnes of tilapia.

India – the next giant

The next and probable giant in tilapia may well be India. Large areas of the country have climatic conditions that are ideal for tilapia farming. Indian shrimp farmers dealing with white spot disease also have the possibility of converting to tilapia. No large investments are needed to convert a shrimp pond to a tilapia pond.

No large investments are needed to convert a shrimp pond to a tilapia pond. (Photo: T. Engoe )

Only a small share is exported

Most of the global tilapia production is consumed be the local population in the areas where it is farmed, but as investors are showing interest in the fish, more processing facilities are being built. Farms are modified and farming techniques are improved. The production of tilapia could grow very much without influencing the volume of tilapia available for local consumption.

For now, China is the world's largest exporter of tilapia. They doubled their export from 90,356 tonnes in 2004 to 181,831 tonnes last year. Still, less than 25 per cent of the Chinese tilapia production is exported.

China: Export of tilapia, product weight

Destination
2004 tonnes
2005 tonnes
2006 tonnes

United States
62,860
80,853
104,668

Mexico
15,884
16,343
32,894

Russian Federation
19
22
5,530

Israel
678
1,287
3,694

Germany
-
673
1,740

Hong Kong
1,016
842
1,702

Belgium
-
1,124
1,371

Puerto Rica
515
852
1,292

Dominican Republic
117
493
1,019

Canada
1,096
1,103
992

Others
8,171
9,266
26,929

Total
90,356
112,858
181,831

Source: Eurofish

United States to import 180,000 tonnes

This year tilapia import s to the US reached 47,600 tonnes during the first quarter. The main increase was in the import of frozen fillets, which increased from 14,200 tonnes first quarter 2006 to 25,100 this year.

The total import to US reached 158,300 tonnes last year and there is no reason to believe the increase will let up, as tilapia is both competitive in price and has a quality that is appreciated by American consumers. China and Indonesia are the largest sources of frozen tilapia fillets imported to US, with Thailand being the third largest source. China is also dominating the source of frozen whole tilapia, with Taiwan the second largest source. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated US imports to reach 180,000 tonnes for this year.

From whole fish to value added products

What is more interesting than just total volumes imported or exported, is the change in presentation. In 2004 China exported 7,964 tonnes of tilapia characterised in export statistics as “preserved tilapia.” According to Eurofish this is considered value added tilapia, such as breaded tilapia fillets and tilapia fillets with the addition of lemon, pimento, herbs, or other spices. Last year 98,862 tonnes of the Chinese exports were “preserved tilapia”. The export of frozen whole tilapia increased from 43,840 tonnes to 46,901 tonnes from 2004 to 2006. Tilapia is becoming an important raw material for Chinese processors, not just a commodity.

Tilapia is becoming an important raw material for Chinese processors. (Photo: AARM)

Great potential in many countries

The development seen in China, on a different scale, can be replicated in many countries around the world. Brazil, Burma, India, and many African countries have large freshwater resources suitable for tilapia farming. They are now waiting for the investors who in addition to money have knowledge about processing and marketing. Marine Harvest has made their intentions public. AquaChile has already begun tilapia growing in ponds. Many will follow.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

28/09/20007 - Global dollar trouble sinks profits

2007-09-28T12:10:00.000-07:00

Processors worldwide, in most countries are hit by dollar trouble to different degrees. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Global dollar trouble sinks profits

WORLDWIDE
Friday, September 28, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Indian exporters are unable to compete with their Asian competitors such as China, Vietnam, and even Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, according to AJ Tharakan, president of The Seafood Exporters Association of India (SEAI). The Indian products are priced out in the major markets of the United States, Japan, and the European Union (EU) due to the strong rupee.

It is difficult for exporters to lower the price paid to fishermen or aqua farmers in line with the appreciating rupee, he said, as one of many industry representatives making the same complaints worldwide.

The US dollar is, despite it losing some weight, the most important currency in international trade for all sorts of commodities and products. Since 1 January it has lost 10.9 per cent of its value against the Indian rupee. Exporters who have joined long term contracts where the prices are pegged to the dollar are in trouble if no clause in the contract protects them against such large fluctuations to the currencies.

Value of 1 USD against other currencies 2004 – 2007

Country
Currency
01.01.04
01.01.05
01.01.06
01.01.07
25.09.07

Canada
CAD
1.297
1.2
1.164
1.166
1

Chile
CLP
611.4
575
514
532.6
514.1

China
CNY
8.287
8.286
8.075
7.817
7.518

EU
EUR
0.795
0.737
0.844
0.758
0.709

India
INR
45.69
43.47
45.19
44.12
39.77

Japan
JPY
107.4
102.44
117.68
119.11
115.07

S. Korea
KRW
1193
1076
1029
940
922

Morocco
MAD
8.841
8.506
9.366
8.508
8.047

Norway
NOK
6.67
6.07
6.77
6.24
5.52

New Zealand
NZD
1.527
1.393
1.464
1.421
1.343

Russia
RUB
29.25
27.73
28.75
26.331
25.016

Thailand
THB
39.7
38.84
41.08
35.95
32.22

US dollar vs. Indian rupee

However, the Indian seafood industry is now experiencing what exporters and importers in other countries have troubled over for years. Since 1 January the US dollar lost 10.9 per cent against the Indian rupee. In comparison the US dollar lost 13 per cent against the Norwegian krone this year, and since 1 January 2004 has depreciated 29.7 per cent against the Canadian dollar and 29.4 per cent against the South Korean won.

The Thai baht is strengthening fast, and just this year the US dollar has lost 11.6 per cent against it. Since 1 January, 2004 the value of the dollar has decreased 23.2 per cent against the baht.

Change in % against the US dollar

Currency
01.01.07
01.01.04

CAD
11.6
29.7

CLP
10.3
18.9

CNY
4
10.2

EUR
6.9
12.1

INR
10.9
12.1

JPY
3.5
- 9.3

KRW
3.5
29.4

MAD
5.7
9.9

NOK
13
20.8

NZD
5.8
13.7

RUB
5.3
16.9

THB
11.6
23.2

US dollar vs. Canadian dollar

In Canada the strengthening of the Canadian dollar reduced profits, and also put many companies into the red. It is difficult to increase prices nearly 30 per cent in three years just to cover changes in exchange rates.

US dollar vs. Thai baht

The effect of the weakening dollar is varying from sector to sector. Increasing prices on fuel is not only real increases. Some of the increase is due to the depreciation of the dollar. For a Thai processor selling the products in the domestic market, and basing production on imported raw material paid in dollar, is the situation not to bad. But large exporters like CP-Group exporting large volumes of seafood and poultry are getting paid in dollars. The same is happening for a company like The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (UFP)

Exporters of canned tuna to the US market have been hit hard. Not only do they have to make US buyers pay more to cover the rapidly increasing value of the Thai baht, but also the cost of transportation is also up, especially in dollar terms. All this in the end has to be paid by US consumers.

For a company like UFP the situation is not totally gloom and doom. Much of the tuna canned by the industry is sourced worldwide, and therefore often paid in dollars. As the raw material is imported, it is mainly added value done in Thailand that is affecting the product price in dollars. However, at least two thirds of the increased product price in dollars will have to be recovered by lowering production costs, decreasing profits for the processor, as well as US importers and consumers.

US dollar vs. euro -The North Africa trawler fleet

For Morocco, Mauritania, and many other African countries the income from fishing licenses issued for foreign pelagic trawlers is putting good cash in the coffers. Luckily enough, many deals have been agreed upon in euros, especially in bilateral agreements with EU or European governments. The euro has also depreciated against many currencies, but the fall in the value of the euro is less against most currencies than what it is for the dollar.

This does not change the fact that countries issuing fishing licenses against a fixed fee per tonne of fish caught are loosing big money in the development in the dollar value. An increase in the fees is possible upon renewal of licenses. But high fuel costs are making many fuel intensive fisheries less profitable than before. There is a limit for how much the vessel owners will pay to continue fishing. Prices on small pelagic fish are fluctuating. The enormous herring catches in the Northeast Atlantic is putting pressure on sardinella. Importers in many main markets for the West-African sardinella catches are also settling their contracts in dollars.

US dollar vs. Moroccan dirham

Moroccan dirham has been hit less than many other currencies. The dollar has only depreciated 9.9 per cent against the dirham this year.

US dollar vs. Chilean peso and Norwegian krone

A winner in the currency game was for some time Norway. The Chilean peso was increasing faster against the dollar than the Norwegian krone. This made Norwegian salmon cheaper than Chilean salmon i dollar terms.

But this did not last very long, especially in the last couple of months the Norwegian krone has increased in value against most currencies in the world, as has the Chilean pesos, but to a lesser degree.

The reason is the fast growing economy in Norway. To cool down the consumers’ lust the Norwegian Central Bank has pushed the interest rates up by 0.25 per cent six times, just this year. The latest increase in the interest rate was Wednesday last week.

Now the Norwegian fishing industry is protesting, as they are getting less and less competitive. They have to pay the price of heat in the Norwegian economy, a situation resulting from very lax regulations of lending towards consumers. Until Norway has solved this trouble, the increased interest rates will increase the value of the krone further. Combined with a dollar in the middle of dive most finance experts expect to continue, the Norwegian seafood industry is facing tougher international competition.

The good news in the current situation is the fact that most free currencies are appreciating against the dollar. Processors worldwide, in most countries are hit by dollar trouble to different degrees. This is also what will make the world seafood industry continue as before. The US market may contract as local consumers change to local products, which should be more competitive against imported products.

US dollar vs. Japanese yen

A similar development has been seen in the Japanese market. The yen have seen much worse trouble than the US dollar. Since 1 January 2004 the dollar has strengthened nearly 10 per cent against the Japanese yen. Since 1 January this year the development has changed, and the dollar is down 3.5 per cent against the yen, despite the strength of the Nippon's currency.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

141/09/2007 - Hunting down pirates and ministers

2007-09-15T09:09:00.000-07:00

The Antares the Russian pirate trawler docked in Norway. (Photo: Greenpeace)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Hunting down pirates and ministers

NORWAY
Friday, September 14, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

The situation has the elements of crime, politic, and circus; perfect for a modern TV series. The crew of a vessel suspected for illegal fishery is being interrogated by police, a minister of Fisheries, who has declared pirate fishing vessel war, has been reported to the police for neglecting duties. The vessel has just a small cargo of illegal fish, but more interesting, it has tonnes of different stamps needed to falsify documents, and hovering over all this, an envorinmetal activist hunting for blood, both pirate and minister.

The story did not start when the Russian vessel Antares was seized on Thursday this week. It started a couple of years back. The vessel had been fishing in the North Atlantic for cod. On 24 November last year the Norwegian Directorate of Fishery completed a lengthy, well-documented report on the trawler Antares. The confidential report has, as is normal in Norway, leaked out and is now more or less public. In the report there are copies of numerous documents proving illegal activities.

The vessel M-0149 Antares is owned and operated by the company CF Ponoy headquartered in Murmansk, and was inspected on 15 November, 2006 by the Directorate of Fishery, Finnmark Regional office.

This reports covers high seas transfers to the reefer Mumrinskiy taking place on 11 November last year, unloaded by Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven on 24 July last year, with a high seas transfer on 11 August last year and discharge from Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven on 20 August 2006.

Case No. 1
According to the bill of lading collected by the Directorate of Fishery ,during an inspection on 15 November, 2006 the vessels catch journal number PM-060039/01-fc, page 108, states that the Antares transferred 30,300 kilos of cod and 20,670 kilos of haddock (product weight) to the reefer Mumrinskiy on 11 November, 2006 at position 71 00 N 34 10 E.

According to the bill of lading collected from the Mumrinskiy during an inspection performed by the Coast Guard Vessel Harstad on 15 July, 2006 and “Delivery acceptance note” collected by the Coast Guard Vessel Malene Østervold on 25 October, 2006, the transferred quantity from Antares is noted at 81,180 kilos of cod and 20,670 kilos of haddock (product weight).

This quantity is in accordance with documentation received from the Dutch Control Authorities (AID) on the landing of cargo from the Mumrinskiy in Eemshaven the 24 July, 2006.

Discrepancies in quantity of cod and haddock are shown in a separate table,” writes the Directorate of Fisheries.

Case No. 2
This is the first well-documented case in which it is proven that the Antares has been cheating. A second case is described this way: “According to the bill of lading collected by the Directorate of Fishery during an inspection 15.11.06, and the vessels catch journal with number PM-060039/01-fc, page 132, the Antares transferred 55,740 kilos of cod and 30,900 kilos of haddock (product weight) to the reefer Mumrinskiy 11.08.06 at position 71 00 N 34 10 E."

This quantity is in accordance with bill of lading collected from the reefer Mumrinskiy when inspected by Coast Guard Vessels Malene Østervold the 25 October, 2006.

The bill of lading, cargo manifest, landing declaration, and health certificate received by the Directorate of Fishery from Dutch Control Authorities (AID) shows that the Mumrinskiy unloaded 109,590 kilos of cod and 55,980 kilos of haddock (product weight) from the Antares in Eemshafen 20 August, 2006.

Discrepancies in quantity of cod and haddock is shown in a separate table,” writes the Directorate of Fisheries. The rest of the report is mainly copies of all documentation collected to prove the swindle.

Greenpeace,Norway has argued for the Norwegian authorities to blacklist the Antares, and a large number of vessels that has been proven are operating in the same illegal way. Norway was probably the first country in the world to publicly list identities, IMO-number and other details on vessels they declared as blacklisted.

However, despite the Minister of Fishery and Coastal Affairs Helga Pedersen, in a number of national and international forums, spoke of the success of Norway in fighting illegal fishery in the North-East Atlantic, the list is slowly turning into a political problem. One thing is for vessels to be operating under flags of convenience, often flying the flag of exotic countries, which do not even have an honorary consul in the country, and another thing is to police the activities of vessels flying the flag of a big brother in the East: Russia. Right now Norwegian authorites are like a mouse in the shadow of this, and there are those who believe the reason is a small fish called herring.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin has also declared illegal fishing a serious problem. The whole fishery sector is up for restructuring, however Russia does not like interference from other countries telling them how to clean up their own act.

Norway already has felt the power of Russia when a year and a half ago they had the doors closed on them to export their salmon to Russia for reasons to be speculated upon. They know that similar actions towards the pelagic sector would be creating a much worse crisis. A collapse in herring prices would hit hard at pelagic processors already struggling to make ends meet. Moreover, nobody knows the direction of the new Russian Government.

Chairman of Greenpeace Norway, Truls Gulowsen reacted promptly when the Antares was arrested upon unloading fish and receiving fuel in the city of Kirkenes, close to the Russian border.

Gulowsen explained to FIS.com: “If Norway is blacklisting other vessels for the same breaches of fishery rules, and denying these vessels to be serviced in Norwegian harbours, the same rules must apply to a vessels like the Antares. It is the Directorate of Fisheries, a body controlled under the Department of Fishery and Coastal Affairs structure, that has documented clearly the crimes committed by the Antares”.

He adds that: “The minister has been very active in the work to have in place European rules for blacklisting of pirate vessels. But she is afraid of maintaining these rules in our own harbours. The situation is directly embarrassing."

Gulowsen has now widened his hunt for those who are breaching Norwegian Law to not only cover vessels operating illegally. Thursday he reported the minister to the police, by way of letter in which he explains why the minister is breaching, the law.

The letter reads:

“Report on neglect of public duties:
Greenpeace is reporting the Minister of Fishery and Coastal Affairs for breaching the Law of Responsibility, § 8. The law demands that a member of Government be punished shoud this member, by action or neglect, cause or contribute to a decision made by the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) to not be executed or an action be made in conflict with the decision by the Storting.

The minister has, by: allowing continuous access to fishing operation in the Norwegian Economic Zone and for the use of Norwegian harbours, such as Kirkenes, for landing of fish and exchange of crew by the Russian fishing vessels Antares, and for not blacklisting the vessel on the recently Norwegian IUU-list, acted in breach of the decision made by the Storting.”

For the Police it is a delicate situation to receive a well-documented report concerning a minister acting in breach of a decision made by the Storting. It is difficult to believe the Police would do anything other than drop the case. However, Greenpeace raised the attention necessary and owners of pirate vessels worldwide will now watch the case with great interest. Arrested by the Norwegians, would they have a right to demand equality under the Law?

Foreign politicians irritated over Norway’s so-called heavy-handed response against foreign vessels found guilty of breaching Norwegian and International laws and regulations, will use any chance to attack the Norwegian minister for speaking with a forked tongue.

The minister responded on Thursday afternoon, that a loophole in the Law has made it impossible to blacklist the vessel. The Law was changed in May and the vessel will be blacklisted if caught with illegal fish one more time.

The Antares will probably leave Kirkenes harbour after paying a fine if found guilty of illegal fishing. In the worse case, seen with the eyes of Greenpeace, the vessel leave the harbour unpunished and with a guarantee of no future trouble if it is not caught redhanded.

The Antares has been forgiven as it had the right flag and fished illegal in the right spots. However, Minister Pedersen will have a problem explaining her in-actions to the EU and others who have been pressed into actions by her and the Norwegian Government.

The Ministry of Fishery and Coastal Affairs has decided to fund a new fishery newspaper in Northwest Russia. They feel the information given by Russian media, fishery press included, is not presenting the Norwegian views in a fair way. The ministry will possibly need to publish such PR-publications in Europe too.

Gulowsen of Greenpeace will continue his hunt for pirates and ministers. He probably did not get a hit that was big enough, with the Antares, however he has wounded the international reputation of the minister.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

7/9/2007 - Putting a stop to rotten fish

2007-09-07T16:27:00.000-07:00

Russian inspections tightening the grip to protect their growing consumer market. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: Putting a stop to rotten fish

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Friday, September 07, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Gone is the time when cheap, low quality goods could be poured into the all-absorbing Russian market. Their authorities have now scared seafood exporters from countries worldwide. Suddenly they have stopped all imports from facilities that are not approved by their own nation's health authorities.

Norwegian salmon exporters were in shock when the Russian Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance (VPSS), at the beginning of last year, temporarily closed down the import of Norwegian salmon. The official reason was the discovery of salmon contaminated with heavy metals.

Norwegian authorities and the salmon farming industry denied that this could have happened. However, in the background lurked the shadow of contaminated ingredients used in the production of salmon feed. One researcher working for the Norwegian Food Safety Authority publicly gave support to the Russian accusations. She was quickly silenced.

The large feed producer EWOS, which had to withdraw feed from the market due to contamination from cadmium, was able to quickly prove that only one in four consignments of salmon were found to be contaminated by this substance as well as lead traced to feed from their company. So though apparently the problem was not due to their feed, the situation remains a great mystery.

Seafood and dirty fire wood

Upon this apparent slap in the face, the Norwegian salmon industry was in an uproar. The fastest growing large market was suddenly closed off to them. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority this week announced, during a conference for the pelagic industry held in Bergen, that they would intensify the controls over trucks used to transport fish to the markets.

The reality is that competition for transport of chilled or frozen fish is so stiff, there is hardly any money to be made. Transporters are desperately looking for return cargo from markets where salmon and other fish is delivered. In fact, they are usually willing to bring back whatever cargo is available. Trucks transporting salmon to the Baltic are filled with dirty fire wood for the return trip. The industry has not focused on what had been in the trucks transporting the contaminated salmon to Russia.

The largest Norwegian transporter of chilled fish, Johannes Lunde AS, last year lost NOK 26.6 million in a turnover of 161,9 million. Another company controlled by Lunde AS is Nordan Transport & Spedisjon AS had a turnover of NOK 151.2 million and a loss of NOK 14.3 million. These two companies illustrate the tough competition.

Times are tough. Without return cargoes, no chance for these transporters to turn a profit exists. Perhaps Norway would be better off making rules for exactly what content is allowe as return cargo.

Protecting Russian consumers

At least the Russian VPSS has made Norwegian authorities push for improved quality control. Not many believe that Norway has a sub-standard seafood industry. However, there is no reason to believe it is infallible. Neither is there reason to believe that their salmon was contaminated during the transport.

In fact, there are many more reasons to believe that the salmon was in up to norms. But Russian checks showed different results and they reacted in the only correct way. They protected Russian consumers.

It is possible, also, that the Russians were not wrong, however nothing has been proven as yet, and the Norwegian industry prefers to believe contamination is a Chinese issue, not a Norwegian one. Russia, however, knows there is a problem, and as the country moves towards a higher average standard of living, the intensive controls involving exporters in more than 20 countries have been put in place for safeguarding.

Controlling pelagic facilites

This week a group of Russian inspectors leave Norway upon inspecting a number of processing facilities for pelagic fish. Only nine processing facilities for salmon are currently allowed to export to Russia. This limitation gives Russia an easier task in controlling the payment of import duties, and lessens the chance of loop holes in the import declarations to avoid taxes and duties by camouflaging produce.

If it works, or whether the Russian border is porous due to corrupt officials allowing salmon across the border under a herring or other cheap fish disguise is another question. In Moscow they have at least started the process of cleaning up their act, or at least their image.

In the wake of what the Russians are doing to safeguard against being used as a bin for substandard products, the global markets are abuzz with rumours. When one Lithuanian and one Chilean company were denied entry to the Russian market with their seafood products, it was expected that all Chilean exporters would be barred from the Russian market.

This happened with Norwegian salmon exporters, when they were all barred from the Russia market.

The Russian newspapers Kommersant and Vladivostok Times further fanned the flames, writing that the Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance would prohibit imported fish and fishery products to be effective as of 1 July this year.

Stopped the pangasius import

Russian food safety inspectors arrived to Vietnam in March to conduct an inspection tour of fish processing facilities, fishery ports, and aquaculture facilities, as well as fish markets. The Federal Service of Veterinary and Phytoveterinary Surveillance inspectors were there to ensure that seafood shipments being exported to the Russian market were complying with food hygiene requirements. They quickly found problems, bringing them to put a halt to imports.

The growing export of Vietnamese pangasius to the important Russian market was also stopped. But a few weeks ago some relief was in sight after Russia announced that 11 Vietnamese seafood companies could resume exports to their market. The go-ahead is a result of recent inspections of Vietnamese processing facilities meeting a clean bill of health and necessary compliance to norms. Again, the number of exporters has been reduced giving Russian authorities control.

It was first announced at end of July, by the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Processors, that the Russian authorities had approved 20 companies. So the number of approved exporters could be increased further.

The 11 Vietnamese seafood companies that were given permission to access the Russian market, according to a report published on FIS.com include: Frozen Food Factory No 7 under Agifish; the Southern Seafood Industrial Co Ltd; Cafatex; Changhua Vietnam; NTACO; the Branch of Ben Tre-based Dong Bang Xanh Co Ltd; Basa Joint Stock Company; Pacific Asia Frozen Seafood Factory under Nam Viet Company; Cho Lon Factory; Factory No 4 under the Ba Ria-Vung Tau Seafood Import-Export Processing Company.

These are all modern facilities able to produce under rigorous quality assurance regimes. In addition the authorities decided that all Vietnamese seafood has to enter Russia via St. Petersburg or the Vladivostok port.

Russia takes control

Russian authorities are clearly showing the world that they are taking control of their market. This may be due to the fact that Russian fleet is a disaster, and if it is to be rebuilt, it can only happen if Russian-caught seafood can compete with seafood imported in accordance with Russian regulations.

Strict rules on imports do not favour Russian producers, but it does bring a halt to cheating and tax evasion, which makes locally produced seafood less competitive.

At the same time Russia is implementing standards, which Europe, the United States, and many other countries have been enforcing for many years.

The licence to export to Russia is a golden opportunity, as the Russian market increases in size. And while the doors are open for top quality seafood, the doors are closing for those who try to make money on exporting rotten fish.

Related articles:

-Secrecy surrounds Russian inspection of pelagic plants
-Russian market not restricted for Chilean salmon producers, says SERNAPESCA
-Russia commences food safety inspection over Vietnamese fishing facilities
-Russian okays 20 Vietnamese firms for standards compliance

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

24/08/2007 - How the media gets it all mixed up

2007-08-29T15:23:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: How the media gets it all mixed up

WORLDWIDE
Friday, August 24, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

In a recent feature story published in The Independent, a well known and well-respected daily newspaper of the media house Independent News and Media Limited, an excessive amount of misinformation was reported, demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge regarding the industry of fishery and aquaculture and the whole business of seafood in general.

Journalists Rob Sharp, Julia Stuart, and John Walsh -a qualified team of authors- of the feature story: The great zebu con – and other restaurant swindles, show a disgregard for the seafood, through several blunders, demonstrating their negligent way of obtaining knowledge and reporting it to the public. This is quite common in today's information-chocked age, where oft times even urban legends, because they are in print, are taken as fact. Today's press has lowered the bar on clear and factual reporting, leading many to believe, that when a wide-circulation paper such as The Independent, shows a disregard for news, there are few reliable sources to turn to. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

Ripped off by restaurants
The feature article is about how Britons are being ripped off by restaurants not serving what their menus promise in print. The team of journalists calls the rip off a scandal, but their lack of knowledge, demonstrated by their information, is more scandalous -and one perpetrated by them- than mislabeling or misrepresenting what consumers eat. One of the journalists writes that he has had a brief career as a restaurant critic, the brevity of which is reflected indeed by what he reports.

John Walsh starts off his attack of disguised seafood products in a careful way, showing that he is able to identify a scallop from a scallop or a bluefin tuna from a bluefin tuna depending on how it is caught. If it looks like the one sold in the supermarket Sainsbury's, it is logically not caught by diving or longlining. He may be right, but one wonders, how he can distinguish the one from the other.

Walsh writes: " I've been offered "diver-gathered" scallops and "line-caught bluefin tuna" wholly indistinguishable from the kind you get in Sainsbury’s. I'm not saying the waiters or the menus were lying through their teeth, but it's clear that they often are. So much of the scrupulously "sourced" ingredients are nothing of the sort.”

Julia Stuart then reports on her interview with Bjorn Van der Horst, a chef patron of Gordon Ramsay's La Noisette restaurant, who explains: It's difficult to tell if a restaurant is swizzing you. One thing to look for is the price. If they are selling wild line-caught fish, and it's cheap bass or turbot, you should be suspicious. Wild turbot costs between GBP 20 and GBP 25 a kilo and – knowing that there's about 60 per cent waste on that fish – if a portion doesn't cost between GBP 25 to GBP 30 then they're either selling it at a loss, or it's not wild turbot."

My own guess is that next time of Gordon Ramsay's La Noisette restaurant offers on it menu a line-caught turbot, something fishy could be up. Turbot for commercial use is not caught either by longlining or hand line.

Sea bass or not?
”Once cooked, the prime fillet of sea bass can be hard to identify – and there are many look-alikes, imposter species being dressed up as the original. Among the counterfeit fish recently identified in Britain's kitchens by local authorities were the Patagonian toothfish – itself threatened by overfishing – which is often sold under the moniker of "sea bass", despite bearing little resemblance to the fish in the wild,” he states.

Maybe the reason for this fish being called sea bass is that it is imported as Chilean sea bass. There is not much profit in substituting Patagonian toothfish and sea bass.

Scampi or not scampi
The journalists also attempt to show their knowledge about scampi: “It's common for eateries to pass off scampi tails glued together with additives as "scampi" pieces. They can even be minced scampi that has been breaded. This is “reformed scampi"."

They should probably look closer into what really is called scampi and what is not. Restaurateurs all over Europe misuse this name. Large shrimp from all over the world, wild of farmed, are passed on as scampi, though are never even close to being scampi. And the small pieces glued together are in most cases not scampi, but shrimp. British food writers, journalists, and chefs have been using the name scampi in unconscious way for years.

“Scampi is the plural of scampo, the Italian name for the Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), also known as the Dublin Bay prawn (especially in Ireland and the U.K.) and langoustine (the French name). The name is used loosely both in Italy and elsewhere, though in Britain, food labelling laws define "scampi" as Nephrops norvegicus.” (Source: Wikipedia).

Not only does media do it injustice. There are thousands and thousands of cases of mislabeling by the seafood industry itself. Some Norwegian exporters of rainbow trout farmed in saltwater still promote it as “salmon trout”. The fish with this name is a North American species. Rainbow trout is a trout, and if a container of this species tries to enter the United States under the guise of being “salmon trout” the container risks being stopped at the border. But most of us accept that “salmon trout” sounds better than “rainbow trout” or trout.

Albatross line-caught by ugly trawler
”"Line-caught" conjures up images of an artisanal fisher with a rod. What it actually means is that an ugly great trawler has crossed the ocean with several hundred yards of nylon and hooks hanging out the back, indiscriminately killing all sea life as well as the occasional albatross. Even then, line-caught fish is more expensive than farmed or netted alternatives, since it is normally fresher and its flesh firmer. Most consumers cannot taste the difference, and an estimated five per cent is mislabeled by disreputable outlets or suppliers,” the feature article explains.

However, “A trawler is a fishing vessel designed for the purpose of operating a trawl, a type of fishing net that is dragged along the bottom of the sea (or sometimes above the bottom at a specified depth)”. (Source: Wikipedia)

So now we all know that line caught fish are caught by "ugly great trawlers." Seen as one of the most selective fishing methods, the journalists still purport that this fishery gear indiscriminately kills all sealife, and even causes incidental seabird catches. It is disturbing news that “trawlers” catching the "odd albatross" can deliver fresher seafood than fish farms.

In fact the seabird albatross does not inhabit the North Atlantic. Only a handful of observations have been made of its presence there. If Scottish and English fish farms are delivering less fresh fish than products received from the southern hemisphere or the Northern Pacific, they have severe problems of being slow with their logistics. The same goes for if they are slower in bringing their produce to the market than long-liners operating out of British harbours.

It is to be appreciated that the press is focusing on seafood substitutions and swindles, but it would be great to see this done by journalists with a minimum of understanding of the seafood industry and how it operates.

Why this lack of knowledge?
Journalists use language as a tool. The right choice of words makes a story more interesting, much like the right fishing gear will bring in a better catch. In their quest to catch the attention of their target audience, they may risk some important details that later can wreak havoc, much as a bottom trawl across the ocean bottom, with its indiscrimination.

Journalists and public relations people with an agenda, promoting a set of views on behalf of themselves, a organisation, or a company, often choose to show bias in their writing, and do not try to present any different point of view. This is common practice, and questionable, however, as long as they do not do it under disguise of neutral journalism it is acceptable. It is not acceptable that journalists representing a wide-circulation independent newspapers like The Independent forget to go their homework.

The name of a product also results in trade policies and protectionism. The North Americans have decided that only their species of catfish is allowed to be named catfish in their markets. Basa from Vietnam cannot be called catfish, which is supposed to make it clearer for consumers. But what is wrong with calling the same fish in the US and Vietnam as "catfish?" There is clearly a political slant. Not only does the seafood industry sometimes disguise what they are selling but journalists then mix up names because of a lack of knowledge, of both politics and the nature of the seafood industry.

Even those who should know often are not interested in using correct labels or names. Laks og Vildtcentralen, established in 1930 is one of Norway’s leading retailers and wholesalers of imported high quality seafood and they call imported black tiger shrimp scampi of course. And they are one of many thousands of seafood companies worldwide that disregard the correct use of product names.

So how can the seafood industry complain about journalists getting it wrong, when they don't have it very clear themselves? Until the seafood industry begins to get things right, they cannot expect the media to correct their errors, only report them. And bass will be a different bass, and a trawler will fish with longlines and scampi will be a term not just for nephrops but also any large shrimp.

And, yes, journalists will continue to behave like experts who can pick a scallop hand picked from the sea by a diver, from a scallop scooped up by a longline, or, sorry, was that a purse seiner? Not that would be for bluefin tuna... oh well.

Note from the writer:
This writer takes responsibility for his own mistakes, and his views do not necessarily express those of FIS.com. However, as journalists, we all must try to learn our mistakes and bridge the gap of what is information and what is heresay.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

17/08/2007 - Celebrating 50 years of Norwegian-Russian co-operation

2007-08-19T16:30:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: Celebrating 50 years of Norwegian-Russian co-operation

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Friday, August 17, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Russian and Norwegian scientists for 50 years have been co-operating. Cold war and other political problems not related to the scientific activities have never stopped this, and not affected the benefits from it for the fishing industry, not only in Russia and Norway, but also for other nations with fishing rights in the North East Atlantic.

A number of times Russian authorities have closed large areas of their jurisdictional sector of the Barents Sea off for Norwegian scientists for reasons not related to any scientific work, but for political issues. The problems have usually been resolved and Russian and Norwegian scientists, as well as fisheries, have benefited from the co-operation.

On August 21–22, the Russian marine research institute PINRO in Murmansk and the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Bergen, will hold a jubilee symposium in Tromsø to mark this half-century of collaboration.

Much negative reaction arose earlier this year when PINRO was not able to finance a research exploratory cruise agreed upon during the Russian-Norwegian Fishery Commission. But this week, director Viktor Komlitsjenko, at Pinro in Murmansk, informed the Norwegian fishery paper Fiskeribladet that two research vessels, Smolensk and Vilnius left harbour to commence coordinated research activities.

A Russian rejection of a permit for Norwegian research vessels to enter Russian zone added to this dilemma earlier this year. This trouble now serves to foreshadow results of the symposium next week.

The background for co-operation is found in the development of stocks of the North East Arctic cod and Norwegian spring-spawning herring in the 1950s. Although both countries were members of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which provides advice on resources management in the North Atlantic, a need for even closer co-operation remained.

In the 1950s, ICES did not advise on total outtakes of stocks, as fish stocks were not regulated in this way at that time. The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea were open seas where everyone could fish as much as they wanted, and the concepts of economic zones and allocations of total quotas still lay 20–30 years in the future.

Problems of unrestricted fishing
Nevertheless, the problems caused by unrestricted fishing were becoming obvious, and catches were becoming smaller. The data on age distribution of cod stocks suggested that the decline in catches was due to overfishing rather than to natural oscillations. The Norwegian fishery for young herring was at issue: Soviet scientists thought that this fishery was the main reason for the decline in herring catches during the 1950s.

The Norwegians rejected this claim, since the nursery grounds of the strong herring year-classes were out in the open sea, where young herring were not being fished. There was scientific disagreement regarding analytical methods and the choice of year-classes for the analysis, which made it difficult to reach agreement. Both the Russians and the Norwegians therefore felt the need for better cooperation, and with that began the co-operation between the IMR and PINRO.

Joint surveys
Since then, joint efforts have been extended and deepened, for example, via joint surveys. The 0-group surveys that started in 1965 have since become a part of the autumn ecosystem survey, which assesses the spawning success of all Barents Sea stocks. It provides what is probably the longest continuous survey series used by ICES and is important to make prognoses of fish. As cooperative efforts have evolved, annual meetings have been held within oceanography, biology and technology.

The introduction of economic zones was one very important factor in the co-operation resulting in the establishment of the Mixed Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. Currently, the main emphasis for Norwegian and Russian scientists is to agree on matters the commission deals with, particularly as regards stock development and quota recommendations.

Without a joint set of recommendations from Norwegian and Russian scientists, it is difficult for the commission to adopt effective resolutions. However, the work of the Fisheries Commission is evolving, and Norwegian and Russian scientists now collaborate on long-term strategies, catch regulations and ecosystem management, rather than simply obtaining figures for the following year’s quota recommendations.

Also the work of the more recent Norwegian-Russian Environmental Commission is likely to affect the cooperation.

A key element in the co-operation is the annual scientific meeting, where 10–20 Norwegian researchers meet their Russian colleagues to discuss questions raised by the Fisheries Commission.

Joint surveys are also organised, the most extensive of these being the above mentioned ecosystem survey in August- September, in which three Norwegian and two Russian vessels take part. A joint Norwegian-Russian report is published in the wake of this cruise. The co-operation also covers exchanges of otoliths and annual meetings dedicated to age determinations of important fish species. Since 1983, Norwegian-Russian symposia have been organised at intervals of one to three years.

International quality control
Although, most of the data on important fish stocks in the Arctic are collected by Russian and Norwegian scientists, large quantities of information are processed under the auspices of ICES, particularly by the Arctic Fisheries and Northern Pelagic working groups. Within ICES, both Russian and Norwegian scientists work towards a joint understanding of models and input data, while ICES provide the international quality control. ICES are therefore a pillar in the Norwegian-Russian co-operation.

At the jubilee meeting in Tromsø, the scientists will summarise some of the results obtained and understandings reached in the course of 50 years of co-operation between IMR and PINRO. They will also be looking ahead, anticipating a trend towards different types of ecosystem studies and more co-operating partners. For this reason, institutions from several other countries have been invited to make presentations at the meeting.

By Terje Engoe/ Institute of Marine Research
www.fis.com

11/8/2007 - The challenges of sea turtle conservation

2007-08-11T04:08:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: The challenges of sea turtle conservation

WORLDWIDE
Friday, August 10, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Turtles have created fortunes for some, and losses for others. They are for the most part a protected species, and seen as a problem by the commercial fishing fleet. Tundi Agardy at the World Ocean Observatory places into perspective the actions taken to protect dwindling turtle stocks.

What is it about sea turtles? How are they able to move us so deeply, perhaps more than any other marine creature? And why has the compassion that they have managed to generate not translated into effective conservation of marine turtle species throughout the world?

Sea turtles have touched the lives of so many people, in diverse and sometimes paradoxical ways. Unlike many other charismatic but less accessible marine animals like dolphins, whales, manta rays and whale sharks, a great number of people -- young and old, rich and less so, urbanites and farmers, environmentalists and naysayers -- have had the opportunity to interact with turtles in the wild.

Whether we encounter a large lumbering nesting female or a small helpless hatchling, sea turtles manage to convert even the most unsentimental among us into ardent conservationists.

There are seven recognized species of marine turtles, including the leatherback Dermochelys coriacea, the loggerhead Caretta caretta, the hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata, green turtle Chelonia mydas, flatback turtle Natator depressus, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea, and the Kemps ridley Lepidochelys kempii.

All are either endangered or threatened. Leatherbacks, hawksbills, and Kemps ridleys are considered critically endangered – holding on to their existence by the skin of their teeth1.

Perhaps because of their increasing rarity, in many parts of the world, encountering sea turtles at sea or on a nesting beach is cause for great excitement. Some tourism operators cater specifically to those who want to witness a turtle laying its eggs (and some, like Earthwatch based in the United States and Frontier based in the United Kingdom, can arrange expeditions for those willing to volunteer their time and energy for sea turtle conservation and research projects).

At the same time, sea turtle eggs or meat represent an important (and often free) source of protein in most tropical developing countries – this and the lack of alternative protein sources have made conservation of turtles in the poorest countries a difficult endeavor. The challenges of saving sea turtles from extinction are a microcosm of marine conservation challenges everywhere – representing both huge obstacles to success and reasons for hope.

Sea Turtles as Metaphor

Marine turtles are at once emblematic flagships for the oceans, and umbrella species whose management must be directed at a series of linked ecosystems. People connect with sea turtles in different ways, viewing them a symbol of all enigmatic ocean creatures, or as the face of an ageless cautionary tale about man versus nature.

The strange attraction that people feel towards sea turtles makes them symbols of something bigger -- clear candidates for flagship status. Their story is indeed the story of all the ocean’s inhabitants, though saving them from extirpation involves a suite of conservation tools and policies. Sea turtles have been around a long time, some sixty million years, and for this reason they hold our fascination as ancients.

They are charismatic megavertebrates, ever so graceful as adults swimming through the water and oh-so-cute crawling out of the nest. And they share some traits with us – needing to breathe at the surface, returning to land to reproduce, struggling to survive and keep their evolutionary lineages going in a rapidly changing world. Perhaps it is these traits that make it so sea turtles in harm’s way conjure up such pathos – whether it is the sight of the turtle drowned in the fishing net, of feral dogs attacking a stalwart nesting female, or of tiny hatchlings undertaking the mad scramble down the beach.

Marine turtles are arguably the most logical organisms to denote as umbrella species. Their conservation requires the preservation of intact habitats ranging from tropical nesting beaches to sub-Arctic foraging grounds. Although this is also true for highly migratory species of fish and for most marine mammals, sea turtles are unique in that they rely not only on ocean habitat but also on terrestrial habitat.

Nesting beaches must remain open and secure for sea turtles to utilize them, access to these beaches must be maintained, and the nesting beach environment must be almost pristine to successfully support sea turtle reproduction. The more disturbance on the beach, the greater the chance that the female will abort her eggs in the water or unsuccessfully attempt to make her nest, known in the turtle lingo as a “false crawl”. Light contamination on the nesting beach – a common occurrence on most beautiful wide sandy beaches in the tropics where sea turtles lay their eggs – dooms both adults and young, as light from behind the beach fatally draws turtles away from the sea.

Once the hatchlings leave the safety of their underground nest on the sandy beach, they scurry to the ocean to escape the innumerable dangers of land and find relatively safe nursery habitats in which to grow. Just where these nursery grounds are is still a mystery – in the Atlantic Ocean the Sargasso Sea has been fingered as the most probable place where small turtles can both find food and escape predation by hiding in the drifting sargassum weed.

As sub-adults, sea turtles often congregate in nutrient rich shallow waters to continue their slow growth to adulthood (most species take a decade or more to mature and will live for several.) These critical areas vary according to the species – for herbivorous green turtles, seagrass meadows and areas of algal-encrusted rock reef are preferred; for the sponge-eating hawksbills, diverse and healthy coral reefs are the only habitat where they can survive; for leatherbacks, cold and rich upwelling areas in temperate zones provide large quantities of the jellyfish they consume with vigour, and for the others that are omnivores, areas that support large populations of benthic fish and crustaceans are the coastal habitats of choice.

Adult turtles may go to different feeding grounds altogether, and when sexually mature will travel to breeding areas to mate. Gravid females come ashore on tropical nesting beaches to lay their eggs – a hundred or more at a time, in nest pits that they painstakingly excavate with their hind flippers. The process of finding access to the beach, hauling a huge body built for aquatic life onto gravity-encumbered land, then crawling with flippers made for water across wide swaths of sand, rock, and berms, is extraordinarily difficult.

Finding a suitable nesting spot (like all reptiles, turtles do not incubate their eggs but rather let the warm sand of tropical beaches do it for them – the temperature and moisture level must be just so…), digging the nest, laying the eggs, then carefully covering the nest and disguising it takes hours, by which time the mother turtle is spent – and highly vulnerable to a host of predators, including man.

So, the need to meet the ecological requirements of these far-ranging species is huge. Yet in addition to protecting these disparate critical habitats on land and in the sea, conservation of sea turtles requires maintaining connections between these places. Migration corridors link tropical nesting beaches with temperate feeding grounds, sometimes thousands of miles away.

Sea turtles are considered other sorts of symbols as well, beyond flagships or umbrella species. Some view sea turtles as canaries in the coalmine, reminding us of how our impacts on the oceans are reaching critical thresholds. A good example is provided by the hawksbill, which frequents coral reefs in all the world’s tropical seas. The hawksbill turtle could be considered a keystone species of sorts: its grazing on a wide assortment of sponge species on the reef prevents any one sponge from dominating the reef and thereby reducing biodiversity and productivity. When hawksbills disappear from large reef tracts, they may well signal the decline of these delicately balanced ecosystems.

To other people, sea turtles are a highly valuable commodity. Sea turtle meat is considered an important food source; sea turtle eggs, though widely protected, are coveted not only as food but as aphrodisiacs in some places. The beautiful shell of the hawksbill, known as beko in the trade, is still being used to make expensive bracelets, combs, eyeglass frames, and other curios. Sea turtle bones, fat, and oil are used for medicinal purposes (though their curative value has never been scientifically demonstrated). Then there are the non-market values attached to these marine icons. Sea turtles are revered in some religions. Tourists speak of life-changing experiences when interacting with them.

For all the ways that we value sea turtles, one hopes that the most appropriate analogy is not that of the passenger pigeon, a species whose great value spelled its ultimate doom.

Saving Sea Turtles
Conservation of sea turtles is clearly no easy feat. Their reliance on diverse habitats, ranging from unsullied and open access tropical beaches, to offshore nursery grounds, to unrestricted migration corridors across whole ocean basins, to productive feeding grounds on coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and cold open ocean areas, means that cooperation among countries is essential.

Marine and coastal protected areas are an indisputably important tool in the sea turtle conservation toolkit. But these protected areas must be strategically linked throughout the chain – weak protections at any of the necessary habitats can undermine even the strongest conservation efforts at the nesting beach or in coastal habitats frequented by adults. High seas protected areas are needed, even though these are difficult to establish and even more difficult to enforce2.

Pelagic protected areas will have to address fishing, shipping, and even contamination by debris – plastic bags, balloons, polypropalene pellets, and other trash constitute an insidious threat to all turtle species. And even protected beaches are difficult to maintain in a way suitable for maintaining or recovering sea turtle populations: introduced species such as dogs, cats, pigs, goats, raccoons, mongoose, etc. are difficult to eradicate from the beach, and there is only so much manpower available to guard nesting females and clutches of eggs through their two month long incubation periods.

While important nesting beaches can be and often are protected as parks or reserves, in many cases the very existence of the beach is at risk from human activities, sometimes far from the coast. With worldwide use of freshwater for irrigation, consumption, and hydroelectric power, estuaries around the world are showing signs of massive sediment starvation (decreases of freshwater limiting the delivery of sediment to the coast)3. This affects the maintenance of shorelines and some beaches.

Others are formed by sands produced through a combination of coralline animal and coralline algae remains. When coastal development or blast fishing destroys part of the reef system, beach formation can cease and beaches erode away. And increasingly frequent tropical storms and the occasional tsunami can instantly erase nesting beaches from the face of the earth.

Perhaps even more important than habitat protections are international agreements, regulations, and enforcement of laws concerning commercial fishing in areas frequented by turtles – either those resident or those migrating through. Longline fisheries have decimated leatherback turtle populations, especially in the eastern Pacific4. Gillnets are devastating to all marine turtle species. And bottom trawls routinely drown loggerhead, ridley, and other species – since sea turtles commonly feed on the very things we wish to catch, such as shrimp or prawns. Since so many sea turtles are killed incidentally in commercial fishing operations, their protection means restructuring how and where we fish -- something that is notoriously difficult to do when highly lucrative fishing interests are at stake.

We cannot forget that on the other end of the economic spectrum, sea turtle eggs and adults represent an important source of protein to impoverished and marginalized people the world over, who continue to harvest adult turtle products even when the practice is illegal, because of lack of economic or subsistence alternatives. For such people the choice is considered one between “us and them”, and conservation commonly takes a back seat to human survival.

Turtle Excluder helps

This is not to say that marine turtle conservation has not made great headway in the last 50 years. Some populations of sea turtles are stable or recovering, thanks to intensive efforts to protect nesting beaches, equip the most damaging fishing gear with Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), establish voluntary ordinances to shield nesting beaches from artificial light, and create strict regulations on take (as exists, at least on paper, in most coastal countries in the world). And there are innovative approaches being adopted as well. In the U.S., temporary closures are instituted in the mid-Atlantic when northwardly migrating leatherback turtle numbers reach a critical threshold. In the Pacific, many fishing fleets have instituted the use of circle hooks on longlines, to reduce turtle by-catch, and that of other highly valued but not targeted species5.

However, for every step forward we seem to falter, and even take some steps back. The Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle are plummeting so drastically that some predict their imminent extirpation6. The Kemp's ridley is barely holding on despite many decades of head-starting and a strong focus on getting all shrimp trawlers in the Gulf of Mexico where they occur equipped with TEDs. And many coastal species, such as loggerheads and green turtles, show signs of disease, such as extensive fibropapillomas. Fibropapillomatosis has been called the most important health problem affecting sea turtles in the wild7. There seems to be a clear link between water quality and the aetiology of this disease, such that outbreaks are occurring in more and more new places as coastal habitats become increasingly degraded.

There are also bigger forces at play. Climate change threatens to send some species over the brink, not only by affecting habitat or food availability, but also because higher than normal sand temperatures at nesting beaches will produce only one gender of hatchling (usually all males).

Thus, despite turtles having touched so many humans, we seem somehow incapable of securing their futures alongside our own. As a metaphor, then, the continued decline of something so thoroughly cherished around the world is a sobering one indeed.

By Tundi Agardy, PhD
World Ocean Observatory

Endnotes

1. People wishing to get more detailed information about the extant sea turtle species should visit the following websites: www.seaturtlestatus.org and www.seaturtle.org. A compendium of scientific descriptions of natural history, behaviour, and conservation is available in K. Bjorndal [ed.] 1995. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. The late Archie Carr wrote many popular accounts of sea turtles, including his famous So Excellent a Fishe. 1967. Charles Scribner and Sons, NY; decades later Jack Rudloe wrote Time of the Turtle. 1979. E.P. Dutton, NY. Most recently, O.G. Davidson wrote Fire in the Turtle House: the Green Turtle and the Fate of the Ocean. Perseus Books Group, Cambridge, MA. There have been hundreds of other publications about sea turtles in the past decades.

2. See D. Hyrenbach, K. Forney and P. Dayton. 2000.Marine protected areas and ocean basin management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10:437-458.

3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Vol. 1 Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington DC

4. Spotila et al. 1996. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherbacks going extinct? Chelonian Conservation Biology 2:209-222.

5. See for example Watson, J.W. and D.W. Kerstetter. 2006. Pelagic longline fishing gear: A brief history and review of research efforts to improve selectivity. Marine Technology Society Journal 40:6-11.

6. Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherbacks face extinction. Nature 405:529-530.

7. Herbst 1994 and George 1997, cited in Formina, A. et al.. 2007. Fibropapillomatosis confirmed in Chelonia mydas in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Marine Turtles Newsletter 116:20-22

3/8/2007 - Profit from fish farming made deep inside the rock

2007-08-11T04:03:00.000-07:00

Profit from fish farming made deep inside the rock

NORWAY
Friday, August 03, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Deep inside the hard granite rock, below mountains rising more than 1,000-metre up from the fiord, there is a small tunnell going in to the mountains. Inside the tunnel there is a wide large hall. Though it appears to have been made as a shelter for protection against a nuclear war, it was actually constructed there for farming of fish by the company Norsk Fjellfisk.

Tyssedal is a village built around the metallurgic industry served by hydroelectric power from the more than 2,000-millimetre annual rain fall on the mountain plateau above. The town is nestled in the Sørfjorden fiord on the west coast three hours from the City of Bergen.

The old industrialised village is not where one would expect an aquaculture venture to exist, but in 1997 a local entrepreneur saw the possibility of using heated water from the metallurgic plant, combined with clean waters from the mountain plateau to farm fish.

In the harsh Norwegian climate it is near to impossible to operate a land-based, fresh water, fish farm in the outdoors. The cost of heating water would be enormous, and it would be cheaper to build a hall outside in the open. But a hall needs lots of maintenance, and also needs to be heated, whereas inside the mountain the temperature is stable and maintenance on the “building structure” is nonexistent.

In a country where salmon farming was increasing fast, and hundreds of ventures had gone bust during the early times of production, did not leave leave many believing that the trout venture would succeed: too expensive, too small, and no market. There were many arguments, and they were correct in one thing: the farm went bust.

But new investors came, and today it is the only such farm not just surviving. but also beginning to thrive. Last year they posted a 10 per cent operating profit. The new owners, Hardanger Fjellfisk AS have proven that farming of brown trout inside a mountain can be a good business.

“We have good clean water. The heated water from the metallurgical plants we buy at a cost, which gives us much lower energy cost than if we were buying any other energy,” says farm manager Ove Kambestad. He has been managing the farm since the beginning, and has not lost faith in the project.

“We are doing this alone. There are some other land based farms raising mainly rainbow trout for a production of “rakfisk,” a product in which the fishgoes through a kind of fermentations process. Our fish is now distributed all over the country, from Oslo to Bergen. It is sold via fishmongers, fish displays at supermarkets, and it is widely available in restaurants,” explains Kambestad.

It is early morning, around 4.30 am when Fis.com arrives at the farm, while Kambestad and a colleague are transferring trout from circular tanks to large square tanks with oxygenated water. The trout is transported to a slaughterhouse 80 kilometres away, not an ideal way to go about. New solutions are being discussed to save cost and time.

Now the slaughtering of fish takes place one or two times a week in the modern facilities. If there was a slaughtering facility close to the farm could the slaughtering take place any day during the week.

We are slaughtering all through the year. We have different generations of trout making it possible to harvest the increase in biomass continuously”, tells Kambestad. He is adding that the farm has a total production volume of 1,100 cubic meters. Total time from the trout larvae’s starting to feed, until the fish is ready for harvest with a size of around 5-800 gram, is 18 months.

The biological feed conversion factor is impressive at 0.89, when it started at 1.1 to 1.2 in the initital stage. The current feed factor is better than most Norwegian salmon farms. True, there is a difference between land-based farming and farming in cages in open water, because if feed is fed to salmon and not eaten it tends to sink down and go through the net in the cage. However, feed given to the trout at Hardanger Fjellfisk ,when not consumed, sinks down and lays at the bottom of the cage before being drained out, and the trout has not been feeding much on the feed that sinks down to the bottom of the cage.

Skretting AS, a Nutreco subsidiary, produces the feed used at the farm, and they have developed a special slow sinking formula with the right nutrients for this fish.

“For us Skretting AS has been a very good partner. Not only have they developed feed formula just for our farm. They have also been a very good adviser helping us whenever we have had any problems”, says Kambestad.

There is no real forum were Kambestad can discuss issues regarding farming of trout. Salmon farmers can have their association, and a large number of different venues, exhibitions, conferences meetings where they are meeting to discuss issues of interest. For Kambestad the contact is, as with the rest of the aquaculture industry, really just kept up by dialling the phone number of Skretting.

There are many land-based farms in Europe producing trout, mostly rainbow variety, and a few producing brown trout. Kambestad does not like to compare the quality of the fish with the quality obtained in other European farms.

The fish produced at Hardanger Fjellfisk has its genetic origin from a famous fast growing stock in the Tunhovd Lake. Not only is this stock quick to develop, it also produces very high quality fish. Coupled with the fact that the feed has a content of 80-milligram astaxanthin per kilo, it is easy to understand the difference.

Most brown trout produced anywhere in the world is white in flesh. Hardanger Fjellfisk is using high content of astaxanthin to produce fish with a deep red colour. Norwegian customers will not eat any salmonid fish if the flesh is not a nice and deep red. This is because both the wild salmon and the sought after trout living in the mountains have this deeply red coloured meat.

The annual production is now around 75,000– 80,000 kilos. Last year the company posted an operating profit of around EUR 120,000, against a loss of EUR 23,000 the year before. Hard work and persistence has proven that it is possible to make money deep inside the mountains of a Norwegian fiord.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

Photos: T. Engoe

27/7/2007 - The price of seafood – a guide to low-cost processing

2007-07-28T03:02:00.000-07:00

It may seem ironic, but Norwegian salmon is cheaper for Bulgarian consumers than for Norewgian consumers. (Photo: FIS)

WEEKEND FEATURE: The price of seafood – a guide to low-cost processing

EUROPEAN UNION
Friday, July 27, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

It is no problem for most of us to understand why Swiss people have to pay 42 per cent more than the average price paid by Europeans for their seafood. The country is landlocked. All seafood has to be shipped by air or land transport, in contrast to countries like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which receive seafood from their own fishery fleet, or import seafood and have it landed in large quantities from reefers and other cargo vessels on their coastlines.

If you love eating seafood, and are willing to forget for a moment your preferences with regards to local culinary traditions, your budget will last longest in Lithuania. The price there is only 57 per cent of the European average. The second cheapest country is Bulgaria at 62 per cent, Turkey at 64 per cent, Bosnia Herzegovina at 65 per cent, and Poland at 67 per cent. These numbers, recently published by Eurostat, clearly tells one fact: a low level local seafood production does not result in higher prices.

Five lowest priced seafood producing countries Lithuania
57

Bulgaria
62

Turkey
64

Bosnia Herzegovina
65

Poland
67

Europe average =100
So, the most expensive seafood is found in Switzerland. Logistics cost money, so does allowing expensive Swiss labor handle seafood. However, surprisingly, Switzerland is joined by Cyprus, an island surrounded by water, in being the most expensive place to enjoy a seafood meal. Cyprus has a very small local fishery fleet. The waters around the islands are over-exploited and catches are low. In addition the fast growing tourist industry has increased the cost of operating the fishing fleet, and has pushed local retail prices up.

Highest production – highest prices

It is more surprising to find countries like Denmark and Norway being among the most costly countries in Europe to enjoy a seafood meal. Norway, being the world's second largest seafood exporter, landing enormous volumes from wild fisheries, in addition to being the leading supplier of farmed salmon in the world, should by all means be the country for seafood lovers to have the cheapest meal. However, it is not so.

Five highest priced seafood producing countries Cyprus
142

Switzerland
142

Denmark
138

Belgium
128

Norway
128

Europe average = 100

Using Norway as an example can also explain the cost structure making seafood cheap in places like Bosnia Herzegovina. To make it easy we use Norwegian salmon and Norwegian herring as two species, and follow them from vessel or farm all the way to consumer. We do not add value added tax or any sales tax in this sample.

Salmon to Norwegian consumer
EUR/KG

Delivered to slaughterhouse:
3.16

Wholesalers profit
0.76

Packaging transport to shop:
0.76

Mark up in retail shop
4.68

Total cost to consumer
11 .34

Salmon to Bulgarian consumer

Delivered to slaughterhouse:
3.16

Packaging transport to Thailand:
0.50

Transport to Thailand
0.25

Importer – wholesaler profit:
0.65

Local distribution cost
0.25

Mark up in shop
0.70

Total cost to consumer
5.51

Herring to Norwegian consumer

Price ex. vessel
0.50

Packaging/processing
0.50

Wholesalers profit
0.65

Mark up in shop
2.50

Total cost to consumer
4.15

Herring to Bulgarian consumer

Price ex. Norwegian vessel
0.50

Packaging/processing
0.50

Transport to Bulgaria
0.50

Wholesalers profit
0.20

Mark up in shop
0.60

Total cost to consumer
2.30

Source: Fis.com
The numbers above are estimates and meant to show the main factor establishing prices for seafood products in a given market. In addition fluctuations due to seasonal variations, campaigns and over and under supply will also influence prices.

No difference for primary producer

The interesting thing is, that the more expensive seafood is, the less is the share of the retail value kept by the primary producer, the fisher, or the farmer. A Norwegian purse seiner makes the same per kilo of herring sold in Norway, as it would for the salmon sold at a much lower price in a country like Bulgaria. The reason is mainly the markup in the wholesale and retail part of the line of transactions.

It costs effectively EUR 30 – 35 per hour to have a shop assistant in Norway prepare fish for the display, packaging it ,and receiving payment. The price in Bulgaria would be less than EUR 3 per hour. Similarly, the owners of a business who expect the profitability to be around 10 per cent of turnover, demand a much higher amount per hour in a high cost country than in a low cost country like Bulgaria.

Lithuania
57

Bulgaria
62

Turkey
64

Bosnia Herzegovina
65

Poland
67

Slovakia
68

Montenegro
70

Latvia
71

Estonia
73

Germany
73

Hungary
75

Czech Rep.
76

Malta
82

Serbia
82

Croatia
84

Albania
85

Romania
85

Spain
89

United Kingdom
91

Greece
101

Slovenia
102

France
106

Sweden
109

Luxembourg
110

Austria
111

Finland
111

Iceland
112

Netherlands
115

Italy
122

Ireland
123

Belgium
128

Norway
128

Denmark
138

Cyprus
142

Switzerland
142

Europe average = 100. Source: Eurostat
Shipping heads and bones long distances

In seafood processing, countries like Norway and Denmark try to benefit from being close to the fishery grounds and farms were the fish is produced. But it still pays to send whole gutted salmon to Poland for processing.

The saving on using Polish manpower is much greater than the cost of sending heads and bones thousand of kilometres away. Even if the large Norwegian processors fillet herring, removing 50 per cent of the live weight of the fish, does not pay to put the herring into jars in Norway. Polish workers do this job for less than a quarter of the cost of a Norwegian worker. Not all the work can be replaced by robots and machinery.

In reality the most important message in the statistics presented by Eurostat, is not the advice on where to go if you like to eat inexpensive seafood. Much more important is the message to seafood processors.

Filleting herring is hightly automotised, with little manpower involved, but production of ready to cook meals and other convenience food, cured herring, smoked salmon and trout, marinated products and so on, all need a high degree of manual labour. Machinery can not do it. For this very reason small Atlantic cod finds its way to China for filleting.

Even for legally caught cod, it costs too much to adjust filleting machines and then fillet the small cod onboard a Norwegian factory trawler or a land-based processing facility. The extra cost of slowing down machinery and having employees adjust the machinery for the small cod is higher than the cost involved in sending the fish to China.

At least it will continue this way until the environmental cost is added bt way of duties on transport, as is the case in Europe. Until duties on emission of CO2 and NOx make it a lot more expensive to transport unprocessed fish, it will be cheaper to process seafood in those countries where it costs less.

Smoked salmon

The price examples shown above also demonstrate how the lack of competition in markets sets the price.

Smoked salmon costs an average EUR 16-18 per kilo in Norway for whole side and vacuum-packed. The cost of the salmon fillets is around EUR 6.30 per kilo. The rest is profit and value added tax.

Some months ago the German discount outlet, Lidl, sold Norwegian smoked salmon for EUR 6.10 per kilo. The colouring of this salmon indicated it was necessary to sell it. The salmon was not the best quality with regards to colour.

Lidl could sell it at price paid to the smoker. They did not lose, neither did they cut a profit off of it. So in theory smoked salmon can be produced in any other European country at this price.

Add EUR 0.50 in transport costs, and 20 per cent profits to the retailer and 13 per cent value added tax and the price is EUR 9.22. In other word, it is just a question of time before Norwegian processors will face competition in the smoked salmon market from those countries listed as the cheapest for seafood.

Poland is growing increasingly more important as a seafood processor for the European market.

Filleted pangasius is imported from Vietnam and repacked and distributed all over the EU.

Germans are increasing the imports of processed herring in jars and tins from Poland.

Danish smokers discovered the way to survive high labour costs a long time ago: by smoking in Poland.

The country is the fifth cheapest place to consume seafood in Europe. Not because of large domestic supply. Not because of long traditions in processing of seafood, but because of low labour costs.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

20/07/2007 - A fascinating market of opportunities

2007-07-21T04:49:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: A fascinating market of opportunities

CROATIA
Friday, July 20, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

The nation's eafood imports are increasing, while local catches fall, despite the country having a lengthy coastline along the fish rich Adriatic Sea. Croatia is in a situation were everything is needed. The small country needs more efficient fishing vessels, better management of fish stocks, development of environmentally friendly aquaculture, and investments in more modern fish processing.

I am sitting at a small restaurant in the Island of Hvar. It is still a few weeks before hordes of tourists invade the small island, classed as one of the 10 most beautiful in the world by a famous international travel magazine.

I have ordered a dish of salmon; imported stuff, not because local seafood products are not available., but when wild salmon from Alaska carries the same price tag as a dish made with local mackerel, horse mackerel, or small undersized sea bream, the temptation to try the imported fish carries more weight.

It is a cutlet from a packet of frozen cutlets produced from whole imported salmon. Served with a thick curry sauce and rice., the cutlet is fried a bit more than any French chef would recommend and is an overall a boring presentation. But there are reasons why the restaurants are not serving better seafood. The market structure for imported seafood makes no incentives towards educating chefs.

Small population – many tourists

Croatia is not a large market., with a population of less than 4.5 million it is in many large exporters’ eyes a small to medium-sized one. This is maybe the reason why it looks like the Greenland-based company Polar Seafood has had success in exporting smoked Norwegian Atlantic salmon. The other salmon, is as earlier mentioned, Alaska salmon and is available in most supermarkets.

So, why go all the way across Europe to Alaska in North America to obtain salmon? Afterall the European market is flowing with salmon produced in United Kingdom, Norway, the Faroese Islands and Ireland... there are two simple reasons:

First off, Croatian consumers have no understanding of salmon. Their chefs have to use what is available, and most of them are uneducated for the most part in fine cuisine even. But they have been given a golden opportunity to make money during the frenzy of tourist season when more than 10 million tourists throng to their restaurants, hotels, and other related venues.

However, Atlantic farmed salmon can not compete in price on a market were salmon is not differentiated into different products and species by consumers.

From communism to semi-monopoly

There is one more important reason why imports are a viable option. Gone for more than a decade, communism and state-controlled life under dictator Josip Broz Tito, is now open to market forces. The Croatian market is dominated by one large conglomerate by the name Agrokor, with 20,000 employees and a turnover of EUR 7-8 billion. In a small country these numbers make them a mammoth.

This conglomerate operates their own supermarket chain, which is the country’s leader, and they dominate the ice-cream market with products from their own factories, as well as margarine and vegetable oils. The largest slaughterhouses and meat processors, the dominating mineral water producers, and of course the import, processing, distribution and retail of frozen seafood is also dominated by Agrokor.

Most of Agrokor's seafood is produced under the labels Irida and Ledo. Irida, a subsidiary of Ledo, has 60 different products varying from herring, horse mackerel, fish fingers, sardines, mackerel, octopus, squid, shrimp and lots of products. Ledo is Croatia’s main importer of hoki from New Zealand, hake and squid from Argentina, Atlantic cod and Atlantic redfish from Iceland, sprat from the Baltic’s, salmon from Alaska, among others. They are sold as cutlets, breaded, fingers, and of course in large catering packs.

Interesting opportunities

The dominating role of Agrokor may result in less choice of products available. Companies able to secure a contract with an Agrokor subsidiary, have the chance to be a main supplier in the Croatian market. For a company with limited resources for marketing is there may better prospects in being the sole supplier of a product in Croatia than being one out of hundreds of suppliers in EU, United States or Japan.

For companies like Ledo, the dominating position in the market is worth gold. Since 1998 they not reported one single year with a negative result. Last year a record profit of HRK 44.1 million (EUR 6.2 million) was posted.

There is of course other opportunities than selling to subsidiaries belonging to Agrokor. But this is a market mainly for smaller nouvelle products. In short, the Croatian market is a fascinating one, with possibilities for making good business if the door has been opened up first by one of the Agrokor subsidiaries.

The local production

The local seafood industry is mainly based on feeding small bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean, processing of mackerel, sardines and anchovies caught by the local fleet, in addition to artisan fisheries with fast diminishing importance.

Most local fishermen are supplying their catches to restaurants catering to tourists. A quick look on the menu shows that many of the available dishes are fish stews made from whatever is available. The dishes are traditional Croatian cuisine, but hardly enough to satisfy the varied demand from the fast increasing numbers of tourists arriving in Croatia. This also explains why the import of seafood to the small country with the lengthy coastline and many islands, is rocketing.

Except for the tuna grown out of farms, the other farms produce species like sea bass and gilthead sea bream of varying technological level. A lack of capital, know how, and an educated workforce makes the development in the aquaculture sector cumbersome. Tuna grow out farms are also facing tougher times as it is getting more and more difficult to obtain small tuna due to increasing restrictions on wild fishery.

Other opportunities

Croatia is looking to introduce new indigenous fish and shellfish species, as well as to modernizing its existing fishing and processing facilities. This also represents opportunities for companies with expertise in aquaculture, seafood processing, distribution, exports, and so on, in addition to those who have gear to supply.

The fish population in the Adriatic Sea is low, but the diversity of species is broad. In 2005, the registered catch of sea-fish and other marine organisms was 34,636 tonnes. Small pelagic fish dominate with more than 80 per cent of the catch. There are more than 30 fish processing businesses that manufacture a variety of fish products and produce about 15,000 tonnes of products annually, of this, 70 per cent of the production is canned sardines. Despite having a number of canneries, the Croatian market is still open for imported canned products. As an example Croatia last year was the second most important non-EU market for Spanish canned seafood for the first quarter of this year.

Imports and exports

Although Croatia exports seafood, imports are also quite significant. Moreover, Croatia’s seafood imports increased from USD 33 million in 2000 to USD 105 million in 2006. This trend is expected to continue. In 2006, Croatia imported fish mostly from Spain worth USD 15.8 million, France USD 10.1 million, Italy USD 8 million, and Sweden USD 7.6 million.

Croatia
Seafood Imports

Destination
USD 1000

2004
2005
2006

World
70,692
96,886
104,757

Spain
17,465
15,973
15,793

France
2,030
9,853
10,145

Italy
7,263
6,586
8,132

Sweden
4,207
5,402
7,595

Falkland Islands
3,139
8,547
7,206

Thailand
4,094
5,282
5,536

Argentina
4,547
4,877
5,527

Norway
3,861
5,452
5,045

Iceland
1,631
2,279
4,251

United States
1,724
2,727
3,683

Denmark
4,310
5,429
3,493

Netherlands
1,310
1,747
3,063

United Kingdom
1,738
2,545
2,658

Libya
0
3,205
2,373

China
64
623
2,032

Slovenia
1,534
1,316
1,776

New Zealand
1,268
1,799
1,677

Poland
865
832
1,207

Morocco
583
899
1,197

Estonia
217
802
1,103

The rest
8,842
10,713
11,265

Croatia
Seafood Exports

Origin
USD 1000

2004
2005
2006

World
103,753
97,117
158,952

Japan
53,754
35,265
88,737

Italy
29,454
38,765
47,520

Serbia and Montenegro
4,332
6,419
6,551

Bosnia & Herzegovina
7,768
7,267
4,609

Slovenia
3,854
3,544
3,577

Spain
87
2,236
2,309

Macedonia
1,138
1,358
1,361

The rest
3,367
2,262
4,288

In 2005, bluefin tuna accounted for more than 63 per cent of total fish exports. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovenia, and Macedonia are the main market for Croatia’s export of canned sardines, mackerel, and anchovies. Farmed white-fleshed fish is mainly exported to Italy and Spain, while almost all of Croatia’s farmed tuna exports go to Japan.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

13/07/2007 - The inside story of squid, octopus and cuttlefish

2007-07-13T14:18:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: The inside story of squid, octopus and cuttlefish

WORLDWIDE
Friday, July 13, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Octopus, squid and cuttlefish are important commercial species for fishing fleets worldwide. We catch, process and eat this fascinating group of marine animals, which are extremely valuable as food for human consumption.

One who knows a lot about cephalopods is the MAR-ECO scientist Mike Vecchione, who has written the article below, in which he presents a brief, popular description of them.

The Class Cephalopoda includes decapodiforms, such as squids and cuttlefishes, octopodiforms, including the vampire squid as well as a variety of octopods, and their more distant relatives, the chambered nautiluses.

These molluscs are characterised by a well-developed head that contains a circumoral (surrounding the mouth) crown of arms that bear suckers and/or hooks (except in Nautilus). The mouth has chitinous beak-like jaws and a chitinous tongue-like radula (band of teeth).

The shell is reduced, modified, or absent and is enclosed by the mantle. An external shell occurs only in Nautilus (restricted to Indo-Pacific), although a shell-like egg case is found in female argonauts. The size of adult cephalopods ranges from about 2 centimeter to over 20 meter in total length; largest specimens may weigh over 1 tonne.

Cephalopods are soft-bodied animals. Their primary skeletal features include a cartilaginous cranium and, in most forms, a rigid structure in the mantle composed of chitin (gladius or "pen"), calcium carbonate (cuttlebone), or cartilage (fin supports in finned octopods). They have one pair of gills, except for the Nautilus, which has two pairs. The central nervous system is highly developed especially the well-organised eyes.

Coloration

Coloration is variable depending on group and habitat; most species are provided with numerous chromatophores (pigment sacs controlled by neuromuscular action) and iridocytes (shiny, reflective platelets) in the skin.

Rapid changes in colour and colour patterns are an integral part of their behaviour.

While shallow-living cephalopods are able to conceal themselves by chromatophore-produced colour patterns and chameleon-like colour changes, many deep-sea forms camouflage themselves by producing bioluminescent light from photophores (light-producing organs) which eliminates their silhouettes against the down welling light in the dimly-lit mid-depths.

Respiration and locomotion

Water is taken into the mantle (body) cavity for respiration. A funnel or siphon (a small ventral tube) expels the water from the mantle cavity for propulsion and elimination of waste products, in addition to completion of the respiratory cycle. Locomotion is achieved by drawing water into the mantle cavity followed by its jet-like expulsion through the funnel, and by fins on the mantle, as well as by crawling along the bottom on the arms (mostly octopods). Fins also provide balance and steering.

Life history

The sexes are separate. Many, though not all, cephalopod species exhibit external sexual dimorphism, either in structural or size differences. Males of many forms possess a modified arm (hectocotylus) for mating. The hectocotylus may consist of modified suckers, papillae, membranes, ridges and grooves, flaps, etc., but in any case it functions to transfer the spermatophores (sperm packets) from the male to an implanta-tion site on the female. The spermatophores may be implanted inside the mantle cavity, around the mantle opening on the neck, in a pocket under the eye, around the mouth, etc. The mode of reproduction and egg-laying is unknown for many forms, especially oceanic and deep-sea species.

The life expectancy appears to be about one to two years in most forms, but larger species of squids and octopus, for example, the giant squid (Architeuthis spp.) and the giant octopus (Enteroctopus spp.), must live at least somewhat longer. Conversely, small oceanic species such as pyroteuthids may complete their life cycles in less than six months. Some species die after spawning, but this phenomenon is not universal.

The female lays eggs that are heavily yolked. Cephlapod development is direct, without true metamorphic stages. Cephalopod eggs may vary in size from about 1.7 centimeter long in some Octopus species to 0.8 millimter long in Argonauta, both octopods. Time of embryonic development also varies widely, from a few days to many months, depending on the species and temperature conditions. Hatching may occur rapidly from a single clutch or be extended over a period of 2 to 3 weeks. Eggs have one or more layers of protective coatings and generally are laid as egg masses. Egg masses may be benthic or pelagic, varying among major taxonomic groups. Hatchlings from benthic eggs may be either benthic, and morphologically similar to the older stages, or planktonic. Pelagic hatchlings are planktonic and, in some species, very different from more developed conspecifics (members of the same species). The term "paralarva" has been adopted for early stages of cephalopods that differ morphologically and ecologically from older stages.

Systematics

The total number of living species of cephalopods currently recognized is less than 1,000. The status of the systematics of cephalopods is rapidly changing, as research has increased significantly in the past 25 years. Cephalopods occur in all marine habitats of the world, though none are found at salinities less than about 17.5 PSU. The range of depths extends from 0 to over 5,000 meters. Many species of oceanic cephalopods undergo daily vertical migrations, wherein they occur at depths of about 400 to 1,000 meters during the day, then ascend into the uppermost 200 meters or so during the night. Abundance of cephalopods varies (depending on group, habitat, and season) from isolated territorial individuals (primarily benthic octopods) through small schools with a few dozen individuals to huge schools of oceanic species with millions of squids.

Cephalopods of the northern Atlantic Ocean

Two groups of cephalopods, decapods and octopods, are common in the deep waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The major groups are easily distinguished by external characteristics. The squids have an elongate body with lateral fins, and eight circumoral arms with stalked suckers in two or more rows and bearing chitinous rings (sometimes modified into hooks), plus two longer tentacles with an organized cluster (tentacular club) of two to many rows of suckers (or hooks) at the distal end. The octopods have a short, sac-like body generally with no lateral fins (some deep-sea octopods have a pair of paddle-like fins), and eight circumoral arms only (no tentacles) with unstalked suckers without chitinous rings along the length of the arms. Sepiolid decapods (bobtail squids) also have a short, sac like body, but have fins and an arm crown similar to that of the squids.

Cephalopods in the food chain

Cephalopods are active predators that feed upon shrimps, crabs, fishes, other cephalopods, and, in the case of octopods, on bivalved molluscs. In turn, cephalopods are major food items in the diets of toothed whales, seals, pelagic birds (penguins, petrels, albatrosses, etc.), and both benthic and pelagic fishes (e.g., sea basses, lancetfishes, tunas, billfishes).

Cephalopods are extremely important as food for human consumption, and well over one million tonnes are caught each year. The fisheries are especially intense in Japan, the Orient and in the Medi-terranean/Eastern Atlantic waters. Fishing techniques include small traps (octopods), wiers, lures and jigs (some cuttlefishes and squids), lampara nets (nearshore squids), and midwater and otter trawls (squids and octopods). Certain species of squids are attracted to light, then jigged or seined. Occasionally cuttlefishes and octopods are caught in hand-nets or are speared.

Cephalopods in science

Cephalopods are important experimental animals in biomedical research with direct application to man. Because of the highly developed brain and sensory organs, cephalopods have a great capacity to learn and remember, rendering them valuable in behavioural and comparative neuroanatomical studies. In addition, some cephalopods possess extremely large single nerve axons and these are used extensively in all aspects of neurophysiological research.

View a photogallery showing a diverse selection of squids collected by Dr. Vecchione during a research cruise to Bear Sea Mount, on the western side of the mid-Atlantic Ridge.

By Mike Vecchione, MAR ECO,
edited by FIS.com

MORE NEWS

Republic of Ireland
Jul 13, 16:10 (GMT + 9):
Government responsible for protection of shellfish beds, growers say
Argentina
Jul 13, 05:10 (GMT + 9):
New measures to optimise control over squid fishing
United Arab Emirates
Jul 13, 04:20 (GMT + 9):
Police bust Ajman caviar plant operation
Brazil
Jul 13, 03:40 (GMT + 9):
Chartering of foreign fishing vessels re-authorised
Worldwide
Jul 13, 02:20 (GMT + 9):
Pelagic giant buys in Peruvian, Norwegian and Russian companies
Spain
Jul 13, 01:50 (GMT + 9):
Spain and France continue in disaccord over anchovy fishing
Malaysia
Jul 12, 23:50 (GMT + 9):
Plan underway to reduce number of trawler fishermen by 20 per cent
Spain
Jul 12, 23:10 (GMT + 9):
Delegations from Ecuador, Peru, and Malta visit Spain to consolidate fisheries co-operation
Viet Nam
Jul 12, 22:50 (GMT + 9):
Unceasing increase in catfish production in Mekong delta
United States
Jul 12, 21:00 (GMT + 9):
Ohio tightens commercial fishing rules

06/07/2007 - Fuel efficiencient fishery a future must

2007-07-07T04:47:00.000-07:00

WEEKEND FEATURE: Fuel efficiencient fishery a future must

WORLDWIDE
Friday, July 06, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)

Reduced quotas, shrinking fishing vessels' sizes, restrictions on landed volumes per trip, are all structural changes assaulting the fishing industry worldwide. These changes will certainly provoke conflicts, as has been seen already, and there will be even more lay offs and monopolisation of fishing rights will increase, until some sound solutions can be found.

Many governments distribute quotas evenly to a large number of fishing vessels to keep as many as possible vessels profitable. There are large modern vessels moored at harbours most of the year as a result of small quotas. Other times the same vessels have to venture far out to the deep sea to get their maximum allowed catch per day of operations.

Small, old, inefficient vessels are catching fish when larger more fuel-efficient vessels are remaining idle. In many countries this has been a way to protect demographic structures, keeping people from not migrating to the urban areas.

Cars are being made to run on biofuel, and engine volume is restricted to limited emissions of pollutants. Some countries are enforcing duties on vessels emitting nitrogen oxides. It may put money in the coffers of the government, but is not necessarily reducing pollution.

If three small purses einers are steaming three days each way to catch 100 tonnes each, it is easy to understand that if one of these vessels, or one larger vessel, could do this job in one trip, the environment would have been saved from cubic tonnes of CO2 and other polluting emissions. But this is a fragile area, as it favours larger modern vessels against smaller vessels.

It is also more environmentally friendly to catch fish close to processing plants. But in many countries vessels fare orced to deliver their catch for political reasons at a plant that may be days away. Or an auctioning system may be in place making it profitable for the owners to sail a couple of days extra to land their catch. This of course not profitable for the world environment as it increases pollution.

In Norway whitefish vessels are obligated to deliver catch at specific processing plants, and not necesarily the most convenient plant. Of course the shipowner would steam far away with the catch if it increased the value of it, but the intention of the Norwegian system is to keep factories running in the far north. It is politics that is driving policy, and about giving rural people work where they are living.

There is a large fleet of purse seiners operating off the coast of Peru, supplying fishmeal plants with raw material. Many of these vessels are old and have very inefficient engines. To modernize them costs money that many vessels owners do not have. A lower number of more efficient vessels could both improve the quality of the fish being landed and keep the emission of CO2 down.

Today it is possible to build environmentally friendly vessels, as modern technology can reduce emissions. Combined with a more environmentally friendly logistics, millions of tonnes of CO2 could be stopped from entering the atmosphere.

Fishing and energy

There is no doubt purse seiners are more energy efficient than pelagic trawling, howeer, little is known with regards to the difference between gillnetting and longlining, or longlining vs. bottom trawl. Neophrops can be caught with trawl, but also by using pots. In the future the use of energy per unit of landed fish wil be more and more important. The fishing industry will not escape the cost of CO2 emissions.

FIS.com contacted sales manager Jan W. Lybekk in Mustad Longlining, possibly the world's largest producer of high-tech automatic longlining gear. But according to Lybekk there is no research by Mustad in energy efficiency and the difference in environmental impact of longlining vs. other fishing methods. For a long time there has been an established truth in the fishing industry that longlining is very effective in decreasing bycatch of unwanted species and undersized fish. Not much is known, however, about energy usage per tonne of fish compared with other fishing methods.

Favouring large corporations

Future engines will have to find the correct balance between efficiency and emissions. Hull design must focus on low energy use more than just speed. Global warming will in fact make the industry put less focus on time and more on the energy needed to catch and deliver the product. Politicians will be forced to think environmentally when they are distributing quotas and regulating fisheries in other ways.

Perhaps it is better to let one large vessels incorporate the quotas of 20 smaller vessels, or maybe it is more efficient to let 20 small modern vessels using longline or gillnets to catch the quota held by a large trawler. But how will the fishers left on land be compensated?

Development towards a more environmentally friendly fishery may be the dream for large corporations. They have the capital needed to invest in new technologies. The alternative is to force large numbers of smaller vessels to co-operate and organise their operations in more environmentally friendly manner. This is a minefield for politicians.

Small changes brings big benefits

A trawl door is not just a trawl door. There are lots of parametres involved in choosing the right trawl door, be it bottom trawl or pelagic trawl. The wrong door can increase the fuel usage by 5 to 10 per cent. The opening of the trawl has to be not only fishing effectively, but also render as fish as possible per tonne of fuel. As fuel prices have been increasing, this focus has been increasing in importance, and is indirectly resulting in more environmentally friendly trawling.

Thyborøn Skibssmedie is one of the companies developing trawl doors with increasing focus on fuel economy.

“Trials we have done in a research tank have shown that the right choice of trawl door can decrease the fuel consumption, without decreasing trawling speed or catch rates. For a large trawler is a saving of 3 to 5 per cent fuel increasing profitability substantially. And in addition is this a plus in an environmental perspective”, says sales manager Jan Bundgaard at Thyborøn Skibssmedie to FIS.com.

In reality the future focus on product development will be more and more towards lower fuel consumption and lower emissions.

The Faroese company is building a new trawler at Karstensens Skibsvært in Skagen, Denmark. The vessel will be 81 metres and be delivered in August 2009. The vessel will have a capacity to carry a catch of 2,700 tonnes of pelagic fish in RSW.

Despite the Faroese Government not having introduced any levies on the release of nitrogen oxide, as Norway is starting to collect from the fishing fleet, the vessel owners are investing big money in technology making the vessel release only 1 – 2 gram of NOx per KwH, against 18 grammes as the norm for fishing vessels.

The company expects a levy to be enforced on these emissions, and the investment will be profitable compared with paying a environmental levy. The extra cost involved in making the vessel an environment friendly vessel is EUR 500,000.

Building a new vessel today, will be an absurd project if that vessel is not made fuel efficient with low emissions of CO2 and NOx. And it is absurd to expect fisheries to be organised in the same way in the future as they are today. Environmental concerns, emissions and pollution, global warming and fuel efficient catch efforts are all words the industry will have to keep in mind, to be able to keep doing business.

By Terje Engoe
www.fis.com

06/07/2007 - CeDePesca and the Argentine hake: News to celebrate, but much to do

2007-07-07T04:44:00.000-07:00

REPORT OF THE WEEK: CeDePesca and the Argentine hake: News to celebrate, but much to do

(ARGENTINA, 7/6/2007) The fishing authorities detected in Port Madryn and Mar del Plata (Argentina) significant underdeclarations of hake, which pretended to be unloaded as different species. The operatives, who were monitored directly by the National Office of Fishery Coordination, highlighted the insufficiencies and problems of transparency of the fishery controls on land and sea. In the case of Port Madryn, the detected case, in a reefer of Spanish origin, it is even more serious since it is about a frozen and packaged product ready for export, which could result in a smuggling attempt, and two other ships were detected as they were about to enter the port.
The news is encouraging, since as there is a generalized consensus in recognizing certain achievements in the management of the hake fishery (works effectively in the satellite control, there is a greater annual previsibility, the Unload Control Commission starts to work, the cutback of quotas of 11% takes effect), moreover the facts impose the reality of the resource which demonstrates that these efforts are insufficient to ensure sustainability.

This year's INIDEP reports have yet to see the light of day which would confirm a significant damage on the health of both hake stocks, but the fishing travels verify that, except for the Golfo San Jorge, the juvenile percentages are very low, which corroborate the poor recruitment this year. This is very concerning, considering the low level of reproductive biomass set to generate better recruitments in the following years.

In these reports which are yet to be published, a need for cut back once again will arise in the unloading of each ship. But the measurement would enjoy a very scarce consensus within the sector, which demands, with reason, that first the control system gaps be covered from where the hakes no one is recording are getting away. "If we do not procede in such way, the ones who will pay the price of the resource's health will always be the ones that lie the least", they state, with bother.

The first gap is a usual craftiness in the unloadings: up to 10 percent of the underdeclaration is tolerated by the authorities, based on the fact that refrigerated ships do not have a balance on board and the captain estimates the total tonnage captured based on volumes (boxes) and the criterium is correct. But once the real weight of the unloading on dock is established, the authorities do not substract that amount from the quota, instead they substract it from the amount declared when caught. This way, every ship increases its own quota by 5-10%, which annually represents approximately 25 thousand tonnes of hake. The soultion is obvious and quite simple.

The second gap is more serious: with the complicity of some inspectors onboard and dock inspectors some species are declared in the stead of others. In Port Madryn, as it has been proved in last week's case, the longtail hake is the favourite disguise for some reefers. In Mar del Plata this varies.

Not everyone practices this sport, which up to now has not been too dangerous, and those who play in the major leagues are known, and are amongst those "caught" last week.

It is difficult to quantify, but it is possible that this business a few are practicing, in these two ports alone, will cost the natural heritage of every Argentine at leaste 50 thousand tonnes of hake. The Unloading Control Commission, together with the participation of the private sector as an auditor of the unloadings, may contribute to solving this, but it must be strongly supported by the Fishing and Coast Guard authorities with transparent information in time and form, and with physical securities.

Operations such as these are encouraging, but must have clear consequences and continuity in order to generate trust and adecuate conducts amongst those involved in the sector.

Third gap: Rawson. Quota assigned, approximately 10 thousand tonnes. Declared unloadings in 2005 with no legal consequence: close to 25 thousand tonnes. The declared unloadings by a journalism interview: 35 thousand tonnes. When the intention of carrying out an audit was made known, threats were received and the audit never came through.

A number will have to be cleared, say 18 thousand tonnes? And not change it. In order to carry this out, as well as improving the unloading control, the effort will have to be regulated (fishing days by ship) during the summer season in Isla Escondida, a reproduction zone, since the Rawson and Caleta Cordova fleets, originally made up by small wooden ships, have progressed and replaced most of this ships by steel ships, with a greater security, navigability and habitability, but also of a gretaer fishing capacity. This way, 17 thousand tonnes of reproducers could be preserved.

In Comodoro Rivadavia we have the fourth gap. There the reefer fleet which operates in the San Jore Golf tends to meet with dense schools of juvenile fish which, for the most part, are eliminated. Double crime in times of poor recruitments. With adecuate measuring controls from Coast Guard ships, securing the use of selective arts and the zone change in time and form to avoid those concentrations could rescue at least 10 to 15 tonnes of juvenile hake, some 50 million fish, most of which could reach adulthood and contribute to the reproductive process and the recovery of the resource.

The eliminations of juvenile fish are, generally, a great problem. They have less commercial value which motivates the crew to prefer the bigger specimens, since their income is related to the volume and type of fish caught. This remuneration system should be replaced at some point for one that will motivate the quality and not discriminate size. This will contribute to creating a favourable climate for the use of selective fishing gears.

The use of available technology to determine fishing zones and hours of trawling should replace the catch declarations, which are almost always false. And the eye training of the civil employees from SENASA and Customs, as well as the cross control of these organisms, those of Pesca and the AFIP, should complement those of the unloading with the ends to minimize the impact of the commercialization circuits in black and trafficking.

If with these measures, which would imply saving 100 to 150 thousand tonnes of hake, the stocks should not give any signs of recovery, it will be time to agree on new cut backs on the quotas, which will at the same time be accompanied by economic measures from the State, which will support workers and the businessmen during the resource recovery process.

The fishery investigation politics is a subject which deserves to be discussed. The use of technology to ensure the veracity of the information, the increase on quantity of observers on board, the improvement on the showing of the unloading, the realization of the campaigns in time and form, the cientific independece from the evaluation team - free from political pensions - and the periodical revision by peers are basic conditions to better know what is taking place under the water with this very important Argentine fishing resource. And at the same time to determine management methodologies more adaptive and in real time.

This is urgent. But in the mean time, a plan will have to be made for the reduction and reorientation of the overcapacity of fishing and processing. Added value, aquaculture, underexploited species (there are some left) should be part of an incentive package within the economical politics for the sector which will have to include the financing of the removal from the excess of the capacity and incentives for the replacement of the obsolete units for modern ships of equal or minor fishing capacity.

The information was provided by CeDePesca, Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable (Center for Development and Sustainable Fishery), which is a non governmental organization, based in Mar del Plata, Argentina, who's mission is to work for a fishery activity which will be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

More about: CeDePesca

Phone: +54 (223) 489 6397
Fax: +54 (223) 489-9697
E-Mail: lared@cedepesca.org.ar

29/06/2007 - Traditional fisheries triumph over salmon

2007-06-30T03:05:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-22T16:44:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-16T03:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-08T15:17:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T07:45:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T07:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T07:26:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

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