pilbara aquaculture studies: market analysis · department of fisheries identified edible oyster...
TRANSCRIPT
Pilbara Aquaculture Studies: Market
Analysis
Edible Oysters, Yellowfin Tuna, Amberjack and Mahi Mahi
June, 2016
Disclosure and Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Australian Venture Consultants Pty Ltd (ACN: 101 195 699) (‘AVC’). AVC has
been commissioned to prepare this report by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries, and has received a
fee from the Western Australian Department of Fisheries for its preparation.
While the information contained in this report has been prepared by AVC with all reasonable care from sources
that AVC believes to be reliable, no responsibility or liability is accepted by AVC for any errors, omissions or
misstatements however caused. Any opinions or recommendations reflect the judgment and assumptions of AVC
as at the date of the document and may change without notice. AVC, its officers, agents and employees exclude
all liability whatsoever, in negligence or otherwise, for any loss or damage relating to this document to the full extent
permitted by law. Any opinion contained in this report is unsolicited general information only. AVC is not aware that
any recipient intends to rely on this report or of the manner in which a recipient intends to use it. In preparing this
information it is not possible to take into consideration the information or opinion needs of any individual recipient.
Recipients should conduct their own research into the issues discussed in this report before acting on any
recommendation.
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2. Edible Oysters .................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.2. International Trade.................................................................................................................... 22
2.3. Market Trends in Key International Markets ......................................................................... 27
2.4. Concluding Comments ........................................................................................................... 30
3. Yellowfin Tuna .................................................................................................................................... 32
3.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 32
3.2. International Trade.................................................................................................................... 35
3.3. Trends in Key International Markets ....................................................................................... 43
3.4. Concluding Comments ........................................................................................................... 45
4. Greater Amberjack .......................................................................................................................... 46
4.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 46
4.2. International Trade.................................................................................................................... 49
4.3. Trends in Key International Markets ....................................................................................... 49
4.4. Concluding Comments ........................................................................................................... 55
5. Mahi Mahi .......................................................................................................................................... 56
5.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 56
5.2. International Trade.................................................................................................................... 57
5.3. Trends in Key International Markets ....................................................................................... 59
5.4. Concluding Comments ........................................................................................................... 59
Appendix 1 – Global Oyster Imports >US$10,000 per tonne ........................................................ 60
Executive Summary Despite not currently hosting an aquaculture industry of economic significance, the Regional
Investment Blueprints for the Pilbara and Gascoyne Regions of Western Australia both
reference the development of an aquaculture industry as an opportunity for growth and
diversification of those regional economies.
Pursuant to this identified opportunity, the Regional Development Commissions of the Pilbara
and Gascoyne Regions have collaborated with the Western Australian Department of Fisheries
in its capacity as the lead Western Australian government agency for the development and
regulation of aquaculture in State waters to undertake a study exploring both the technical
and economic viability of marine aquaculture along the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast. The
Department of Fisheries identified edible oyster and marine finfish aquaculture as being sectors
that are most likely to demonstrate technical and economic feasibility in this regard, and
identified areas of the Pilbara-Gascoyne marine estate that are, prima facie, suitable for
aquaculture operations pertaining to these sectors. This study represents and analysis of market
dynamics for edible oysters and specific species of marine finfish that could form the basis of
those sectors on the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast, namely Yellowfin Tuna, Greater Amberjack and
Mahi Mahi. The purpose of this market analysis is to support the assessment of economic
viability of those sectors, which is contained in separate reports.
The Market for Edible Oysters
In 2014, global production of oysters was approximately 5.3 million tonnes, 97.5 percent of
which was produced from aquaculture operations, with the relatively small wild-catch sector
having been in decline since 2011. While oysters are produced commercially in at least 67
countries, five nations account for 95 percent of production, with the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) accounting for 82 percent of global oyster production.
Australia is the world’s tenth largest oyster producer, accounting for just 0.2 percent of global
production by volume, and 2.2 percent by value. Indeed, the Australian oyster industry
produces the highest average value on a per tonne basis of all oyster producing nations. The
Australian oyster industry has been the subject of significant structural change over the past
20 years. In 1990, the introduced Pacific Oyster accounted for approximately 30 percent of
oyster production. Today, the Pacific Oyster represents 70 percent of Australian oyster
production by volume and 60 percent by value. Further, the increasing prevalence of Pacific
Oyster Mortality Syndrome on the east coast may driver further structural change.
The Sydney Rock Oyster comprises the remaining 30 percent of Australian production by
volume, achieving a 65 to 70 percent price premium over Pacific Oysters in domestic seafood
markets. Prices for both of Pacific Oysters and Sydney Rock Oysters have demonstrated an
increasing trend in Australian seafood markets since 2011-12.
Despite the premium pricing attributed to Sydney Rock Oysters, the New South Wales oyster
industry (which is based primarily on the Sydney Rock Oyster) demonstrates relatively poor
profitability, return on equity and general productivity metrics compared to the Pacific Oyster
producing South Australian and Tasmanian industries. This is attributable in part to the slower
growth rate of the Sydney Rock Oyster, but also to health issues such as QX disease, ecosystem
competition from introduced Pacific Oysters, declining water quality in some rivers and
estuaries and strong market competition from Pacific Oysters.
Globally, the majority of oyster production is consumed in the domestic market of origin, with
the total global export market comprised of 30,000 tonnes, or 0.6 percent of global production
by volume with a total value of approximately US$200 million. This is primarily by virtue of the
fact that the world’s largest producers of oysters are also its largest consumers. However, a
number of other factors such as limitation to shelf-life, transport complexities, quarantine
regulations and trade tariffs in major oyster markets complicate the supply and value chain,
increase landed product cost and generally inhibit international trade in oysters.
To the extent that they exist, oyster export markets are highly regionalised and are focused on
high-quality produce, with 61 percent of global export volume and 67 percent of value
originating from Europe, predominantly from France and Ireland. Collectively, Europe,
Oceania and the Americas accounted for 88 percent of export volume and 94 percent of
value in 2013, despite comprising approximately 5 percent of global aquaculture production.
The world’s three largest oyster producers (PRC, Korea and Japan) exported 0.02 percent, 0.26
percent and 0.003 percent of produce respectively in 2013. Collectively the Asian region
accounted for approximately 12 percent of oyster export volume and 5 percent of export
value.
A number of high value and relatively high volume live oyster import markets are characterised
by the presence of a wealthy consumer segment and a lack of suitability to cultivate oysters
domestically, including Russia, Switzerland, Belgium, Qatar, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Chinese urban dwellers consumed an average of 15.2 kilograms of seafood per capita in 2012,
which is projected to increase to 30.1 kilograms by 2024 as a consequence of rising wealth
and consumer preferences for seafood over alternative animal proteins such as chicken or
pork. While the PRC’s aquaculture oyster industry maintained year on year production growth
of 3.2 percent to 2014, imports of live oysters to China increased from 667 tonnes in 2013 to
1,443 in the first nine months of 2015, reflecting the increase in consumption and wealthy
consumer preferences for imported oysters. The quality of Chinese oysters is poor due to water
pollution and consumer concerns over the use of malachite green and overuse of antibiotics
in domestic aquaculture operations. The PRC imports high quality oysters from France, New
Zealand, Australia and the United States. Imported oysters are sold in high-end gourmet stores,
fine restaurants, oyster bars and five-star hotels in first tier cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou and
Beijing. Market penetration in this segment is currently limited, but expected to increase with
the rising wealth of the PRC middle and upper classes.
Approximately 97 percent of Australia oyster exports are Pacific Oysters, with less than 1
percent of Sydney Rock Oyster production exported. Australian oyster exports account for the
second highest per unit value.
Approximately 85 percent of Sydney Rock Oysters are consumed within the state of New South
Wales where they are produced. Compared to Australian produced Pacific Oysters, demand
for Sydney Rock Oysters is relatively inelastic, suggesting that the Sydney Rock Oyster product
targets a more affluent consumer market segment.
The Western Rock Oyster’s genetic and morphological similarities to the Sydney Rock Oyster
suggests that, provided it can be produced economically, the product has the potential to
penetrate the domestic premium oyster market and perhaps develop an Asian focused
premium export market. However, the fact that almost 90 percent of Sydney Rock Oyster
production is consumed in the State of New South Wales and that only very small volumes of
Sydney Rock Oysters are exported, suggests that the premium associated with Sydney Rock
Oysters may well be as much the function of its heritage as traditional Sydney seafood
restaurant faire, as it is the eating quality of the product. If this is the case, it is dubious as to
whether a ‘Western’ Rock Oyster would be able to acquire market share from the Sydney Rock
Oyster.
Nevertheless, if Western Rock Oysters are able to be economically produced from operations
on the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast, a product positioning targeting the consumer segment that
gives preference to the Sydney Rock Oyster with a product that is produced from pristine
waters may prove an effective strategy in domestic and potentially emerging Asian export
markets, provided the Western Rock Oyster is able to establish marketable provenance.
Yellowfin Tuna
In 2014, 1.5 million tonnes of Yellowfin Tuna was produced globally, with almost all (99.9
percent) sourced from wild-catch operations. Yellowfin Tuna is a widely fished species, with at
least 95 nations operating Yellowfin Tuna fisheries and no single nation producing more than
12 percent of global supply. On a regional basis, Asia accounts for approximately 50 percent
of global production, the Americas 22 percent, Europe 13.5 percent, Oceania 9.5 percent and
Africa 4.5 percent. Australia is the 46th largest producer of Yellowfin Tuna, accounting for just
0.001 percent of global production.
The major international markets for fresh Yellowfin tuna primarily destined for sushi and sashimi
markets are the United States, Japan and Europe, and major canneries sourcing Yellowfin tuna
located in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Spain and Italy.
Global trade in Yellowfin Tuna accounted for approximately 31.5 percent of global production
with a value of US$1.5 billion. The majority (88.9 percent) of exports are in the form of frozen
product, with fresh product accounting for 11 percent of export volume and attracting an
approximate two-fold premium. Spain is the world’s largest exporter of Yellowfin tuna,
accounting for a total of 15.6 percent of global export volume and 15.3 percent of value in
2013, followed by Taiwan (12.4 percent of volume and 10.4 percent of value), and France (9.6
percent of volume and 10 percent of value). The top 5 exporting nations account for 49
percent of volume and 49.1 percent of value in the global export market.
In 2014, Australia exported 281 tonnes of fresh Yellowfin Tuna.
The United States is the world’s largest importer of fresh Yellowfin tuna and accounts for 40.6
percent of import volume and 49.9 percent of value, followed by Japan (25 percent of volume
and 23.7 percent of value). The main suppliers to the United States’ market were Trinidad and
Tobago, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Thailand.
Imports of fresh tuna into Japan have declined by a notable 50 percent from 17,000 tonnes
during the first half of 2010 to just 8,400 tonnes in the corresponding period in 2015.
Consumption of fresh tuna is declining both at home and in the restaurant trade in Japan. The
market preference for sashimi quality frozen tuna remains stronger than for fresh tuna due to
frozen tuna’s longer shelf life. Nonetheless, imports of the preferred Bigeye and Yellowfin frozen
tuna during the first half of the year were lower than compared with the same period in 2014,
reflecting the falling demand pattern in the world’s largest sashimi tuna market. Yellowfin tuna
was the main imported species group (1,549 tonnes), 65 percent of which was supplied by the
Maldives. Imports of frozen tuna loins/fillet increased from 7,007 tonnes during the first half of
2014 to 8,397 tonnes during the same time period in 2015. The top three suppliers were Viet
Nam (2,020 tonnes), the Republic of Korea (1,855 tonnes) and Ecuador (1,069 tonnes).
Mexico is the only country to produce Yellowfin Tuna from aquaculture production system (per-
seine and ranching operations), producing 61 tonnes in 2014. Difficulties in per seining juveniles
in many parts of the world, together at best mixed results from attempts to produce juvenile
stock from hatcheries have limited the growth a Yellowfin Tuna aquaculture sector.
In addition to these production systems limitations, the declining demand in key markets,
together with fragment production and strong competition in the global market, render
Yellowfin Tuna a less attractive species for aquaculture on the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast.
Amberjack
Global reported production of Amberjacks amounted to 168,616 tonnes in 2014,
approximately 12 percent of which was produced by aquaculture systems. The three largest
producers of Amberjack – Japan, PRC and Republic of Korea), account for 92.4 percent of
global production.
The largest producer of Amberjack is Japan, producing an estimated 41,000 tonnes in 2014
from aquaculture and wild-catch operations. The PRC is the world’s second largest producer
of Amberjack, accounting for 11 percent of global production, all of which is produced from
aquaculture systems. The PRC is the largest aquaculture producer of Amberjack.
Aquaculture production of Amberjack also occurs in Taiwan at a capacity of approximately
500 to 1,500 tonnes per annum and to a limited extent, in the Republic of Korea.
Despite earlier issues associated with fish health and a reliable supply of seed stock, particularly
with respect to European endeavours to produce Amberjack in aquaculture systems which
have now been abandoned, there has been growing interest in the species in recent years.
This has been in recognition of higher market prices, better control over flesh condition from
an aquaculture system, and competitive agribusiness metrics such as food conversion rate
and growth rate.
The majority (96.4 percent) of wild caught Amberjack, and 100 percent of reported
aquaculture Amberjack is consumed in the country of origin. Japanese frozen Amberjack fillets
accounted for 99.2 percent of the volume and 99.5 percent of the value of Amberjack exports,
with New Zealand accounting for the remaining 0.8 percent of volume and 0.5 percent of
value.
Key import markets include Japan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Papa New Guinea
(PNG), however reported traded volumes are relatively small.
Prices for farmed Amberjack can range dramatically depending on product specifications
and specific markets, with some high-end product achieving as much as US$50 per kilogram.
In 2014, Australia produced 26 tonne of wild-caught Amberjack, representing approximately
0.02 percent of global production.
Given that its production in aquaculture systems is well demonstrated, there are multiple
product and regional markets (some demonstrating growth potential) and there is opportunity
to attain premium pricing, it would appear that of the three finfish species examined under the
study, Greater Amberjack presents the best commercial opportunity.
However, any Greater Amberjack produced from the Pilbara-Gascoyne Region will face
marketing challenges associated with a lack of provenance, small domestic market and
intense competition from domestic production in targeted export markets. Only a small
inconsistent volumes of Amberjack are typically available from the Sydney Fish Markets.
Mahi Mahi
In 2014, global production of Mahi Mahi amounted to 115, 658 tonnes, all of which was wild
caught. Approximately two thirds (67.2 percent) of global supply of Mahi Mahi is sourced
from the Americas, with Asia accounting for 27.8 percent, together comprising 95 percent of
global supply.
The international trade market is relatively small, less than 7,000 tonnes in 2012 and 2013. All of
the reported export trade of Mahi Mahi originated in the Americas, the majority (97.2 percent)
of which was destined for the United States.
The fact that Mahi Mahi is not currently produced by aquaculture, that there is a negligible
domestic market and limited international trade that is confined to the Americas and parts of
Asia, render Mahi Mahi a less attractive commercial option for aquaculture production in the
Pilbara-Gascoyne Region.
Conclusion
It is clear from this study, that the development of markets for production of any of the
identified species from aquaculture operations on the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast would, at the
very least require significant investment in a marketing strategy to establish provenance and
build demand in domestic and/or export markets. The necessity of this marketing investment
would serve to further deteriorate the financial viability of aquaculture operations in the region.
1. Background
The Pilbara Development Commission and Gascoyne Development Commissions are two of
nine regional development commissions in Western Australia established and empowered
under the Regional Development Commissions (WA) Act 1993. The basic role of all
development commissions is to promote, and to some extent, coordinate aspects of
economic development in their respective regions. The specific functions and roles of
development commissions are prescribed by the Act and are summarised in Table 1 below.
Functions Role
Maximise job creation and improve career
opportunities in the region;
Develop and broaden the regional economy;
Identify infrastructure services to promote
economic and social development of the
region;
Provide information and advice to promote
business development within the region; and
Seek to ensure that the standard of and
access to government services in the regions
is comparable to the Perth metropolitan area.
Promote the region
Facilitate coordination between relevant
statutory bodies and State Government
agencies
Cooperate with representatives of industry
and commerce, employer and employee
organisations, education and training
institutions and other sections of the
community within the region
Identify the opportunities for investment in the
region and encourage that investment
Identify the infrastructure needs of the region
and encourage the provision of that
infrastructure in the region
Cooperate with departments of the public
service of the State and Commonwealth and
other agencies, instrumentalities and statutory
bodies of the State and the Commonwealth
in order to promote equitable delivery of
services within the region; and
Cooperate with local governments in order to
promote equitable delivery of services
TABLE 1 – FUNCTIONS AND ROLES OF DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS
Primarily as the result of the combination of development funding that has been made
available by virtue of the Royalties for Regions (WA) Act 2009, together with a subsequent
review of the functions and roles of Regional Development Commissions1, the Regional
Development Commissions have in recent years been specifically charged with the
development and custodianship of the Regional Investment Blueprints. The Regional
Investment Blueprints are plans for investment in transformative strategies, priority actions and
opportunities for driving growth in each of the regions.
Both the Gascoyne and Pilbara Regional Investment Blueprint reference, among other things,
the development of an aquaculture industry in their respective regions a major opportunity for
economic growth and diversification. Examples of references to aquaculture in these
Blueprints is summarised in
Regional
Investment
Blueprint
Example Reference to Aquaculture Development Objectives
1 Government of Western Australia (2010), Structuring Regional Development for the Future: A
Review of the Functions and Responsibilities of Regional Development Commissions
Pilbara ‘[develop] a suite of Common Use Facilities, hubs or centres of excellence across the
region supporting manufacture, the mineral and energy industries, agriculture and
aquaculture and infrastructure projects’
‘[develop] land and tenure frameworks supporting agriculture and aquaculture (onshore
and offshore) development]
‘[process that results in the] identification of agriculture and aquaculture species suited to
the Pilbara’
‘[develop] algae based aquaculture producers exporting nutraceuticals and
pharmaceuticals to local, national and international markets’
Gascoyne ‘Aquaculture represents a significant opportunity for the Region’
‘[The] coastal orientation of the Region supports emerging aquaculture-based seafood
production’
‘Actioning of the comparative advantage of the Gascoyne Region in food production
via the attraction of domestic and international investment in aquaculture production’
Table 2 below.
Regional
Investment
Blueprint
Example Reference to Aquaculture Development Objectives
Pilbara ‘[develop] a suite of Common Use Facilities, hubs or centres of excellence across the
region supporting manufacture, the mineral and energy industries, agriculture and
aquaculture and infrastructure projects’
‘[develop] land and tenure frameworks supporting agriculture and aquaculture (onshore
and offshore) development]
‘[process that results in the] identification of agriculture and aquaculture species suited to
the Pilbara’
‘[develop] algae based aquaculture producers exporting nutraceuticals and
pharmaceuticals to local, national and international markets’
Gascoyne ‘Aquaculture represents a significant opportunity for the Region’
‘[The] coastal orientation of the Region supports emerging aquaculture-based seafood
production’
‘Actioning of the comparative advantage of the Gascoyne Region in food production
via the attraction of domestic and international investment in aquaculture production’
TABLE 2 – REFERENCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE PILBARA AND
GASCOYNE REGIONAL INVESTMENT BLUEPRINTS
It is worth noting that the Kimberley, Mid West, Wheatbelt, South West, Great Southern and
Goldfields-Esperance Regional Investment Blueprints also reference aquaculture as an
important future industry.
The Western Australian aquaculture industry as a whole currently generates approximately
A$75 million of product. Approximately A$60 million of this value is attributable to the Pinctada
Maxima pearling sector which is located primarily in the Kimberley Region. Furthermore, of the
approximately A$15 million of value produced from the non-pearl sectors of the Western
Australian Aquaculture industry, approximately 50 percent is attributable to a single
barramundi operation in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia. While there is significant
prospect for aquaculture industry development in the Mid West, South West and Great
Southern Regions underpinned by relatively new projects, these projects do not currently make
as significant contribution to industry output.
Aquaculture production in the Pilbara and Gascoyne Regions is currently negligible, confined
primarily to the production of small volumes of non-Pinctada Maxima pearls.
In order to pursue the recommendations of their respective Regional Investment Blueprints, the
Gascoyne and Pilbara Development Commissions have collaborated with the Western
Australian Department of Fisheries as the lead government agency for the development and
regulation of aquaculture in Western Australia to undertake a preliminary study investigating
the feasibility of marine based aquaculture in the Gascoyne and Pilbara Regions.
The Department of Fisheries in agreement with the Gascoyne and Pilbara Development
Commissions identified two sectors of marine aquaculture that have potential, prima facie,
viability in the waters off these two regions:
Edible oysters; and/or
Marine finfish production based on species such as Yellowtail Kingfish (Thunnus
albacares), Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) or Mahi Mahi (Coryphaena hippurus)
The Department of Fisheries has also identified bodies of water along the coast of the
Gascoyne and Pilbara Regions which could, prima facie, be the subject of aquaculture
development zones.
As a component of the study, the Department of Fisheries has engaged Australian Venture
Consultants to undertake the following studies:
Market Analysis for the abovementioned species
Pre-feasibility study into the economic viability of a hypothetical edible oyster
operation at a location determined to be prima facie optimal for edible oyster
production along the Gascoyne and Pilbara coastlines; and
Pre-feasibility study into the economic viability of a hypothetical marine finfish
operation at a location determined to be prima facie optimal for marine finfish
production along the Gascoyne and Pilbara coastlines.
This report is the market analysis study.
2. Edible Oysters
2.1. Production In 2014, total global oyster production amounted to 5.286 million tonnes, 97.5 percent of which
was produced from aquaculture, with only approximately 130,000 tonnes sourced from wild-
catch operations2. Aquaculture production of oysters has demonstrated a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 3.5 percent over the period 2011 to 2014, whereas wild-catch
production increased at a CAGR of 2.3 percent over the same period. However, the positive
growth rate was the result of significant growth in 2011 and in fact the wild-catch sector has
declined by 7.3 percent since 2011. Global production of oysters for the period 2010 to 2014 is
summarised in Table 3 below.
Global Oyster Production 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Aquaculture (tonnes) 4,489,002 4,503,836 4,727,722 4,951,880 5,155,257
Wild Catch (tonnes) 119,036 164,424 138,900 134,751 130,754
Total Production 4,608,038 4,668,260 4,866,622 5,086,631 5,286,011
TABLE 3 - GLOBAL OYSTER PRODUCTION 2010-2014
While oysters are commercially produced by at least 67 countries, global supply is dominated
by a handful of major producing nations. Figure 1 illustrates the prevalence of Asian nations,
particularly the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in the supply of oysters.
2 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ)
FIGURE 1 - GLOBAL OYSTER PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
The PRC accounts for over 82 percent of total global production, followed by Korea (5.7
percent), the United States (3.6 percent), Japan (3.5 percent) and France (1.5 percent).
Australia is the 11th largest producer, accounting for 0.2 percent.
Together, the top 5 producing countries (by volume) account for approximately 97 percent of
oysters produced globally and the top 10 producing countries comprise 99.5 percent of total
global production.
Species Groups
Global oyster production data reported to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations (FAO) is classified according to the species groups listed in Table 4 below.
China
82.3%
Korea, Republic of
5.7%
United States of
America
3.6%
Japan
3.5%France
1.4%
Mexico
1.0%Taiwan
0.5%
Philippines
0.4%
Thailand
0.3%
Canada
0.3%
Australia
0.2%
Ireland
0.2%
Others
0.5%
Major Species Grouped Species Other Species3
Pacific Cupped Oyster Flat Oysters nei4 Cortez Oyster*
European Flat Oyster Cupped Oysters nei Indian Backwater Oyster*
American Cupped Oyster Flat and Cupped Oysters nei Mangrove Cupped Oyster*
Slipper Cupped Oyster New Zealand Dredge Oyster*
Chilean Flat Oyster*
Gasar Cupped Oyster*
Hooded Oyster*
Sydney Cupped Oyster**
Olympia Oyster**
TABLE 4 - FAO OYSTER SPECIES CLASSIFICATIONS
In 2014, 99.7 percent of all oyster production was reported under the Major Species and Group
Species categories detailed in Table 2.
Source of Production
Aquaculture is the predominant source of oyster production, primarily because it provides
greater certainty of production volumes and greater ability to control product specifications
(quality and size). In a situation that is common to many sectors of the seafood industry,
farmed oyster prices have commanded significant premiums (up to two or three times) over
their wild-caught counterpart because purchasers of volume have greater surety with respect
to reliable delivery of large volumes of product within a required specification range.
Of the nations that account for 99.5 percent of global oyster production, only Mexico relied
on wild-catch production for the majority of its oyster yield in 20145. This is illustrated in Figure 2
below. Australia’s oyster production is totally sourced from aquaculture operations.
3 Many countries (including Australia) report oyster production to the FAO on a grouped
species basis. *denotes <10,000 tonnes of production reported globally per year; **denotes
nil production reported 4 “NEI” is an abbreviation of “not elsewhere included” 5 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ)
FIGURE 2 - MAJOR OYSTER PRODUCING NATIONS - AQUACULTURE VS. WILD CATCH
The more irregularly shaped wild-caught oysters are predominantly sold in the domestic
shucked market in grocery stores where presentation is less important and premiums are lower.
The composition of the global oyster wild-catch supply is illustrated in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 - GLOBAL OYSTER WILD CATCH PRODUCTION (BY VOLUME)
As a consequence of the low value associated with wild catch oyster produce, a market
preference for aquaculture produced oysters, and the fact that this report is supporting a
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aquaculture Wild Catch
USA
48.6%
Mexico
31.2%
Republic of Korea
15.4%
New Zealand
1.2%Canada
1.0%Brazil
0.9%
Senegal
0.5%
Croatia
0.3%
Ireland
0.3%
Indonesia
0.2%
Others
0.6%
proposed oyster aquaculture industry, the majority of the market analyses in this report is
focused on the market for aquaculture produced oysters.
In 2014, 5.155 million tonnes of oysters were produced via aquaculture with a reported value
of US$4.17 billion. Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate global oyster production reported by country
and species group for the top 10 producers by volume and value respectively6.
FIGURE 4 - AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION BY SPECIES AND PRODUCING COUNTRY – 2014
6 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ)
China Cupped Oysters
nei
85.4%
Korea Pacific Cupped
Oyster
5.6%Japan Pacific Cupped
Oyster
3.6%
USA American Cupped
Oyster
1.8%
France Pacific Cupped
Oyster
1.5%
USA Pacific Cupped
Oyster
0.6%
Taiwan Pacific Cupped
Oyster
0.5%
Philippines Slipper
Cupped Oyster
0.4%
Thailand Cupped
Oysters nei
0.3%
Australia Flat and
Cupped Oysters nei
0.2%
FIGURE 5 - AQUACULTURE VALUE BY SPECIES AND PRODUCING COUNTRY – 2014
The PRC produces over 84 percent of global aquaculture oyster volume and accounts for 61
percent of total value. Conversely, France produces less than 1.5 percent of global volume
and accounts for 12 percent of total value. Collectively Asia accounts for 95 percent of
aquaculture volume and 79 percent of value, and Europe, the Americas and Oceania
combined represent 5 percent of global production volume and 21 percent of value.
Table 5 below recasts the global market data on a unitised (USD per tonne) basis. When unit
value is compared on a single species basis, it is evident that a significant variance exists
between major producers in different geographical markets. Table 5 identifies a range of
approximately US$6,300 per tonne for the Pacific Cupped Oyster among major producing
countries. This is likely explained in the context of regional domestic consumption, economic
indicators (such as GDP per capita) and trade patterns, and environmental factors such as
water quality and pollution7 that affect the attractiveness of produce to different market
segments.
For example, domestically cultured aquatic product quality and safety is a major concern for
Chinese consumers after an aquatic survey highlighted the use of malachite green and
overuse of antibiotics at domestic aquaculture facilities. Consumers of imported food in the
PRC are generally high and upper-middle income locals and expatriates. These consumers
can afford to pay higher prices for food and are motivated to do so because of increasing
concerns about food safety and health8. The average value of domestically produced
7 Bord Bia – Irish Food Board (2015), ‘Imported oysters growing in popularity in China’ 8 China-Britain Business Council (2015), ‘Overseas Market Introduction Service for Sea Fish
Industry Authority’
China Cupped Oysters
nei
63.5%
France Pacific Cupped
Oyster
12.4%
Japan Pacific Cupped
Oyster
7.9%
Korea Pacific Cupped
Oyster
4.7%
Taiwan Pacific Cupped
Oyster
4.3%
USA American Cupped
Oyster
2.3%
Australia Flat and
Cupped Oysters nei
2.0%
Ireland Pacific Cupped
Oyster
1.3%
USA Pacific Cupped
Oyster
1.1%
Thailand Cupped
Oysters nei
0.4%
cupped oysters in the PRC in 2014 was US$590 per tonne, compared to the average value of
imported oysters at US$11,703 per tonne.
The analysis also identifies that Australian oysters reflect highest average value per tonne of
the major producers in the global market at US$7,148 (see Table 5). The Pacific Oyster
represents 70 percent of the volume of oysters cultivated in Australia, and accounts for 60
percent of the value, reflecting the price premium associated with the Sydney Rock Oyster9.
Country Species Volume Value
USD$’000
Average
US$/tonne
Vol10 % Val %
Australia Flat and Cupped
Oysters nei
11,403 81,510 $7,148 0.22% 1.95%
Taiwan Pacific Cupped Oyster 25,276 175,855 $6,957 0.49% 4.21%
France Pacific Cupped Oyster 75,100 501,505 $6,677 1.46% 12.01%
Ireland Pacific Cupped Oyster 8,887 52,198 $5,873 0.17% 1.25%
Japan Pacific Cupped Oyster 184,100 320,010 $1,738 3.57% 7.67%
USA Pacific Cupped Oyster 29,116 46,294 $1,590 0.56% 1.11%
USA American Cupped
Oyster
93,697 93,697 $1,000 1.82% 2.24%
Thailand Cupped Oysters nei 17,187 15,462 $ 899 0.33% 0.37%
Korea Pacific Cupped Oyster 283,232 191,656 $ 676 5.49% 4.59%
China Cupped Oysters nei 4,352,053 2,567,711 $ 590 84.42% 61.51%
Philippines Slipper Cupped Oyster 22,355 4,044 $ 180 0.43% 0.10%
TABLE 5- UNIT VALUE OF HIGH VOLUME OYSTER PRODUCERS
Australian Production
The FAO market data is reported on an aggregate basis and does not distinguish between
production or relative value of the Pacific Oyster and the Sydney Rock Oyster. Domestic
production data is further detailed by region and species in Table 611 and identifies that the
Sydney Rock Oyster attracts a 66 percent pricing premium over the Pacific Oyster.
9 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015), Australian Fisheries
and Aquaculture Statistics - 2014 10 Volume and value are expressed by species group as a percent of total global
aquaculture production, noting that some countries produce more than one species group. 11 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015), Australian
Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics - 2014
Domestic Production by
Region - 2013/14
Species Volume (t) Value
(AUD$'000)
AUD$/tonne
South Australia Pacific Oyster 4,900 $32,080 $ 6,547
Tasmania Pacific Oyster 3,236 $21,684 $ 6,701
New South Wales Sydney Rock Oyster 3,266 $36,007 $11,025
TABLE 6 - AUSTRALIAN OYSTER PRODUCTION 2013/14
There have been substantial changes in the Australian market for oysters over the past 20 years
due to the development of the Pacific oyster aquaculture industry. Pacific oysters comprised
less than 30 per cent of total oyster production in 1990 and accounted for 70 per cent in
2013/14. Figure 6 - Production of Sydney Rock Oyster (dozens) 2003/4 to 2012/13Figure 6 and
Figure 7 below12 illustrate the simultaneous decline in production of the Sydney Rock Oyster
and increase in production of the Pacific oyster.
FIGURE 6 - PRODUCTION OF SYDNEY ROCK OYSTER (DOZENS) 2003/4 TO 2012/13
12 Nuffield (2014), ‘Can strategic planning be used to revitalise the NSW Oyster industry?’
FIGURE 7 - PRODUCTION OF PACIFIC OYSTERS (KILOGRAMS) IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1994 - 2012
Production of the Pacific Oyster has declined slightly in recent years in Australia due to
production challenges associated with Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS).
The relative share of production and value by state (and by inference, species) is illustrated in
Figure 8 below. It should be noted that small volume of Cucullata oyster (Rock Oyster) species
are also grown intermittently in southern Queensland and southern Western Australia.
FIGURE 8 - RELATIVE SHARE OF AUSTRALIAN OYSTER PRODUCTION AND VALUE 2011/12-2013/14
Pricing trends are illustrated in Figure 913, expressed in Australian dollars per tonne.
13 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015), Australian
Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics - 2014
FIGURE 9- AUSTRALIAN OYSTER UNIT PRICING
A recent benchmarking exercise by the Australian Seafood CRC identified that, despite the
premium pricing attributed to the Sydney Rock Oyster, the New South Wales oyster industry
demonstrates poor performance in terms of profitability, return on equity and production per
hectare compared to its South Australian and Tasmanian counterparts. Table 7 and Table 8
summarise the financial performance of the Australian oyster industry.
State Profit (before tax and after labour input) Profit as a Percentage of Income
2010/11 2011/12 2010/11 2011/12
South Australia $71,060 $76,643 4.7% 16.8%
Tasmania $37,087 $113,754 5.5% 10.6%
New South Wales $17,848 $34,421 -29% 12%
TABLE 7: PROFIT AND PROFIT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME OF OYSTER FARMS IN THREE STATES
State Return on Equity Dozens per Developed
Hectare
2010/11 2011/12 2011/12
South Australia 2% 13% 10,772
Tasmania 4% 4% 17,440
New South Wales -5% 3% 4,236
TABLE 8 - RETURN ON EQUITY AND PRODUCTION PER HECTARE FOR OYSTER FARMS IN THREE STATES
The decline has been attributed to a number of factors, including supply-side factors such as
QX oyster disease, the effects of a feral Pacific Oyster introduction (1980’s) and degradation
of water quality in many rivers, estuaries and lakes; as well as differences in species growth
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
South Australia $5,909 $6,130 $6,547
Tasmania $6,000 $6,700 $6,701
New South Wales $10,296 $10,652 $11,025
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
AUD$/tonne
rates. Sydney Rock Oysters can take up to three years to grow to sale size, compared to a
Pacific Oyster that typically grows to maturity in 18 months.
Demand side factors include non-contested competition in the market place from oysters
grown in other states and the diversification of consumer tastes14.
2.2. International Trade Analysis of global production and trade data identifies that the vast majority of oysters are
consumed in the country of origin. Total exports of live oysters amounted to approximately
30,000 tonnes in 2013, or 0.56 percent of global production, accumulating a total value of
US$203.5 million, at an average unit price of US$7,065 per tonne15.
Aside from the fact that the world’s largest producers of oysters are also large consumers, a
number of challenges exist with respect to shelf-life, transport, quarantine regulations and
trade tariffs that complicate the value chain, increase costs and inhibit international trade of
oysters.
Live oysters can survive out of water for up to a week if handled carefully, however sometimes
live oysters harvested from submerged beds require “hardening” prior to shipping, a process
that can take up to three weeks16. The shelf-life of an oyster is short (several days) once the
animal has been shucked. This short shelf-life presents a barrier for international trade, and in
particular the Australian oyster industry, given its proximity to many key international markets.
A number of alternatives exist to extend shelf life, such as freezing, modified atmosphere
packaging and high pressure processing, although the latter is highly capital intensive17.
Imported live oysters may be put into holding systems in the importing country and therefore
any disease or parasite contained in the imported oyster (such as POMS) may be transmitted
to local oysters. A 2014 study funded by the European Commission18 found that 48 invasive
species “very likely” arrived in Europe with oyster imports from the north-west Pacific. Japanese
law (for example) imposes the inspection responsibility on the exporting country, and oysters
for raw consumption must be accompanied by a certification that they have been collected
from a designated water area meeting Japanese microbiological criteria19.
Similarly, the PRC’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
(ASQIQ) introduced a comprehensive system requiring certification that imported food meets
new food safety standards in 201520.
14 Nuffield (2014), ‘Can strategic planning be used to revitalise the NSW Oyster industry?’ 15 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ). Export values are reported as F.O.B 16 APEC (1999), Air Shipment of Live and Fresh Fish and Seafood Guidelines’ 17 Madigan, T.L. (2014), ‘Shelf-Life and Value Adding of Australian Oysters’ 18 EC Science for Environment Policy (2014) ‘Oyster Imports bring alien “hitchhikers” and
disease’ 19 Leow, C., (2016), ‘Live Oysters – delicacy or invasive species carrier?’,
http://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/live-oysters-delicacy-or-invasive-species-
carrier 20 China-Britain Business Council (2015), ‘Overseas Market Introduction Service for Sea Fish
Industry Authority’
Australian oyster producing regions require AQIS approval in order to access international
markets. AQIS export approval provides access to most markets, including Japan, but
excluding the EU and USA21.
Import tariffs significantly increase the cost of imported fresh oysters, however the
establishment of free trade agreements between Australia and the PRC, Korea and Japan in
2014 and 2015 will see these tariffs reduced or eliminated in the near future. Japan’s 7 percent
tariff on fresh oysters has already been eliminated, the PRC’s 14 percent tariff will be eliminated
by January 2019 and Korea’s 20 percent tariff on fresh oysters will be eliminated by 202022.
The establishment of the Trans Pacific Partnership will also eliminate seafood tariffs between
Australia and Canada, Vietnam, Peru and Mexico23.
Oyster exports are highly regionalised and are focused on high-quality produce, with 61
percent of global export volume and 67 percent of value originating from Europe,
predominantly from France and Ireland. Collectively, Europe, Oceania and the Americas
accounted for 88 percent of export volume and 94 percent of value in 2013, despite
comprising approximately 5 percent of global aquaculture production.
The world’s three largest oyster producers (PRC, Korea and Japan) exported 0.02 percent, 0.26
percent and 0.003 percent of produce respectively in 2013. Collectively the Asian region
accounted for approximately 12 percent of oyster export volume and 5 percent of export
value.
French exports of the European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis)attracted the highest average value
per tonne in the export market in 2013, and exports of French Pacific cupped oysters
(Crassostrea gigas) attracted the third highest average value per tonne, behind exports of
Australian oysters.
Table 9 illustrates major aquaculture oyster exporters by country of origin.
21 NSW Department of Primary Industries, ‘NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture
Strategy Second Edition 2014’ 22 Australian Seafood CRC (2015), ‘Seafood Legacy Book’ 23 Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/Pages/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-
tpp.aspx
Country of
Origin
Classification24 Volumes
(tonnes)
Value
$USD’00025
Average US$/tonne
France Flat oysters, shucked or not,
live, fresh or chilled
629 $6,655 $ 10,580
Australia Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
504 $5,243 $10,403
France Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
7,027 $68,039 $9,683
UK Flat oysters, shucked or not,
live, fresh or chilled
442 $3,898 $8,819
New Zealand Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
278 $2,439 $8,773
Korea Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
737 $6,134 $8,323
Netherlands Flat oysters, shucked or not,
live, fresh or chilled
247 $1,976 $8,000
Canada Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
3,405 $26,080 $7,659
USA Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
2,648 $18,804 $7,101
Ireland Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
1,650 $11,368 $6,890
Ireland Flat oysters, shucked or not,
live, fresh or chilled
3,521 $23,344 $6,630
Netherlands Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
1,828 $9,656 $5,282
Portugal Flat oysters, shucked or not,
live, fresh or chilled
198 $906 $4,576
UK Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
373 $1,644 $4,408
China Oysters, live fresh or chilled,
nei
944 $3,655 $3,872
TABLE 9 -MAJOR EXPORTERS OF LIVE OYSTERS – 2013
Major Import Markets
Import data is collated at an aggregate level and is not species-specific, albeit some
differentiation between imports of flat and cupped oysters is possible. Broad assumptions may
24 For the purposes of this report, export analysis considers live, fresh oysters only and excludes
oysters frozen, smoked, dried, salted or in brine 25 Export values are reported as F.O.B
be made in the context of the export data that the highest value imports are likely to be
European Flat Oysters and Pacific Cupped Oysters originating from France or Ireland.
Table 10 identifies major global import markets for live oysters by volume and total value.
Import Market Species Volumes
(tonnes)
Value26
$USD’000
Average
US$/tonne
Russian Federation Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 485 $ 6,766 $13,951
Canada Oysters, shucked, fresh or chilled 665 $ 7,575 $11,391
Switzerland Oysters, in shell, live, fresh or chilled 424 $ 4,308 $10,160
Ireland Flat oysters, shucked or not, live,
fresh or chilled
480 $ 4,850 $10,104
Germany Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 508 $ 4,820 $ 9,488
Ireland Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 321 $ 2,987 $ 9,305
Japan Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 702 $ 6,320 $ 9,003
Hong Kong Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 3949 $30,911 $ 7,828
Singapore Oysters, live 795 $ 5,768 $ 7,255
Spain Flat oysters, shucked or not, live,
fresh or chilled
612 $ 4,143 $ 6,770
France Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 4508 $30,451 $ 6,755
Qatar Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 283 $ 1,910 $ 6,749
Canada Oysters, in shell, live, fresh or chilled 546 $ 3,617 $ 6,625
USA Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 3515 $22,545 $ 6,414
Belgium Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1398 $ 8,705 $ 6,227
TABLE 10 - MAJOR IMPORTERS OF LIVE OYSTERS 2013
A number of high value and volume live oyster import markets are characterised by the
presence of a wealthy consumer segment and a lack of suitability to cultivate oysters
domestically, including Russia, Switzerland, Belgium, Qatar, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Figure 10 identifies all countries that reported an import price greater than US$10,000 per tonne
in 2013. In some, but not all cases, the high prices are due to very small quantities of produce
imported.
Appendix 1 provides a detailed breakdown of volumes and associated import prices.
26 Import values are recorded as C.I.F in Table 4, with the exception of Australia which is
reported as F.O.B.
FIGURE 10- COUNTRIES IMPORTING AT A UNIT PRICE OF >US$10,000
2.3. Market Trends in Key International Markets
Consumption Patterns
Europe
The French are the world’s second largest consumers of live oysters (behind China) with an
annual consumption of 2kg per capita27. Implied consumption (production less exports plus
imports) totals approximately 74,500 tonnes per year. Demand is seasonal, with approximately
half of consumption occurring in month of December.
Pricing is set according to grade of produce, which is based on restaurant size preferences of
95 to 110 grams per piece for European Flat Oysters and 60 to 100 grams per piece for Pacific
Oysters. Pricing data for premium grade oysters reflects an average wholesale price across
Europe of €16.56 (AUD$25.60) per kilogram for Pacific Oysters and €19.19 (AUD$29.75) per
kilogram for European Flat Oysters28.
According to a recent study carried out by the French shellfish committee, up to 50 percent
of French consumers report price sensitivity, although among regular consumers of oysters only
10 percent reported reduced purchases of oysters in response to price increases.
The average price of lower grade oysters for home consumption in 2012 was €7.80 per kg,
which was eight per cent higher than 2011. French sales for home consumption fell by eight
percent during the same period, suggesting that the home consumption market may be unit
elastic. Supermarkets account for 56 per cent of sales, the remaining sales being from markets
(27 per cent), fish shops (10 per cent), and direct sales29.
Asia
Demand for oysters is growing, particularly in China, which consumes 84.4 percent of the
world’s oysters, or approximately 3.2 kilograms per capita30. Chinese urban dwellers consumed
an average of 15.2 kilograms of seafood per capita in 2012, which is projected to increase to
30.1 kilograms by 2024 as a consequence of rising wealth and consumer preferences for
seafood over alternative animal proteins such as chicken or pork.
While China’s aquaculture oyster industry maintained year on year production growth of 3.2
percent in 2014, imports of live oysters to China increased from 667 tonnes in 2013 to 1,443 in
the first nine months of 2015, reflecting the increase in consumption and wealthy consumer
preferences for imported oysters. The quality of Chinese oysters is poor due to water pollution
and consumer concerns over the use of malachite green and overuse of antibiotics in
domestic aquatic farms, therefore China imports high quality oysters from France, New
Zealand, Australia and the US to sell to premium consumer markets.
Imported oysters are sold in high-end gourmet stores, fine restaurants, oyster bars and five-star
hotels in first tier cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing. Market penetration is low, but
expected to increase with the rising wealth of the Chinese middle and upper classes. Demand
peaks seasonally at Christmas, New Year and the Spring Festival.
27 Bord Bia – Irish Food Board (2011), ‘French oyster prices increase as supplies tighten’ 28 FAO (2015), Globefish European Price Report - December 2015 29 Board Bia – Irish Food Board (2013), ‘Rising French oyster prices to compensate mortalities’ 30 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ).
China imports oysters at an average value of US$11,703 per tonne (C.I.F). Chinese import duty
on oysters is 14 percent and VAT 13 percent.
The price of oysters is especially high in gourmet stores, restaurants and hotels. At a gourmet
store the cost of one oyster can be as high as RMB78.00 (AUD$16.50), while the average cost
of one oyster is around RMB50.00 (AUD$10.55). At a five star hotel, one oyster can cost up to
RMB100.00 (AUD$21.10) and promotions of French oysters have been observed in Shanghai at
a price of RMB248 (AUD$52.30) for a half dozen31.
Other key Asian markets include Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. The FAO reports the
average price of Australian oyster exports at US$10,403 per tonne in 201332, however the
underlying data reflects an anomalous, very high average price of AUD$29,481 per tonne
achieved in 2012/13 exports to Singapore, most likely due to a shortage in supply of high quality
French oysters as a result of substantial oyster mortalities experienced in France during that
period. The average price paid by Singapore dropped to AUD$10,141 per tonne in 2013/1433.
The Americas
The US, Canada and Mexico are major producers of oysters, however the US and Canada
both feature as high volume and value import and export markets for live oysters. Implied
demand in the US is approximately 189,000 tonnes annually, most of which is met through
domestic production, although the US remains a net importer of live oysters.
The data suggests that imports for the US and Canada are focused on high-value produce.
The average unit value of domestic American Cupped Oysters produced in the US is US$1,000
per tonne, and US$1,590 for domestically grown Pacific Oysters. Imported oysters are sourced
at an average price of US$6,400 per tonne (C.I.F) therefore Australian oysters are unlikely to be
competitive in this market.
Similarly, the average value of American Cupped Oysters produced in Canada is US$3,328 per
tonne and US$1,456 for Canadian-produced Pacific Oysters. Canada imports approximately
1,200 tonnes of oysters per year, 60 percent of which are shucked, at an average value of
US$11,391 and 40 percent of which are live in shell, at US$6,625 per tonne.
Australia
According to FAO data, Australia consumes 96 percent of domestic oyster production.
Average value of domestic production was AUD$7,900 per tonne in 2013/14, or more
specifically AUD$6,624 per tonne for Pacific Oysters and AUD$11,025 per tonne for Sydney
Rock Oysters34. Implied demand is approximately 11,000 tonnes per annum, and in 2013
Australia exported approximately 504 tonnes of oysters at an average value of US$10,403 per
tonne. The majority (97 percent) of oyster exports are Pacific Oysters, with less than one
percent (~33 tonnes) of Sydney Rock Oysters destined for export markets35. Over the same
31 Board Bia – Irish Food Board (2015), ‘Imported oysters growing in popularity in China’ 32 FAO data reported for the 2013 calendar year reflects data reported for the Australian
2012/13 financial year 33 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015), Australian
Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics - 2014 34 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015), Australian
Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics - 2014 35 Nuffield (2014), ‘Can strategic planning be used to revitalise the NSW Oyster industry?’
period, Australia imported approximately 30 tonnes of fresh or live oysters at an average value
of $15,563 per tonne36.
Approximately 86 percent of Sydney Rock Oysters are consumed within New South Wales, with
approximately 50 percent sold to oyster processors in the Sydney market and 36 percent sold
to New South Wales regional areas37. The majority of the remaining oysters are sold to interstate
markets38.
According to a recent study39, domestic demand for the Sydney Rock Oyster is relatively
inelastic, whereas the market for Pacific Oysters faces an elastic demand, suggesting that the
species do not directly compete for the same set of consumers. There is evidence of
consumer preference for SROs over Pacific oysters in Australia, however purchase behaviour
indicates that species type is of lower importance compared to other product attributes for
consumer choice, such as price40.
Recent research conducted by the Australian Seafood CRC found that approximately 30
percent of survey respondents (n=2,538) indicated that they had consumed fresh oysters either
at home or outside the home in the past year. Consumers’ age is significant in the consumption
of oysters, as consumption increases with age. Respondents under 34 years of age consumed
less oysters than those over 34 years of age. Particularly, the consumption of oysters was highest
in respondents aged 45 years and older.
Respondents with a household income of $80,000 to $99,999 per annum reported increased
consumption of oysters. Similarly, respondents with a university or tertiary education also
consumed more oysters, and males also had a higher consumption than females.
The residents of Sydney, Brisbane, South Australia (other than Adelaide), Tasmania (other than
Hobart) and Darwin showed a higher consumption of oysters than residents in the rest of
Australia.
Respondents who had purchased fresh oysters in the past 12 months were asked which factors
were important to them by rating them from 0 to 10 (where 0 reflects not important and 10
extremely important). Date of harvest, geography of origin and good quality were the top
three most important factors in the purchase of fresh oysters. Smaller size and available
unopened were the least important41.
Market research data42 indicates that 55 percent of oysters are consumed at home, and 45
percent are consumed out of home (data does not exclude canned oysters). Figure 11 and
Figure 12 reflect Australian domestic consumption patterns where oysters are bought for out
of home and in-home consumption respectively.
36 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ). 37 Nuffield (2014), ‘Can strategic planning be used to revitalise the NSW Oyster industry?’ 38 NSW Department of Primary Industries (2014), ‘NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture
Strategy’ 39 Schrobback, P., (2015), Economic Analyses of Australia’s Sydney Rock Oyster Industry 40 Mueller Loose, S., Peschel, A., & Grebitus, C. (2013). Quantifying effects of convenience
and product packaging on consumer preferences and market share of seafood products:
The case of oysters. 41 Australian Seafood CRC (2015), ‘Final Seafood Omnibus’ 42 Seafood CRC, ‘Your return on R&D $ investment’
FIGURE 11: SALES OF OYSTERS FOR OUT OF HOME CONSUMPTION
FIGURE 12 - SALES OF OYSTERS FOR IN-HOME CONSUMPTION
2.4. Concluding Comments The fact that the ‘Western’ Rock Oyster is genetically and morphologically almost identical the
Sydney Rock Oyster and the Sydney Rock Oyster has significant share of the Australian oyster
market and attracts premium pricing suggests that there may exist an opportunity for
production of Western Rock Oysters to penetrate the market that traditionally purchases
Sydney Rock Oysters, as well as perhaps develop a premium Asian oriented export market.
Restaurant
36%Friend's / Relative's
house
14%
Club
12%
Fish and chip shop
10%Function Centre
10%
Hotel
8%Fast food outlet /
takeaway (including
sushi stall)
4%
Supermarket /
Convenience store
4%
Food Court
2%
Supermarket / food
store
40%
Fish shop (mostly
uncooked seafood)
17%
Fish market or
general market
14%
Wholesaler / Co-op
14%
Commercial
fisherman
3%
Fish shop (selling
mostly cooked
seafood)
2%
Restaurant / takeaway
(including sushi
stalls)
2%
Gift from non-
household member
2%
Don't know / can't
remember
6%
However, the fact that almost 90 percent of Sydney Rock Oyster production is consumed in
the State of New South Wales and that only very small volumes of Sydney Rock Oysters are
exported, suggests that the premium associated with Sydney Rock Oysters may well be as
much the function of its heritage as traditional Sydney seafood restaurant faire, as it is the
eating quality of the product. If this is the case, it is dubious as to whether a ‘Western’ Rock
Oyster would be able to acquire market share from the Sydney Rock Oyster, particularly
without established provenance.
3. Yellowfin Tuna
3.1. Production Approximately 1.5 million tonnes of Yellowfin tuna was sourced in 2014, almost all (99.996
percent) of which was wild caught. Total reported aquaculture production amounted to 61
tonnes in 2014, all of which was produced in Mexico. Table 11 identifies global Yellowfin
production by source43.
Source 2012 2013 2014
Wild Catch (tonnes) 1,344,207 1,313,424 1,466,606
Aquaculture (tonnes) 38 171 61
Total Production 1,344,245 1,313,595 1,466,667
TABLE 11- GLOBAL YELLOWFIN TUNA PRODUCTION
Yellowfin tuna are wild caught in at least 94 countries and no single country accounts for
more than 12 percent of annual production as illustrated in Figure 13.
FIGURE 13- GLOBAL YELLOWFIN PRODUCTION – (BY VOLUME) 2014
When considered on a regional basis, the Asian region contributes approximately 50 percent
of global production, followed by the Americas (22 percent), Europe (13.5 percent), Oceania
(9.5 percent) and Africa (4.5 percent) (see Figure 14). Australia is the 46th largest producer,
reporting 1,513 tonnes of wild caught Yellowfin tuna in 2014, which represents 0.001 percent of
global production.
43 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ).
Indonesia
11.8%
Philippines
9.6%
Spain
8.6%
Mexico
8.6%
France
4.8%
Republic of Korea
4.4%
Papua New Guinea
3.8%
Japan
3.7%
Taiwan
3.4%
Maldives
3.3%
Iran
3.2%
Ecuador
2.8%
Sri Lanka
2.5%Others
29.6%
FIGURE 14 - REGIONAL YELLOWFIN TUNA PRODUCTION – 2014
There is no evidence of successful Yellowfin Tuna aquaculture production prior to 1997 when
Mexico established its first Yellowfin tuna operation. The majority of the global Yellowfin tuna
aquaculture production depicted in Figure 15 was produced in Mexico, with Oman producing
a total of 60 tonnes of Yellowfin tuna during the four year period from 2004 to 2007 (inclusive).
FIGURE 15 - GLOBAL YELLOWFIN TUNA AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION 1998 – 2014
Asia
50.0%
Americas
22.4%
Europe
13.5%
Oceania
9.5%
Africa
4.5%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014
t
Mexico Case Study44
Mexico’s venture into Yellowfin tuna has encountered significant challenges resulting in the
closure of several operations due to increasing difficulties in securing enough wild fish of
appropriate size to stock their net pens.
In Mexico, Yellowfin tuna farming is generally conducted by capturing juvenile and sub-adult
wild fish and holding them up to 8 months in ocean cages. During this time the tuna are fed
mackerel, sardine/squid rations, which promote rapid growth both in length and weight, and
change significantly the proximate composition of their flesh. Farmed tuna are harvested and
shipped fresh to sashimi markets throughout the world, typically reaching destinations less than
72 hours from harvest time.
Closed-cycle mariculture (stocking cages with laboratory-produced juveniles) is a promising
alternative to deliver high-quality tuna meat in a sustainable way. The Fisheries Laboratory of
Kinki University in Japan has successfully completed annual full-life-cycle rearing of Pacific
Bluefin tuna in captivity since 2002. A joint research initiative between Kinki University, the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Autoridad de los Recursos Acuaticos de
Panama reported the world first successful transfer of juvenile Yellowfin tuna from laboratory
tanks to sea cages in June 201545, however commercial practice in Yellowfin tuna farming
currently relies on wild-caught fish.
The primary limitation for the Mexican Yellowfin tuna industry appears to be the inability to
secure sufficient wild caught stocking-size fish to fill the existing net pens. Many of the original
Yellowfin tuna operations either ceased operations or changed their activities to focus on
other marine species for which laboratory-produced fish are more readily available.
Mitsubishi is the world’s largest tuna trader and owns a tuna farm in La Paz Bay. It produced
0.6 tonnes of Yellowfin tuna via aquaculture in 201546 (compared to 7,250 tonnes of Bluefin
tuna). In the same state, a Yellowfin tuna operation called Oceanic Aquaculture is located in
Santa Maria Bay. Established in 2013, Oceanic Aquaculture is focused on raising sashimi grade
Yellowfin tuna for the US market via sustainable capture and farming practices. It has identified
an objective to harvest more than 50 percent of production from Yellowfin tuna raised from
eggs by 2020 using the techniques developed during the IATTC research project, with the
ultimate goal to achieve full ‘egg to plate’ lifecycle farming with no capture of wild stock47.
Development and adoption of successful closed-cycle mariculture would enable several
challenges currently faced by the tuna aquaculture industry to be addressed by reducing or
eliminating the reliance upon wild stocks. The United States, one of the largest markets for tuna,
requires sustainability certification for seafood sourced from fisheries with a wild catch
44 Benetti, D.D., Partridge, G.J., Buentello, A.,(2016), ‘Advances in Tuna Aquaculture: From
Hatchery to Market 45 Fish Information and Services (2015), ‘World-first transfer of early juvenile yellowfin tuna to
sea cage’ 46 National Information System for Sustainable Rural Development, Fisheries and Aquaculture
(2016), Production Report – Fisheries and Aquaculture of Baja California 2015 Information 47 Oceanic Aquaculture (2014), ‘Closed Life Cycle Tuna Getting Closer’ and ‘Oceanic
Aquaculture will team up with URI Hatchery Expert to Produce Full Sustainable Tuna’
operation. Only three Yellowfin fisheries currently hold sustainability certification (globally) from
the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), and a further three are undergoing assessment48.
The difficulty in obtaining sufficient stocking-size fish is not constrained to Yellowfin tuna. In June
2015, the members of the Pacific Alliance for Sustainable Tuna (PAST, which represents over 90
percent of Mexico’s total tuna production) reported a decision to withdraw from fishing Pacific
Bluefin tuna for five years to allow stocks to recover.
3.2. International Trade Global reported export volume of Yellowfin tuna amounted to approximately 462,089 tonnes
in 2013, which comprised approximately 31.5 percent of production, with a total value of
US$1.486 billion. The majority (88.9 percent) of exports were sold frozen, at a mean unit price
of US$2,829 per tonne. Fresh Yellowfin tuna accounted for 11.1 percent of export volume and
attracted a higher mean unit price of US$6,318 per tonne compared to frozen Yellowfin. A
price premium is apparent for value-add processing on frozen Yellowfin tuna49.
Table 12 identifies the respective global quantities and values of exported Yellowfin tuna
recorded, according to each export classification50.
Classification Quantity
(tonnes)
% of global
export volume
Value (US$000) % of global
export volume
Average
US$/tonne
Yellowfin tuna,
fresh or chilled
51,200 11.1% $323,463 21.8% $6,318
Yellowfin tuna,
frozen, nei
410,510 88.8% $1,160,633 78.1% $2,827
Yellowfin tuna,
heads off, etc.,
frozen
379 0.1% $1,758 0.1% $4,639
Total Exports 462,089 $1,485,854
TABLE 12 - GLOBAL YELLOWFIN EXPORTS BY CLASSIFICATION
Figure 16 and Figure 17 identify the major Yellowfin tuna exporters by volume and value
respectively (on an aggregate basis, ignoring export format). Spain is the world’s largest
exporter of Yellowfin tuna, accounting for a total of 15.6 percent of global export volume and
15.3 percent of value in 2013, followed by Taiwan (12.4 percent of volume and 10.4 percent
of value), and France (9.6 percent of volume and 10 percent of value).
Together, the top 5 exporting nations account for 49 percent of volume and 49.1 percent of
value in the global export market. In 2013, Asia accounted for 44.3 percent of Yellowfin
exports and Europe comprised a total of 26.6 percent of export volume (95 percent of which
was from France and Spain), followed by the Americas (11 percent), Oceania (10.7 percent)
and Africa (7.4 percent). Australia exported 281 tonnes of fresh Yellowfin tuna in 2013 (down
48 Marine Stewardship Council, https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-
program/fisheries-by-species/fisheries-by-species#tuna 49 By inference the price premium afforded by partial processing appears to be 64 percent,
however few conclusions may be drawn due to inadequate data and small sample size. 50 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ).
from 815 tonnes in 2011), which accounted for 0.06 percent of export volume and 0.16
percent of export value.
FIGURE 16 - MAJOR YELLOWFIN TUNA EXPORTERS (BY VOLUME) - 2013
FIGURE 17 - MAJOR YELLOWFIN TUNA EXPORTERS (BY VALUE) - 2013
Spain
15.6%
Taiwan
12.4%
France
9.6%
Philippines
5.8%
Indonesia
5.5%
Korea, Republic of
0.2%
Seychelles
4.1%
Mexico
2.3%
China
2.1%
Sri Lanka
1.0%
Colombia
4.2%
Others
37.1%
Spain
15.3%
Taiwan
10.4%France
10.0%Philippines
3.6%
Indonesia
9.7%
Korea, Republic of
4.9%
Seychelles
3.2%
Mexico
3.5%
China
2.1%
Sri Lanka
2.7%
Colombia
3.6%Others
30.9%
Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15 illustrate relative mean unit values for the major exporters
according to export classification. By comparison, Australia’s fresh Yellowfin tuna exports
attracted an average unit value of US$8,527 per tonne in 2013. Australia did not export frozen
Yellowfin tuna in 2013, however in 2011 reported exports of 17 tonnes at an average unit value
of US$4,647 per tonne.
Export Classification: Yellowfin
tuna, fresh or chilled
Quantity
(tonnes) 2013
% of total
volume
Value
(US$000)
% of total
value
Average
US$/tonne
Taiwan 11,103 21.7% $106,884 33.0% $ 9,626
Philippines 7,479 14.6% $ 21,486 6.6% $ 2,872
Thailand 4,846 9.5% $14,977 4.6% $ 3,090
Sri Lanka 4,227 8.3% $ 39,148 12.1% $ 9,261
Maldives 3,626 7.1% $ 21,378 6.6% $ 5,895
Viet Nam 2,755 5.4% $18,223 5.6% $ 6,614
Indonesia 2,600 5.1% $15,370 4.8% $ 5,911
Papua New Guinea 2,000 3.9% $ 4,600 1.4% $ 2,300
India 1,740 3.4% $ 4,225 1.3% $ 2,428
Ireland 1,291 2.5% $ 3,793 1.2% $ 2,938
Costa Rica 1,114 2.2% $10,538 3.3% $ 9,459
Mexico 983 1.9% $ 5,978 1.8% $ 6,081
Suriname 926 1.8% $ 6,029 1.9% $ 6,510
Trinidad and Tobago 830 1.6% $ 1,830 0.6% $ 2,204
Fiji 733 1.4% $ 2,453 0.8% $ 3,346
Spain 548 1.1% $ 6,171 1.9% $ 11,260
Japan 540 1.1% $ 2,598 0.8% $ 4,811
Panama 538 1.1% $ 2,365 0.7% $ 4,395
France 527 1.0% $8,635 2.7% $ 16,385
French Polynesia 434 0.8% $ 3,248 1.0% $ 7,483
Others 2,360 4.6% $ 23,534 7.3%
TABLE 13 - MAJOR EXPORTERS – YELLOWFIN TUNA, FRESH OR CHILLED - 2013
Export Classification:
Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei
Volume
(tonnes)
2013
% of total
volume
Value (US$000) % of total
value
Average US$/tonne
Spain 71,535 17.4% $ 187,496 16.2% $ 2,621
Taiwan 46,370 11.3% $ 154,995 13.4% $ 3,343
France 44,006 10.7% $ 133,764 11.5% $ 3,040
Republic of Korea 27,316 6.7% $ 71,114 6.1% $ 2,603
Indonesia 23,040 5.6% $ 73,437 6.3% $ 3,187
Philippines 19,180 4.7% $ 53,567 4.6% $ 2,793
Seychelles 18,836 4.6% $ 47,469 4.1% $ 2,520
Colombia 16,288 4.0% $ 35,758 3.1% $ 2,195
Papua New Guinea 14,977 3.6% $ 27,248 2.3% $ 1,819
China 12,375 3.0% $ 83,155 7.2% $ 6,720
Kiribati 12,000 2.9% $ 18,000 1.6% $ 1,500
India 11,600 2.8% $ 27,954 2.4% $ 2,410
Cabo Verde 11,577 2.8% $ 26,330 2.3% $ 2,274
Maldives 11,172 2.7% $ 24,158 2.1% $ 2,162
Mexico 9,794 2.4% $ 30,817 2.7% $ 3,147
Marshall Islands 9,593 2.3% $ 19,971 1.7% $ 2,082
Ecuador 6,406 1.6% $ 22,350 1.9% $ 3,489
Curaçao 6,280 1.5% $ 16,896 1.5% $ 2,690
Thailand 5,747 1.4% $ 19,078 1.6% $ 3,320
Japan 5,652 1.4% $ 11,859 1.0% $ 2,098
Others 26,766 6.5% $ 75,217 6.5%
TABLE 14 – MAJOR EXPORTERS – YELLOWFIN TUNA, FROZEN NEI - 2013
Export Classification:
Yellowfin tuna, heads-off,
etc., frozen
Volume
(tonnes)
2013
% of total
volume
Value (US$000) % of
total
value
Average US$/tonne
El Salvador 177 46.7% $ 494 28.1% $ 2,791
Spain 154 40.6% $ 622 35.4% $ 4,039
Denmark 42 11.1% $ 500 28.4% $11,905
Belgium 5 1.3% $ 130 7.4% $26,000
France 1 0.3% $ 12 0.7% $12,000
Total exports 379 100.0% $1,758 100.0% $ 4,639
TABLE 15 - MAJOR EXPORTERS - YELLOWFIN TUNA, HEADS OFF, ETC., FROZEN – 2013
Table 16 identifies quantities of Yellowfin tuna that were reported as re-exports in 2013,
according to export classification.
Re-Exports Classification Volume
(tonnes) 2013
% of
total
volume
Value
(US$000)
% of total
value
Average
US$/tonn
e
Fiji Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 4,055 41.4% $11,449 39.2% $2,823
Mauritius Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 2,967 30.3% $ 7,774 26.6% $2,620
Fiji Yellowfin tuna, fresh or
chilled
1,194 12.2% $ 2,934 10.0% $2,457
Madagasca
r
Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 964 9.9% $ 2,792 9.6% $2,896
Thailand Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 223 2.3% $ 582 2.0% $2,610
USA Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 130 1.3% $ 486 1.7% $3,738
Hong Kong Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 124 1.3% $1,341 4.6% $10,815
USA Yellowfin tuna, fresh or
chilled
102 1.0% $1,803 6.2% $17,676
Oman Yellowfin tuna, fresh or
chilled
26 0.3% $ 39 0.1% $1,500
Total Re-Exports 9,785
$29,200
TABLE 16 - RE-EXPORTS OF YELLOWFIN TUNA BY CLASSIFICATION - 2013
Global reported import volume of Yellowfin tuna imports amounted to 515,903 tonnes in 2013,
which represented approximately 34.5 percent of production, with a total value of
approximately US$1.76 billion51.
51 Imports are recorded on a C.I.F basis, except Australia, which reports as F.O.B
The majority (92.3 percent) of imports were sold frozen, at a mean unit price of US$2,874 per
tonne. Fresh Yellowfin tuna accounted for 7.7 percent of import volume and attracted a
higher mean unit price of US$9,944 per tonne compared to frozen Yellowfin. A price premium
is attributed to value-add processing for frozen Yellowfin tuna52. Table 12 identifies the
respective global quantities and values of imported Yellowfin tuna recorded, according to
each import classification.
Classification Quantity
(tonnes)
% of global
imports
Value
(US$000)
% of global
imports
Average
US$/tonne
Yellowfin tuna, fresh or chilled 39,537 7.7% $393,153 22.3% $9,944
Yellowfin tuna, gilled, gutted, frozen 12 0.0% $158 0.0% $13,167
Yellowfin tuna, heads-off, etc., frozen 12,477 2.4% $75,317 4.3% $6,036
Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei 463,877 89.9% $1,293,841 73.4% $2,789
Total Yellowfin Tuna Imports 515,903 100.0% $1,762,469 100.0%
TABLE 17 - GLOBAL YELLOWFIN TUNA IMPORTS BY CLASSIFICATION - 2013
Thailand and Spain are the largest importers of Yellowfin tuna (on an aggregate basis, ignoring
import format) by volume and value respectively, as illustrated in Figure 18 and Figure 19. The
major international markets for fresh Yellowfin tuna primarily destined for sushi and sashimi
markets are the United States, Japan and Europe, and major canneries using Yellowfin tuna
are in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Spain and Italy.
FIGURE 18 – MAJOR YELLOWFIN TUNA IMPORTERS (BY VOLUME) – 2013
52 Unit prices for ‘gilled and gutted’ Yellowfin are likely to be skewed due to the small sample
size
Spain
17.1%
Thailand
20.9%
Japan
9.0%
USA
3.6%
Seychelles
6.0%
Mauritius
9.7%
Italy
5.3%
Viet Nam
4.5%
France
1.6%
Philippines
4.3%
Ecuador
2.0%
Iran
2.1% Others
13.8%
FIGURE 19- MAJOR YELLOWFIN TUNA IMPORTERS (BY VALUE) – 2013
The United States is the world’s largest importer of fresh Yellowfin tuna and accounts for 40.6
percent of import volume and 49.9 percent of value, followed by Japan (25 percent of volume
and 23.7 percent of value). Table 18, Table 21Table 19, Table 20 and Table 21 illustrate mean
unit values for the major importers of Yellowfin tuna according to import classification.
Import Classification: Yellowfin
Tuna, Fresh or Chilled
Volume
(tonnes)
% global
volume
Value
(US$000)
% global
value
Average
US$/tonne
USA 16,047 40.6% $196,046 49.9% $12,217
Japan 9,887 25.0% $93,114 23.7% $ 9,418
France 2,620 6.6% $28,200 7.2% $10,763
Thailand 2,175 5.5% $7,452 1.9% $ 3,426
Fiji 1,318 3.3% $ 3,235 0.8% $ 2,454
Spain 1,021 2.6% $ 8,054 2.0% $ 7,888
Italy 893 2.3% $10,547 2.7% $11,811
Canada 646 1.6% $8,504 2.2% $13,164
Seychelles 594 1.5% $2,053 0.5% $ 3,456
Portugal 541 1.4% $2,860 0.7% $ 5,287
United Kingdom 368 0.9% $ 4,565 1.2% $ 12,405
Others 3,427 8.7% $ 28,523 7.3%
TABLE 18 - MAJOR IMPORTERS - YELLOWFIN TUNA, FRESH OR CHILLED - 2013
Spain
16.1%
Thailand
14.3%
Japan
13.5%
USA
12.6%Seychelles
7.2%
Mauritius
7.0%
Italy
6.6%
Viet Nam
3.6%
France
2.8%
Philippines
2.1%
Ecuador
1.5%Iran
1.2% Others
11.4%
Import Classification: Yellowfin
tuna, heads-off, etc., frozen
Volume
(tonnes)
% global
volume
Value (US$000) % global
value
Average
US$/tonne
Luxembourg 2 0.0% $ 89 0.1% $
44,500
Belgium 1 0.0% $ 16 0.0% $
16,000
United States of America 2,182 17.5% $ 24,253 32.2% $
11,115
Poland 1 0.0% $ 9 0.0% $
9,000
Austria 2 0.0% $ 15 0.0% $
7,500
Denmark 5 0.0% $ 33 0.0% $
6,600
France 48 0.4% $ 287 0.4% $
5,979
Italy 8,501 68.1% $ 44,765 59.4% $
5,266
Spain 1,636 13.1% $ 5,616 7.5% $
3,433
Turkey 99 0.8% $ 234 0.3% $
2,364
Total imports 12,477 100.0% $ 75,317 100.0% $
6,036
TABLE 19 - MAJOR IMPORTERS - YELLOWFIN TUNA, HEADS-OFF, ETC., FROZEN – 2013
Import Classification: Yellowfin
tuna, gilled, gutted, frozen
Volume
(tonnes)
% global
volume
Value (US$000) % global
value
Average
US$/tonne
United States of America 2 16.7% $ 32 20.3% $
16,000
New Zealand 10 83.3% $ 126 79.7% $
12,600
Total 12
$ 158
$
13,167
TABLE 20 - MAJOR IMPORTERS - YELLOWFIN TUNA, GILLED, GUTTED, FROZEN - 2013
Import Classification:
Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei
Volume
(tonnes)
% global
volume
Value (US$000) % global
value
Average
US$/tonne
Spain 85,671 18.5% $ 270,780 20.9% $ 3,161
Thailand 105,488 22.7% $ 244,108 18.9% $ 2,314
Japan 36,519 7.9% $ 144,441 11.2% $ 3,955
Mauritius 50,296 10.8% $ 123,462 9.5% $ 2,455
Seychelles 30,574 6.6% $ 91,092 7.0% $ 2,979
Viet Nam 23,227 5.0% $ 63,745 4.9% $ 2,744
Italy 17,738 3.8% $ 61,471 4.8% $ 3,465
Philippines 22,350 4.8% $ 36,526 2.8% $ 1,634
El Salvador 9,410 2.0% $ 27,983 2.2% $ 2,974
Ecuador 10,381 2.2% $ 27,121 2.1% $ 2,613
Iran 10,868 2.3% $ 21,909 1.7% $ 2,016
France 5,713 1.2% $ 20,686 1.6% $ 3,621
Fiji 8,165 1.8% $ 19,827 1.5% $ 2,428
Madagascar 6,441 1.4% $ 16,175 1.3% $ 2,511
Colombia 4,780 1.0% $ 13,743 1.1% $ 2,875
China 5,784 1.2% $ 13,086 1.0% $ 2,262
Others 30,472 6.6% $ 97,686 7.6% $ 3,206
Total 463,877
1,293,841
TABLE 21 – MAJOR IMPORTERS - YELLOWFIN TUNA, FROZEN NEI - 2013
3.3. Trends in Key International Markets
Fresh and Frozen Tuna53
United States
There was strong demand for fresh and frozen tuna steaks/fillets in the United States’ consumer
market in 2015, particularly at the household level for outdoor cooking. Retail prices of fresh
tuna steaks, generally originating from Pacific waters, ranged from US$10.00 to US$16.00 per
pound (US$22 to US$35.2 per kilogram) in US supermarkets, with demand highest on the West
Coast. During the first half of 2015, US imports of fresh/chilled tuna were higher than Japan,
coming to a total of 11,300 tonnes. In comparison, Japan imported only 8,401 tonnes of fresh
tuna during the same period.
53 FAO (2015), Globefish Market Report – Tuna – December 2015
However, total United States imports of fresh/chilled tuna were marginally lower (-3 percent)
during the first six months of the year due to reduced catches of yellowfin tuna in the Pacific
and Indian Oceans. The main suppliers to the United States’ market were Trinidad and Tobago,
Sri Lanka, Maldives and Thailand.
Japan
According to the FAO, imports of fresh tuna into Japan have declined by a notable 50 percent
from 17,000 tonnes during the first half of 2010 to just 8,400 tonnes in the corresponding period
in 2015. Consumption of fresh tuna is declining both at home and in the restaurant trade in
Japan.
The market preference for sashimi quality frozen tuna remains stronger than for fresh tuna due
to frozen tuna’s longer shelf life. Nonetheless, imports of the preferred Bigeye and Yellowfin
frozen tuna during the first half of the year were lower than compared with the same period in
2014, reflecting the falling demand pattern in the world’s largest sashimi tuna market.
Yellowfin tuna was the main imported species group (1,549 tonnes), 65 percent of which was
supplied by the Maldives. Imports of frozen tuna loins/fillet increased from 7,007 tonnes during
the first half of 2014 to 8,397 tonnes during the same time period in 2015. The top three suppliers
were Viet Nam (2,020 tonnes), the Republic of Korea (1,855 tonnes) and Ecuador (1,069
tonnes).
Canned Tuna54
Following a decade-long trend, the top six largest import markets for canned tuna during the
first half of 2015 were the United States, Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Egypt.
Import trends among these importers were mixed. The United States, Italy and France reported
declining imports, whereas imports increased in the other three markets. Thailand, Ecuador,
Spain, the Philippines and the PRC were the leading five suppliers of canned/prepared tuna
to the international market. Exports declined from all countries except the PRC.
Imports of both canned and pouched tuna into the United States were lower in the first half of
2015, indicating a fall in consumer demand. Imports of cooked loins into the European Union
fell by 5 percent in the first half of 2015 compared with the same time period in 2014, with
cooked loins taking a 29 percent share of total processed tuna imports into the European
Union. Yellowfin tuna represented approximately 17 percent of cooled loin imports to the
European Union in the first half of 2015.
Table 22 illustrates historical wholesale market prices in the European Union for Yellowfin tuna
according to product format and origin55.
54 FAO (2015), Globefish Market Report – Tuna – December 2015 55 FAO (2016) Globefish European Price Report – February 2016
Fish Species Product
form
Grading56 Price per kilogram57 Reference and
Area
Origin
Euro € US$
Yellowfin tuna whole main size 1.48 1.05+ Ecuador ex-vessel Eastern Tropical Pacific
Ocean
Yellowfin tuna whole main size 1.55 1.73+ Seychelles FOB Indian Ocean
Yellowfin tuna whole >10kg 1.65 1.84+ Abidjan ex-vessel Atlantic Ocean
Yellowfin tuna whole >10kg 1.75 1.95+ Spanish Canneries
CFR
Various
Yellowfin tuna cooked
and
cleaned
loins -
vacuum
packed
double
cleaned
4.84 5.40= Italy DDP Kenya/Mauritius/
Solomon Is.
Yellowfin tuna whole 3-10kg 1.33 1.46 Spain DAT Atlantic Ocean
Yellowfin tuna whole >10kg 1.78 1.96- Spain DAT Atlantic Ocean
Yellowfin tuna frozen loins
4.3 4.74+ DDP Eastern Pacific Ocean
Yellowfin tuna precooked
loins
double
cleaned
4.03 4.5= Europe CFR Ecuador
Yellowfin tuna precooked
loins
single
cleaned
2.69 3.00= Europe CFR Ecuador
Yellowfin tuna precooked
loins
double
cleaned
4.57 5.1 Ecuador FOB Ecuador
Yellowfin tuna precooked
loins
single
cleaned
4.48 5 Ecuador FOB Ecuador
TABLE 22 - EUROPEAN WHOLESALE PRICES - YELLOWFIN TUNA – FEBRUARY 2016
3.4. Concluding Comments Challenges associated with both the hatchery rearing of juveniles and sourcing of wild-caught
juveniles, declining demand in key markets, together with fragment production and strong
competition in the global market, render Yellowfin Tuna a less attractive species for
aquaculture on the Pilbara-Gascoyne coast.
56 CFR Cost and Freight, DAT Delivered at Terminal, DAP Delivered at Place, DDP Delivered
Duty Paid, FOB Free on Board 57 + Price increased in original currency since last report - Price decreased in original currency
since last report = Updated but unchanged price
4. Greater Amberjack
4.1. Production Global reported production of Greater Amberjack amounted to 168,616 tonnes in 2014,
approximately 12 percent of which was sourced via aquaculture (see Table 23)58.
Source 2012 2013 2014
Capture (tonnes) 120,121 140,078 148,106
Reported Aquaculture (tonnes) 14,304 36,784 20,510
Total Reported Amberjack Production 134,425 176,862 168,616
TABLE 23 - GLOBAL AMBERJACK (SERIOLA DUMERILI) PRODUCTION
Aquaculture production of Amberjack commenced in the Mediterranean (Italy and Spain) in
the 1980’s, with grow-out operations based on wild caught juveniles. This involved catching
wild juvenile stock at around 100 grams using fish aggregating devices and subsequently
growing the wild-caught juveniles out to market size in tanks and cages. Spain was the only
commercial aquaculture producer of Amberjack between 1992 and 1997. However,
production ceased due to juvenile recruitment and fish health challenges.
Japan, the world’s largest producer of Amberjack accounts for 74.4 percent of reported
Amberjack (Serioli dumerili) production. Significant aquaculture production of Seriola dumerili
occurs in Japan, however the reported statistics include all species of Seriola together under
the species category Seriola quinqueradiata, or Japanese Amberjack. Similarly, the Japanese
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries records wild caught and aquaculture production
of the Seriola genus under one category named “Yellowtails”59. The FAO estimates that
Japanese aquaculture production of Seriola dumerili accounts for more than 30 percent of
the Seriola species cultured, equivalent to 41,000 tonnes in 2014.60 Table 24 identifies
aquaculture production of Seriola species in Japan.
Japanese Amberjack (Seriola
quinqueradiata)
2012 2013 2014
Reported Aquaculture (tonnes) 160,215 149,621 135,800
Reported Aquaculture value (US$000s) $1,343,237 $1,138,166 $952,802
TABLE 24 - AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION OF SERIOLA SPECIES IN JAPAN 2012-2014
The PRC is the world’s second-largest producer of Seriola dumerili, accounting for 11.4 percent
of global production, all of which is produced via aquaculture. In 2003, the PRC commenced
58 FAO 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics, Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2014
(FishstatJ). 59 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2015), The 89th Statistical Yearbook Of Ministry
Of Agriculture, Forestry And Fisheries (2013~2014) 60 FAO, Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme – Serioli Dumerili
http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Seriola_dumerili/en#tcNA0112
aquaculture production of Amberjack, and has since comprised between 90 percent and 98
percent of reported aquaculture production of Seriola dumerili (excluding Japan).
Taiwan has reported aquaculture production of between 500 and 1500 tonnes of farmed
Greater Amberjack annually since 1998. Although there is a lack of data on Japan’s
aquaculture production of Seriola dumerili, this accounted about 30 percent (46,000 tonnes)
of all Japanese amberjack (Seriola quinqueradiata) production in 2002, and peaked about
72,000 tonnes as estimated by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2009.
Small quantities of aquaculture produced Amberjack have also been recorded in Korea,
Europe and the Americas and none elsewhere in Asia, Oceania or Africa61. Error! Reference
source not found. illustrates reported aquaculture production of Amberjack.
FIGURE 20 - GLOBAL AQUACULTURE AMBERJACK PRODUCTION - 1998 TO 2014
Farm-gate value of aquaculture Amberjack varies widely, averaging US$1,190 per tonne in the
PRC and US$8,513 in Taiwan in 2014, according to FAO data.
Together, the three largest aquaculture and wild-catch producers of Amberjack (Japan, PRC
and Republic of Korea) account for 92.4 percent of global production based on reported
data, or 94.5 percent when estimated Japanese aquaculture production of Seriola dumerili is
included. Global reported production of Amberjack is illustrated in Figure 2162.
61 Spain produced very small amounts via aquaculture(0.7 to 2.1 tonnes) between 2007 and
2011, and Chile recorded production of one tonne in 2014 62 Figure 20 and Figure 21 illustrate reported FAO data and do not include estimates of
Japanese aquaculture production of Seriola Dumerili
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
t
FIGURE 21- GLOBAL AMBERJACK PRODUCTION – 2014
When considered on a regional basis, Asia contributes 94.8 percent of total global production,
as illustrated in Figure 22. Australia produced 26 tonnes of Amberjack in 2014, which accounts
for approximately 0.02 percent of global production.
FIGURE 22- REGIONAL AMBERJACK PRODUCTION (BY VOLUME) – 2014
The predominant sources of wild-caught Amberjack are identified in Figure 23.
Japan
74.4%
China
11.4%
Republic of Korea
6.6%
Taiwan
2.2%
Tanzania
0.9%
Mexico
0.9%
Brazil
0.7%
South Africa
0.6%Italy
0.4%
USA
0.4%
Others
1.6%
Africa
2.0%
Americas
2.3%
Asia
94.8%
Europe
0.7%
Oceania
0.2%
FIGURE 23 - AMBERJACK WILD CATCH – 2014
4.2. International Trade The majority (96.4 percent) of wild caught Amberjack, and 100 percent of reported
aquaculture Amberjack is consumed in the country of origin. Total reported exports of
Amberjack amounted to 5,267 tonnes in 2013, with a value of US$72 million63.
Japanese frozen Amberjack fillets accounted for 99.2 percent of the volume and 99.5 percent
of the value of Amberjack exports, with New Zealand accounting for the remaining 0.8 percent
of volume and 0.5 percent of value.
Key import markets include Japan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Papa New Guinea
(PNG), however reported traded volumes are relatively small.
Only a small inconsistent volumes of Amberjack are typically available from the Sydney Fish
Markets.
4.3. Trends in Key International Markets Greater amberjack is a valuable food fish that sells well in the traditional fish markets, as well
as having potential for value-added products. In summary, the greater amberjack fillet exhibits
homogenous colour, laminar structure, high juiciness and acid and butter flavours, while its
texture is characterised by high teeth adherence and chewiness but of medium hardness
(when compared to other fish species)64. As a result it is generally the subject of greater
demand and higher market prices compared to other Seriola species. Moreover, the growth
63 There is a mismatch of import and export data for Amberjack in 2013 due to lack of data
from some countries and the potential for reclassification into generic fish fillet categories. 64 Aquaculture Europe (2016), ‘Advances in Greater Amberjack Research: The DIVERSIFY
Project’
Japan
84.7%
Republic of Korea
7.5%
Taiwan
1.7%Tanzania
1.1%
Mexico
1.0%
Brazil
0.7%
South Africa
0.7%
Italy
0.4%
USA
0.4%Others
1.8%
of greater amberjack is faster and it has a better feed conversion rate than Japanese
amberjack when cultured at temperatures above 17 ºC65.
Farmed fish can be sold at different sizes (whole or slices) depending on the country. The
preference in sizes affects market prices. In Malta small sizes reach US$15 to US$20 per kilogram
while larger fish fetch lower market prices, typically US$10 to US$15 per kilogram, because large
fish are considered to be only suitable for steaks. However, prices in Italy and Spain for the
largest fish are similar or even higher the smaller fish in Malta.
Hong Kong prices of cultured greater amberjack are slightly lower than the wild fish, but range
from US$10 to US$20 per kilogram, while in Japan the price is higher (US$20 to US$30 per
kilogram) than other cultured Seriola species because of the better texture of its flesh which is
firmer and less buttery, and can sometimes reach up to US$50 per kilogram66.
Asia
Approximately 90 percent of all fish produced in Japan is consumed in the domestic market67.
In Japan, the world’s largest producer and consumer of Amberjack, the consumer market for
Seriola dumerili is included in a group of fish called “the big three yellowtails”, which includes
yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata), yellowtail amberjack (Seriola ialandi) and greater
amberjack (Seriola dumerili). These three fish are classed as a luxury fish, the most valuable of
which is the yellowtail.
According to Nippon Suisan, one of Japan’s largest seafood conglomerates, an increase in
production of wild caught Yellowtail68 between 2007 and 2011 was accompanied by a
decline in price. The price of farmed fish fluctuates depending on production volume of both
wild caught and farmed fish and is seasonal69 (see Figure 24).
65 FAO, Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme – Serioli Dumerili
http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Seriola_dumerili/en#tcNA0112 66 FAO, Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme – Serioli Dumerili
http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Seriola_dumerili/en 67 Murakami, S., Drugan,J., Katano, A., Meguro,Y., ‘Nurturing fishery
improvement in Japan - Seafood Summit 2016’ 68 in this presentation the term “Yellowtail” includes yellowtail, amberjack and kingfish 69 Takeashita, A., (2013) ‘World Aquaculture Society – Challenges for producing high quality
cultured fish’
FIGURE 24 - PRODUCTION AND PRICE OF FARMED AND WILD CAUGHT YELLOWTAIL 1989 - 2011
Yellowtail is segmented into the terms “Buri” (wild caught fish) and “Hamachi” (farmed fish).
Cultured greater amberjack is termed “Kanpachi” by the Japanese. Aquaculture-raised
Kanpachi is springier, less fatty, and somewhat more flavourful than Hamachi70.
The first large Buri fish of the season, in top condition, are especially prized by the Japanese
and are required to be certified as genuine Kan-Buri. They can range between 20 to 30
kilograms and sell for US$2,000 to US$3,000 dollars each.
The Buri season runs from November to March, however farmed fish are available all year
round. Farmed fish are required to be labelled and wild caught fish are not.
The yellowtail is a shusse uo, or a "promoting fish", which means that it has different names
according to its size and age. These names are intended to provide clear distinctions of taste
and guidance on optimal food preparation. Buri is the fully grown stage of yellowtail71.
The name also changes regionally, as illustrated in Table 25.
Tokyo (Kanto Region) Osaka (Kansai Region) Age Size
Wakashi Tsubasu 6 months 10 to 20 cm
Inada Hamachi 1 year 20 to 40 cm
Warasa Mejiro 3 years 50 to 60 cm
Buri Buri over 4 years >80 cm
TABLE 25 - CONSUMER NAMES FOR JAPANESE AMBERJACK ACCORDING TO AGE, SIZE AND REGION
The summer months have traditionally been considered the “off-season” for Yellowtail,
however a subsidiary of Nippon Suisan (Kurose Suisan) has been marketing its seasonal
product, Kurose Wakaburi, a 2 year old farmed Yellowtail, harvested early to avoid the flesh
70 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, ‘The Food of Japan – Yellowtail: A Fish with
Plenty of Names’, http://www.maff.go.jp/e/foj/chris/vol_03.html 71 http://www.sushiencyclopedia.com/sushi_fish/yellowtail.html
deterioration that occurs with spawning (at approximately 3 years). Kurose Wakaburi has good
quality flesh and is intended for consumption in the summer72.
Japanese amberjack meat is mostly eaten raw as sashimi and a relatively small proportion of
the total production is being consumed in soups or after grilling. The meat can be served as
sashimi when cold-stored for no more than three days (the actual maximum storage time
depends on rearing conditions and post-harvest treatments). Fish sold as sashimi grade is
required to be labelled accordingly to verify that it has been cut and handled under careful
hygiene conditions to permit raw consumption. In retail shops Japanese amberjack is mostly
sold as fillets, and in supermarkets it is sold as either whole fish or fillets.
The market for cultured Japanese amberjack can be divided into the following three broad
categories:
Demand from high-class Japanese restaurants that deal mainly with live fish;
Wholesale stores and supermarkets dealing with fresh and frozen fish; and
Direct delivery of processed fillets to individual restaurants and homes.
Direct delivery from the producer to the consumer is a recent development and the business
is gaining momentum. Consumers now recognise differences in product quality and have
shown greater interest in fresh fish, as well as a propensity to pay higher prices for premium
products73.
Consequently, there is growing business interest among amberjack producers to supply fresh
fish directly to the end-users, avoiding the complicated wholesale network. In addition,
wholesalers have developed facilities to keep live fish in holding tanks in order to supply as
them as fresh as possible to restaurants and high income consumers on demand.
Overall there has been a decline in fish consumption among young Japanese compared to
their parents’ generation. As a consequence, many prefectural governments around Japan
are making an extra effort to promote seafood consumption in schools, emphasising important
nutritional benefits.74.
Europe
The Seriola dumerili species is one of six75 new and emerging candidate fish species identified
in the European Commission funded76 ‘DIVERSIFY’ programme, dedicated to exploring the
biological and socio-economic potential for expansion of the European aquaculture industry.
The €11.5 million project consortium includes 38 partners from 12 European countries, including
9 SMEs, 3 Large Enterprises, 5 professional associations and 1 Consumer NGO, and is
coordinated by the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Greece77.
72 Takeashita, A., (2013) ‘World Aquaculture Society – Challenges for producing high quality
cultured fish’ 73 FAO, Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme – Serioli Quinqueradiata 74 Palmer, R., ‘World Aquaculture Society High-Value Aquaculture Finfish Symposium –
December 2013’ 75 The others are Argyrosomus regius, Polyprion americanus, Hippoglossus hippoglossus, Mugil
cephalus and Sander luciopeca 76 The project is funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission 77 Aquaculture Europe (2016), ‘Advances in Greater Amberjack Research: The DIVERSIFY
Project’
Consumer research for the programme conducted by LEI Wageningen78 identified the
following general observations supporting the development of new aquaculture fish species:
Government programmes support fish intake, since fish is perceived as more healthy
than meat, and/or higher fish consumption is stimulated from a more varied protein
consumption perspective
Aquaculture is perceived as more sustainable than wild catch
Aquaculture of new species can bring employment in regions with higher
unemployment
World-wide demand for proteins is increasing, which may increase the price for fish
products
Consumers decrease meat and meat product consumption for health reasons (WHO
advice)
The research concluded that:
The protein market in the European Union is nearly stable, and growth of protein intake
is only anticipated in emerging or developing countries.
Competition on protein sources will increase, since soy and milk-based meat substitutes
enter the market with large promotion budgets
Certification is a requirement for buyers. Per buyer the requirements are different –
these are not country dependent but party dependent
Most fish species are not well-known. The species need to be positioned relative to
other known fish species prior to market introduction
Consumers think in terms of recipes, so development of recipes is very important
The ultimate determinants of the success for new fish species are:
o Providing products that offer advantages that meet consumers’ different
needs;
o The species can rely on a positive image; and
o Gaining a fast and strong market position based on cooperation between
suppliers, the industry and retail.
The macro-environmental context analysis indicated that most countries in the European
Union have a policy to increase fish consumption. As a mature market, growth can only be
realised at the expense of other protein sources.
In sustainability certification, several schemes were identified in the market:
(1) Internationally recognized schemes such as HACCP, BRC and GLOBALGAP,
(2) Privately owned certification schemes such as Carrefour standards,
(3) NGO-developed standards such as ACC and ASC; and
(4) Country-specific supply chain certification schemes, such as Label Rouge and Crianza
del Mar.
In general, the consumption trend is that fresh fish and species with good fillets and soft bones
are preferred by consumers in the European Union. More specifically, the southern European
countries eat more whole fish, while northern countries prefer processed fish.
Consumer preferences concerning farmed fish seem to converge to convenience and fresh
standardised products, such as fish fillets, portioned meals and processed foods. Pre-seasoned
is not preferred by consumers in southern Europe and frozen is generally perceived as lower
quality.
78 LEI Wageningen UR (2016), ‘GWP 7 Socio Economic (WP 27-30) – Consumer oriented
product development: what do we know already?’
Analysis of the consumer survey identified three consumer segments:
(1) Involved traditional consumers (29 percent): who know relatively more about fish and
buy traditional fish products,
(2) Involved innovators (36 percent): who know relatively more about fish and who have
a more open mind to buy new fish products, and
(3) Ambiguous indifferent (35 percent): who know relatively less about fish and who are
less open to buy new fish products
The characteristics of each consumer segment are summarised in Table 26 below.
Involved Traditional Involved Innovators Ambiguous Indifferent
Psychographics Involved, knowledgeable Involved, knowledgeable,
innovative
Non-involved, non-
knowledgeable
Demographics Slightly more males,
married, mostly of average
income
Slightly older, married,
more people with above-
average income
More non-working people,
less married people, more
with below-average
income
Behaviour Highest consumption of
farmed and wild fish
Relatively high
consumption of farmed fish
Lowest consumption of wild
and farmed fish
Values, Costs and
Outcomes
Average perceived value
of new farmed fish, highest
perceived cost
Highest perceived value,
highest expected
outcomes
Lowest value perceptions
and outcomes, average
cost perceptions
TABLE 26 - SUMMARY CONSUMER SEGMENTS - FISH (EUROPE)
Based on the initial findings, 36 percent of the consumers in the five surveyed countries (France,
Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) belong to the segment of ‘Involved innovators’
and could therefore potentially be open to buy new species such as Greater Amberjack.
Based on the technical and sensory characteristics of the species and out of a list of 43
different products of variable processing, three products have been chosen to be generated
as Amberjack prototypes for consumer testing in the DIVERSIFY initiative79:
Product 1: frozen fish fillet that is seasoned or marinated either traditional, Italian,
Provence or Asian. The product is in a sliding packaging, transparent vacuum-packed
bag made of recyclable material, with clear pictures of the unfrozen product on the
cardboard sleeve.
Product 2: ready-made fish tartar with additional soy sauce for cold serving. Packaging
is the golden tray that reflects the colours and physical appearance of the product
and that could also be used for serving. Package contains information on how the
product was made.
Product 3: fresh fish steak for grilling in the pan, presented in transparent packaging.
All three products are certified environmentally sustainable and contain the ASC label. All
three products are labelled as premium products, with EU noted as the country of origin.
Figure 25 depicts examples of prototype products one and two.
79 Aquaculture Europe (2016), ‘Advances in Greater Amberjack Research: The DIVERSIFY
Project’
FIGURE 25 – AMBERJACK DIIVERSIFY PROJECT PROTOTYPE PRODUCT EXAMPLES
4.4. Concluding Comments Given that its production in aquaculture systems is well demonstrated, there are multiple
product and regional markets (some demonstrating growth potential) and there is opportunity
to attain premium pricing, it would appear that of the three finfish species examined under the
study, Greater Amberjack presents the best commercial opportunity.
However, any Greater Amberjack produced from the Pilbara-Gascoyne Region will face
marketing challenges associated with a lack of provenance, small domestic market and
intense competition from domestic production in targeted export markets.
5. Mahi Mahi
5.1. Production Global production of Mahi Mahi amounted to 115, 658 tonnes in 2014, all of which was wild
caught. There is no evidence of successful aquaculture production of Mahi Mahi. Figure 26
illustrates the major producing countries in 2014.
FIGURE 26 - MAHI MAHI WILD CATCH – 2014
Approximately two thirds (67.2 percent) of global supply of Mahi Mahi is sourced from the
Americas, with Asia accounting for 27.8 percent, together comprising 95 percent of global
supply as illustrated in Figure 27. Relatively small amounts (less than 1,000 tons) of Mahi Mahi
are landed each year by fishermen in Hawaii and Florida, most of which is consumed locally.
Peru
47.7%
Taiwan
10.1%
Ecuador
9.9%
Indonesia
7.3%Pakistan
3.6%
Indonesia
3.0%
Sri Lanka
2.2%
Costa Rica
2.1%
Iran
1.6%
Venezuela
1.3%France
1.3%Others
10.1%
FIGURE 27 - REGIONAL MAHI MAHI WILD CATCH (BY VOLUME) - 2014
5.2. International Trade All of the reported export trade of Mahi Mahi originated in the Americas (see Figure 28), the
majority (97.2 percent) of which was destined for the United States (see Figure 29). The
international trade market is relatively small, less than 7,000 tonnes in 2012 and 2013.
FIGURE 28 - GLOBAL MAHI MAHI EXPORT VOLUMES – 2013
Africa
1.5%
Americas
67.2%
Asia
27.8%
Europe
2.6%
Oceania
0.8%
Ecuador
8.1%
El Salvador
14.1%
Guatemala
56.9%
Nicaragua
18.1%
Suriname
1.5%
Trinidad and Tobago
1.5%
FIGURE 29 GLOBAL MAHI MAHI IMPORTS – 2013
Table 27 and Table 28 identify the reported quantities and values of Mahi Mahi exports and
imports respectively, along with associated average unit prices in 2013.
Exporting Country - 2013 Quantity
(tonnes)
Export Value (US$) Average US$/tonne
Ecuador 217 $ 710 $ 3,272
El Salvador 378 $ 1,520 $ 4,021
Guatemala 1,528 $ 3,875 $ 2,536
Nicaragua 485 $ 2,303 $ 4,748
Suriname 39 $ 285 $ 7,308
Trinidad and Tobago 39 $ 291 $ 7,462
TABLE 27-MAHI MAHI EXPORT QUANTITIES AND VALUES BY ORIGIN – 2013
Bahamas
Dolphinfishes, fresh
or chilled
0.1%
Bahamas
Dolphinfishes, frozen
0.2%
Ecuador
Dolphinfishes, frozen
2.2%
Guatemala
Dolphinfishes, fresh
or chilled
0.2%
USA Dolphinfishes,
fresh or chilled
97.2%
Importing Country – 2013 Quantity
(tonnes)
Value (US$) Average US$/tonne
Bahamas 8 $ 79 $ 9,875
Bahamas 16 $ 145 $ 9,063
Ecuador 158 $ 111 $ 703
Guatemala 12 $ 20 $ 1,667
USA 6,832 $ 44,772 $ 6,553
TABLE 28 – MAHI MAHI IMPORT QUANTITIES AND VALUES BY DESTINATION - 2013
5.3. Trends in Key International Markets Fresh and frozen Mahi-Mahi is available year-round, although prices fluctuate dramatically (by
US$2 per pound, or US$4.40 per kilogram over the course of a year). Product is most abundant
in January and February, when the catches off Ecuador and Peru are at their peak. Ecuador
and Peru are the leading suppliers of fresh Mahi-Mahi to the United States market, while Taiwan
is the leading supplier of frozen Mahi Mahi80.
Mahi Mahi is an exceptionally good-eating fish. Its medium-firm texture and mild taste are ideal
for barbecuing and many other preparation techniques. Seasonal price swings give
restaurateurs and retailers opportunities to promote Mahi Mahi when prices decline.
5.4. Concluding Comments The fact that Mahi Mahi is not currently produced by aquaculture, that there is a negligible
domestic market, limited international trade that is confined to the Americas and parts of Asia,
render Mahi Mahi a less attractive commercial option for aquaculture production in the
Pilbara-Gascoyne Region.
80 Pacific Seafood
Appendix 1 – Global Oyster Imports >US$10,000 per tonne Country Classification Value Volume USD$/tonne
Algeria Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 26 1 $ 26,000
French Polynesia Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1115 47 $ 23,723
Slovakia Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 45 2 $ 22,500
United Kingdom Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 1259 57 $ 22,088
Israel Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 184 10 $ 18,400
Finland Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 90 5 $ 18,000
Senegal Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 18 1 $ 18,000
Bahrain Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 33 2 $ 16,500
Jordan Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 49 3 $ 16,333
Belarus Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 81 5 $ 16,200
Mexico Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 32 2 $ 16,000
Cyprus Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 412 26 $ 15,846
Australia Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 498 32 $ 15,563
Iceland Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 15 1 $ 15,000
Bermuda Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 101 7 $ 14,429
Russian Federation Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 6766 485 $ 13,951
New Caledonia Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1453 108 $ 13,454
Cambodia Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 13 1 $ 13,000
Mayotte Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 13 1 $ 13,000
Denmark Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 1098 85 $ 12,918
United Arab Emirates Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 101 8 $ 12,625
Finland Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 88 7 $ 12,571
Aruba Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 113 9 $ 12,556
Papua New Guinea Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 50 4 $ 12,500
Sweden Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1132 91 $ 12,440
Cyprus Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 61 5 $ 12,200
Ukraine Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1262 104 $ 12,135
Austria Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 131 11 $ 11,909
Norway Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 595 50 $ 11,900
China Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 10966 937 $ 11,703
Mauritius Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 58 5 $ 11,600
Lithuania Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 46 4 $ 11,500
Canada Oysters, shucked, fresh or chilled 7575 665 $ 11,391
Luxembourg Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 216 19 $ 11,368
Congo Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 34 3 $ 11,333
Kazakhstan Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 68 6 $ 11,333
Côte d'Ivoire Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 79 7 $ 11,286
Austria Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 469 42 $ 11,167
United Arab Emirates Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 1118 101 $ 11,069
Vanuatu Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 22 2 $ 11,000
Sweden Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 525 50 $ 10,500
Lithuania Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 135 13 $ 10,385
Morocco Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 235 23 $ 10,217
Switzerland Oysters, in shell, live fresh or chilled 4308 424 $ 10,160
Ireland Flat oysters, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled 4850 480 $ 10,104
Turkey Oysters, live fresh or chilled, nei 10 1 $ 10,000
Table 29- Global High Value per Tonne Oyster Importers