The Fisheries Sector

Jonathan BartonInstituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chilejbarton@puc.cl

Chile and New Zealand –between competition and co-operation?

Victoria University of Wellington22 April 2005

The Contribution of Fisheries Exports

Table 1: New Zealand: export groups by value (%) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Dairy 17,79 16,35 16,35 20,16 17,47 17,44Meat 13,33 13,23 13,15 13,67 14,37 15,24Wood 6,28 7,66 7,78 7,14 8,39 7,61Fruit 3,98 4,84 3,90 3,17 3,70 3,65Machinery 3,99 3,85 3,71 3,46 3,71 4,30Fish 5,19 5,40 4,59 4,27 4,61 3,91Source: Statistics New Zealand (2005)

The Contribution of Fisheries Exports

Table 2: Chile: export groups by value (%) 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 Copper (refined and ores) 37,9 40,0 35,0 38,7 35,0 34,6Fish 4,5 5,1 6,8 6,5 6,7 6,9Wood (pulp and lumber) 8,3 5,3 5,9 6,9 6,8 6,1Wine - 2,5 3,4 3,2 3,4 3,5Grapes 2,2 2,5 2,6 2,8 2,5 3,1Source: Adapted from CEPAL (2004)

The Crisis in Capture FisheriesThe Crisis in Capture Fisheries

problems in efficiency in enclosing common-pool marine resources - a ‘tragedy of the commons’

overfishing through an increase in fishing effort from the late 1960s, particularly in terms of deep sea trawling vessels (factory ships) and the gear employed

considerable state support for industrial fisheries during the 1960s-70s, via fisheries research and promotion, subsidies and encouraging inward investment

weaknesses in fisheries research and assessment of fisheries vulnerabilities and risks, especially for transboundary stocks, e.g. eastern Pacific

increased year on year instability in catchesincreased insecurity for individual operators and in terms of national

economies dependent on fisheries exports, or fish in the national diet

The Peruvian ‘spike’

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Options for Improved Fisheries ManagementOptions for Improved Fisheries Management

the need for efficient enclosure, i.e. a set of rules which promote firms’ and individuals’ proper internalisation of the changing scarcity of fish stocks

this can be done through collective management, quota systems and other mechanisms, such as gear controls, closed seasons, etc.

there must be incentives for avoiding excessive harvesting by individuals, firms and communities

Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) options and Expected trade-offs:1. Species-disaggregated ITQs are preferable to aggregated ones - more

demanding on needed knowledge about joint harvesting technology2. ITQs based on landed catch value rather than landed weight - possible loss of

control over harvest composition, provoking undesired species specialisation

3. On-board monitoring - cost-intensive4. Gear selectivity regulations - undesired technological rigidities5. Promotion of flexibility in ITQ-trading options, e.g.: banking of ITQs between

years; ITQ trading between species; allowing for unfilled quotas to be exchanged for overcaught species quotas; allowing for a percentage of landed over-ITQ-catch to be recorded against other fisher’s unfilled ITQ - greater flexibility increases the cost of monitoring ITQ trading

Aquaculture Intensification

Growth in Aquaculture in New Zealand and Australia (FAO data)

Chilean Salmon Aquaculture

1970s Chilean fisheries model: increased access, intensity of capture fisheries (Schuurman, 1996)

1980s Chilean fisheries crisis: falling catches, overcapacityShift to aquaculture early 1980s (JICA, Chile Foundation)

• Appropriate conditions: good water quality/temperature; sheltered sites; seasonal advantages; fish meal inputs

Intensification of production into 1990s: • Increased international investment• Development of markets (fresh to USA, frozen to East Asia)

• PRODUCTION 26.000 tonnes (1990) to 271.000 tonnes (2000)• EXPORTS 24.000 tonnes (1990) to 206.000 tonnes (2000)• Exports of salmon/trout by value in total fisheries exports, from 14% in 1991 to 52% in 2000

Has provided employment opportunities in marginal, low income areas:• Fisheries• Processing• Multiplier activities

Production Site

Aquaculture Concentration, Chile

ture Concentration, New Zealand

Impacts

Reducing the Impacts

ENVIRONMENTALIntensity of productionFragile marine environment(water column, benthic layer from

feed/antibiotics)

Impacts on wild fish(genetics, diseases)

Impacts on seals and sea lionsImpacts on landscape and

tourism

CONFLICTSPoor regulation and

implementationFarmers versus

environmentalistsFarmers and local people (theft)Concessions and

authorisationsSustainability versus rent

seeking

Production by species, volume (Chile)

Species 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001Peruvian anchovy 7,969 1,463,446 1,687,354 1,287,303 2,086,468 522,742 852,789Araucanian herring 18,557 22,942 159,650 452,012 126,715 317,564 324,617g qAtlantic salmon . . 1,860 23,715 54,250 107,066 253,607Chilean jack mackerel 865,272 1,184,317 2,390,117 3,212,060 4,404,193 1,612,912 1,649,933Chub mackerel 9,280 1,584 39,328 72,364 110,210 71,769 365,031, , , , , , ,Coho salmon 94 1,144 6,974 22,182 44,037 76,954 136,815Gracilaria seaweeds 106,282 69,862 76,758 54,393 117,619 72,987 117,969Patagonian grenadier 22,436 37,081 227,393 214,324 206,734 353,823 160,774Rainbow trout . . 925 13,898 40,089 71,073 109,142South Pacific hake 25,294 29,715 46,881 62,644 75,403 80,151 121,200

Production by species, volume (NZ)

Species 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001Blue grenadier 14,000 26,000 72,318 143,394 152,161 267,616 223,703Jack and horse mackerel 2,607 10,000 18,388 25,087 31,919 36,059 28,507New Zealand mussel 7,550 15,636 24,015 46,500 62,519 75,000 64,000Orange roughy 41,759 44,609 51,538 36,568 33,077 21,485 14,044Oreo dories nei 16,146 14,456 17,240 19,544 21,833 21,095 24,165Pink cusk-eel 2,712 2,900 6,464 16,115 18,396 22,215 18,620Snoek 13,500 10,800 12,497 16,197 18,428 25,972 25,222Southern blue whiting 4,635 1,546 15,459 35,906 11,357 35,059 29,789Southern hake 215 236 3,746 5,189 9,707 15,047 12,956Wellington flying squid 1,421 1,000 7,622 44,376 59,497 42,541 35,100

Fish: fresh, chilled or frozen, and crustaceans and molluscs (US$ ‘000/mt) (based on FAO data)

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

CHILE 3.56.5

3.58.8

2.87.2

3.38.2

2.38.3

NZ 2.22.7

2.43.1

1.92.7

2.13.8

2.12.8

Exports of NZ Seafood, 1994-2002 ($US ‘000) Source: FAO

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Fish: fresh, chilled, frozen

419.219 485.328 416.157 399.904 422.967

Fish: canned 18.359 15.604 14.412 17.592 18.514

Crustaceans and molluscs

28.025 32.896 175.268 179.737 211.006

Crustaceans and molluscs: canned

28.025 32.896 27.287 37.744 32.090

Fishmeal 6.425 16.640 22.184 21.991 19.663

Exports of Chilean Seafood, 1994-2002 ($US ‘000) Source: FAO

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Fish: fresh, chilled, frozen

571.465 736.201 920.664 1.190.134 1.187.785

Fish: canned 50.248 72.934 88.729 98.148 81.076

Crustaceans and molluscs

94.658 108.328 117.861 103.935 112.019

Crustaceans and molluscs: canned

71.166 81.818 85.987 111.336 102.968

Fishmeal 454.130 612.606 348.822 235.197 319.887

Chilean Salmonid Exports, by market (US$ mill.) Source: Salmon Chile

1992 1995 1998 2001 2003

Japan 162 295 337 436 427

U.S.A. 74 136 270 364 544

E.U. 24 35 45 77 58

TOTAL 26550t

48998t

714182t

964300t

1.147286t

Destination of Fish and Shellfish Exports (%), NZ, 1994-2001 (OECD data)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Japan 30.48 30.22 30.93 27.27 21.85 22.0 22.6 20.3

U.S.A 23.72 21.63 19.20 18.94 17.87 20.8 18.7 16.5

Aust. 9.63 9.74 10.40 11.75 11.94 12.3 12.5 13.7

H.K. 6.06 6.86 8.06 8.45 8.05 14.6 12.2 12.6

Regulations

CHILE• Strong fin fish aquaculture export promotion• Adequate regulations• Weak regulatory apparatus• General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture, 1991, with modifications 2002• Unsuccessful application of QMS• Concerns re. sustainability of salmon aquaculture and management of capture resources

NEW ZEALAND• Strong capture fish and shellfish export promotion• Strict regulations• Effective regulatory apparatus• Fisheries Act 1996 (Fisheries Claims Settlement Act, 1992)• Effective application of QMS• Promotion of marine stewardship (1996 Act: “to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”)

Competing or Co-operating?

1. Little or no direct competition due to species diversity

2. Regulatory weaknesses in Chile3. Promotion of aquaculture: mussels in NZ and

salmon in Chile4. Little investment across sectors, apart from Sealord5. Little commodity chain integration apart from fish

meal imports by New Zealand6. Few obstacles to increasing shares in international

markets in respective products7. Major area of potential co-operation in protecting

southern pacific species