Markets for Groundfish in California, Part 2 of 4

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

This is part 2 of a 4-part series intended to invite conversations in advance of our planned end market demand analysis for groundfish in California. The larger goal is to provide quantified end market data to inform profitable value chain investments that will positively impact harvesters, local communities and the ocean.

Export markets

How much California groundfish is exported and how much stays?

Fig1[1][2]

Although we have data from NMFS for exports from California ports, it’s not an apple-to-apples comparison to NMFS landings data, making it difficult to understand how much fish likely stays in California and how much fish exported from California actually was caught in California. The export data doesn’t divide export volumes and values by species, like the landings data does, but instead lumps it into broad categories for most species. For example, Dover sole and petrale sole, which are each reported in California landings, are lumped in the export category “flatfish”. This makes it hard to characterize demand for groundfish by end market preferences—we don’t know how much Dover stays in California or in the U.S., and how much is exported.

Another comparison conundrum is that the exports from California ports appear to include fish landed outside California waters. We did not include exports of pollock, haddock and cod since these are not recorded in the California landings data for the time period we compared. After filtering these out, there are relatively small volumes of groundfish (8-19%) exported as compared to landings in Figure 1.

Are there more money-makers like sablefish?

One bright point, in terms of value to the groundfish fishery, is sablefish. Sablefish seems to be driving not only value but volumes of exports from California. The average unit value (simply the landings value divided by the volume) for sablefish landings in California were usually twice as much as other groundfish from 2008 to 2014.For the same time period, the ratio of sablefish landed to sablefish exported averaged 24%, compared to 1 to 10% for most groundfish. Of course, this isn’t a wholly accurate comparison: since the sablefish exported from California may not have been landed there.

More than 90% of all exported sablefish over the time period assessed go to Japan, most of the sablefish going to Japan is frozen. Sablefish is doubly interesting because of this—not only are high value exports a rarity in this fishery, but so are high value frozen products.

Remaining questions include: Are there other species that can capitalize on the export market to Japan? Are there other species or markets that would have similar characteristics—a high value fish, exported in frozen form—where this success could be replicated?

Why does it seem that extremely low value groundfish is being exported?

Fig2

Another interesting comparison is the unit values of landings and exports in California, based on the same data provided by NMFS. We expect that export unit values would be higher than landing unit values, since they are likely processed and value-added. But for groundfish other than flatfish and sablefish, this expectation isn’t met. From 2008 through 2011, groundfish other than flatfish and sablefish had a higher unit value for landings than for exports.

There are a number of potential causes for this disparity:

  • We’re comparing different species. The “other groundfish” category that’s being exported is comprised of different species than the ones in the landings data. Perhaps these are low value species landed outside California and brought to California and exported.
  • Groundfish exports are lumped into a category other than “groundfish” for these years. Perhaps they’ve been exported in a product form that does not identify the type of fish.
  • Low value groundfish can’t be sold domestically. The groundfish being exported doesn’t match the domestic market demands and so the only market is a very low paying international market. Figure 3 compares the top five destinations for California groundfish.(Note that the Netherlands (NLD) appears to accept many low value imports in 2014.) Other than Japan, potential high value markets to explore include Vietnam and Canada. However, both these countries imported small amounts, albeit at high value, in 2014.

Fig3

[1] NMFS, “Commercial Landings,” page, Commercial Fishery Statistics, (2015), http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/index
[2] NMFS, “Trade by Country,” page, Commercial Fishery Statistics, accessed February 18, 2015, http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/applications/trade-by-country

Markets for Groundfish in California, Part 1 of 4

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

This is part 1 of a 4-part series intended to invite conversations in advance of our planned end market demand analysis for groundfish in California. The larger goal is to provide quantified end market data to inform profitable value chain investments that will positively impact harvesters, local communities and the ocean. Read more

Indonesian Blue Swimming Crab Value Chain Summary

/in /by

Wilderness Markets is pleased to share our recently completed summary report on the Indonesian Blue Swimming Crab.Cover Wilderness Markets Indonesian Blue Swimming Crab_final single pages Jan 23 2016_Page_1

Our report takes a detailed look at the following components:

  • Can the Indonesian Blue Swimming Crab Industry become sustainable?
  • Blue Swimming Crab Fishery Profile
  • Challenges
  • Opportunities and Recommendations

We are grateful to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and to the fishermen and value chain participants in Indonesia for their support of this work.

To learn more and download this report. 

West Coast Groundfish in California Value Chain Assessment

/in /by

Wilderness Markets is pleased to announce the release of our summary findings of a value chain analysis of the West Coast Groundfish fishery in California.Wilderness Markets West Coast Groundfish in California VC Assessment Final Dec 2015_Page_01

Building off our analysis in New England, Mexico and Indonesia, we sought to understand the value chain dynamics impacting ground fish harvesters in California.

Unlike many of the fisheries we’ve reviewed, the West Coast groundfish fishery in California is a management success. Of the 90 plus species managed by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, the management council currently considers only five overfished, and classifies each of these species as “rebuilding.” In 2014, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified 13 trawl-caught species and the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program rated 21 trawl caught species “Green, Best Choice” or “Yellow, Good Alternative.” This is a significant change from 2000 when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared the fishery a national disaster.

Despite this significant ecological progress, fishing and conservation communities continue to share concern about the long-term economic sustainability of the fishery, particularly as the fishermen continue to bear management costs that have increased over the past 5 years. Our assessment identified a number of operational inefficiencies in the value chain that are hurdles to increasing the market value of seafood from this fishery; as long as the product is undervalued, the fisherman will struggle economically.

To learn more and to download the report, read on!

Indonesia Sustainable Fisheries Value Chain Assessments

/in /by

We are pleased to announce the release of our Indonesia Sustainable Fisheries Value Chain Assessment Synthesis report.Indonesia fisheries

Based on field based assessments of the Blue Swimming Crab, Snapper and Tuna value chains, we’ve synthesized our findings into this report in order to provide interested parties and practitioners with an understanding of the challenges and opportunities for impact finance in these fisheries.

Our field work across these three fisheries (and more than 5 value chains) was inspiring, enlightening and challenging. We are greatly indebted to the Indonesian people for their hospitality, interest and insight.

We would like to thank the David and Lucile Packard Foundation as well as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for their support of this work.

Learn more and download the report.