Saving Seafood

Ongoing China-U.S. Trade War Likely to Bring Changes to Global Seafood Industry

November 20, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Chinese seafood exports to America have grown this year, despite the trade war. However, the trade war with the U.S. could have global impacts, writer Amy Zhong reports from China.

Chinese seafood exports to the U.S. were US $3.22 billion during 2017, while the exports have risen by 5.75 percent to reach US $2.161 billion within the first eight months of this year compared with the same period last year. But things are starting to shift. The U.S. used to be the largest market for Chinese tilapia, but not any more.

Against this backdrop, a seafood processing seminar was hosted in Dalian in October and participants gathered to talk about issues like global seafood trading and brand building.

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 created great opportunities for its aquatic processing industry but it has begun to shift attention to the domestic market with the recession of foreign markets, trade conflicts and increasingly great domestic demand. Thus, the Dalian seminar was of great importance in areas such as opportunities and threats the aquatic industry encounters in domestic and foreign markets.

The country used to rely on foreign buyers in its seafood sales from 1981 to 2005, Cui He, the president for China Aquatic Products Processing and Marketing Alliance, was quoted as saying in a recent FishFirst article. Its export ballooned from 2005 to 2013, while its imports also grew between 2013 and 2017. The country’s seafood trading volume exceeded 10 million tons in 2017, which makes it a market larger than any other in the world, according to the story. That means an increasing number of aquatic suppliers have placed more importance on this market with great potential thanks to its steady export opportunities and rapid import increase. Countries like Norway, Canada and Australia have said in the past that China is the main target in their seafood promotions.

Japan, the U.S. and Europe are the three main buyers of China’s seafood, according to the country’s statistics, while other important buyers include South Korea and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Japan ranks first among all of China’s seafood buyers while the U.S. also is significant, buying a lot of China’s white shrimp and tilapia.

Although there seems to be no drastic change to the global seafood market at present, China has played a role of great importance in the processing industry. The trade war does take a toll on some export-oriented seafood companies in Dalian and Qingdao, but it also pushes them to upgrade their systems. In short, more seafood trading stimulates the development of China’s seafood processing sector.

China’s statistics have shown a reduction in China’s reliance on U.S. seafood buyers since 2014. The U.S. anti-dumping policies on shrimp and catfish have influenced China’s processors since the mid-2000s. Lately, the two countries have become competitors in sourcing such seafood as Ecuador’s white shrimp after 2014, with Ecuador selling more white shrimp to China recently. China also has purchased more basa from Vietnam than the U.S. as well.

Recently, the U.S. has removed cod, pink salmon and pollock from its import list that are subject to higher tariffs. Cod has been delivered to China for further processing before being re-exported to Europe, the article said. At the same time, tariffs are having less effect on China’s seafood purchases from the U.S. than its sales to the U.S. Tilapia sales have hurt the most: The U.S. was once the largest buyer, but due to the trade war, it is now looking to other countries for substitutes.

SeafoodNews reporter Amy Zhong also writes that Chinese trade journals say that the U.S.-China trade war could also change the global seafood industry. Seafood businesses worldwide are uncertain whether China can maintain its status as the seafood processing center, since some companies have been forced to relocate to other regions, like Africa. However, China has begun developing business in more countries included in its One Belt, One Road initiative, which in turn has encouraged China to upgrade its seafood industry.

Wang Zhanlu, the director for WTO Division of Agricultural Trade Promotion Center, was quoted as saying countries usually control the agricultural trade more strictly with higher tariffs, but China is comparatively open and is second only to the U.S. in terms of its agricultural imports. In 2017, seafood ranks first in the country’s agricultural exports and accounts for 27 percent of the country’s agricultural export total. Meanwhile, seafood imports account for about 17 percent of its imports.

Zhong writes that according to seafood trade expert Leng Chuanhui, Japan consumes about 8.4 million tons of seafood every year, while it produces around 4.7 million tons on its own. Most of Japan’s seafood are wild harvests, while some are raised in fresh- or saltwater aquaculture. The country buys about 3.7 million tons of seafood from other countries, while its main export markets are Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, while 14.2 percent of its seafood import is from China.

Professor Qin from Guangdong Ocean University was quoted as saying that oysters have also become more popular in China. Global production was only 5.32 million tons worldwide in 2017, while the trading volume was about 70,000 tons. But China’s production rose by 4.7 percent in 2017 compared with that of 2016 to reach 4.87 million tons. Its oyster market value grew by 25 percent to reach 25.4 billion yuan (~$3.7 billion USD) that year. Most of the Fujian, Guangdong and Shandong oysters are currently destined for barbecues, but likely will be more finely processed in the future.

This story originally appeared on Seafood News, it is republished here with permission.

 

Government subsidies serving to prop up destructive high-seas fishing: study

June 8, 2018 — Much of the fishing that takes place in international waters would be unprofitable without the billions of dollars in subsidies pumped in by governments to sustain the ecologically destructive industry, a recent study has found.

International waters, or the high seas, are not governed by any one international body or agency, and account for nearly two-thirds of the ocean’s surface. There is currently no comprehensive management structure in place to protect the marine life that relies on them.

Researchers poring over information for fishing in these zones in 2014, the most recent year for which complete datasets are available, concluded that 54 percent of high-seas fishing would be in the red if not for governments covering some of the industry’s costs.

In their study published June 6 in the journal Science Advances, the researchers noted that labor exploitation and underreported catches could also explain how some operators could afford to keep fishing in the high seas, where species like tuna are often overfished, and migratory sharks — 44 percent of which are threatened species — are often killed as bycatch.

“While our analysis is for a single year, the slight increase in high seas catch and revenue, coupled with the high and constant price of fuel between 2010-2014, suggest that our estimate of profits is likely to be representative of, or slightly higher than, the average state during the first half of this decade,” the researchers wrote.

Read the full story at Mongabay News

Dan Webster Champions Sustainable Shark and Fisheries Trade Act

March 21, 2018 — U.S. Rep. Dan Webster, R-Fla., is leading three other members of the Florida delegation in wanting the U.S. Commerce Department to increase regulation on the international shark trade.

Last week, Webster, who is the vice chairman on the U.S. House Water Power and Oceans Subcommittee, unveiled the “Sustainable Shark and Fisheries Trade Act” which modifies the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. The proposal has support from both sides of the aisle with three members of the Florida delegation–Republican U.S. Reps. Gus Bilirakis and Bill Posey and Democrat U.S. Rep. Darren Soto–cosponsoring the proposal.

Webster’s office noted “the bill preserves U.S. commercial fishing jobs, a key component of our state and nation’s economy” and, taking a page from the World Trade Organization’s process for certifying importing shrimp, would have the U.S. Secretary of Commerce establish a three year certifying process for nations exporting shark products to the U.S.

Read the full story at Sunshine State News

 

Domestic and global fishing issues take center stage

December 15, 2017 — The House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday advanced out of committee revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (H.R. 200 (115)) governing marine fishing and management in federal waters. The law is intended to prevent overfishing, but several conservation groups and Democrats are critical of the way it was written. Only three out of 12 amendments to the bill passed, and the bill moved out of committee on a party-line vote, your host reports.

What lawmakers said: Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who voted against it, called it a plan to “deregulate our oceans and fish everywhere until there’s nothing left.” He added: “Like most of the bills advanced by the leadership of this committee, this bill is extreme and has no future in the Senate.” Many environmental groups also issued strongly worded statements condemning the bill.

GOP leaders, for their part, took issue with the idea that it was being rushed. “The idea we are jamming this through without ample opportunity is false,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who noted that he had been working on this legislation for the past five years. “I recognize this bill is not perfect yet.”

What about fishing criminals? After it was clear it wouldn’t pass, Grijalva pulled back his amendment to address repeat offenders in the fisheries industry — such as Carlos “the Codfather” Rafael who last month started serving a federal prison sentence for violating federal fishing regulations. Although Young did not support this specific amendment, he and other committee members said they would work with Grijalva to revisit the issue.

Read the full story at Politico 

 

An Ocean in Chains: Reviewing SDG 14 in Advance of the HLPF

July 6, 2017 — Five meetings in 2017 are pivotal for global efforts to save the ocean, including the July 2017 meeting of the High-level Political Forum for Sustainable Development (HLPF). Parties to the Port State Measures Agreement (on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing) convened for the first meeting of the Parties in May, to set forth its implementation. In June, the first-ever Ocean Conference convened at UN Headquarters in New York. In July, the HLPF will review progress towards the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 14) on life below water, as one of seven SDGs to receive special attention. In parallel to the HLPF, a UN preparatory committee will discuss recommendations to the UN General Assembly on negotiating a treaty on the management of marine biological diversity in the high seas. And, in December, the World Trade Organization will hold its eleventh Ministerial Conference, during which many are hoping fisheries subsidies will be on the agenda. While these meetings are not the only important ocean events occurring in 2017, they will influence how stakeholders, from governments to civil society to individuals, will approach ocean issues going forward.

This policy update reviews themes threading through these meetings as reported by the SDG Knowledge Hub. It provides readers with background knowledge, recalls how the international policy community has framed prominent ocean issues, and looks forward to the next steps. This update follows the structure used in the ‘2017 HLPF Thematic Review of SDG 14’ (HLPF Brief), lightly canvassing the issues of pollution, acidification and climate change, marine spatial planning/marine protected areas (MPAs), small-scale fisheries (SSF), subsidies, research, and linkages.

To begin, the Ocean Conference is to be celebrated simply for existing. The guest article ‘SDG at Sea‘ recounts the rise of the ocean in the global sustainable agenda, going from the absence of ocean issues in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to becoming the largest substantive section of the ‘The Future We Want,’ to eventually securing a stand-alone goal among the 17 SDGs. The June Ocean Conference was a key moment for the global ocean policy community, which came together to identify and discuss solutions to ocean challenges. It concluded with a negotiated ‘Call for Action’ and over 1,300 voluntary commitments announced by an array of stakeholders (governments, civil society and the private sector) to tackle ocean-specific problems.

Read the full story at the International Institute for Sustainable Development

SEAN HORGAN: Swedes still fighting lobster imports

February 27, 2017 — Our travel budget here at FishOn is just about enough to get us over to McDonald’s on Maplewood Avenue for a vegan Happy Meal, but we don’t let that dilute our international sophistication or our global reach.

So, let’s go to Sweden, where the Swedes continue to pour their Nordic angst all over our American lobsters by trying to label them an invasive species and ban their importation by the entire European Union. 

The Swedish effort continues, but an interesting analysis by the Atlanta-based King & Spalding law firm specializing in international law says Sweden’s request to ban the lobsters most likely violates rules of the World Trade Organization.

“The EU ban on American lobster, based on the risk allegedly posed by 32 lobsters that escaped during transportation, would seem to require the WTO to look very carefully at the proportionality of the measure to determine whether it is maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, as well as examining the necessity of the measure in light of alternative measures, such as stricter controls on transportation and more effective enforcement of existing relevant laws and regulations,” the analysis stated.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Boston Globe: Potential EU Ban On American Lobsters Is Ill-Considered

May 12, 2016 — The following is an excerpt from an editorial published today by the Boston Globe:

Planning the menu for a state dinner is never a picnic, but the White House could make an easy call on Friday when President Obama welcomes the leaders of Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — serve lobster. Simple, too: Just bring water to a rolling boil, cook, and serve with melted butter.

As the black-tied dignitaries strap on their White House-monogrammed bibs, they could also dig into what should be a key issue for the US-Nordic Leaders Summit: Sweden’s effort to ban the importation of live lobsters to the 28 European Union nations under new invasive species regulations. An EU panel will consider the issue next month and the dispute could eventually go to the World Trade Organization.

Scientists in the US and Canada say the danger is as hypothetical as it is exaggerated. Pols and lobstermen go further, branding the Swedish research as, simply, cooked: “protectionism masquerading as science,” several lawmakers say. Secretary of State John Kerry was asked to formally protest. Talk about bringing things to a rolling boil.

But before curbing the kudzu-like proliferation of IKEA products or circumscribing the movement of free-range Volvos, let us consider the lobster trade: The EU imports about $200 million worth of the crustacean per year from the US and Canada, about 13,000 metric tons. All told, the EU imports one-fifth of all exported US lobsters.

For lobsters, the science on the hazard is inconclusive. But say, for the sake of argument, that Homarus americanus does prove invasive. Should Italians or Greeks along the warm waters of the Mediterranean be barred from importing live North American lobsters because they pose a threat to Swedish waters? EU regulations provide for regional measures, short of an outright ban to all member states, so it should never come to that.

Read the full editorial at the Boston Globe

U.S. Tuna Industry Objects To New Proposed Labeling

April 29, 2016 — PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — Tri Marine International, whose local operations include a tuna cannery, and National Fisheries Institute (NFI) both contend that the new interim final rule by the federal government on dolphin safety labeling is due to a recent sanction of the US by the World Trade Organization in a long standing case which pits the US against its neighbor, Mexico. They say it is an unfair and unproductive burden to U.S. seafood companies that does not resolve the protracted WTO litigation, nor improve on the existing dolphin-safe operational performance.

Industry officials told Samoa News that the new interim final rule (or IFR) will only increase operational costs for the US tuna canneries, who are already faced with stiff global competition, and that the US canneries have been adhering to dolphin safe labeling standards set by the federal government for many years.

This was echoed by NFI president, John P. Connelly in an Apr. 22 letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), who is seeking public comment on the IFR for “enhanced document requirements and captain training requirements to support use of the dolphin safe label on tuna products.”

“Consumers purchasing canned and pouched tuna from Bumble Bee Foods, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist should be confident that the ‘dolphin-safe’ label the retail packaging bears means just that,” Connelly wrote.

The three canneries are the major US producers of tuna products.

Read the full story at the Pacific Islands Report

US expands tougher ‘dolphin-safe’ rules around the world

March 22, 2016 — WASHINGTON(AP) — The United States, facing sanctions for discriminating against Mexican tuna imports, is expanding tougher rules for labeling tuna ‘”dolphin-safe” on the rest of the world instead of easing up on Mexico.

Last fall, the World Trade Organization ruled that the United States was unfairly using stricter tracking and verification standards on tuna fishing in the waters from San Diego to Peru, where Mexican fleets operate, than it was imposing on fleets elsewhere. In retaliation, Mexico has been preparing to slap $472 million in tariffs against imports of high fructose corn syrup from the United States.

The U.S. decided against loosening the rules on Mexico, choosing instead a plan that “elevates requirements for tuna product from every other region of the world,” U.S. Trade Rep. Michael Froman said in a statement.

The dolphin-safe labels are supposed to ensure that canned, dried and frozen tuna has been caught without endangering dolphins. Schools of tuna tend to gather and swim with some species of dolphins.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at Gloucester Daily Times