International & Trade

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — October 1, 2014 –Russian authorities detained the vessel in the high seas waters of the Barents Sea, and towed the vessel to Murmansk.

The new developments in the case of the F/V Juros Vilkas are that the EU has officially protested to Russia over the seizure of the vessel on the high seas, and a trial date has been set in Moscow for an October 7th hearing about the seizure and the claim the vessel was illegally fishing snow crab in the Russian zone.
 
Russian authorities detained the vessel in the high seas waters of the Barents Sea, and towed the vessel to Murmansk.  The Russians claim 15 tons of snow crab was on board.
 
The vessel representatives in Lithuania admit that the vessel did stray over the Russian line for a very short time, perhaps an hour, but that no fishing was conducted on the Russian side.   The vessel is part of a fleet put together by Yuri Silagin, owner of Arctic Fishing in Seattle to fish for snow crab in the "donut hole" part of the Barents Sea.
 
"We are concerned by the forced apprehension of the Lithuanian fishing vessel," an EU spokesman said. Lithuania, a Baltic coast state, is an EU member that was long under Moscow's control until the Soviet Union's break-up in 1991.
 
"The European Union calls on Russia to respect its international obligations and to immediately release the vessel," he said, adding that  the EU had raised the issue with the Russian Ambassador to the bloc, Vladimir Chizhov.
 
The Minister of Agriculture of Lithuania Virginia Baltraytene asked the European Commission to represent the interests of Lithuania in the case of detention Juros Vilkas, and Commissioner Maria Damanaki said: "I am very disturbed by the fact that the Russian Border Service forcibly detained Lithuanian ship. We work closely with the Lithuanian authorities to make every effort to ensure that the ship would be released as soon as possible. "

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

September 26, 2014 — "We're providing for additional financing of the government program for development of aquaculture."

Additional financing for the development of aquaculture in Russia could total 1.3 billion rubles in 2015, First Deputy Agriculture Minister Igor Manylov said at a round table on the development of the fisheries sector in Leningrad Region on Thursday.

"We're providing for additional financing of the government program for development of aquaculture. This work should be completed at the level of agencies by September 30. I can say that for 2015, if everything goes according to the understandings we've managed to reach, the amount of state support will total 1.3 billion rubles," Manylov said.

Read the full story from Interfax

 

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SCOM] — Sept. 26, 2014 — The Thai Commerce ministry is holding seminars around the country to help prepare industries for the ending of an EU tariff preference that expires at the end of 2014.  The EU is no longer classifying Thailand as a developing country.

The Department studied nine industries, and found that frozen shrimp and fresh and frozen seafood products were among the least prepared to handle the change.

The reason is that Thailand's competitors on shrimp, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, will continue to enjoy a favorable EU tariff.

Overall, about $3 billion worth of Thai exports to the EU will be impacted across all products.  The ministry found that Thai produced jewelry and rubber products were best positioned to remain competitive.

For the shrimp and processed food industries, the outlook seems to be to try and become more competitive in Asia, or possibly move some production to countries like Cambodia that still retain the EU tariff preference.

in 2013, Thailand exported 31,400 tons of shrimp to the EU-27, while Vietnam exported 37,700 tons, and Indonesia exported 12,100 tons.   In 2015, the tariff changes will favor Vietnam and Indonesia.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Reuters]  By Feliz Solomon — September 23, 2014 — The United States has waived sanctions against Thailand that could have been imposed as a result of the country’s insufficient efforts to combat human trafficking.

Thailand, which is home to an estimated two to three million migrant labourers, most of them from Burma, was recently downgraded in the US State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report.

Thailand was listed as a “Tier 3” country, the lowest rank, indicating that the government has not met minimum anti-trafficking standards and could face restrictions on non-humanitarian and non-trade-related assistance.

US President Barack Obama is, however, authorised “to waive the restrictions if he determines that doing so would promote the purposes of the TVPA [Trafficking Victims Protection Act] or is otherwise in the US national interest”, according to a spokesperson for the US Embassy in Bangkok.

The 2014 TIP report identified Thailand as “a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking”. The report said that foreign migrants, ethnic minorities and stateless persons are most vulnerable to human trafficking, many ending up in exploitative jobs in the seafood industry or the sex trade.

Also of concern were continued reports that Thai officials abetted the smuggling of stateless Rohingya Muslims from western Burma and Bangladesh. The number of stateless Muslim asylum seekers traversing Thai waters en route to Malaysia or Indonesia has reached alarming new heights in recent years, prompting urgent warnings from the UN and rights advocates.

Malaysia, which borders southern Thailand and was also designated as a Tier 3 country, was likewise granted a presidential waiver on TIP-related restrictions.

Since 2011, Thailand has idled on the State Department’s “Tier 2 Watchlist”, which means that the country has a significant number of severe cases of trafficking but is making efforts to become TVPA compliant.

The TVPA requires that Tier 2 Watchlist countries demonstrate efforts to improve or be downgraded to Tier 3, which subjects them to restrictions. The act allows, however, for two consecutive waivers for downgrade.

Thailand did not show adequate improvement during 2012 and 2013 assessments, but was granted the consecutive waivers based on a written plan to achieve compliance. Failure to do so resulted in their demotion in June.

“A Tier 3 ranking indicates that serious and sustained efforts are needed, and is intended to motivate governments to implement swift action,” the Embassy spokesperson told DVB on Saturday, adding that “We [the State department] look forward to working with the Thai government to implement these recommendations.”

While the State Department, which is among the most active anti-trafficking bodies in the world, has demonstrated a harsh stance towards Thailand’s trafficking record, the decision not to impose sanctions revealed some flexibility in terms of policy.

“Actually it’s not that surprising,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, “since the US frequently waives TIP-related sanctions against countries, especially ones that it shares historically close relations with.”

Obama also waived sanctions for Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Yemen, all of which share Thailand’s disposition as trafficking hubs.

Robertson warned that while waiving the sanctions may strike some as a soft move, “no one should make the mistake of thinking that this diminishes the seriousness of the TIP problem in Thailand”, adding that the US was and remains “strongly critical” of Thailand’s as yet unconvincing efforts.

“The question is when, if ever, Thai officials are going to finally figure out that more anti-trafficking posters at the airport, and big seminars with public pronouncements of ‘commitment’, are not convincing anyone that Thailand is serious about systematically addressing the trafficking problem,” he said.

Thailand is currently subject to some economic sanctions by the US as a result of the coup that installed a military government on 22 May. The Embassy said that US agencies still fund numerous anti-trafficking programmes in Thailand which remain unaffected.

This story appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [ifeng.com] Translated by Amy Zhong — Sept. 23, 2014 — About 70% of the imported seafood is not taxed in the Mainland China and many seafood items have been smuggled into China through Vietnam, according to some media.

Although this question may not interest consumers, it is of great importance to ask how the  imported seafood they enjoy has entered the Chinese market. Some discreet consumers find it  necessary to distinguish the imported seafood of America from those of Australia, however, they  are not concerned about whether these seafood have been taxed. 

An experienced lobster supplier in Australia has told the reporter from Free Trade Zone Post (FTZ Post) that a comparatively high proportion of imported seafood has been brought  into China in an illegal way. The proportion may be as high as 70%, according to his estimation.

Although overseas suppliers know that this kind of smuggling has existed for a long time, they have not  intervened but thought that it should be handled by the Chinese.  One Australian supplier has warned that although the price of these illegal seafood may be  about 20% to 30% less than those imported legally, the safety of the illegal seafood can not be  guaranteed owing to a lack of examination and quarantine. 

However, the reality is that neither the importers nor the eaters care about if these seafoods are imported legally. 

As the data show, Vietnam and China are both among the top three in view of importing the  western Australian seafood from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. But China’s import value is only  US$100 million, a third of Vietnam’s import value, which is US$320 million.

This clearly doesn’t  match the spending power of these two countries.  And Vietnam’s seafood demand should have been smaller owing to its long coastline, added  an insider. So a great proportion of these seafood worth US$320 million are likely to enter the  Chinese market through the border trade, while there are some others which have been smuggled into the market.

 This insider has also told the reporter that there are two ways of delivering these seafood.  “One is to move the seafood from the Australian boats to the Vietnamese boats directly in the  International waters. And then the Vietnamese boats will transport the seafood into China through  the border trade, which makes these seafood exempt from tariff. The other is to give the seafood  on the Vietnamese boats to the Chinese fishermen directly, in which the seafood are exempt from  both the tariff and the value-added tax. ” 

According to this insider, although some seafood are labeled as import from Vietnam, it is impossible to fish these kinds of seafood in Vietnam’s sea area.  This kind of illegal seafood transportation has occurred quite frequently during the past few  years. 

The customs of Nanning, Guangxi has released a document in 2013 which reads that the  bureau has caught a number of smuggling happening in the border between Guangxi and Vietnam.  And the value of these smuggled goods is on the rise and the average cargo value exceeds 100 million yuan. The smugglers have taken advantage of the policies regarding the border trade,  which has become a new channel of smuggling goods. Some of them have hired the residents on  the border to carry their large quantities of ordered commodities into China bit by bit, while others  have used the border residents’ identities to import the goods.

In the border trade, the residents on the border of two countries can buy or sell certain goods  with a limit regarding their transaction value in some specific markets or any other permitted places. And the goods are exempt from the tariff and other import linkage duties in the trading.  Take the lobsters for example. The tariff rate is 15% for the live lobsters, while it is 10% for the  frozen ones. And the value-added tax rate is 13%, which means that the tax rate is high as 28% for  the live lobsters. 

According to a manager of a lobster export company, the company has knowledge that the lobsters bought by Vietnam will be delivered to the Chinese market in the end. But as a supplier,  there is nothing they can do but provide the complete documents in the export. And they have  no control over the lobsters’ final destination, although they hope that their lobsters can be  transported to China legally, said the manager. 

However, the good news is that the policies of Shanghai free trade zones are likely to motivate  Chinese buyers to import seafood legally.  On September 3, Shanghai’s free trade zones has welcomed the visit of Ken Baston, the  Minister for Fisheries in the western Australia, as well as a number of local suppliers for such  seafood as lobsters and abalones. Baston has told the reporter from FTZ Post that the free trade  zones in Shanghai have provided the Western Australian seafood suppliers a platform to enter the  Chinese market. 

Hu Haiping is the CEO of Organic Ocean and he has said that the formalization of customs  declaration will become the trend.  Hu adds that the cost of cold chain logistics is very high in the seafood import, but the company  can cut their logistics cost to a great extent if their seafood can be transported to the refrigerated warehouses of Shanghai’s free trade zones after the customs declaration.

In addition, the wastage  can also be reduced in this way and the cost of such seafood as lobsters will decrease by about  15% without these formalities. 

Some seafood imported by Organic Ocean have become the top sales in the stores of  Shanghai’s Waigaoqiao free trade zone which focus on the selling of imported products.  What’s more, the importers’ confidence gets strengthened thanks to the convenience in the  customs, examination and quarantine of Shanghai’s free trade zones. 

Marcus Tromp is the manager of Dragon King Abalone in the western Australia and he has told  the reporter from FTZ Post that their company exports 60 tons of abalones on a yearly basis. And  40% of the abalones are delivered to Hong Kong, while only 10% are to the Mainland China. “We  hope to increase the proportion to between 20% to 25%”, said Tromp.  Tromp has emphasized that their abalones have been transported to China legally and the  company has handled the formalities in the customs declaration and the taxation.

“The cost is high  to export the abalones to the Chinese market, but I believe that Chinese consumers are willing to  pay for the trustworthy products”, added Tromp. 

In 2013, the import volume of aquatic products is 4.1703 million tons, increasing by 1.13%  compared with that of 2012, while the value reaches US$8.638 billion, rising by 8%. On top  of China’s import countries are Russia, America, Peru and the association of Southeast Asian  nations, but Australia has failed to make it to the top eight.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — September 23, 2014 –Russia has detained the Lithuanian fishing vessel Jūros Vilkas (Sea Wolf), which is owned by  Arctic Fishing, of which US citizen Alexander-Yuri Silagy is the sole shareholder.

The Lithuanian government has protested to the Russians.

Russia says the vessel was illegally fishing snow crab in Russian waters, and had 30,000 lbs of crab on board.  The vessel, with 28 crew, was seized and taken to Murmansk.

According to the Baltic News Service, Director of the fisheries Department Ministry of agriculture Darius Nanus told BNS that the ship briefly went into the territorial waters of Russia, but was detained in international waters.

"All the circumstances and details are still to be determined  but, according to our satellite system, the vessel was detained in international waters, not in the exclusive economic zone of Russia. According to our information, the accusation is that the boat entered the exclusive economic zone of Russia and fished there.

Our Satellite communication system, which uses the European control Agency for fishing, shows that the ship came into the exclusive economic zone of Russia on 8th September and only for an hour. For such a short time there was nothing it could do there,  he told BNS.

According to him, the crew of the ship consists of 28 people, three of whom are citizens of Lithuania. The other members of the crew, he reported, "most likely, they are not EU citizens".

"We ascertain the fact that, in our opinion, Russia violated international obligations and agreements – the vessel was detained in international waters. Only for this reason does the fact seem ambiguous. If detained in the economic zone of Russia, the violation would be obvious," he told BNS.

According to the Central registry, the sole shareholder Arctic Fishing, which owns the vessel, is a US citizen Alexander-Yuri Silagy, and the company managing Director is Giedrius Gruzdis. Gruzdis told DELFI that he does not have accurate information about the vessel.

DELFI, a Lithuanian news portal, was able to communicate with the control services of the port of Murmansk, but they would not provide information about the arrest Jūros Vilkas. 

"According to the entry in field log of the ship was caught 15 tons of snow crab", says DELFI.   The Ministry of agriculture of Lithuania received a message stating that the Russian officials about 700 km from Murmansk detained a registered in Lithuania vessel Jūros Vilkas and  towed it to Murmansk.

The head of the Lithuanian Union of seamen Petras Becia explained to DELFI that the vessels Karalius and Jūros vilkas were recently purchased by Arctic Fishing, and went under the Lithuanian flag.
"They recently bought them and for the first time sent in the Barents sea for crabs. As far as I know, they were planning to catch crabs from Norwegian and Russian territorial waters. There must be backers behind them for they could do that without quotas," said Becia.

According to him, the vessels came from Kamchatka. "They (the vessels – DELFI) went from Kamchatka, through the Panama canal to Holland, where they are repaired, and they ordered inspectors from the Lithuanian administration safe shipping  and  submitted an application for registration under the Lithuanian flag, " he said.

Although they met all the requirements, the seafarers ' Union drew attention to the company Arctic Fishing for operating under non-Lithuanian laws.

"We have received information indicating that before leaving the ship the inspectors had not been informed of employed persons, as required by the Labor code, and that violated the requirement that the Lithuanian ship, both trading and commercial seafarers from EU countries should be not less than two-thirds of the team. We have asked the State labour Inspectorate to investigate." said Becia.

According to one source, we should not exclude the possibility that the vessel in foreign waters was due to lack of experience.

According to him, if in the Russian mass media report the truth, the vessel was detained by border guards, and they had no right to do so.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [China Daily/Seafood.com] — September 22, 2014 — The combination of news that the Chinese Government halted imports of whole Norwegian salmon due to concerns about the ISA virus, and the news of the continuing spread of Ebola in three African countries, led to a spate of rumors in China last week that Norwegian salmon had 'Ebola', something that is impossible.

Salmon eaters in china have been frightened by titles of the popular articles in the social media like Weibo and Wechat as “China has stopped the import of a whole Norwegian salmon”, “People are likely to get Ebola from eating salmon” and “Salmon carry with them the Ebola virus”.

The reporter has interviewed the relevant importers and the staff from the markets of aquatic products, all of whom have said that salmon has nothing to do with Ebola.

And Norwegian Department of Marine Resources has also published a statement which reads that the Norwegian salmon are safe for consumers to enjoy.

It turns out the rumor originated owing to sensational reporters who published an article in an online newspaper called 'The Paper' with the headline 'The “Ebola” disease among the fish has threatened aquaculture and whole Norwegian salmon is forbidden to enter the Chinese market'.  They were calling ISA the "Ebola Disease" among salmon.

Subsequently the article was picked up and repeated without the quotations around 'Ebola'.

It is a custom in Guangzhou to eat the raw fish and the imported salmon is the favourite of many local consumers. However, many salmon eaters  got worried by the widespread news on the internet that salmon have the Ebola virus. Some eaters have posed such comments about the news as “So scary? ”, “I am so scared that I almost pee myself” and “Never eat salmon again”.

The reporter has tried to trace this rumor and found that the first connection between salmon and Ebola was established in an article published in The Paper.  Then some websites, even the authoritative ones, have removed the quotation mark of the word “Ebola” while forwarding the news. Some articles in Weibo and Wechat have even changed the title to “Eating salmon leads to Ebola” or “Salmon also has Ebola virus”.

But after reading the full article, some netizens have found that they were cheated by the titles. The netizens point out that it is misguided to “establish the direct connection between salmon and Ebola” or to suggest that  "the infectious salmon anemia (ISA) is equal to the frightening Ebola” and some authors were even so unethical to spread the rumor that “Eating salmon leads to Ebola”.

Some in the Chinese industry think that there was a deliberate effort to spread this rumor on the part of some connnected to domestic salmon producers.

The Norwegian Department of Marine Resources has released an statement in the Mainland China and Hong Kong about Chinese government’s not allowing the import of a whole salmon from Norway. The statement explains that this is owing to the government’s concern that some fish diseases may take a toll on China’s aquaculture rather than the worry about the food safety or the salmon’s bad influence on the eaters’ health.

In the statement, there is a solemn notice from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. On the one hand, it emphasizes that Norwegian salmon are safe to eat and there is no fish disease found which is relevant to human diseases. All the fish diseases like ISA will not infect human or have a bad effect on the human health.

On the other hand, it also reads that Norway only exports the healthy fish products rather than the fish with any disease. In addition, the statement also mentions that the Norwegian regulations concerning food safety comply with the requirement of the EU. In addition to the export companies’ examining their own salmon, the government also sampled 11,500 salmon last year and no salmon has been found to contain chemicals or pollutants. And according to the international regulations, any warning against the Norwegian salmon’s quality or food safety should be reported to the Norwegian government and the International organization.

In fact, China importers said last week they are still allowed to import a whole salmon at present.

When the reporter interviewed salmon importers and distributors for this article concerning the news named “Salmon has Ebola virus” the importers and distributors replied that they had not received any notice about forbidding the import of a whole Norwegian salmon and neither had the staff working in different ports. And they are still handling the orders of the whole Norwegian salmon as usual.

The reporter has also interviewed a store owner of aquatic products from Huangsha aquatic product trading market. And she told the reporter that many regular customers and friends had asked her about the safety of Norwegian salmon through telephone, text or Wehcat during the past few days. So yesterday she was busy with forwarding the official statement from the Norwegian government. She also inquired from her relative whose job was exporting salmon in Norway and learnt that it was still permitted to import a whole salmon.

“The imported salmon has nothing to do with Ebola. This is only a rumor! When the eaters come to Huangsha tomorrow, they can still buy a whole Norwegian salmon”, said the owner. Some distributors of the imported salmon also suspects if the spreading of this rumor has some kind of connection with the industry of domestic salmon, which are seen as less than Norwegian salmon in  quality, safety and texture.

 This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

September 22, 2014 — A large Chinese fishing company wanting to vastly increase its Pacific tuna operations has suspended a share float following revelations it under-stated risks.

China Tuna Industry Group, with the help of Frankfurt headquartered Deutsche Bank AG, last month launched a US$100 million to US$200m (NZ$120m to NZ$240m) IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange to fund a massive and sophisticated expansion of South Pacific tuna fishing.

Fairfax Media earlier this month reported that China Tuna was significantly understating the risks it faced chasing bigeye tuna and that it was telling investors that international quotas were unlikely to have any affect on its operations.

Hong Kong based International Financing Review Asia today reported that China Tuna had postponed its IPO.

Quoting a source "familiar with the situation", the capital market magazine said the postponement came after environment organisation Greenpeace filed a formal complaint with the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd last week.

Read the full story from Stuff

SEAFOODNEWS.COM — September 19, 2014 — Newfoundland's seafood industry is on the cusp of major changes.

More than 20 years after the historic collapse of Northern Cod, not only is cod returning, but conditions are in place for a radical transformation of the industry over the next five years.

But like any major change, the experience will likely be wrenching.

Earlier this week I attended a meeting called Fishery of the Future hosted by The Canadian Center for Fisheries Innovation, which brought togther many of the active participants in the fishery – from fish plant owners to vessel owners and aquaculture companies – all focused on how the fisheries are going to change and how best to use the $400 million in funds allocated for this transformation.

As part of Newfoundland's agreement to end its requirements for processing all seafood in the Province as part of the Canada – EU free trade agreement, the Canadian federal government and the Province have pledged $400 million in funding, to be paid out over three years starting in 2015.

At the same time, the plant workforce is aging rapidly, and is becoming a limiting factor for current fish processing practices.

On the water, many of the younger harvesters are eager to expand their quota shares and invest in modern state of the art vessels, but need a consolidation plan to do so.

The result is an opportunity not to compete with China – which has a major advantage in producing low cost commodity fish – but to transform the fishery to look much more like fisheries in Iceland and Norway, where the industry is supported by production of the highest value products, has the world's best technology, and still is vital to many rural communities.

It all starts with cod.

Dr. George Rose is the world's foremost expert on the Northern Cod.  He is the Scientific Director, Centre for Ecosystems Research, at the Marine Institute, and he presented a series of fascinating slides.

First, cod is coming back to Newfoundland.  The Northern cod stock, still under moratorium, is just a few years away from passing the spawning stock threshold to allow a fishery to restart.  The age structure of the stock is phenomenal, with very good percentages of huge older fish.  Dr. Rose can count fish size and age structure using acoustic methods.  The latest DFO survey results, though not yet released, are again expected to show growth in the spawning stock.

Second, capelin – the reason for the huge cod stock – are back with a vegence.  You can now steam 150 miles across the Grand Banks, and be continuously over capelin.

The recent DFO trawl survey has found the highest capelin abundance ever, said Dr. Rose.  And this is born out by the Provincial acoustic surveys. 

While environmental groups hold up the Newfoundland cod collapse as the poster child of fisheries disaster caused by overfishing, the actual situation was much more complicated.

Dr. Rose compared Newfoundland cod to an old growth forest.  It has a huge biomass, but once established, it has low productivity, so the relationships between biomass and fisehery removals which might hold in faster growing stocks don't apply to Northern Cod.  So fishery removals were too high.

But the bigger factor was a regime shift to a cold water regime.  Water temperatures in the Labrador Strait dropped to where they were simply inhospitable for cod and capelin.  The result was movement of cod out of the area, and recruitment of crab and shrimp – both cold water loving species.

For the past six or seven years, that temperature regime has reversed.  That is why the cod stock is explosively growing, and the age structure is stabilizing.  Dr. Rose said that six or seven years ago, they found almost no large cod over five years old.  Now they are plentiful. 

He also looked historically at Newfoundland cod stocks compared to Iceland and Norway and the Barents Sea.  The Newfoundland stocks are much larger, and their robustness was what brought European fishers from their home grounds to Newfoundland.  Over time, he says, this dominance will reassert itself, and the growth potential for the stock is huge.

So, crab and shrimp, the two money fisheries in the province, are declining. Although they won't disappear totally, they will represent a smaller and smaller proportion of the Provincial fisheries, to be replaced by cod and flatfish.

In the past, many have dismissed fresh fish from Newfoundland as not profitable, but Ross Butler, from Cooke Aquaculture, who also spoke at the meeting, talked about how they get fresh salmon from their remote site in Cupquelan Fjord in Chile.  It is a 12 hour trip from Santiago; but with the right logistics, fresh salmon can be shipped out several times a week.

Newfoundland is closer than either Iceland or Norway to the huge fresh cod market on the US East Coast.

Also participating in the meeting were Norwegian and Icelandic fisheries business experts.  The key trait, agreed by all the speakers, was the need to concentrate on high value products.  Iceland sells about 20% of its cod fresh.  Norway sells fresh, but also high quality salt cod, plus single frozen loins and blocks.

If Newfoundland is going to compete with a high value cod fishery, it wil have to have a product mix that allows for maximizing the highest value products – fresh, and single frozen portions. Working back from there means changes in processing plant design, vessels, and quota systems – so that a reliable high quality year round fishery can develop.

The transformation also needs to face significant social issues – a fishery built around 8 weeks of seasonal work and unemployment cannot provide the return needed for all the investment to produce high value products.  Instead, a change to a year round fishery with fewer harvesters and plant workers, but year round employment and scale to invest in technology is going to be necessary.

This is where the $400 million in compensation from the trade agreement comes in.  This type of transformation would likely not get off the ground without external payments to catalyze some of the changes. 

On its own, the market and the status quo of small distributed processing plants and small part time quotas for harvesters will mean inertia is too great, and the danger is that the money will be spent on compensation without generating the changes needed for long term global competitive excellence.

That was why the intitial meeting called by CCFI was so positive – it brought all the industry players together, and after two days, did instill a spirit of optimism that a chance truly existed for such a major transformation.

Newfoundland as the center of a globally important profitable high quality cod fishery?  Lets check in again in 2025.

 This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

 

TOKYO — September 22, 2014 — After decades of overfishing, Japan is taking aim at increasing the number of bluefin tuna in the ocean.

After several decades of reckless overfishing, mostly by Japanese fleets eager to satisfy their country's increasing demand for sushi and sashimi, stocks of bluefin tuna in the Pacific Ocean have declined alarmingly. Japan accounts for more than 70 percent of the Pacific bluefin tuna caught, according to the government's Fisheries Agency.

As a consequence, the most recent stock assessment of Pacific bluefin tuna made by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), noted that the population "level is near historically low levels and experiencing high exploitation rates".

The situation is so dire that Japan's Fisheries Agency felt compelled to announce in March it would cut the country's allowable haul of Pacific immature bluefin tuna by 50 percent in 2015.  The agency followed this up by lobbying other countries fishing in the region to do likewise, and this month succeeded in obtaining their agreement.

During a conference of countries belonging to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) that took place in Fukuoka, Japan, from September 1-4, the other major catchers of tuna – South Korea, Taiwan, Canada and the United States – promised to make the same deep cuts as Japan.           

"People realised something had to be done about the level of catch," Glenn Hurry, executive director of the WCPFC, told Al Jazeera. "The biomass [of the bluefin tuna] that researchers are talking about is only three to four percent of the original spawning biomass, which is not a level you should commercially fish fisheries."

Read the full story from Al Jazeera