Pilbara Aquaculture Studies: Market Analysis · Department of Fisheries identified edible oyster...

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


3.3. Trends in Key International Markets ....................................................................................... 43


4. Greater Amberjack .......................................................................................................................... 46

4.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 46




5. Mahi Mahi .......................................................................................................................................... 56

5.1. Production .................................................................................................................................. 56




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


(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,


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,


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,


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,


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.


(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.


(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%


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


tuna, gilled, gutted, frozen

Volume

(tonnes)

% global

volume


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

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


loins

single

cleaned

2.69 3.00= Europe CFR Ecuador


loins

double

cleaned

4.57 5.1 Ecuador FOB Ecuador


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


(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

Pilbara Aquaculture Studies: Market Analysis · Department of Fisheries identified edible oyster...

Documents

Transcript of Pilbara Aquaculture Studies: Market Analysis · Department of Fisheries identified edible oyster...