Globalization and Fisheries:

Welfare Implications of Export Trade in Asia

Roehlano M. Briones
Brain Trust, Inc.
Knowledge and Options for Sustainable Development
Unit 18, Antonio Bldg., Caruncho Avenue
Pasig City, Philippines
Telephone Nos. (632) 641-4175
roehlbriones@yahoo.com

Madan Dey
Mahfuzuddin Ahmed
WorldFish Center, Jln. Batu Maung, Batu Maung,
11960 Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia
m.dey@cgiar.org
m.ahmed@cgiar.org

Paper presented at the international workshop on

“Globalization and Trade: Implications for Water and Food Security”
Turalba, Costa Rica
April 18 – 20, 2005
 1

Abstract

Global market integration has accelerated in recent decades, and with it the

shift in supply of exported fish from developed to developing countries. Fish is also

important in the diets and livelihoods of the poor in developing countries. Hence,

concerns have been raised about the impact of export-oriented fisheries on the poor.

The first concern is that, on the demand side, export-oriented fisheries are diverting

domestic production from meeting domestic food requirements. We examine this

objection from the viewpoint of the nine top fish producers in developing Asia, based

on supply and demand projections from a multi-market equilibrium model of the

fisheries. Over the next 15 years, fish consumption per capita is projected to rise in

most of the countries, even as export prices are expected to climb. However a decline

in export price growth may cause a minor to dramatic fall in net exports growth, with

only a minimal increase in domestic consumption growth. Hence imposing

disincentives or restrictions on exports may forfeit large gains on the supply side, with

negligible gains in domestic consumption.

The second concern is that, on the supply-side, benefits from export-oriented

fisheries are reaped mostly by big, commercial producers. It is true that poor fishers,

fish farmers, and traditional processors are marginalized in the export chain, due to

the technical and financial requirements of meeting modern quality and food safety

standards. However, rather than restrict globalization, the response should be to make

the export chain more inclusive, by rationalizing regulatory standards in developed

countries, as well as by organizing and enabling small-scale enterprises in developing

countries to compete against large-scale farms or vertically integrated processors.

 2

1. Introduction

Global markets have become more closely integrated in the past few decades.

As global exports increase, global supply is shifting from developed to developing

countries. Exports from developing countries has risen steadily by about 8% per year

from 1976 – 2002 (FAO, 2005). Half of all fish exports now originate from these

countries.

Fisheries (broadly defined to include aquaculture) are also an important source

of livelihoods and food for poor households in many low income countries. Fishing is

a primary occupation for nearly 40 million people worldwide; this may represent a

total of 200 million individuals who are dependent on fisheries. Poverty incidence

among poor fishing communities (based on the dollar-a-day threshold) has been

estimated to range from 16 percent in Latin America to 46% in Africa, with Asia

(accounting for the bulk of fish producers worldwide) at 26% (FAO, 2002).

Fish is also valuable source of protein, micronutrients, minerals, and essential

fatty acids for many developing countries. It provides at least one-fifth of animal

protein intake per capita for more than 2.6 billion people. This share reaches one-half

or even more for some poor countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Congo,

Gambia, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and small

island developing states. (FAO, 2004).

The impact of globalization in fisheries is multifaceted; addressing the full

range of these impacts is beyond the scope of this paper. Given the importance of

fisheries in the developing countries, in particular to the poor or households, we

instead focus in this paper on the issue of trade on household welfare. This is

narrowed down further to the export side of trade.

 3

Two major criticisms of globalization are based on the purported links

between fish exports and food security, and between fish exports and equity. First, it

is suspected that fish export has diverted food from domestic consumption to satisfy

foreign consumption, thus undermining food security. Second, rising trade in fish is

supposedly marked by a lopsided distribution of benefits among the various

producers, to the disadvantage of poor fish producers.

We shall adopt these criticisms as working hypotheses about the impact of

global trade, beginning with review of related studies on the subject, to determine

whether the literature provides a sound verdict on these objections. The rest of this

paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with global trends in fish trade. Section

3 addresses the issue of trade and food security, while Section 4 addresses the issue of

trade and equity. Section 5 concludes.

2. Globalization and fish: Trends and Issues

Overview of global trade in fisheries

Global fish trade has been expanding at a remarkable pace in the last few

decades. Both value and volume of world exports have been rising since the 1976,

with export value increasing sharply starting from the mid-1980s (Figure 1). Fisheries

exports now stand at nearly 60 billion dollars, far in excess of traditional crop exports

from developing countries, such as sugar, banana, rubber, coffee, and cocoa.

Developing countries are becoming increasingly prominent participant in

global trade. The share of developing countries in world fish exports increased from

37% in 1976 to nearly 50% in 2002. Meanwhile developed countries account for the

bulk of fish imports (about 82%), over the same period the developing countries’

share in imports had gone from 13% to 18% (Table 1). In 2002, four developing
 4

countries numbered in the top ten fish exporters, including the top two (respectively,

China and Thailand).

Figure 2 breaks down world fish exports by fish categories. Note that the

categories lump together food fish and reduction fish, i.e. fish meals and oils, most of

which are used as feed for livestock or aquaculture. The top export product is

crustaceans, which accounted for a quarter of world fish exports in 2002 (Figure 2).

This is followed by pelagics, miscellaneous marine products, demersals, and

freshwater fish.

The composition in developing country exports has shown striking changes

over the past 20 years (Figure 3). Earlier it was dominated by cephalopods, pelagics,

and other types of fish; currently, while pelagics continue to be important (thanks to

the large fisheries in Latin America and China), the top export is now crustaceans

(mostly shrimp). Miscellaneous marine fish have also observed noteworthy increases

in share.

Globalization of fisheries has resulted from a number of factors, including

lower transaction costs, improved airfreight facilities, and the formation of supply and

distribution systems, culminating in the supermarket chain. Trade policy has also been

instrumental. First, food safety standards are becoming more transparent and realistic.

Standards are harmonized under the agreement on SPS measures under the WTO, and

the Codex Alimentarius standards of the FAO for food. Cumbersome and arbitrary

inspection procedures have given way to a process-based certification system, i.e. the

Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Points system (Delgado et al, 2003).

Second, tariffs on fisheries products in the main importing countries have been

greatly reduced under the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and

other arrangements. Currently the weighted average of tariffs on fish imports in

 5

developed countries stands at only 4.5%. However this low average conceals some

remaining tariff walls and escalation patterns against processed products (FAO,

2003). Similarly tariffs in developing countries have been declining, though at a much

slower rate (Dey et al 2004a).

Despite lingering barriers to trade, the momentum towards globalization will

probably continue into near future. FAO projections forecast increasing fish exports

from developing countries, from 7.2 million tons in 1999 to 10.1 million tons by

2015. This is accompanied by increasing demand for fish: annual average growth in

per capita consumption for developing countries is expected to reach 1.3% per annum,

above the global figure of 0.8%. Fish production from developing countries will also

grow (by 2.7% per year), but by only half the growth rate achieved in the previous 20

years (FAO, 2005).

According to a different set of projections, net exports of food fish undergo

continuous expansion in China, India, and Latin America. However, net exports are

expected to fall (or net imports to rise) in other developing regions, such as Southeast

Asia, other South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Because of this, total food fish

exports from developing countries are expected to fall by 30% from 1997 to 2020

(Delgado et al, 2003).

Potential impacts of export-oriented fisheries on food security and livelihoods

The globalization process is often viewed as harmful to the poor. The

globalization of fisheries is no exception. With respect to food security, “…when it is

quite remunerative to export, it may become more attractive to sell abroad than on the

domestic market depriving the local populations of important sources of

proteins”(Abgrall, 2003, p. 38). However one should consider the flipside: a broader

conceptualization of food security may include availability and affordability to food

 6

from both domestic and foreign sources. Hence, selling goods to the export market in

order to procure food increase purchasing power to from other countries may actually

contribute to food security. If repression of exports fails to generate sufficient

increases in consumption, then the net effect on food security is ambiguous at best.

Resolution lies in performing some quantitative measurement of the net

impacts of exports on food security. A direct approach (say through econometric

study) is however problematic, given data constraints, measurement problems, and the

simultaneous influence of many related factors. An alternative tool would be

simulation analysis, in which consumption, production, and trade, are represented

within a computable economic model. Increasing export-orientation is then treated as

an alternative scenario, or a modeling “experiment”, and the resulting changes in

consumption are attributed to export-orientation. An advantage of this approach is the

representation of myriad relationships and determinants simultaneously within a

supply and demand system, while still yielding numerical results.

For this paper we re-examine the results of an experiment from an earlier

study on major fish exporting countries in Asia, implemented by country modelers

and reported in Briones et al (2005). The experiment is carried out by assuming a

slower rate of growth of export price for fisheries exports (equivalent to a slower

improvement or a faster deterioration in the fisheries terms of trade). The results for

consumption in the long-run are then the basis for drawing implications for food

security.

Second, increasing trade has also exposed domestic producers to more intense

global competition. This has allegedly favored commercialized farming and fishing,

conducted on a large scale. Hence concerns have been raised about the adverse

impacts of globalization on livelihoods of small fish producers, of whom a sizable

 7

proportion are poor. For the second issue, there is unfortunately a dearth of

quantitative or empirical work relating trade with equity. Instead we shall fall back on

a review of conceptual issues, combined with some stylizations about trade and

industry consolidation, to assess the distribution of benefits from fisheries trade.

3. Trade and food security

The AsiaFish model

Quantitative impact assessment of the effect of rising export price on domestic

fish consumption is undertaken for Bangladesh, China, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka.

Simulations are conducted using country versions of the AsiaFish model, a

disaggregated supply-demand model of the fish sector. The following provides a brief

description of the model; the specialist is referred to Dey et al (2004) for the details.

The demand and supply equations follow the pattern suggested by Martin and

Alston (1994). Supply equations for fresh fish are derived from the normalized

quadratic profit function. We extend the framework by adding different supply

functions for capture and culture categories, as well as introducing processed fish as a

product of fresh fish under fixed proportions technology. The demand equations are

based on the Almost Ideal Demand System, as in Martin and Alston; however this

system appears in quadratic form at the last stage of a three stage budgeting

framework. In a complete departure from earlier work, the AsiaFish model

incorporates a trade core which follows the Armington approach (Armington, 1969),

akin to the practice in Applied General Equilibrium (AGE) models.

The AsiaFish introduces another innovation in allowing fish types for demand

and supply to differ initially (to maintain flexible treatment of available data), with a

matching scheme to harmonize the fish types and enforce model closure. Domestic
 8

prices in the model are determined with the aid of equilibrium conditions. These

conditions require, for each fish type, equality of demand for domestically produced

goods (total consumption net of imports) with domestic supply for each fish type.

Model parameters are calibrated from elasticities and data values. For the

AsiaFish, a serious effort was mounted to estimate demand and supply elasticities for

each fish type and country from available data. Where the estimated elasticities are

implausible or contribute to implausible results, they are replaced by well-behaved

elasticities, either from other countries in the AsiaFish model, or by other values in

the literature, or by expert judgment.

The model contains exogenous variables whose values must be supplied from

outside the model, i.e. the index of technological change, urban and rural populations,

income, input prices, non-fish commodity prices, and foreign prices. By projecting

these exogenous variables for each period, one is able to solve the model over a

forecast horizon; here the horizon is 2005 – 2015.

The most likely or baseline scenario is obtained by projecting the exogenous

variables based on historical trend. The counterfactual scenario or experiment applies

a different set of exogenous variable projections. In this study the experiment takes

the form of a change in the growth rate in the price for all exported products, meant to

represent a dynamic change in the terms of trade for exported products. (The rest of

the exogenous variable trends remain identical.) The change in growth rate is very

small, to stay in the neighborhood of the original equilibrium values.

Due to its disaggregated structure, the AsiaFish model generates literally

hundreds of numerical results. For this paper we limit the presentation to results for

consumption, exports, and imports. All figures are in terms of annual growth rates.
 9

Due to the differences in fish types across countries, each of the country cases is

discussed separately.

Bangladesh

In the most likely case, Bangladesh is expected to have only a slow aggregate

consumption growth for fish, with a shift away from traditional species such as the

Indian carps, Pangus, and Hilsha, to newer species such as other carps, high value

marine fish, and even tilapia. Bangladesh fish imports are negligible and omitted in

the simulation. Exports are concentrated on Hilsha, Shrimp, and Dried fish, all of

which are projected to grow rapidly, particularly Dried fish (which is beginning from

a small base). As expected, the export price growth shock causes a demand increase,

though the effect is hardly perceptible on the average; for individual fish types, the

slowdown in the decline of Indian major carps and dried fish is quite clear from the

simulation. Slower export price growth does slow down export growth, though only

mildly.

China

For the baseline, consumption growth is fairly rapid, particularly for Tilapia;

considering slow population growth in China, this translates to increasing

consumption per capita. Imports and exports are also growing. A one-percentage

point shock in export price growth has a minor impact on exports and imports; the

impact on consumption is very slight.

Philippines

Consumption growth in the Philippines is quite small, due to mixed changes in

consumption growth across fish types, i.e. decreasing for processed fish and others,

while increasing for the rest, especially for milkfish and tilapia. Import declines across
 10

the board, while export growth is weak. The export price shock makes a serious dent

on overall exports, turning a small positive growth into a small negative growth over

the 15-year period. However the positive impact on consumption is small in

proportion to the original 1% shock; the effect seems to be concentrated on processed

fish, shells, and other fish.

Sri Lanka

For the baseline in Sri Lanka, projected growth for consumption, imports, and

exports are quite high, greater than even the optimistic outlook for China. Only other

marine consumption is expected to post a decline; highest consumption growth is

expected for processed fish, followed by freshwater fish and pelagic fishes. Even

more than the Philippines, a one percentage point drop in export price growth inflicts

a clear negative effect on export growth, particularly on cultured prawn. Meanwhile it

provides a stimulus for imports (in fact a strong one for large pelagics). Consumption

growth however rises only for freshwater fish and other fish; for other items, and on

average, consumption growth falls. This is unexpected, but perfectly possible given

the multiplicity of interactions that ultimately determine equilibrium consumption by

fish type.

To summarize: as expected, a decline in export price does reduce export and

usually increases domestic consumption. However the effects on consumption are

small to imperceptible, relative to the original shock. What seems more obvious is the

negative impact of an export price slowdown on exports growth. On the balance

therefore, food security does not seem to be a good argument to resist the trend of

increasing global integration.

 11

4. Trade and equity

Export – orientation and the commercialization of fisheries

The next issue we address is the impact of export-oriented fisheries on equity.

The globalization of fisheries, in common with the globalization of agriculture in

general, involves highly perishable commodities. About half of agricultural exports

from developing countries are in fresh form, requiring specialized production,

packing, and handling, to meet quality and safety concerns (Unnevehr, 2000).

Otherwise they are exported in processed form; in either case expensive modern

technologies requiring large capital outlays are required.

Producers and traditional fish processors in developing countries are clearly at

a disadvantage. Geographically extended supply chains, linking dispersed small

producers, face higher costs of assuring product quality. Small processors often

employ traditional methods, which fall short of modern standards of hygienic

preparation. Small producers and traditional processors are therefore marginalized in

the export market (Ahmed et al, 2002).

Furthermore, safety standards are typically enforced by state regulations in the

importing countries. For WTO members this falls under the Agreement on Sanitary

and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which for food is regulated by the Codex

Alimentarius. The Codex mandates the HACCP certification system. These safety

standards are actually the more significant form of trade barriers facing developing

country exporters. Dey et al (2004) present estimates of the additional processing

costs due to HACCP compliance (Table 6). Due to prior economies of scale, the

additional investment implies a greater increase in unit costs for smaller processors.

While it may possible that standards-compliance can lead to a price premium,

(Wessels and Anderson, 1995), thus assuring some return on the investment, smaller
 12

producers may still be at a disadvantage due to their lack of access to capital

financing.

The new trading order and business organization

Recently attention has been drawn to the organizational dimension of the new

trading order in agriculture. Export-oriented agribusiness is associated with

“industrialized agriculture”, where size and standardization become important factors

for lowering costs, and producing goods that fit consumer needs and processor’s

specifications. The agro-industrial system favors negotiated coordination along the

food supply chain, rather than the the traditional spot market of competitive

agriculture (Boehlje and Doering, 2000).

Understanding how small producers fare under the agro-industrialized system

requires analysis of business organization and contract choice. The “new institutional

economics” provides a set of concepts useful for the analysis. These include

transaction cost, and the economics of information and choice under uncertainty

(Kherallah and Kirsten, 2001). The central thesis of this theoretical approach is that

organizational and contractual forms are institutional arrangements to deal with

transaction costs and asymmetric information.

The extreme form of vertical coordination is the fully integrated, investor-

owned business firm. The classic example is the export crop plantation, often having

its own processing plant; in fisheries, a counterpart would be the commercial fish

farm, which undertakes production, postharvest handling, freezing, and exportation.

However this is not sole organizational form governing agricultural supply chains.

Other modes are contract farming, joint ventures, and producer organizations (ranging

from loose farmer associations to cooperatives). Each of these alternatives

 13

encompasses a broad spectrum of arrangements, and offer prospects for participation

of small producers.

Unfortunately, little is known about the enabling mechanisms for small

producer participation under export-oriented fisheries and aquaculture. This is partly

due to the inherent difficulties of investigating the premises and hypotheses of the

organization and contract theory. Economists remain highly ignorant about the origins

and operations of real-world institutions in agriculture. The variables involved

(transaction cost, risk, etc.) are difficult to measure. No common analytical

framework has emerged within the paradigm (Kherallah and Kirsten, 2001). The

dearth of research is more severe for the narrower field of fisheries and aquaculture.

Hence, the design and facilitation of collective institutions to allow small producers to

participating in increasingly rigorous global markets is a major priority for policy

research (Delgado et al, 2003).

Karaan (2002) points the way in his case study of contract farming in oyster

culture in South Africa. His conceptual framework uses the concepts of asset

specificity, holdup, moral hazard, shirking, asymmetric information, and costs of

screening, monitoring, and enforcement. He evaluates the applicability of these

factors at the various stages of the mussel industry (pre-production, production,

processing, and marketing) as well as the socio-economic environment. He finds that

household-based contract farming is superior to vertically integrated production on

addressing two problems, both in the production stage, namely: diseconomies of

scale, and shirking of workers. However, it is at a disadvantage with respect to other

problems, such as asymmetric information in production, holdup, access to export

markets, and access to finance. To improve contract farming, at the industry level he

commends contracts with the following features (among others): provision of

 14

resources and credit by the contractors, preference for household-based

subcontractors, strong management intervention over a short start-up phase, formula

pricing, and provision of extension services. He also points to the need for third-party

facilitation towards organizing growers, partly to improve the bargaining position of

the latter.

At the sectoral level, to increase participation of the poor in export-oriented

fisheries, we advocate regional collaboration between developing countries towards

negotiating towards rationalized safety standards and enforcement. International aid

and technical assistance would also be beneficial for establishing institutions and

domestic systems for quality control and assurance. Finally, aside from these industry

level measures, it bears emphasizing that fundamental requisites of rural development

remain relevant, such as: better infrastructure, modernization of postharvest and

processing technologies, better communication networks, and wider dissemination of

market information.

5. Conclusion

In this paper we discuss globalization trends in fisheries, with particular

attention to exports from developing countries. Two objections that indicate a

negative impact of these export trends on food security and equity are discussed. First

is the claim that export-oriented fisheries is harmful to food security. Based on

simulation analysis, we find this objection to be unwarranted. Rather, weaker export

growth may actually undermine food security by depriving a country of foreign

exchange, part of which can be used for importing food.

Second, it is alleged that that export-orientation does lead to inequitable

benefit flows, particularly with the advent of food safety regulations. Unlike the first,

there are good reasons to find this objection credible. However thee is a need to
 15

broaden our perspective on export-oriented fisheries, appreciating both threats and

opportunities. The vertically integrated, large scale operation does tend to exclude the

poor; it is not however the only organizational form in practice. In many instances,

vertical integration it is precluded by transaction cost, requiring a more flexible

organization of the supply chain. This opens up participation of small producers,

through production contracts or other grower arrangements. Such participation is the

key to widening the flows of benefits from export-oriented fisheries. This requires

nothing less than an institutional and technological transformation, at the level of the

firm, the industry, and international trade regulation, one which governments and the

development community can help catalyze.

References

Abgrall, J.-F. 2003. Fisheries, food security and trade: governance a key to success.
In: Report of the Expert Consultation on International Fish Trade and Food Security,
Casablanca, Morocco, 27-30 January. FAO Fisheries Reports - R708.

Ahmed, Mahfuzuddin, Mohammed Rab, Madan Dey, 2002, Changing Structure of

Fish Supply, Demand, and Trade in Developing Countries – Issues and Needs, IIFET
2002 Proceedings.

Briones, R., U-P. Rodriguez, and M. Dey. 2005. Projections for fish supply and
demand. In: Fish Supply and Demand in Asia. M. Dey, R. Briones, Y. Tan-Garcia,
and A. Nissapa, eds. WorldFish Center (forthcoming).

Boehlje, M. and O. Doering. 2000. Farm policy in an industrialized agriculture.

Journal of Agricbusiness 18(1):53-60.

Delgado, C., N. Wada, M. Rosegrant, S. Meijer and M. Ahmed, 2003. Fish to 2020:
Supply and Demand in Changing Global Environments, International Food Policy
Research Institute and the WorldFish Center.

Dey, M., M Ahmed, M A Rab, A Kumar and A Nisapa. 2004a. WTO, Food Safety
Standards and Regulatory Barriers: Implications for Selected Fish Exporting Asian
Countries. Aquaculture Economics and Management (forthcoming).

Dey, M. M., R. Briones and M. Ahmed. 2004b. Projecting supply, demand and trade
for specific fish types in Asia: baseline model and estimation strategy. Aquaculture
Economics and Management (forthcoming)
 16

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Input for the WTO Ministerial Meeting in
Cancún. FAO Fact Sheets.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2004. State of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Fishstat. Downloaded April 2005 from
http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp.

Karaan, M. 2002. Transaction costs in contract farming models for mussel and oyster
farming in South Africa: organisational and management implications. Aquaculture
Economics and Management 6(5/6):397 – 409.

Kheralla, M. and J. Kirsten. 2001. The new institutional economics: applications for
agricultural policy research in developing countries. Discussion Paper No. 41.
Markets and Structural Studies Division, International Food Policy Research Institute.

Martin, W., and J. Alston. 1994. A dual approach to evaluating research benefits in
the presence of trade distortions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
76(1):26-35.

Unnevehr, L. 2000. Food safety issues and fresh food product exports from LDCs.
Agricultural Economics 23(3): 231 – 240.

Wesells, Cathy R. Joan Gray Anderson, 1995, Consumer Willingness to Pay for
Seafood Safety Assurances, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29(1):85-107
 1

70,000,000

60,000,000

50,000,000
in mt and '000 dollars

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

0
1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

Export Quantity Export Value

Figure 1: World Exports of Fish, Value and Volume, 1976 – 2001

SOURCE: FAO Fishstat (2005).

 2

Other, 4.4 cephalopods,

4.7
pelagics, 19.0 crustaceans,
25.0

mollusks, 4.9

miscellaneous demersals, 12.5

marine, 16.6 freshwater fish
products, 12.9

Figure 2. Shares in world fish exports, by fish category, 2002

Source: FAO Fishstat (2005).

Table 1: Shares in world fish exports, by country group, 1976 – 2000

1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002

Export shares
Developed
countries 63.1 60.4 56.9 56.7 49.6 49.6 50.9
Developing
countries 36.9 39.6 43.1 43.3 50.4 50.4 49.1

Import shares
Developed
countries 86.6 83.2 83.5 86.9 84.4 83.0 81.5
Developing
countries 13.4 16.8 16.5 13.1 15.6 17.0 18.5

Source: FAO Fishtat (2005).

 3

35.0
32.3
29.2
30.0

25.0
21.8 21.5

20.0
19.7 17.5
16.2

15.0

10.0 7.3 6.5

7.2
3.6
2.9
5.0 3.7
2.7
4.7

0.0 3.3

Cephalopods
Crustaceans
Demersals
1982
Freshw ater
fish
Misc marine 2002
Mollusks
fish Pelagics
Other

2002 1982

Figure 3: Shares in developing country fish exports, by fish type, 1982 and 2002

Source: FAO (2005)

 4

Table 2: Projections on annual average growth rates in quantities, by item and

fish type, for Bangladesh, 2005 – 2015

Items Baseline Experiment

Consumption
Total quantity 0.22 0.24
Indian Major carps -1.11 -0.25
Other carps 5.03 4.49
Tilapia 1.27 0.97
Pangus -0.28 -0.48
Livefish 0.82 0.84
Hilsha -4.67 -6.18
Freshwater fish -4.20 -4.25
Shrimp 2.26 2.90
High value marine fish 6.02 5.17
Low value marine fish -2.14 -2.11
Dried fish -12.85 -4.62

Exports 8.68 8.22

Hilsha 6.96 7.30
Shrimp 8.76 8.12
Dried fish 17.01 20.68

Source: Briones et al (2005).

 5

Table 3: Projections on annual average growth rates in quantities, by item and

fish type, for China, 2005 – 2015

Items Baseline Experiment

Consumption
Total 3.05 3.08
Other finfish 2.66 2.73
Shrimp 3.78 3.81
Other fish 3.09 3.13
Tilapia 10.07 10.05
Carps 1.22 1.23
Exports
Total quantity 2.82 2.70
Other finfish aquaculture 9.67 9.57
Shrimp aquaculture 9.97 9.87
Other aquaculture 2.89 2.70
Other finfish capture -0.52 -0.66
Shrimp capture -0.51 -0.70
Other capture -0.34 -0.46
Tilapia 9.56 9.37
Carp 1.13 0.92

Source: Briones et al (2005).

 6

Table 4: Projections on annual average growth rates in quantities, by item and

fish type, for the Philippines, 2005 – 2015

Items Baseline Experiment

Consumption
Total quantity 0.50 0.64
Anchovy 1.28 1.28
Roundscad 1.36 1.38
Squid 0.51 0.58
Shrimp 1.41 1.73
Milkfish 2.54 2.57
Tilapia 1.76 1.79
Process -0.71 -0.38
Shells 0.13 0.44
Others -2.01 -1.71
Exports
Total quantity 0.24 -0.34
Grouper 1.14 0.54
Tuna 0.43 0.15
Roundscad 1.10 -0.31
Other capture -1.03 -2.27
Squid 0.31 -0.83
Shrimp 2.30 1.59
Other shells -0.41 -1.03
Mussels and oysters -5.53 -5.53
Carp -2.16 -3.71
Catfish 0.61 -0.99
Milkfish 2.72 1.22
Tilapia 1.37 -0.07
Processed fish -0.56 -1.21
Source: Briones et al (2005)
 7

Table 5: Projections on annual average growth rates in quantities, by item and

fish type, for the Sri Lanka, 2005 – 2015

Items Baseline Experiment

Consumption
Total 3.91 3.49
Large pelagic 2.35 2.00
Small pelagic 3.54 2.19
Demersal 0.68 -3.68
Other marine -6.65 -6.56
Freshwater fish 3.57 4.16
Processed fish 5.31 5.17
Exports
Total 4.69 2.91
Large pelagic 5.46 3.50
Other marine -1.83 -1.42
Cultured prawn 4.32 2.91

Source: Briones et al (2005)

Table 6 Average processing cost/kg for sample enterprises in Asia, with and
without HACCP compliance

Plant capacity Without With compliance

compliance (USD)
(USD)

Small (< 10 mt/day) 0.142 0.189

Medium (10 – 15 mt/day) 0.095 0.131

Large (> 15 mt/day) 0.072 0.110

Average 0.093 0.123

SOURCE: Dey et. al. (2004a).