global sea food trade
Post on 10-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 1/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
1
AN ASSIGNMENT ON
GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE IN SEA FOOD
INDUSTRY
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY: ROLL NO 0934, 0935, 0936, 0937, 0938, 0939,
0941
CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
VAIKUNTH MEHTA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CO-
OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 2/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
2
CONTENTS
SERIAL NUMBER TOPIC PAGE NUMBER 1. Introduction 1-42. MSY 5-83. International
markets9
4. Institutional
influences in
International trade
in fishery product
10-12
5. Trade Barriers 13-146. Impacts of trade and
domestic policy
reforms
15-17
7. Impacts of trade
liberalization in
aquaculture
18-19
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 3/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
3
INTRODUCTION
The fishing industry includes any industry or activity concerned with taking, culturing,
processing, preserving, storing, transporting, marketing or selling fish or fish products.
It is defined by the FAO as including recreational, subsistence and commercial fishing, and the
harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors. The commercial activity is aimed at the delivery
of fish and other seafood products for human consumption or as input factors in other industrial
processes. Directly or indirectly, the livelihood of over 500 million people in developing
countries depends on fisheries and aquaculture.
There are three principal industry sectors:
The commercial sector: comprises enterprises and individuals associated with wild-catch or
aquaculture resources and the various transf ormations of those resources into products f or sale.
It is also referred to as the "seaf ood industry", although non-f ood items such as pearls are
included among its products.
Th
e traditional sector: comprises enterprises and individuals associated with fisheries resources from which aboriginal people derive products in accordance with their traditions.
The recreational sector: comprises enterprises and individuals associated f or the purpose of
recreation, sport or sustenance with fisheries resources from which products are derived that
are not f or sale.
The commercial sector of the fishing industry comprises the f ollowing chain:
1. Commercial fishing and fish f arming which produce the fish
2. Fish processing which produce the fish products
3. Marketing of the fish products
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 4/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
4
Wild Marine Pelagic Predator Tuna
Billfish
Shark
Forage Herring
Sardine
Anchovy
Menhaden
Demersal Cod
Flatfish
Freshwater
Farmed Carp
Salmon
Tilapia
The seaf ood world market has doubled within the last decade reaching US$49.32 billion. Indias share in
the world seaf ood market is 2.4 per cent. The growth of fish production in India has been labeled the
Blue Revolution by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research since fish production increased from
0.75 million metric tons in 1951 to 6.1 million metric tons in 2003. In 200203, marine product exports
increased to all time highs in volume and value, with actual export of 467,297 metric tons valued at Rs.
68,810 million or US$1.43 billion, representing a unit value increase of 3.4 per cent over the previous
year. Frozen shrimp continued to be the major item, contributing 66.97 per cent of Indias totalmarine
product export.
The share of frozen fish (comprising of ribbonfish, pomfret, tuna, fish loins and
steaks) in 200203 was 42.01 per cent in volume and 12.23 per cent in value. In 2001 02, it was 41.22
per cent in volume and 11.97 per cent in value. In 200203, export of cephalopods, especially cuttlefish,
grew to 35.37 per cent in volume and 48.92 per cent in value. The export of frozen squid also registered
a growth of 16.59 per cent in value over the previous year. However, there was a shortf all of 4.91
percent in volume.
The global seaf ood market is a complex system of trade and sustainability issues. Exporters must deal
with over-fishing; environmentally-harmful fishing practices; capacity management; international fishery
resources management; trade in endangered species; non-tariff barriers; interlinking of the domains of
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 5/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
5
the World Trade Organization; domestic regulations; and the UN and other international treaties. Indian
seaf ood exporters f ace several hurdles due to the changing regulations in different countries.
YearQuantityin Tonnes
ValueinRs.
Crore
Average
Unit
valueRealizati
on (Rs. /
Kg)
Average
Exchange Rate
US $
Valuein US $
Million
Average
UnitValueRealiz
ation US $ /
Kg.
Growth rate %
Q uantity
Rupe
e
Value
Dollar
Value
1970
-71
35883 35.07 9.77 7.5578 46.40 1.29 13.21 4.81 NA
1975
-76
54463 124.53 22.87 8.6825 143.43 2.63 20.76 82.03 66.48
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 6/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
6
GROWTH IN EXPORT OF INDIAN MARINE PRODUCTS (1961- 62 to 2008 ± 2009)
The export of marine products has steadily grown over the years - from a mere Rs.3.92 crore in 1961-62
to Rs. 8607.94 crore in 2008-09. Marine products account f or approximately 1.1 % of the total exports
from India.
1980
-81
75591 234.84 31.07 7.9092 296.92 3.93 -12.51 -5.62 -3.37
1985
-86
83651 398.00 47.58 12.2349 325.30 3.89 -2.94 3.57 0.64
1990
-91
139419 893.37 64.08 17.9428 497.90 3.57 25.78 40.69 30.55
1995
-96
296277 3501.1 118.17 31.5000 1111.4 3.75 -3.60 -2.07 -2.39
2000
-01
440473 6443.8 146.29 45.4975 1416.3 3.22 28.41 25.94 19.11
2005
-06
512164 7245.3 141.46 44.0655 1644.2 3.21 11.02 9.05 11.21
2008
-09
602835 8607.9 145.79 45.99 1908.6 3.17 11.29 12.95 00.50
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 7/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
7
MSY
Definition:
The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on avg) from a stock under
existing (average) environmental conditions without affecting significantly the reproduction process.
Also referred to sometimes as potential yield.
MSY or YS:
The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing
environmental conditions. For species with f luctuating recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by
taking fewer fish in some years in others.
This logistic model of growth is produced by a population introduced to a new habitat or with very poor
numbers going through a lag phase of slow growth at first. Once it reaches a f oothold population it will
go through a rapid growth rate that will start to level off once the species approaches carrying capacity.
The idea of maximum sustained yield is to decrease population density to the point of highest growth
rate possible. This changes the number of the population, but the new number can be maintained
indefinitely, ideally.
In most fisheries, the population has been decreased so significantly from their native populations, that
the only way to increase production is to decrease production, and wait f or populations to recover.
MSY is extensively used f or fisheries management. Unlike Schaefer's logistic model, MSY in most modern
fisheries models occurs at around 30% of the unexploited population size. This fraction differs among
populations depending on the life history of the species and the age-specific selectivity of the fishing
method.
Unf ortunately errors in estimating the population dynamics of a species can lead to setting the
maximum sustainable yield too high (or too low). An example of this was the New Zealand Orange
roughy fishery. Early quotas were based on an assumption that the orange roughy had a f airly short
lifespan and bred relatively quickly. However, it was later discovered that the orange roughy lived a long
time and had bred slowly (~30 years). By this stage stocks had been largely depleted.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 8/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
8
Equilibrium Yield:
For the equilibrium situation the productionof biomass per unit time, equals the removal by fishsing, the
yield per time unit plus the amount of fish dying of natural causes.
Equilibrium Yield: in theory, the yield or catch that could be taken every year by a fixed amount of
fishing eff ort, maintaining the stock at a constant level, assuming a steady-state situation at
equilibrium with the total fishing eff ort in the long term. The conceprt neglects inter-annual
environmentrally driven stock f luctuations and so it is not useful f or shrt term perdictins. It is however
useful f or guidance on long term stategy f ormulation.
MSY and Fisheries Management
A) Sustainable Yield & Stock Biomass
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 9/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
9
y Balancing a population at BMSY can be precarious.
y Changes in stock size can occur due to many factors many of which can not be
controlled.
y Targeting for population size greater than BMSY creates a ³reserve´ that reduces yieldslightly and protects against changes in stock status.
B) Fisheries mortality rate and sustainable yield:
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 10/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
10
y Balancing a population at FMSY can be precarious.
y Changes in fishing mortality can arise from several sources.
y Targeting for fishing mortality rates than FMSY leads to higher biomass a slight
reduction in yield and reduces the need for future reduction in effort.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 11/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
11
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS
The seaf ood trade is one of the world's largest and f astest growing international commodity industries.
Worth more than $60 billion a year, it exceeds the world trade in all grains combined and represents
more than twice the combined world trade in all tea, coffee and cocoa. Almost 200 countries supply fish
and seaf ood products to the global marketplace, consisting of more than 800 commercially important
species of fish, crustaceans and mollusks, including 30 species of shrimp alone.
These products take hundreds of f orms, ranging from canned tuna to fresh boneless salmon fillets, from
salted herring roe to dried shark fins, frozen pollock block, individually quick frozen breaded cod
portions, smoked mackerel, clam juice, live lobster, fish meals and oil. The market is supplied by a global
network of hundreds of thousands of fishing vessels and marine and inland aquaculture establishments,
thousands of processors and tens of thousands of wholesalers and brokers.
Fish and fish products have not always been major internationally traded products. Several inf luences
led to the rapid expansion in international trade beginning in 1975. Certainly the passing of the
International Law of the Sea and the institution of the 200-mile EEZ in 1977 had a large impact.
The establishment of the EEZs effectively created importers out of countries, such as Japan, with very
large distant water f leets, and created exporters out of those countries, such as the United States, that
had large marine resources and relatively low domestic demand.
The most important trade commodities in order of their value in 2000 are shrimp ($10.8 billion),salmon
and trout ($5.2 billion), tuna ($4.8 billion), groundfish ($4.4 billion), crabs and lobsters($3.8 billion),
mollusks ($2.8 billion), cephalopods ($2.7 billion), fish meal ($2.1 billion), small pelagic ($1.6 billion),
large pelagics ($1.1 billion) and f latfish ($1.1 billion) (Anderson 2003).
Thailand is the worlds top exporter of f ood fish in the world, f ollowed by China, Norway, and the United
States. Seventy-f our percent of Africas exports are destined f or the European Union, while exports from
Central and South America go primarily to the United States, Canada, and the European Union.
The major importing nations are the European Union ($19.5 billion), Japan ($15.5 billion), and the
United States ($10.4 billion).Within the European Union, imports go to Spain ($3.35 billion), France ($3.0
billion), Italy ($2.5 billion), Germany ($2.3 billion), the United Kingdom ($2.2 billion), and Denmark ($1.8
billion)
INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN FISHERY PRODUCT
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 12/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
12
Even though most caught, f armed, and traded fish are clearly f ood products, no fish is included in the
WTO Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA).Tariffs on fish products, in contrast to those on
agricultural products, have been reduced with every successive trade round. And international
agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, antidumping, rules of
origin, import licensing, and safeguards have all been applied to trade in fish. Subsidies in the fishing industry f all under the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) Agreement on Subsidies,
whereas in agriculture they f all under the URAA.
The domestic policy interventions
1-Fisheries Management Policies
The impacts of trade liberalization will differ depending on several f actors:
1-production method (capture or aquaculture)
2-domestic fisheries management policies.
Bef ore 1977 jurisdiction of most nations over fishing grounds extended only 12 nautical miles from
shore. Expansion to 200-mile EEZs was discussed and agreed to in 1977 by nations at the
Third Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS-III,19731982) . EEZs cover 40 percent
of the worlds oceans and 90 percent of its living marine resources .UNCLOS assigns the exclusive right
to coastal states to manage and exploit marine living resources and to regulate fisheries resources
through a comprehensive management system.
Management policies can be categorized as:
y Input controls
The oldest type of fishery management tool, are designed to limit either the number of people
fishing or the efficiency of fishing (National Research Council 1999). Input controls generally
lead to inefficient outcomes. They raise the cost of fishing but generally do not reduce eff ort or
capacity.
y Output controls
Output controls are designed to limit directly the volume of the catch from a given fishery. The critical
necessity f or this f orm of management is the ability to monitor the catch. In some fisheries, managers
may have personnel at the dockside to count the number (or weight) of fish caught as they are landed.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 13/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
13
In other cases, on-board observers may monitor the catch. In either case, once the total allowable catch
(TAC) is reached, the fishery is generally closed f or the season.
Management by TAC has at least three shortcomings.:
1. It induces fishers to compete to catch as much as possible before the TAC is reached.
2. As fishers become more intensively capitalized, the TAC is reached in a shorter time,
leading to a backlog of fish for processors that pushes down fishermen¶s prices and
reduces product quality.
3. Idle vessels may move to fish in another fishery, leading to overcapitalization in yet
additional fisheries .
Because of poor management and other f actors, the status of fish stocks worldwide is alarming. The
implications of trade liberalization f or capture fisheries are many, but the most obvious implication is
that the current level of catches from capture fisheries is unsustainable.
2-Fishing Subsidies
Subsidies exist in the fishing sector globally and have come to be recognized as having a significant
impact on the quantities of fish traded, largely because they lead to unsustainable fishing practices At
the WTO High-Level Symposium on Trade and Environment in March 1999, five WTO member nations
(Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the United States) submitted a joint statement on
the need to eliminate environmentally damaging and trade-distorting subsidies in fisheries sector. at
the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar. The Doha Declaration states that the need to clarify
and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into the account the importance of this
sector to developing countries
Three implications are noted:
(1) countries that do not subsidize and that restrain total catch to maintain the resource lose the extra
catch to countries that subsidize and do not restrain total catch
(2) competition from subsidized distant water f leets can make it economically unviable f or developing
countries to develop their own fisheries and theref ore to realize the benefits of their own 200-mile
zones of fishery jurisdiction
(3) subsidies can contribute to stock depletion, with negative economic, trade, and environmental
effects f or other countries that have an interest in the stock.
The greatest contrast to agricultural subsidies is the effect noted in first point. Fishing subsidies create
not only a trade distortion in the markets, but also, in the case of straddling or migratory fish stocks, a
negative externality on the nation competing to capture the fish.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 14/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
14
TRADE BARRIERS
T ariffs
Tariffs remain a major barrier to future growth of the provinces seaf ood industry. Our producers f ace
very high tariffs in the European Union (EU) on groundfish, pelagics, shrimp and mussels. As well, some
competitors have preferential market access affecting our ability to compete. Also, the province f aces
high tariffs in China and Russia, two countries which offer significant growth potential
Tariffs in OECD member countries are important barriers to the developing nations that export to them.
Tariffs on seaf ood in developing countries are generally higher and more transparent than those in
OECD countries. Among the developing nations, Thailand has highest level of Tariff barriers f ollowed by
India. Chile and Malaysia have the lowest duty rates. But all developing nations have a detailed Tariff
Schedule and implement a transparent tariff structure.
Among the developed nations, The European Union and the Republic of Korea have the highest tariffs
whereas United Nations and Canada have the lowest. But, EU and Republic of Korea have transparent
structures with all the tariff duties applied to be ad valorem. Most industrial countries offer preferential
access to developing countries seaf ood exports.
The United States grants free access f or all developing countries f or all seaf ood products. Japan also
grants free access to some seaf ood imports from the least-developed countries and maintains only one
seaf ood tariff line f or other developing countries.
T echnical Barriers
In recent years, there has been a large increase in policies that could potentially come under the
heading of technical barriers to trade. Among them are labeling programs and the resultant tracing
capability they require. The programs are typically f ound in developed countries but can have
potentially large impacts on developing countries.
Among the labeling programs are ecolabeling, country-of-origin labeling, and other labeling related to
the production process, such as organic.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 15/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
15
A great deal of regulatory activity concerning country-of-origin labels is occurring in the United States
and European Union. Ecolabeling and organic labeling are voluntary programs, but the WTO is
interested in whether such labels constitute a nontariff trade barrier. Currently, these labels are not
considered to be trade barriers as long as they are nondiscriminatory.
Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary measures
Import regulations based on hazard-analysis, critical-control-point (HACCP) principles, adopted by many
of the major importing nations, are regarded as nontariff barriers by many developing countries, as the
investment required to bring processing plants up to code can be substantial. The costs of exporting to
nations with strictquality controls are not trivial.
Antidumping and CountervailingMeasures
As tariff barriers have been relaxed and the aquaculture industry has boomed globally, more and more
fishing industries in the United States have f ound themselves competing with lower-priced imports.
Thus, the United States in particular has been quite active in pursuing antidumping and countervailing
duty suits against f oreign competitors.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 16/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
16
IMPACTS OF TRADE AND DOMESTIC POLICY REFORMS
To analyze the impacts of trade liberalization on trade in seaf ood, particularly on seaf ood from
developing countries, one must distinguish between the impacts of trade liberalization on seaf ood
derived from capture fisheries and on seaf ood from aquaculture. This is because of their distinct
attributes. Capture fisheries are generally ill-managed. As such, changes in trade policies may create
changes in welf are that differ between the short and long run because of the sustainability of fish stocks. With respect to the effects of trade liberalization, aquaculture is more similar to agriculture.
However, to the extent that aquaculture is dependent on feed derived from capture fisheries or seed
stock from wild fisheries, trade liberalization may have a different effect on aquaculture than on
agriculture.
Whereas the research literature on markets f or fish is extensive, there has been little empirical analysis
of the impacts of trade liberalization through tariff reductions related to fish and fish products. This is
partly because of the complex nature of the global seaf ood market, partly because of a lack of data, and
partly because of a governmental
and academic f ocus diverted away from seaf ood markets toward the economics of management of
capture fisheries. In addition, although nongovernmental organizations and international development
agencies have produced many studies on trade liberalization and its impacts on the agricultural sector in
developing countries, there is a spectacular lack of quantitative inf ormation on the impacts of trade
liberalization f or developing countries with respect to fish.
Trade liberalization in APEC countries
These countries maintain a tariff and other trade barriers against fish and fish products. Under the 1994
Bogor Declaration, APEC made a commitment to fully liberalize all markets by 2020, with 2010 as the
deadline f or developed countries. This was f ollowed by early, voluntary sectoral-liberalization (EVSL)
proposals in which nine sectors, including fisheries, would accelerate tariff removals beyond the Bogor
Declaration. Rather than having 2010 and 2020 as deadlines f or developed and developing countries,
respectively, the timeline was moved to December31, 2005.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 17/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
17
A study was conducted to find out the effect of the above regulations and it was f ound that there would
be significant increases in export volumes (and prices) under the Bogor Declaration and the ESVL relative
to the baseline. If only the developed countries removed their tariffs, the study shows that there would
be little difference from the baseline because developed-country tariffs are generally small. The greatest
change would occur under the EVSL scenario, at least initially. By 2020 the effects of the Bogor and EVSLagreements would be the same
Removing Subsidies in Capture fishes
To analyze the trade impacts of these subsidies, a logical place to begin may be to calculate producer
subsidy equivalents (PSEs).According to the OECD, the PSE is an indicator of the value of the transfers
from domestic consumers and taxpayers to the producers resulting from a given set of agricultural
policies at a point in time
The PSE also may be useful in assessing the advantages of producer subsidies in the fisheries sector. The
complicating f actor is management. In agriculture, it is assumed that subsidies are compared to a
subsidy-free world characterized by economically efficient allocation of goods at various prices.
However, if the fishery is managed under an open-access system, f or example, then the subsidy free
world is not economically efficient, because that system does not lead to efficient allocation. To be truly
efficient, the subsidies would not exist and there would be perfect management of fish stocks so that all
negative externalities were incorporated into the price of each fish. PSEs f or fisheries products have not
been calculated because fish are highly heterogeneous and reference prices to measure market-price
support are hard to pin down.
The impact of removing subsidies may be analyzed according to the type of subsidy. For subsidies that
lower the costs of production (such as government- paid fishing access fees, low-cost vessel
construction loans, and tax exemptions), removal will increase costs of production. A large portion of
the worlds subsidized fishing f leet is from the European Union, Japan, Russia, China, and other nations
that subsidize (Milazzo 1998). A reduction in these subsidies would almost certainly benefit fish stocks
as well as decreasing trade.
Subsidies that pay f or access arrangements support continued operations primarily by European and
East Asian distant-water f leets off Africa and in the Western Pacific. These subsidized operations reduce the fishing opportunities available to local fishermen. In most cases, the payments probably do not
compensate adequately f or the full economic value of theresources.
There is scattered evidence that subsidized access arrangements are beginning to compromise local
f ood needs.
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 18/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
18
The combination of developed countries subsidies to their distant-water f leets and to their domestic
(coastal) f leets minimizes to some extent trade opportunities that should be available to developing
countries.
Fishing subsidies are highly nontransparent in the sense that more than three-quarters of the subsidies are not budgeted, and a good share of budgeted subsidies are controlled by governmental agencies
other than those responsible f or fisheries.
Environmentally harmful subsidies outweigh the effect of subsidies that are environmentally benign or
positive.
IMPACTS OF TRADE LIBERALIZATION IN AQUACULTURE
"Globalization", a term used abundantly since the beginning of the 1990s has progressively developed
since World War Two. It is recognized through a number of trends such as growing economic
integration and liberalization; trade deregulation; convergence of macroeconomic policies;
modification of the role and concept of nation state; proliferation of supranational agreements and
regulatory bodies; and globalization of information systems. These trends are associated with both
positive and negative impacts on human well-being, the use and conservation of the environment,
equity within countries and between developing and developed countries, participation and democratic
decision-making, f ood security, poverty alleviation and others.
Some hold very strong views that globalization has resulted in increasing inequity and poverty; reduced
and diluted responsibility of capital owners to national and local communities dislocating local
employment systems; and increased threats to sustainability of natural resources use where effective
Commercial Shrimp f arming expanded rapidly af ter trade liberalization initiatives were introduced in
1990s. The results suggest that macro level policies are successful at national level but at local level they
can create imbalanced growth.While globalization is clearly not an issue specific to fisheries, there are
very few aspects of fisheries and aquaculture that are not affected i.e. through, inter alia, the expansion
of long-range f leets until the end of the 1980s; the increased market f lows of fish and fishery products
from the developing to the developed world and vice versa since the mid 1970s; the transfers of
technology and fishing capacity from the developed to the developing countries during the same period,
through modernization of fish capture and processing technologies and introduction of more efficient
means of production; vastly improved and expanded inf ormation f low on all aspects of fisheries including markets and prices; eff orts to further liberalize trade in fish and fishery product with potential
impact on f ood security in exporting countries; pressure to reduce or eliminate subsidies; increased
awareness of environmental impacts; demands f or decentralisation of and participation in decision-
making; identification of clear property or use rights; new international instruments not specific to
fisheries (e.g. WTO agreements, Convention on Biological Diversity) as well as unilaterally adopted
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 19/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
19
policies on deregulation and structural ad justment of national economies that affect, inter alia, the
fisheries sector.
Globalization may have a number of positive or negative effects on the economic, social and nutritional
roles and perf ormance of the fisheries sector.
Positive impacts include:
y access to and diversification of overseas markets with a resulting increase in incomes in
the fisheries sector, including the artisanal sector;
y increase in intra-regional trade;
y access to technological improvements;
y increased demand for fish and fishery products because of higher per capita income and
population growth;;
y increase in the contribution of the fisheries sector to foreign currency earnings and to
GDP through added value of fishery products;
y presence in local markets of improved quality fish products;
y increased competitiveness in international markets of some local fishing companies
through better organisation of production and management as well as an overall increase
of fishers' well-being provided that increased wealth is equitably distributed.
Negative impacts include:
y increased production costs to meet quality and sanitation standards applicable in main
foreign markets;
y higher prices for tradable fish products in domestic markets and potential reduction of
fish supply from local fisheries to domestic markets;
y increased pressure on fully or overexploited fish stocks and potential risk of depletion if
adequate management systems are not in place;
y increasing impact of indirect effects of globalization that add additional pressures to fish
stocks;
EXPORTER IMPORTER
Fisheries managed by TAC set
without reference to economic
factors
Increase price, no change in
quantity
Decrease price, no change in
quantity
Open access
8/8/2019 Global sea food trade
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/global-sea-food-trade 20/20
VAMNICOM , Pune
20
stock above MSY
stock at MSY
stock less than MSY
Increase in price and qtty
Increase price, decrease qtty
Increase price, decrease qtty
Decrease price and qtty
Decrease price and qtty
Decrease price, increase qtty
Aquaculture
Feed available without
significant price rise
Managed fishery for captured
feed fish
Open access fishery for
captured feed fish
Increase price and qtty
Increase price and increase or
leave unchanged qtty
Same as open access above
Decrease price and decrease
qtty
Decrease price and decrease or
leave unchanged qtty
Same as open access above
EFFECTS ON PRICE AND QUANTITIES OF MARKET LIBERALIZATION
top related