U.S. SEAFOOD EXPORTS UP DURING JANUARY-AUGUST 2004

U.S. exports of seafood products were valued at nearly $2.35 billion during the eight months of 2004, up 15 percent, or $302.5 million, compared with the same period last year. Higher exports of other fishery products (up $92.2 million), pollock (up $62.6 million), cod (up $49.2 million), salmon (up $34.8 million), canned salmon (up $27.2 million), sole (up $22 million), and squid (up $19.3 million) were the major reasons for the strong overall performance to date. However, categories with decreased exports included surimi (down $36 million), shrimp (down $20.8 million), tuna (down $7 million), lobster (down $5 million), and trout (down $3 million) during the same period.

Japan remained the top market for U.S. seafood products with exports valued at $737 million during January-August 2004, followed by the European Union at $478.7 million, Canada at $383 million, and China at $195 million. Exports to other markets such as the Russian Federation, Norway, Thailand, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines, Ukraine, and Venezuela also increased. By contrast, exports to South Korea, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Bulgaria declined during January-August 2004.

THE LIFTING OF U.S. SANCTIONS MAY CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR U.S. SEAFOOD PRODUCTS

On September 20, the United States lifted its economic sanctions against Libya, allowing Libya to become eligible for USDA export promotion, export credit guarantees, and other export assistance programs.  Over the last three years, Libya’s imports of seafood products have more than quadrupled, growing from $7.8 million in 2001 to $36.1 million in 2003.  In 2003, Thailand was the largest supplier, with 63 percent of the market share; followed by Spain, with 23 percent; and Italy, with 6 percent.  Libya’s primary seafood import was tuna, valued at $32.3 million in 2003.  Salmon, mackerel, sardines, and other frozen fish comprised the remaining imported products.  With the lifting of U.S. sanctions, this market of five million consumers may provide opportunities for U.S. seafood exporters.

U.S. SURIMI EXPORTS CONTINUE UPWARD TREND IN EU-25

During the first half of 2004, exports to the European Union (EU) of U.S. surimi increased 53 percent by volume, to 12,219 metric tons (MT), and 35 percent by value, to $19.2 million, compared with exports during January-June 2003. The twelve-month exports for calendar year 2003 totaled 19,893 MT valued at $33.8 million.

The strong exports reflect the growth in production of analogue seafood products manufactured in the EU and the popularity of convenience foods, including surimi sticks, shredded and sliced surimi, and other portioned products. Value-added surimi products come in a variety of flavors such as crab, lobster, scallop and others.

In recent years, production of analogue seafood products has grown in France and developed in Lithuania and Estonia, which acceded (with eight other nations) to the EU in May 2004. Although the post accession tariff on third-country imports of surimi has increased in Lithuania from 5 percent to 7.5 percent (EU rate), Lithuania's demand for high quality U.S. surimi is expected to remain strong. The tariff in Estonia has fallen to 7.5 percent from 12 percent.

As shown in the graph below, for the January-June period, U.S. surimi exports have trended up in France, Lithuania and Estonia. The larger regional market and growing EU competition in the manufacture of surimi products are positive signs for continued growth of U.S. surimi exports.

For more information, contact Joel Chetrick at (202) 720-3248.

U.S. SEAFOOD EXPORTS UP FOR THE FIRST HALF OF 2004

U.S. exports of seafood products were valued at $1.59 billion during the first sixth months of 2004, up 14 percent, or $201 million, compared with the same period in last year, and June 2004 exports were 18 percent above June 2003 exports. The fastest growing categories included other products (up $50.4 million), cod (up $47.7 million), pollock (up $37.4 million), sole (up $24.2 million), salmon (up $19.4 million), squid (up $17.1 million), canned salmon (up $15 million), crab (up $11.5 million), and scallops (up $9 million). However, exports of surimi fell 19 percent to $23 million during January-June 2004. Other major categories with decreased exports included shrimp (down $19.2 million), sardine (down $4.8 million), sablefish (down $4.7 million), trout (down $3.1 million), and halibut (down $2.6 million).

Japan was the largest U.S. export market for seafood products, purchasing $477.6 million during the first half of 2004, up 10.5 percent from the same period in 2003. This was mainly due to higher exports of sole (up $18.4 million), salmon (up $13.3 million), pollock (up $12.5 million), and other fishery products (up $4.7 million) to Japan. Meanwhile, the European Union increased its imports by 39 percent, to $317 million due to higher exports to Germany, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Lithuania, and Portugal. Despite a-75 percent reduction in salmon exports to China, total seafood exports were up 55 percent, to $134 million during January-June 2004. Exports to other markets such as, Canada, Norway, Thailand, Australia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Nigeria, Australia, Hong Kong, and Venezuela also increased. However, exports to South Korea, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, and Brazil decreased during the same period.

Anchorage, Alaska was still the leading U.S. export port in terms of value, followed by Seattle, Washington; New York, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; and Los Angeles, California.

BULGARIAN FISH IMPORTS UPWARD

Consumption of fish in Bulgaria has expanded rapidly in the last three years to a record high in 2003. The volume of U.S. fishery product exports to Bulgaria in 2003 increased by 170 percent above the 2002 level. U.S. exports, valued at $3.5 million, were comprised mainly of frozen mackerel. There are promising opportunities for seafood sales in Bulgaria's hotel, restaurant and institutional sector as well as the retail sector, due to g rowing local demand and a dynamically developing tourism industry.

For more information see the 2004 Bulgaria Report, Gain Report BU4001.

EURPOEAN SEAFOOD EXPOSITION GETS HIGH MARKS FROM U.S. SEAFOOD EXHIBITORS

The 2004 European Seafood Exposition (ESE, May 4-6 in Brussels, Belgium) was reported to be the largest and most active show since ESE’s inception in 1993, and U.S. seafood suppliers benefited through strong at-show sales and new business contacts.  The exhibitors in the U.S. pavilion were very pleased with the show’s trade participation.  Rating on a scale of 1-10 – with 10 being “excellent”, 5 “satisfactory”, and 1 “poor” – ninety-seven percent of these exhibitors rated the quality of ESE visitors between 7 and 10 (good and excellent).  

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service staff in Brussels reported that more than 30 seafood suppliers exhibited product in the U.S. pavilion and their sales during the show exceeded $55 million, double the sales achieved during the 2003 ESE.  Popular product offerings included wild salmon and salmon roe, king crab, cod, pollock, various flatfish, live lobsters and lobster meat, mackerel, catfish fillets, cooked peeled shrimp, scallops, squid, frozen oysters, and octopus.

Indications are that 2004 will be another strong year for U.S. fishery product exports to the European Union.  From January-April this year, exports to the EU were valued at $215.9 million, an increase of 37 percent from the same period in 2003.  

For more information contact Joel Chetrick at (202) 720-3248.

U.S. SEAFOOD EXPORTS UP IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2004 

U.S. exports of seafood products were valued at $945 million in the first quarter of 2004, up 22 percent, or about $168 million, compared with the same period last year. There were increased exports of pollock (up $77.1 million), cod (up $19.3 million), squid (up $12.1 million), sole (up $11.4 million), crab (up $10.3 million), canned salmon (up $8.5 million), lobster (up $5.6 million), and sablefish (up $5.4 million). However, exports of surimi fell 16 percent to $94.4 million in January-March 2004. Other major categories with decreased exports included shrimp (down $15.8 million), sardine (down $5.5 million), and tilapia (down $1.2 million). 

Japan remains the largest U.S. market for seafood products, purchasing approximately $300 million during the first quarter of 2004, up 25 percent from the same period in 2003. This increase was driven by rising exports of Pollock (47 percent) and sole (125 percent) to Japan. Meanwhile, the European Union increased its imports by 41 percent, to $161.3 million. Despite a 91 percent reduction in salmon exports to China, total seafood exports were up 89 percent, to $71 million. Exports to other markets such as, Canada, Norway, the Philippines, Kuwait, Lithuania, Denmark, and Nigeria also increased. However, exports to Korea, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Bulgaria decreased during the first quarter of 2004.

U.S. SCALLOP EXPORTS HIT RECORD LEVEL IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

U.S. scallop sales to the European Union (EU) reached a record level again in 2003. The past ten years have seen a remarkable 50-fold volume increase in exports to the EU, with scallop sales growing from a low of 55 metric tons (MT) in 1993 to 2,746 MT in 2003. Export values increased from less than one million dollars to over $25 million during the period. A major factor behind the sales growth was the increased availability of U.S. scallops beginning in the late 1990s, due to the implementation of successful fishing management measures in the U.S. waters of the Northwest Atlantic.

In 1999, sea scallop landings rebounded to 9,989 MT, from a low point that decade of 5,500 MT in 1998. The success of the scallop fishery's management is evident from the annual fishing statistics (source URL cited below), as landings have continued to grow in recent years - reaching 14,589 MT in 2000, 21,178 MT in 2001, and 23,892 MT in 2002.

The largest EU market for scallops is France, with 2003 U.S. scallop exports of 1,660 MT valued at about $14.2 million. Scallop sales to France accounted for 60 percent of the total U.S. export volume to the region. Other large and growing EU markets included Belgium (with exports valued at $3.3 million), the Netherlands ($2.8 million), the UK ($2.7 million), and Spain (nearly $1 million).

In terms of product formats, frozen scallops - at 51 percent of the total sales volume - comprised the largest share of U.S. scallop exports to the EU. Fresh scallops and prepared/preserved scallops accounted for 30 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

In recent years, U.S. scallops have been price-competitive in Europe and U.S. scallop exporters have been encouraged in recent months by the appreciation of the Euro vs. the U.S. dollar, which will add to the price competitiveness of U.S. product. European trade awareness and acceptance of U.S. scallop product quality continue to grow and the outlook for export gains is very positive for 2004.

* Source: National Marine Fisheries Service: Annual Commercial Landings by Species - key words are scallop and sea scallop -- http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html

For more information, contact Joel Chetrick at (202) 720-3248.

NORWAY FISHERY PRODUCTS ANNUAL 2003

According to the Norwegian Seafood Export Council, Norway's exports of seafood amounted to $3.6 billion (NOK 28.7 billion) in 2002. About 38 percent of the exported fish were salmon and trout, while white fish accounted for 28 percent of exports and pelagic fish for 22 percent. Japan was the largest single country market for Norwegian seafood exports. Currently, fish is Norway's second largest export product, after gas and oil.

Overall salmon exports in volume increased in 2002, and reached 361,000 metric tons (product weight) for a value of $1.18 billion (NOK 9.5 billion). This is the highest-ever volume of salmon exported from Norway. While export volume was up by 6.6 percent, value dropped by 5 percent. Of the total of 361,000 metric tons (MT) of salmon exported from Norway in 2002, 276,000 MT (76.5 percent) was fresh whole salmon. The EU market accounted for 78 percent of Norway's fresh whole salmon exports.

Norway's total catch of wild fish in 2002, amounted to about $1.4 billion (NOK 11 billion) in dockside value, down slightly from 2001. However, in volume the catch totaled 2.7 million metric tons (MMT), which was 1 MMT higher than in 2001. The trend of a lower catch of groundfish and increased catch of pelagic fish continued in 2002. Several important fish stocks still need protection and strong regulatory measures to come within biologically safe limits. The demersal stock is, in general, in a worse state than the pelagic stock. Catches of cod, haddock and saithe in 2002 totaled 482,000 MT, an increase of 13 percent from the previous year, mainly due to an increased catch of saithe.

After a decrease for the first time in 10 years (which occurred in 2001), production of farmed salmon increased in 2002 by 8 percent and totaled 444,000 MT. Production in 2003 is expected to be about the same or slightly less, due to lower world market prices. According to Norwegian calculations, Norway accounts for about 42 percent of total world sales of Atlantic salmon. However, Norwegian production could easily be doubled if the demand were larger. Currently, Norwegian production is regulated by a feeding quota implemented by Norway to satisfy the European Union in its effort to stabilize production prices in its internal market. The feeding quota, implemented by Norway in 1996 to resolve a dispute with the EU over salmon export volumes, will continue in 2003 and 2004, but it will be abolished beginning January 1, 2005. Norway's agreement with the EU regarding minimum export prices (for sales of Norwegian salmon to EU member states) was discontinued in June 2003.

For more information see the 2003 Norway Fishery Annual Report, Gain Report NO3003.

U.S. SEAFOOD EXPORTS UP IN 2003 

U.S. exports of seafood products in 2003 were valued at $3.15 billion, an increase of about $108 million (3.6 percent) compared with 2002.  There were increased exports of salmon (up $33 million), sablefish (up $21 million), tuna (up $16 million), scallops (up $16 million), other fishery products (up $16 million), lobster (up $15 million), crab (up $12 million), mackerel (up $12 million), canned salmon (up $10 million), and whiting/hake (up $8 million).  However, exports of squid fell sharply 40 percent to $36.6 million in 2003.  Other major categories with decreased exports included surimi (down $31million), pollock (down $15 million), monkfish (down $5.7 million), sea urchin (down $3.9 million), mullet (down $2.9 million), clam (down $2.3 million), cod (down $1.7 million), and shark (down $1.2 million).

Japan

Japan continues to be the largest export destination for U.S. seafood in 2003, although exports to Japan declined by 10 percent to, $961 million. This was mainly due to decreased exports of pollock (down 30 percent, to $145 million), surimi (down 16 percent, to $173 million), other fishery products (down 23 percent, to $93 million), and cod (down 26 percent, to $57 million).  However, there were significantly increased exports of sablefish (up 41 percent, to $61 million), crab (up 10 percent, to $53 million), and sardine (up 37 percent, to $25 million). 

Canada

U.S. seafood exports to Canada amounted to $634 million in 2003, an increase of $32 million (5 percent) compared with 2002.  The increase was mainly in sales of salmon products (up $27 million).

European Union

U.S. seafood exports to the European Union (EU) in 2003 were up almost 2 percent, reaching $582 million. The increase was achieved through sharp rises in exports of other fishery products (up $20.2 million), cod (up $15.2 million), lobster (up $11.4 million), scallops (up $6.7 million), tuna (up $5.3 million), and monkfish (up $3.6 million).  However, sales of all salmon, pollock, squid, and whiting/hake were down in values.

 Korea

U.S. seafood exports to Korea rose from $297 million in 2002 to $385 million in 2003, a 29-percent increase.  The increase was largely attributable to the growth in pollock exports (up $78 million).  Other major categories with increases included salmon (up $5 million), other fishery products (up $5 million), and whiting/hake (up $3 million).  

China

Despite a-41 percent reduction in squid exports to China, total seafood exports were up 30 percent to $181million in 2003.  Higher other fishery products (up $12 million), cod (up $9.8 million), pollock (up $7.8 million), sole (up $7.5 million), and crab (up $5.7 million) exports resulted in China ranking as the US’s fourth largest market. 

Others

Although Japan, Canada, and the EU continue to represent the largest markets for U.S. seafood exports, the fastest growing export markets are in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.  Some of these markets included: Mexico (up $13 million), Kuwait (up $13 million), Thailand (up $8 million), Lithuania (up $7 million), Ecuador (up $4 million), and Nigeria (up $3 million).   Meanwhile, U.S. seafood exports decreased notably in the Philippines (down 26 percent), the Dominican Republic (down 15 percent), and the Russian Federation (down 3 percent).

Anchorage, Alaska was the leading export port with $1.3 billion, followed by Seattle, Washington with $794 million; Portland, Maine with $205 million New York, New York with $203 million; and Los Angeles, California with $102 million.

U.S. SEAFOOD EXPORTS TO KUWAIT INCREASING RAPIDLY

The major fishery product exports to Kuwait from the United States in 2003 were lobster, catfish, and tuna. Overall, catfish exports to Kuwait are rapidly increasing. In October 2003 alone, 85,000 pounds of frozen catfish fillets were shipped to Kuwait. From 2002 to 2003, U.S. seafood exports to Kuwait increased over 2000 percent. A large part of the reason for this rapid increase may be because of a U.S. Representative of Mississippi and his wife. They began a seafood drive by collecting gulf shrimp to feed the 890th National Guard Unit. Additionally, one thousand pounds of U.S. farm-raised frozen catfish fillets were donated, raising the over all exports to Kuwait.

EUROPEAN UNION FISHERY MANAGEMENT KEY DEVELOPMENTS

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN 2004 

In November 2003, Fisheries Commissioner Fischler presented the European Commission’s analysis of the latest scientific advice delivered by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF).  According to scientists, cod, whiting and southern hake stocks are in such an alarming condition that an outright ban should be imposed.  ICES advised a moratorium on fisheries of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, Eastern Channel, Irish Sea and West of Scotland, and on whiting in the Irish Sea.  In the case of hake from Ireland down to Portugal, ICES recommended rebuilding plans and zero catch for southern hake.  Rebuilding plans were also advised for plaice in the North Sea, cod and plaice in the Celtic Sea, and sole in the western Channel and Bay of Biscay. 

On a positive note, North Sea haddock stocks are at the highest level in thirty years and stocks of mackerel and saithe are also in good condition. 

Commissioner Fischler concluded that fisheries management by Total Allowable Catches (TACs) alone is not sufficiently effective in controlling the rate of exploitation in mixed demersal fisheries.  Fishing effort has to be controlled to reduce fishing mortality and to rebuild endangered stocks. 

OUTCOME OF THE DECEMBER 2003 FISHERIES COUNCIL 

Important decisions on fisheries management are made each year at the December Fisheries Council.  Like last year, the Council had to negotiate fishing quotas against a background of scientists’ advise that fishing for cod and other endangered species should be suspended completely.  An annually repeating ritual is that of fishermen rejecting the scientists’ advice, saying that they are exaggerating the critical condition of certain fish stocks, while scientists argue that fishermen are threatening their own livelihoods by ignoring scientific advice on endangered stocks.  In addition to setting fishing possibilities for 2004, the Fisheries Council had to decide on the establishment of recovery plans for cod and Northern hake stocks. 

The Fisheries Ministers agreed on the 2004 fishing quotas, a long-term recovery plan for cod, and the basic principles for a recovery plan for sole, southern hake and lobster.  They also reached political agreement on a recovery plan for northern hake. 

Total Allowable Catches (TACs) 

As an alternative to ICES’ recommended moratorium on fisheries of endangered stocks, the Commission proposed drastic cuts in fishing possibilities for a number of stocks as well as fishing effort limitations and control measures to ensure their proper implementation.  The stocks concerned include certain cod fisheries, northern and southern hake, sole in the Western Channel and the Bay of Biscay, and lobster off the Iberian Peninsula.  The Commission’s strategy to link the adoption of long-term measures to less severe TACs resulted in the adoption of a long-term plan for cod and northern hake and the agreement that recovery plans for sole, southern hake and Norway lobster stocks should be adopted as early as possible in 2004. 

Council Regulation 2287/2003 (Official Journal L 344 – December 31, 2003) fixes for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required.  Annex I to this regulation lists the fishing opportunities applicable for community vessels in areas where catch limitations exist and for vessels from third countries in community waters, by species and by area:  Annex IA Baltic Sea; Annex IB Skaggerak, Kattegat, North Sea and western community waters; Annex IC North East Atlantic and Greenland; Annex ID North West Atlantic; Annex IE Highly Migratory Fish (all areas), Annex IF Antarctic. 

Council Regulation 2287/2003 can be downloaded from the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_344/l_34420031231en00010119.pdf

Effort Limitations 

The Fisheries Council also decided to retain and extend the temporary measures imposed last year to protect certain cod stocks until the entering into force of the recovery plan.  The final text of the cod recovery plan still needs to be adopted by the Council and will enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the EU's Official Journal.  The temporary emergency measures, which already applied in the Skagerrak, Kattegat, the North Sea and west of Scotland, will now also include the eastern Channel and the Irish Sea.  The number of days that vessels can spend in these areas will be limited proportional to the fishing gear they are using, and reinforced inspection and control measures should prevent overshooting of quotas.  These measures will become applicable from February 1, 2004.

The table below shows the fishing effort limitations for cod, defined according to fishing gear and fishing area. (Annex V to Council Regulation 2287/2003) 

Allocation of days at sea per month	Fishing Gears
Areas	A	B	C	D	E	F
Kattegat, North Sea and Skaggerak West of Scotland, Eastern Channel, Irish Sea	10	14	14	17	22	20

A = demersal trawls, seines or similar towed gears of mesh size equal to or greater than 100 mm except for beam trawls;
B = beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm;
C = static demersal nets including gill nets, trammel nets and tangle nets;
D = demersal long lines;
E = demersal trawls, seines or similar towed gears of mesh size between 70 mm and 99 mm except beam trawls with mesh size between 80 mm and 99 mm;
F = demersal trawls, seines or similar towed gears of mesh size between 16 mm and 31 mm except beam trawls. 

A specific fishing effort management regime has also been established for vessels fishing sandeel in the North Sea and Skaggerak (Annex VI to Reg. 2287/2003).  Although haddock stocks are at a thirty-year high, special conditions for fishing haddock in the North Sea have been set up to minimize the by-catches of cod. 

Long-term Recovery Plans for Endangered Stocks 

Short-term decisions had been identified in the Commission’s 2001 Green Paper as inadequate to protect a number of fish stocks in need of recovery measures.  Under the 2002 CFP reform, it was agreed to apply a precautionary multi-annual approach to fisheries management. 

The Fisheries Council finally adopted a long-term recovery plan for cod, proposed by Commission in May 2003 (see GAIN report E23072).  Political agreement was also reached, pending the opinion of the European Parliament, on a recovery plan for northern hake proposed by the Commission in June 2003 (see GAIN report E23133).  The recovery plans for cod and northern hake were initially included in one single proposal, presented two years ago. 

The Council has asked the Commission to propose recovery measures for sole in the western Channel and Bay of Biscay, and for southern hake and Norway lobster in the Cantabrian Sea and western Iberian waters, to be adopted as early as possible in 2004.  Proposals will also be tabled to incorporate protection measures for cod and plaice in the Celtic Sea, whiting in the Irish Sea, and plaice in the North Sea, identified as being in danger of collapse, in existing recovery plans. 

The proposal for recovery measures for sole in the western Channel and Bay of Biscay can be downloaded from the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0819en01.pdf and for southern hake and Norway lobster in the Cantabrian Sea and western Iberian waters at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0818en01.pdf

Guide Prices 

Council Regulation 2326/2003 fixes for the fishing year 2004 the guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products.  The guide prices are set annually according to the average prices registered over the previous three years in representative ports.  Market intervention mechanisms are activated when the prices of these products fall below a certain level.  Intervention measures include financial aid for withdrawing unsold products from the market and storing them until the market has improved or processing them.

* Council Regulation 2326/2003 can be downloaded from the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_345/l_34520031231en00270029.pdf

For more information see the European Union Fishery Products Annual Report – EU Policy & Statistics 2004, Gain Report E24009.

UNITED KINGDOM FISHERY PRODUCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2003

The United Kingdom (UK) is a net importer of fishery products and the declining wild catch means that the UK has become increasingly reliant on imports to meet demand, particularly of whitefish.  In 2002, the UK imported 615,897 metric tons (MT) of fishery products.  Overall, seafood imports increased by 2 percent in 2002, to approximately 565,000 MT, spurred by rising imports of fresh and prepared/preserved seafood. 

Although UK imports are comprised of an increasingly diverse range of species, cod and haddock are the two leading import products.  In 2002, they accounted for nearly one-third of seafood imports.  The UK’s demand for whitefish is evident in reviewing the UK’s key trading partners. Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Russia (large suppliers of whitefish) stand out among the UK’s top ten suppliers of edible fishery products.  The UK will continue to rely on imports to meet demand for fishery products, given the limited supplies from the domestic wild catch.  

Imports from the U.S. totaled 33,632 MT in 2002.  Although this represents a marginal decline on 2001 volumes, the U.S. market share has increased significantly in recent years and U.S. seafood currently accounts for approximately 6 percent of all seafood imports.  Continued strong demand for canned salmon and rising shipments of Alaska pollock have strengthened the U.S. position. 

In-home consumption of fishery products (63 percent of total fishery product consumption) has grown in recent years, in both volume and value, after static consumption during the 1990s.  Sector value and volume have increased by 13 percent and 5 percent, respectively, over the last two years.  This growth is expected to continue, with convenience and health as the driving factors.  The UK has the largest ready meals market in Europe.  Also, a series of food scares (BSE, Salmonella, E. coli) has focused health as a priority among British consumers.  

These two factors have combined to boost the rising star of the fishery products sector, value-added seafood.  Although it accounts for a relatively small proportion of household consumption (13 percent by value and 10 percent by volume), the value-added category recorded 34 percent value growth and 21 percent value growth from 2000-2002.  [See table below.]  The category is comprised of various products, including fish-based ready meals, fish-in-sauce, pies and bakes (pastry-covered portions).  

Retail Sector: Household Purchases in the UK by Product Type  

VALUE	2000	2001	2002
	$ millions	$ millions	$ millions
Fresh/chilled	1026.1	1156.4	1198.0
Value-added	221.3	266.8	298.2
Frozen	1074.4	1093.2	1137.2
Total	2321.8	2516.4	2633.4
VOLUME	2000	2001	2002
	Thousands MT	Thousands MT	Thousands MT
Fresh/chilled	99.4	102.7	103.0
Value-added	23.1	26.2	28.0
Frozen	141.9	145.3	146.3
Total	264.4	274.2	277.3
Source:  Sea Fish Industry Authority

An ever-increasing range of ethnic and international fish dishes (such as Chinese, Thai and Indian dishes) has joined these category standards.   The growing range of value-added products now encompasses a number of non-traditional fish in the UK.  Although salmon remains the major species used in value-added seafood, it experienced low volume growth of 3 percent between 2000 and 2002.  As a result, the salmon sector share declined from 31 percent to 26 percent.  In contrast, other species, including tuna and trout, grew impressively in terms of volume and value.  Also, value-added meal solutions increasingly feature shellfish, with a sector share approaching 20 percent.  Although species such as lobster and scallops achieved triple digit growth over the last two years (albeit from a low base), prawns and shrimp are the most popular species for shellfish-based ready meals.  Between 2000 and 2002, volume and value of ready meals featuring prawns and shrimp increased by 43 percent and 45 percent, respectively.  

The growth of frozen fish sales has been modest compared with value-added products in the retail sector.  However, between 2000 and 2002, frozen fish sales volume and value increased by three percent and six percent, respectively.  In addition, frozen fish accounts for over half of all purchases of seafood products by volume.  As seafood marketers worked to shake off the commodity status associated with this category, new product development, a focus on better product quality, and advertising support were key factors in the improved sales performance of frozen fish.   

Coated fish products (battered/breaded fish and products) account for just over half of the value-added market, and they have benefited from the development of microwaveable products.  Such products traditionally use cod and haddock, but there has been a shift toward products that use more abundant fish stocks (including Alaska Pollock and New Zealand hoki).  A significant number of frozen product formats, such as multi-packs, are targeted at families with children.  

The fresh/chilled sector overtook frozen seafood sales in value terms during the last two years.  The sales value for this category increased by nearly 17 percent (from 2000-2002), with the retail value now estimated at $1.2 billion.  In addition to the driving factors of health and convenience, research also suggests that some consumers are now more comfortable with cooking and handling fish.  In general, UK consumers are traditionally conservative and most have been slow to try different seafood products, particularly non-traditional fish species, despite increasing availability in the market.   

However, while salmon, cod and haddock account for 64 percent of fresh fish sales (by value), use of certain non-traditional species, such as swordfish, sea bass and tuna, has been growing.  Consumers’ exposure to new products and species through media and travel, plus an increased awareness of how to prepare non-traditional species were key factors of this growth.  

For more information see the 2003 United Kingdom Fishery Products Annual Report, Gain Report UK3034.

GERMANY FISHERY PRODUCTS ANNUAL 2003 

Germany is the fourth largest fish processor in the European Union (EU), followed by the UK, France, and Spain.  However, 79 percent of its raw fish for processing is obtained through imports and only 21 percent is sourced domestically.  The production value of fish and fishery products at factory level was $1.815 billion (Euro 1.582 billion) in 2002, and production volume totaled 441,150 metric tons (product weight).  

Fish preparations, such as canned fish, baked fillets or fish sticks, make up the majority of production, followed by frozen and salted fish.  Most of the groundfish products (made of pollock, cod or other white fish) in Germany are manufactured from imported fillets, which are further processed into smaller pieces or convenience foods and repackaged.  Fresh fish production is the smallest segment of the total fishery product output in Germany (about two percent) and it is expected be less significant in the future. 

Germany is the largest net importer of fish and fishery products in the EU.  German imports of fish and fishery products in 2002 totaled 787,544 metric tons (product weight), valued at $2.77 billion (Euro 2.41 billion). 

The United States supplied 60,439 metric tons (MT) of fish and fishery products in 2002, valued at $170 million (Euro 148 million). Imports from the United States comprised about eight percent of the German import market.  Frozen Alaska pollock fillets, frozen Pacific salmon, live lobsters, and caviar substitutes are the most successful U.S. fishery products on the German market.   

The United States was the largest supplier of frozen Alaska pollock fillets to Germany in 2002.  This was partly due to the fact that China, a major competitor (and largest supplier in recent years), faced import restrictions for much of the year because of deficiencies in its residue monitoring system.  The restrictions were lifted later in 2002, which resulted in a resumption of imports from China.  During the first half of 2003, China was the largest supplier again.   

However, prospects for U.S. exports of Alaska pollock fillets remain good, as German importers value the sustainable resource and stable supply available from the United States.  German consumers’ favorite fish are Alaska pollock, herring and tuna, followed by Atlantic and Pacific salmon. 

In 2002, the consumption of edible fishery products in Germany totaled 1.151 MT, down 9 percent from the 2001 record level of 1.265 million MT, when the German BSE crisis (of November 2000) resulted in consumers switching from beef to alternative protein sources.  When consumers resumed beef consumption in 2002, per capita consumption of fish dropped to 14 kg, from 15.3 kg in 2001.  However, 2002 per capita fish consumption exceeded the level of 13.7 kg for 2000 (before the BSE crisis effects were apparent).  German per capita fish consumption is expected to increase to 14.5 kg in 2003, and a long-term upward trend is expected, in line with the growing demand for light meals and convenience products. 

For more information see the 2003 Germany Fishery Products Annual Report, Gain Report GM3037.

BUSINESS TIPS FOR EXPORTING TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Halibut, cod, Alaska pollack, Alaska pollack roe, and surimi are some of the fishery products that have potential in Korea. Live halibut is in high demand for its popularity as Sashimi. Cod and Alaska pollack offer a promising market for U.S. suppliers given Korea's production outlook. Alaskan pollack roe is a very popular and traditional side dish over rice at the Korean table. Frozen surimi is processed into ground fish sausage and imitation crabmeat for both local and overseas markets.

Fish importers distribute their products to all types of entities in the marketing chain: processors, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, hotels and end-users.

Consumers purchase seafood products through many different outlets. According to an industry survey conducted in April 2001, 32 percent of consumers said that they purchase seafood at the conventional or open-air markets. The following table provides a breakdown of where consumers purchase seafood in Korea.

WHERE KOREAN CONSUMERS PURCHASE SEAFOOD
April 2001

When considering the Korean market, exporters should conduct preliminary research to determine if the market is appropriate for the product.  Possible sources of market information include Korean importers, U.S. state departments of agriculture, the U.S. Agricultural Trade Office  (USATO) website and the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Lists of Korean importers, by product, can be obtained from the U.S. Agricultural Trade Office, or through the Foreign Agricultural Service in Washington, D.C.  The next step might include sending catalogues, brochures, product samples, and price lists to prospective importers as a way of introducing the company and products.   

Once contact is established, it is advisable to visit the importer(s) in person, which will increase the seller’s credibility with the Korean importer and give an opportunity to see the Korean market first hand.  In Korea, the clichés about "seeing is believing" and "one visit is worth a 1,000 faxes" are especially true.  There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings.  The supplier or exporter should bring samples as well as product and company brochures including price lists, shipping dates, available quantities, and any other information needed for negotiating a contract.  While information in English is acceptable, having it in Korean is helpful.  

Another way of finding potential importers is to participate in local food shows to showcase your products to a larger audience.  Many Korean importers attending these shows are looking to establish reliable long-term trading relationships.  Show participation enhances initial contacts with importers, agents, wholesalers, distributors, retailers and others in the food and beverage industry.

American companies should be sensitive to the uniqueness of the Korean market.  An approach or a product that was successful in another market does not mean it will be applicable to Korea.  It will be necessary to renew the product design, packaging and market approach for the Korean situation, requirements and tastes.  A well-developed relationship with a Korean importer is an asset when determining the best way to market a product.

Korea is a country of tradition.  While importers understand international business, noting the cultural nuances will facilitate building a business relationship.  The following are some of business tips U.S. suppliers should keep in mind when dealing with Korean businessmen:

1.   Obtaining Information:  To obtain information from a Korean importer, it is best to ask directly and explain why information is important.  Koreans may require more of an explanation than Americans are used to providing.  A lengthy discussion about the seller and the firm's history may be needed.  If you do not receive a successful reply, there is nothing wrong with politely asking again.  In Korea, it is often seen as a sign of seriousness to continue presenting your request.  Additionally, Koreans will rarely say, "no" directly.  Instead they will say something is "very difficult." 

2.   Initial Communications:  Koreans prefer to deal face-to-face.  As such, cold calling (or cold e-mailing) is very difficult in Korea.  When corresponding through written communication, start with words of appreciation, clearly mark the recipient’s name, title, and division (as many Koreans have the same last name), avoid using long complex sentence and slang, indicate a reasonable time frame for a response, and close with additional words of appreciation. 

3.   Relationships: Personal relationships are very important.  Koreans like to maintain long-term relationships and are often very loyal.  Developing a relationship with a potential Korean partner is vital to establishing your credibility.  If a seller has already entered this market, the established contacts can help to build trust with the new one.   

4.   Introductions: It is very helpful to have a formal introduction to the person or company with whom the seller wants to do business in Korea.  Meeting the right person in a Korean company is almost always dependent on having the right introduction.   

5.   Evening Gatherings: The office may not be the best place to discuss business matters or propose new ideas, especially when dealing with the older generation.  It is helpful to get together in the evening for a less formal, but no less important, meeting.  Korean businessmen often gather after work to see friends over drinks.  The rules of society weigh heavily on Korean behavior, and drinking is one of the few times they can be themselves.  Although Koreans are wary of people who refuse to drink or who drink moderately, foreigners are given a little more flexibility especially if you can offer an excuse of health or religion.  A useful, cultural point to note in this situation is that it is impolite to pour one's own drink.  So, if you want a drink, do not be bashful about pouring a drink for others. 

6.   Name Cards and Address:  The exchange of name cards is usually the first item of business.  In Korea people seldom call others by their first names.  Instead, they use surnames (such as Mr. Hong) or title and surname together (such as President Hong).  Never use a first name unless the person specifically asks to be called by their first name. Surnames are often written first on a Korean business card, for example Hong, Gil Dong would be referred to as Mr. Hong.  For Westerners, it is difficult to know from the given names if the contact is a man or a woman. 

7.   Meetings: Small talk is a good way to break the ice at the beginning of a meeting, and a short, orderly meeting with an agenda provided in advance will go a long way towards the completion of a successful meeting.  It is very likely that the meeting will be with a senior staff member whose English may not be very good.  At times, a junior staff member might translate but, if not, be prepared to provide all materials and/or requests in writing.  Pay attention to seating arrangement, usually the senior staff member will sit at the head of the table.  Decisions are usually made from the top down in Korea.  When making initial visits, hiring a translator can be a valuable investment.  Take time to educate the translator before hand so terms and some familiarity can be worked out. 

8.   Dress:  It is recommended to wear a business suit and tie when meeting or visiting Korean importers for the first time.   First impressions are important. 

9.   Face-to-face Communications: One idiosyncrasy of the Korean language is that Koreans say “yes” when they might mean “no” or vice versa.  For instance, in Korean, “Wouldn’t you like to go home?” if answered with a “yes” means ‘that’s right, I would not like to go home".  To avoid confusion, reply with a full sentence, “yes, I would like to go home.”  

10.  Resolving Conflicts: Koreans do not like to appear to have "lost face."  It is important to always try to give something even if you think you are in the right.  It will help the conflict resolve more quickly.  Visible anger is not useful in a confrontation.  Instead, silence is a more effective method of conveying displeasure.  Apologizing can also be useful and does not always mean you feel you were wrong.  Lastly, never direct your criticism directly at one specific person, but at an entire group. 

Finally, in the Korean market, never take anything for granted.  Be ready for the unexpected.  Just because the first container cleared customs does not mean the second one will.  Be open for new information, be attentive and be patient. 

For more information see the Korean Fishery Products Annual Report (KS3056) and the Exporter Guide Annual Report (KS3056).

U.S. MACKEREL EXPORTS ON THE RISE IN NIGERIA AND EASTERN EUROPE

Exports of mackerel from the United States increased sharply during the first six months of 2003 to Nigeria, Bulgaria, and Romania.  Exports to Nigeria totaled 9,023 metric tons (MT), and exports to Bulgaria and Romania totaled 3,715 MT and 2,846 MT, respectively.  Compared with the 2002 twelve-month exports, 2003 volumes increased by 80 percent to Nigeria, nearly 200 percent to Bulgaria, and 732 percent to Romania.  Export values for the 2003 January-June period totaled $5.5 million to Nigeria, $2.6 million to Bulgaria, and nearly $2 million to Romania.

Trade members indicated that Atlantic mackerel from suppliers in the U.S. Northeast has become well known and accepted in these markets.  With abundant local fishery stocks, Atlantic mackerel from the United States is price competitive relative to product from northern European suppliers (such as Norway, Scotland, and Ireland), whose catches have been constrained by quotas.  Due to the large size of the Nigerian and East European markets, the trade believes there is room for further sales growth and market share gains for U.S. product.  Expectations of long-term sales growth prompted new plant construction by some seafood processors in the Northeast. 

For more information, contact Joel Chetrick, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Forest and Fishery Products Division, Tel: 202-720-3248.

GLOBAL SEAFOOD TRADE LARGELY DRIVEN BY RISING AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION

Summary

International seafood trade has grown by almost 300 percent over the last two decades, from $15.2 billion in 1980 to $59.4 billion in 2001.  Beyond population, economic growth, and rising incomes, the key factors behind the rising global trade are expanding supply of variety of seafood products (particularly from aquaculture) and eco-labeling of products.

Highlights

Global seafood trade has gradually changed over the last decade. If we examine the trends, several key observations emerge concerning this trade:

• The U.S. share of world seafood exports declined from 14 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 2002 (Figure 1).  Thailand is now the world’s leading seafood exporter, likely to be overtaken by China in a few years.  

• Japan, the United States, and the European Union remain the top export markets, accounting for more than 80 percent of world total imports in 2001.  In contrast, Thailand, China, Norway, and the United States are the major exporting countries.

• In 2001, more than 50 percent of the world’s seafood exports came from developing countries.

• Exports by developing countries are gradually shifting from raw materials to value-added products.

• Global per capita seafood consumption is projected to increase from the current 16 kilograms (35 pounds) per person to 19-21 kilograms (42-46 pounds) in 2030.

• The growing seafood demand is expected to be satisfied with increased supplies from aquaculture.  Limited supplies of wild fish, increased use of new technologies, and improved marketing and distribution will be the key drivers for the demand of aquaculture products.

• Aquaculture’s contribution to global seafood supply doubled over the last decade, reaching 29 percent in 2001 (Figure 2).  Since 1970, aquaculture production worldwide has grown at an average rate of 9.2 percent per year, compared with only 1.4 percent growth for marine fisheries.

• The Asian region (particularly China) continues to dominate world aquaculture production.  Large aquaculture producing countries such as Thailand, China, Norway, and Chile have greatly increased their production and exports as well as market share of world seafood trade.  In contrast, the United States, not a large producer of farmed fish, has lost market share in recent years. 

• Shrimp are the most heavily traded products, accounting about 19 percent of the total value of global seafood trade in 2001.  Growth in the global shrimp trade has been driven by aquaculture, which contributed 30 percent of total shrimp production in 2001. Other important products include groundfish (i.e., Atlantic and Pacific cod, hake, ocean perch, pollock, and haddock), tuna, and salmon. 

Labeling 

Mislabeling is a common problem in the fisheries sector.  Fish and seafood products are often sold using any of a variety of common names, and mislabeling of species is common.  As a result, it is difficult, if not often impossible, for consumers to distinguish local from imported products, wild fish from farmed fish, or even to know exactly which species is being purchased.  Several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Japan, and non-government organizations are developing new regulations (at various stages of development) for fish and seafood products that aim to identify the country of origin and enhance food safety.   In addition, there are currently several government and private sector labeling initiatives in the fisheries sector, as outlined below. 

Government Initiatives 

Country-of-origin labels:  Traditionally, in most countries, there has been a lack of product labeling with regard to seafood origin, production procedures, and the quality of product.  Recently, legislation on country-of-origin labeling for seafood products has been introduced in the United States and Europe as a result of the increased focus on food safety for both imported and domestic fisheries products. 

Although fish and seafood origin labeling has long been required on frozen packaged products in the United States, a new mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirement is being established for wild fish, farmed-raised fish, and shellfish products.  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promulgate requirements for a mandatory country-of-origin label for seafood, meat, and produce products by September 30, 2004.  This provision targets only retailers, who are required to inform consumers at the point of purchase as to the country of origin.  In addition, the notice of country of origin for wild and farmed-raised fish must specify and distinguish between wild and farmed-raised fish.  As recently as January 1, 2003, the EU Commission issued a retail-level country-of-origin labeling requirement for seafood products.  

Dolphin-safe labels:  In the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented the “dolphin-safe” label as a way to reduce dolphin deaths due to tuna fishing.  Under the label criteria, tuna harvested in the Eastern Tropical Pacific could be labeled "dolphin safe" only if no nets were intentionally set on dolphins during the fishing trip.  Mexico and other countries in Central and South America are the most affected by the dolphin-safe law.  Although the enforcement of this law has been effective, several conservation groups have challenged the NMFS decision in court. 

Shrimp-Turtle certification: P.L. 101-162 (Section 609) prohibits the importation of shrimp products harvested in ways that are harmful to sea turtles.  To avoid trade restrictions, shrimp harvesting nations may seek to be certified by the U.S. Department of State as having programs to protect sea turtles in their shrimp trawl fisheries that are comparable to the U.S. program.  Section 609 also permits certification of nations whose shrimp fishing environments do not pose a threat to sea turtles (e.g., because their shrimp fisheries are located exclusively in cold waters where there is no likelihood of intercepting sea turtles, or because their shrimp fishermen use exclusively artisanal gear which would not drown sea turtles).  Such certifications are based in part on verification visits made to countries by teams of experts from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service).  The U.S. sea turtle conservation program requires that commercial shrimp boats use sea turtle excluder devices (TEDs) to prevent the accidental drowning of sea turtles in shrimp trawling.  Forty countries are currently certified. 

Organic labels: Although some countries permit the use of the term “organic” on raw products meeting certain standards of production, there is still no worldwide consensus on the meaning of the term “organic”.   In the United States, the National Organic Standards Board has defined the term “organic” and strict labeling rules have been implemented.  The USDA Organic seal signifies that a product is at least 95 percent organic and its use is voluntary.  This labeling requirement is similar to that required in the European Union.  

The distinction between wild and organic seafood remains vague.  Congress has recently directed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop guidelines allowing wild seafood, including Alaskan salmon, to be labeled “organic”.  In contrast, the European Union does not permit the sale of wild fish as organic (EC No. 2092/91). 

Private Initiatives 

MSC labels: The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), established in 1997 and based in England, has developed a voluntary, third party certification program for the fishing industry.  To receive MSC certification logo, a fishery must demonstrate that it is managed in a manner that is consistent with the three MSC principles. Currently, Alaska salmon, Burry Inlet Cockles, New Zealand Hoki, Loch Torridon Nephrops, South West Mackerel-Handline, Thames Blackwater herring, and Western Australian Rock Lobster are all certified and may carry the MSC logo on packaging and advertising.  

Fairtrade labels and eco-labeling: Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) issues the Fairtrade labels.  FLO, a standard setting and certification organization, has inspected and certified 300 producer organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  Different products, including fish and seafood products, have carried the fair trade labels.  Frozen or processed products such as canned tuna are among the seafood products sold with fair trade labels in Germany and the Netherlands. 

In the context of international trade, eco-labeling can be used as a tool to gain or restrict market access.  For producing countries meeting the standards set by the importing countries or importers, eco-labeling could offer opportunities to add value to products and expand/maintain market shares.  Alternatively, those countries unable to compete will seek out other markets with less stringent standards.  Therefore, mandatory eco-labeling schemes will tend to segment world seafood markets. 

Eco-labeling has been a topic of discussion at recent multilateral WTO meetings.  Many countries including the United States have stated that eco-labeling should be voluntary, non-discriminatory, and transparent.  Also, the United States and other countries believe that private eco-labeling could be used as a trade weapon if not based on scientific and objective criteria.  The official U.S. position is that WTO rules, principally the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, provide sufficient flexibility to permit all forms of eco-labeling, including those involving criteria based on processes and production methods and those developed and maintained by private bodies, subject to the relevant disciplines of the multilateral trading system, including transparency and non-discrimination.  Many countries have requested that FAO develop voluntary technical guidelines to be consistent with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (COFI). 

Table 1: Seafood Export Trade Flow by Region, 3-Year Export Average, 1999-2001 (Percentage).

 

Note:  
Leading country/region combinations are highlighted in ‘BOLD’ above:
For example, for North America (USA and Canada), which represents 19.1 percent of the global seafood trade, the intra-North America trade is still the most important part of its total seafood trade (44.6 percent), followed by other developed countries (Japan, Israel, and South Africa) with 25.8 percent, the European Union with 12.7 percent, and others with 16.9 percent.

Source: FAO

For more information, contact Souleymane Diaby at (202) 205-7763.

U.S. SQUID EXPORTS SHARPLY DOWN IN 2003

Squid exports, an important component of U.S seafood trade, increased from $25.5 million in 1990 to $91.3 million in 1997, a-258 percent increase during the period.  Exports plummeted to $28.4 million in 1998 as the California squid harvest collapsed.  Thereafter, exports rebounded, but are again in a declining phase.  For the first half of 2003, U.S. exports of squid products are running 71 percent below the 2002 pace.

 

China remains the largest single destination for U.S. squid exports, receiving $24.5 million, or about 40 percent of the total, in 2002.  However, U.S. squid exports to China during January-June 2003, amounted to only $3.5 million, an 81-percent decline below the same period in 2002.   Similarly, squid exports to other major markets also declined (Japan, down 89 percent; the Philippines, down 99 percent; and Spain, down 45 percent) during January-June 2003, while there was a significant increase in sales to Mexico (up 136 percent).  Moreover, a shortage of squid supplies worldwide has pushed up squid prices over the past year.  It has been reported that prices for California market squid averaged $1,300-1,350 per ton on the Chinese market. 

Most of the recent reductions in squid exports are attributed to substantial declines in production, especially in California’s market squid. Implementations of quotas recently in the Northeast fishery coupled with El Nino effects in California have greatly reduced the availability of squid for export.  Of the 232 million pounds of squid landed in 2001, California market squid accounted for 82 percent of the total harvest, followed by East Coast squid (longfin, 13 percent; and northern shortfin, 1 percent), and other squids (5 percent).  Together, California and Rhode Island produced 92 percent of the total national harvest in 2001.  However, preliminary data from the California Department of Fish and Game indicated that 161 million pounds of market squid were landed in 2002, a-15 percent reduction below the 2001 level due to a mild El Nino event in 2002.   

Overall, U.S. squid supply is characterized by cyclical periods of relative scarcity and abundance, especially in the California’s squid market fishery.  However, squid reproduce rapidly and recover quickly from fishing effort or environmental factors.

 

For more information, contact Souleymane Diaby, Agricultural Economist, Forest and Fishery Products Division, Tel. (202) 205-7763.

CHINA SEAFOOD CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

DEADLINE On June 30, 2003, China will require U.S.-Government certification of all U.S. seafood exports.

HISTORY On November 6, 2002, the China's State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) posted on its website "AQSIQ Announcement No. 31, Inspection and Quarantine Administrative Measures for Entry and Exit of Aquatic Products" that were adopted by AQSIQ on October 18, 2002. Originally scheduled to go into force on December 10, 2002, the U.S. Government obtained an extension delaying implementation until June 30, 2003.

TRADE IMPACT In 2002, the United States exported $135 million of fish and seafood products to China while importing $864 million from China.

INTERIM EXPORT ADVICE The U.S. Government is continuing its dialogue with Chinese officials to resolve a number of issues with the Chinese regulation. In the interim, the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (USDOC NMFS), Seafood Inspection Program may certify shipments to China. Many exporters have already begun using NMFS certification services in anticipation of the new Chinese regulations.

U.S. exporters of seafood should contact the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Seafood Inspection Program to obtain certification for exporting to China.

In response to industry requests subsequent to China's publication of Announcement No. 31, the USDOC NMFS Seafood Inspection Program has developed a bilingual export health certificate available for shipment certificate.

The Seafood Inspection Program can issue the certificate to USDOC NMFS approved establishments that participate under a reduced inspection program (HACCP-Quality Management Program), or on a lot inspection basis.

Requests should be directed to the following NMFS Regional Offices:

FISHERY PRODUCT EXPORTS TO THE EU LED BY POLLOCK, LOBSTER, AND SURIMI

Although the European Union is considered a mature market for most fishery products, there has been
significant export growth in the region for a number of U.S. products, most notably pollock (mainly frozen
Alaska pollock fillets), lobster, and surimi. [See fishery product chart below.] Led by these products, the
value of all U.S. fishery product exports to the EU totaled $572 million in 2002, an increase of 47 percent
from the 1998 level of $389 million.

In recent years, reduced EU quotas for cod and other whitefish, have spurred European processor demand and imports of Alaska pollock -- a trend that is likely to continue. In 2002, pollock exports from the United States to the EU totaled $169 million, up 9-fold from 1998. Pollock exports to Germany totaled $99 million in 2002, comprising 59 percent of the EU total. Other large EU markets included the Netherlands, at $39 million; the UK, at $12 million; and France, at $7 million. Pollock export volume increased eight-fold from 1998 to 2002, rising from 9,787 metric tons (MT) to 79,393 MT.

U.S. exports of lobster to the EU have increased by 44 percent since 1998, rising to $112 million in 2002. U.S. exports to Italy, France, and Spain totaled $38 million, $31 million, and $30 million, respectively. These countries accounted for 88 percent of lobster exports to the EU. High restaurant demand and holiday sales were major factors behind the large export sales.

Consumption of analogue seafood products (such as artificial crab made of Alaska pollock surimi) has risen substantially in Europe. In 2002, U.S. surimi exports to the EU totaled 12,436 MT valued at $23 million, up from 4,057 MT valued at $8 million in 1998. France accounted for two-thirds of U.S. surimi sales to the EU.

France is both a major re-processor of surimi and a growing consumer of value-added surimi products. The 2002 export value to France totaled nearly $16 million, up from about $5 million in 1998. Volume sales to France were 8,307 MT in 2002, up from 2,374 MT in 1998. Other sizable EU markets for surimi included Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy.

The top six EU export markets by value for U.S. fishery products included Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Fueled by growing imports of pollock, Germany overtook France in 2001 as the leading EU market for U.S. fishery products. In 2002, exports to Germany totaled $129 million, followed by France at $97 million, the UK at $88 million (with canned salmon accounting for 68 percent of UK imports) and the Netherlands at $77 million (with pollock comprising one-half of Dutch imports). Spain and Italy ranked fifth and sixth, with total U.S. export sales of $70 million and $49 million, respectively. As noted above, lobster played a dominant role in U.S. exports to the EU. U.S. lobster exports comprised 77 percent of total sales to Italy, 42 percent of sales to Spain, and nearly one-third of sales to France. The following chart illustrates export values changes in these markets since 1998.

For more information, contact Joel Chetrick, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Forest and Fishery Products Division, Tel: 202-720-3248 .

People’s Republic of China Draft Standards for Several Fishery Products 

Unofficial translations of the People’s Republic of China draft standards for several fishery products are available for review.  The draft standards are available from Attaché reports covering the following list of products: 

1)     Canned Fish Products (Report CH3044)
2)     Flavorings Made From Aquatic Products (Report CH3045)
3)     Minced Aquatic Products (Report CH3046)
4)     Fresh and Frozen Aquatic Product (Report CH3047)
5)     Dried Aquatic Products (Report CH3048)
6)     Salted Fish (Report CH3049)
7)     Salt or Liquor Pickled Aquatic Products (Report CH3050)
8)     Marine Algae and Algae Products (Report CH3051) 

Exporters should carefully discuss the regulations and their application with Chinese importers to ensure that their interpretation is accurate. 

ANTIGUA & BARBUDA:  HRI AND RETAIL FOOD SERVICE SECTORS

Antigua and Barbuda is an important tourist destination in the Caribbean region, receiving 500,000 visitors annually.  The tourism industry accounts for 65 percent of Antigua’s gross domestic product (GDP). 

Antigua food imports exceed an estimate of $50 million annually.  Of the total food imported foods, 65 percent are consumed in the food retail sector and 35 percent in the food service sector.   In addition, the United States supplies 55-65 percent of Antigua and Barbuda’s total import of foods.  Although U.S. suppliers face competition from local producers, the Caribbean, and Europe, there are good sales potential for fish and seafood products in Antigua and Barbuda. 

For more information see Caribbean Basin: HRI Food Service Sector Antigua & Barbuda 2003 (Gain Report C13002) and Retail Food Sector Antigua & Barbuda 2003 (Gain Report C13001).

PORTUGAL: FISHERY PRODUCTS TRADE OPPORTUNITIES IN 2003

The European Union’s Common Fishery Policy for the provisional total allowable catches for its fish stocks in 2003 will likely reduce seafood production in some member states, but will also generate new opportunities for trade.  One of the best prospects products is cod in Portugal.  Cod is particularly important to the diet of Portugal, providing for one half of the annual per capita seafood consumption of 40 kilograms.  With an annual consumption of cod over 200,000 tons, the domestic industry can supply only 2-3 percent, leaving shortfall to be filled by imports.  Portugal is the fifth major market for U.S. cod, receiving U.S. exports valued at over $11 million in 2001.  U.S. cod exports to Portugal have been growing, up 66 percent since 1998.  In terms of type of cod products, nearly all cod imported from the United States comes from Alaska, but processors still have a modest preference for Atlantic cod. 

For more information see Portugal Fishery Products New Trade Opportunities 2003 Gain Report PO3002. 

JAMAICA & DEPENDANTS: HRI FOOD SERVICE SECTOR REPORT

As an important tourist destination in the Caribbean region, Jamaica relies on the United States for 82 percent of the total imported food products used by the hotel sub-sector.  Of the $619 million of food and beverages consumed in Jamaica’s HRI sector, the tourist sub-sector accounted for $72 million in 2001.  Demand for imported food products is expected to increase to $2.27 billion during 2003, due to expected growth of both the economy and the tourism industry, and rising per capita income.  With U.S. visitors accounting for 75 percent of tourist arrivals to Jamaica, total demand for food and beverage in the hotel/resort sub-sector will continue to be skewed in favor of U.S. products.  In addition, the HRI sector offers excellent opportunities for U.S. seafood products particularly, lobster and shrimp. 

For more information see Jamaica & Dep HRI Food Service Sector Report 2003 Gain Report JM3002.  

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: HRI FOOD SERVICE SECTOR REPORT 

The Dominican Republic is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in the Caribbean region, with more than 2 million visitors and 49,000 hotel rooms in 2002.  North American tourists comprise 46 percent of all tourists, with visitors from the United States accounting for 32 percent of the total, followed by Europeans (45 percent), South Americans (6 percent), and Central Americans and Caribbeans (3 percent).  In 2001, the HRI food service sector consumed $1 billion of food and beverages, with the tourist sub-sector accounted for an estimated $320 million.  The HRI sector offers good opportunities to U.S. exporters despite of competition from India, Thailand, and China. 

For more information see Dominican Republic HRI Food Service Sector Report 2003 Gain Report DR3001.