FAO Fisheries Circular No.

1019 FIIU/C1019 (En)

ISSN 0429-9329

REVENUE DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE SEAFOOD VALUE CHAIN

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from:
Sales and Marketing Group
Information Division
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (+39) 06 57053360
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1019 FIIU/C1019 (En)

REVENUE DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE SEAFOOD VALUE CHAIN

by
Eyjolfur Gudmundsson
Faculty of Business and Science
University of Akureyri
Akureyri, Iceland

Frank Asche
Department of Industrial Economics
University of Stavanger
Stavanger, Norway

and

Max Nielsen
Adjunkt
Fødevareøkonomisk Institut
Frederiksberg, Denmark

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2006
 The designations employed and the presentation of material in
this information product do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or
development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this

information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are
authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders
provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this
information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited
without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such
permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing Management
Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100
Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected]

© FAO 2006
 iii

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document was prepared as part of the programme of the Fish Utilization and Marketing
Service of the FAO Fisheries Department to generate more information on the fish trade of
developing countries and to start to generate a better understanding of the disposition of income
from fisheries in developed and developing markets. The four case studies presented here represent
the first attempt to make a comparison between the value chains for fishery products in these two
markets.

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS*

Eyjolfur Gudmundsson
Faculty of Business and Science
University of Akureyri
600 Akureyri
Iceland
E-mail: [email protected]

Frank Asche
Department of Industrial Economics
University of Stavanger
N-4036 Stavanger
Norway
E-mail: [email protected]

Max Nielsen
Adjunkt
Fødevareøkonomisk Institut
Rolighedsvej 25
1958 Frederiksberg C.
Denmark
E-mail: [email protected]

* Geofrey F. Nanyaro contributed the Tanzania Nile perch case study.

Ahmed Chaïbi and Lahsen Ababouch contributed the Morocco anchovy case study.
 iv

Gudmundsson, E.; Asche, F.; Nielsen, M.

Revenue distribution through the seafood value chain.
FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1019. Rome, FAO. 2006. 42p.

ABSTRACT

This Circular defines the value chain as the range of services required to bring a product from
conception to the final consumer. For seafood products this includes capture (or culture),
processing, distribution and marketing. A theoretical basis of value chain analysis, as the value
added at each step of the chain, is explained and a methodology developed. The application
is demonstrated in four case studies of different fisheries, two in developing countries and
two in developed. Two different types of product are covered: white fish fillets (cod from
Iceland and Nile perch from the United Republic of Tanzania) and small pelagic fish (herring
from Denmark and anchovy from Morocco). Despite the difficulties of obtaining data, the
case studies demonstrate some common trends between the two sets of products. However,
in the case of white fish fillets the retail sector absorbs 61 percent of the value chain in the
United Republic of Tanzania but only 37 percent in Iceland: that is more value accrues to the
producers in Iceland. For small pelagics the retail sector for Danish herring adds 38 percent
of the value while for Moroccan anchovy the figure is 75 percent.

It is acknowledged that these four case studies, based on imperfect data, are only a starting
point and that more value chain analysis should be undertaken to confirm and expand these
results. Researchers in developing countries are encouraged to apply the methodology
developed here to their fisheries in order to generate a larger body of information.
 v

CONTENTS

Preparation of this document iii

Contributing authors iii
Abstract iv
List of figures vi
List of tables vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SEAFOOD PRODUCTS 2

2.1 Overview of trade in seafood products 2
2.2 The effect of free trade on fisheries: theoretical approach 4
2.3 Analysing seafood value chains 9
2.4 Marketing margins and value chains in US agriculture 10

3. CASE STUDIES 13
3.1 Iceland 13
3.2 United Republic of Tanzania 19
3.3 Morocco 26
3.4 Denmark 31

4. COMPARING VALUE CHAINS BETWEEN COUNTRIES 35

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 40

REFERENCES 41
 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Foreign trade in a basic demand/supply model 5

2. High world market prices reduces quantity sold domestically but increases exports 6
3. Standard trade model with a backward bending supply curve 7
4. High world market prices and backward bending supply curve in a local market 7
5. Four market levels for a typical seafood value chain 9
6. Schematic presentation for a typical seafood value chain 10
7. Value chain analysis for a seafood product – schematic presentation 11
8. Farm value and marketing bill as a share of consumer expenditure, 1970–2000 11
9. Value chains for the Icelandic cod fishery 14
10. The value chain for Icelandic cod fillets exported to the United States 14
11. Cost items as a share of total revenue for the Icelandic trawler fleet in 2001 15
12. Share of each cost item in processing of cod fillets in Iceland 16
13. Distribution of retail value for Icelandic cod fillets sold in restaurants in the US 17
14. Value added at each level in the value chain from 2000–2004 18
15. The marketing chain for Nile perch in the United Republic of Tanzania 20
16. The value chain for Lake Victoria Nile perch from the United Republic of Tanzania 21
17. Average landing values for Tanzanian Nile perch 22
18. Prices paid at ex-vessel level and the factory gate 23
19. Prices at the processing level 24
20. Import value (US$/kg) 24
21. Value added for one kilogram of Nile perch fillet in the Tanzanian Nile perch fishery 25
22. The value chain for exports of Moroccan anchovy 28
23. Share of individual cost items for Moroccan purse seine fishery 29
24. Relative processing costs for Moroccan anchovy 29
25. The export value chain for Moroccan anchovies exported to the United States in 2000 30
26. The value chain for Moroccan anchovies sold in Italy 31
27. The Danish marketing chain for pickled herring 32
28. The value chain for domestically produced pickled herring in Denmark 33
29. Quarterly price spreads from 1998 through 2000 33
30. Relative value added at each segment and cost share by each item 35
31. Comparing the value chains for Icelandic cod and Tanzanian Nile perch 36
32. Comparing value chains for Danish herring and Moroccan anchovy 37
33. Comparing value chains for the four case studies 39

LIST OF TABLES

1. World catch of fish and trade (millions of MT) 3

2. Dissemination of total catch by share of consumption form 3
3. World seafood imports 4
4. US farm value share of retail price in 2000 12
5. Average vessel characteristics for a sample of Moroccan purse seiners 28
6. Accounts statistics, percentage of turnover, average 1998-2000 34
 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Seafood products are among the most important internationally traded food commodities. In 2000
the value of international fish trade was about US$61 billion, while the total value of all agricultural
trade was US$431 billion (Anderson, 2003). The welfare effect for society from free trade is
well known and several authors have shown that this also applies to trade in natural resources.
However, the results are often specific to the resource itself and the structure of the economy
(Hannesson, 2000). The rapid increase in seafood trade over the past decades and the fact that
most of the trade is exports from developing countries to the more developed countries has led to
increasing concerns over the effects of trade on sustainability of fisheries and the distribution of
benefits from these trade activities to the primary sectors.1

Though the theoretical background of international trade is well known the research conducted
so far has offered limited insights into how seafood value (or price) is actually distributed over
the chain of production, processing and marketing of seafood products.2 This report takes the
first steps to analyse seafood value chains, with the initial objective of evaluating the value added
processes at each level. For this purpose four different fisheries in four different countries have
been examined.

Analysis of value chains requires micro level data, which proved difficult to obtain since most of
the data consistently collected by government and international agencies is collected at aggregated
levels. It proved to be especially difficult at the retail level since most retail data is collected and
commercialized by private companies. Despite difficulties in acquiring the retail data the analysis
gives valuable insights into seafood value-chains. Value chains for pelagic fisheries were shown
to have similar characteristics to value chains for highly processed agricultural products while
demersal species were more in line with value chains for other protein sources, i.e. beef, pork and
poultry. However, there were substantial differences with demersal fish when compared with value
chains for meat, emphasizing that despite these products often being regarded as substitutes for one-
another there are different economic forces behind their supply. An important point that emerged
was that producers in developed countries seemed to have control over a bigger portion of the value
chain, possibly giving them a better competitive advantage in international seafood markets.

A lesson from this analysis is that the focus should not be on the relative value which each
segment receives but rather on the operating margins in the overall value chains and the level of
transparency and information flow between market levels.

The report is organized into five sections. Section 2 gives an overview of seafood trade (and
the theory of international trade with respect to fisheries). It also considers the relevance of
international trade to management of fishery resources and emphasizes its importance in today’s
seafood business. Section 3 gives an overview of the methodology used in this report. Section 4
includes the case studies for the four different fisheries, where each fishery is analysed with regard
to cost items within each segment of the value chain. Section 5 focuses on cross-comparison
between the different fisheries and section 6 contains discussion and concluding remarks.

Several individuals have provided research assistance and written sections in this report. The
authors thank Max Nielsen for his contribution to the Danish case, Geofrey F. Nanyaro for his
contribution to this project with regard to the Tanzanian case study, Lahsen Ababouch and Ahmed
Chaïbi for their contribution with regard to the Moroccan anchovy case study. They also thank
staff members of FAO, specifically Grimur Valdimarsson, Lahsen Ababouch and Helga Josupeit
for their valuable input and comments, and not least patience.

1
For an overview of these issues see Roheim, 2005.
2
Examples on research on seafood value chains can be found in KPMG (2004)
 2

2. THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SEAFOOD PRODUCTS

Fish has been a major commodity in trade for more than a thousand years and seafood trade has
influenced living conditions and policy decisions for just as long. An important characteristic for
all food products that are traded is that they must be transportable and conservable for at least the
transportation time.3 The traditional fish trade has therefore depended on dried or dried and salted
products since these were the best traditional preservation methods, and also because they reduce the
weight of the fish substantially. However, even though there has been a substantial trade with fish
for a long time, in most places local fishermen were the most important providers of fish particularly
to the most valuable market – the local market for fresh fish. Hence, historically even for the same
species, separate local and regional markets have existed, and where prices have been determined by
local supply and demand. Abundance of fish and low prices in one market was not reflected in prices
on other markets. This has made the seafood market highly segmented, so that it is more relevant to
speak about the seafood market as a group of markets rather than a single market.4

During the last decades this picture has changed substantially. Increased fishing efficiency and
productivity development in aquaculture has led to increased supply. Total seafood production is
currently well above 100 million tonnes. Furthermore, changes in the institutional framework, and
particularly the introduction of the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), have given coastal
nations control over most fish stocks.5 However, improvements in conservation and transportation
methods have been most important for increased trade. In many cases this has created an integrated
world market where there used to be many independent regional and local ones. Hence the
seafood market is less segmented today than it was 50 years ago. This has led to new opportunities
and challenges for fishermen and the seafood industry all over the world.

The economic theory of international trade shows that in general any country that engages in
trade will be better off. However, during the last decades it has become apparent that there are
also losers, and that policy decisions can influence how the gains are distributed. This has lead
to a substantial increase in trade regulating measures in relation to seafood such as anti-dumping
cases, even though, or maybe because, formal trade barriers have been reduced via the GATT
negotiations, managed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Focus has also been increasing
on issues like the environment which has led to the use of eco-labels and other “green” labels to
segment the market (Roheim, 2005).

The issues of equity and sustainability with regard to seafood trade have therefore become a central
point in the debate on free trade. It is therefore necessary to review the importance of seafood trade
for developed vs. developing countries and to look at the theoretical background of the impact of
free trade on fishing communities. The next two sections deal with these two issues.

2.1 Overview of trade in seafood products

Total world catch of fish and other seafood, including aquaculture production, is shown in Table 1.
The catch, or production, is still increasing, but in the 1990s this was mostly due to aquaculture.
Most fish stocks are now fully utilized or overexploited, so it is unlikely that landings will increase
in the future. There may still be some increase in total seafood production as aquaculture is likely
to grow (Anderson and Fong, 1997; Asche, 1997).

3
See e.g. Kurlansky (1997) for a very entertaining account of the cod trade, which was the major seafood commodity
traded during the middle ages.
4
See Anderson (2003) for a review on the origins and development of seafood trade.
5
Munro (1996) gives a brief account of the development of fisheries regulations and the law of the sea.
 3

TABLE 1: World catch of fish and trade (million tonnes)

Human Trade as percentage
Year Total Other Trades
consumption of total catch
1984 84 58 26 27 33
1985 86 60 26 31 36
1986 93 64 29 33 35
1987 95 66 28 34 36
1988 99 69 30 35 35
1989 101 70 30 38 38
1990 98 70 28 36 37
1991 98 69 29 38 38
1992 100 72 28 38 38
1993 103 74 29 42 40
1994 113 78 35 46 41
1995 117 85 32 45 39
1996 120 88 32 45 37
1997 123 92 31 47 38
1998 118 93 25 39 33
1999 127 95 32 44 35
2000 131 97 34 50 38
2001 130 100 31 50 39
2002 133 101 32 49 37
2003 133 104 28 49 37
Source: FAO (2006) FAO Fisheries Statistics - Commodities

TABLE 2: Dissemination of total catch by share of consumption form

Human consumption (%) Other (%)
Year Fresh Frozen Cured Canned Reduction Miscellaneous
1984 19.2 24.6 11.6 13.6 29.3 1.6
1985 19.8 24.4 11.8 13.3 29.4 1.4
1986 21.1 24.1 11.0 12.4 29.6 1.7
1987 22.8 23.9 10.7 12.3 27.6 1.6
1988 23.1 23.7 10.2 12.1 27.8 1.6
1989 24.0 23.5 10.4 12.4 28.2 1.6
1990 23.0 24.8 11.0 13.1 26.7 1.5
1991 22.3 24.4 11.1 13.3 27.4 1.6
1992 25.6 24.2 10.0 12.3 26.0 1.8
1993 25.5 24.3 9.9 12.2 26.1 1.7
1994 31.5 20.9 7.8 9.4 26.8 3.6
1995 34.7 20.7 8.2 9.1 23.4 3.8
1996 36.2 20.4 8.1 8.8 22.8 3.6
1997 38.1 20.4 7.2 8.9 21.1 4.2
1998 41.0 21.0 8.2 9.0 16.6 4.2
1999 39.3 19.5 7.6 8.5 20.2 4.8
2000 38.8 19.3 7.4 8.4 21.1 5.0
2001 40.0 20.1 7.6 8.5 18.4 5.4
2002 39.5 20.3 7.3 8.6 19.0 5.3
2003 41.0 21.2 7.4 9.1 16.1 5.2
Source: FAO (2006) FAO Fisheries Statistics: Commodities

Table 1 shows that the quantity of fish used for reduction (which makes up 99 percent of the
“Other” category) is rather constant, between 25 and 35 million metric tons (tonnes), so increases
in production have mostly been used for human consumption. It is also evident from Table 1 that
a major share of the total supply of fish is traded. In 1994, 41 percent of total catches entered trade
and since then the share has ranged from 33 to 39 percent annually. Trade in seafood products has
increased over the past two decades from an average of 35 percent between 1984 and 1994 to an
annual average of 37 percent of world catch between 1995 and 2003.

Table 2 shows the development in the use of the catches by product form. It is clear that the share
that is sold fresh has increased substantially over the period, from 19 percent in 1984 to 41 percent
 4

TABLE 3: World seafood imports

in 2003. Fresh fish is the only product
US$ million Shares
form that has substantially increased its Year Total Industrialized Developing Industrialized Developing
share of the catch. The share of catch 1984 18 089 14 875 3 214 82 % 18 %
that is sold as frozen and cured has 1985 19 491 16 287 3 204 84 % 16 %
remained rather constant, while the 1986 25 388 21 368 4 021 84 % 16 %
share of canned fish and reduction has 1987 31 610 27 043 4 567 86 % 14 %
1988 36 645 30 888 5 757 84 % 16 %
declined. This is to a large extent to be
1989 37 127 31 110 6 016 84 % 16 %
expected, both because of aquaculture’s 1990 39 991 34 773 5 218 87 % 13 %
increasing share of total production and 1991 43 983 37 762 6 221 86 % 14 %
because of better transportation and 1992 45 875 39 015 6 861 85 % 15 %
conservation methods, since fresh fish 1993 45 228 38 376 6 852 85 % 15 %
tends to be the most valuable product 1994 52 120 44 109 8 011 85 % 15 %
1995 57 070 48 232 8 837 85 % 15 %
form.
1996 58 095 48 370 9 724 83 % 17 %
1997 57 573 47 562 10 012 83 % 17 %
The development in total import value 1998 56 108 47 752 8 356 85 % 15 %
from industrialized and developing 1999 58 575 49 578 8 996 85 % 15 %
countries is demonstrated by Table 3. 2000 60 996 50 635 10 360 83 % 17 %
The first thing that is evident is that trade 2001 60 559 49 653 10 906 82 % 18 %
has increased substantially in value, or 2002 62 500 50 866 11 635 81 % 19 %
2003 68 262 55 885 12 376 82 % 18 %
more than tripled between 1984 and
Source: FAO (2006) FAO Fisheries Statistics: Commodities (*FAO FISHSTAT
2003 when measured in nominal terms, Plus database)
while at the same time the share of
developing countries has remained more or less the same. Export figures reveal that more than half
of all exports come from developing countries. Hence the majority of the increase is moving into
the high price markets in the developed countries. This is to be expected since an increased share
of the catch is consumed as fresh, the most valuable product form.

In summary it is clear that trade in fish and seafood has increased since the mid 1980s. This is due
to faster and cheaper methods for transportation and conservation, increased aquaculture, 200
mile EEZs and lower barriers to trade. To a large extent the trade is either between industrialized
countries or from developing countries to industrialized countries. Trade is therefore a driving
factor behind seafood production today.

Before examining the value chain for specific seafood products it is necessary to review the
theoretical and methodological background for this study. The next section will explain how
different management systems for fisheries and different infrastructures can influence the
distribution of benefits through the chain of production, processing and marketing.

2.2 The effect of free trade on fisheries: theoretical approach

The situation for fishermen facing export competition and fishermen that are potential exporters
are described here using simple economic models in a graphic presentation. It is assumed that the
products are identical, independently of whether they are consumed locally, exported or imported.
For the species where the degree of integration has been well investigated, whitefish and salmon,
it can be concluded that there is a world market.6 Therefore the descriptions below always assume
that the potential competitor, or the potential new market, is the world market. As most local
markets will be relatively small compared to the world markets, it is also assumed that the agents
in these markets take the world market price as given7 and that the fisheries in question are initially
well managed.

6
See DeVoretz and Salvanes (1993), Gordon, Salvanes and Atkins (1993), Gordon and Hannesson (1996), Asche and
Sebulonsen (1998) and Asche, Bremnes and Wessells (1999).
7
This is basically the same as assuming that the local agents do not have market power on the world market if they
coordinate their actions.
 5

FIGURE 1
Foreign trade in a basic demand/supply model

Price
S1
D

P1

P2
S2

Domestic

Q 22 Q1 Q2 Q4

Imports Quantity

The case of a country that is a potential importer of fish, i.e. an industrialized country is shown in
Figure 1. Here, the demand schedule D gives local demand. It is downward sloping since consumers
will only buy more fish (or any other commodity) if the price is reduced. The supply schedule S1
gives the local supply and is upward sloping, since it will be profitable for producers to increase
production only if the price increases.8 If this is a truly local market, with no demand or supply
from other sources, the transaction price and quantity is then determined by the intersection of the
two curves and gives the market price P1 and the quantity Q1.

Now assume that there is a reduction in transportation costs. The world market price, including
transportation costs, is reduced to P2 from P1 in the initial equilibrium. Up to this price, the
relevant supply schedule is still S1, or the supply by local fishermen. However, at price P2 the
individual can buy as much fish as he wants at the world market price, so local fishermen will
therefore not be able to sell any fish at a higher price. The supply schedule therefore becomes flat at
this price, as the supply schedule S2 is in figure 1 above. In the scenario in figure 1, at the price P2,
total quantity sold will be Q2. The quantity supplied by local fishermen is Q22, and the imported
quantity is Q2-Q22. Since the quantity Q22 is less than Q1, imports lead both to a reduction in the
quantity supplied by local fishermen and a reduction in the price they receive for their catch, which
results in lower incomes. If the world market price decreases to lower levels, the kink will be at
lower price levels, and the share of imports in the consumption will increase. Consumers in this
country will gain from lower prices while producers will lose. However, society as a whole will be
better off. This is to a large extent the situation in industrialized countries today.

A closer look at a country that is a potential exporter of fish, in most cases a developing country,
is shown in Figure 2. Here, the supply schedule S gives the supply by local fishermen, and the
demand schedule D1 gives local demand. If this is a truly local market, there is no demand or
supply from other sources. The transaction price and quantity are then again determined by the
intersection of the two schedules to give the market price P1 and the quantity Q1.

A situation where there is no demand from the world market implies that transportation costs
makes the price at which local fishermen find it profitable to supply this market so low that no
one is interested in exporting fish.

8
The supply schedule needs not be upward sloping if there is increasing returns to scale. However, it is highly unlikely
at the production levels where most fisheries operate.
 6

FIGURE 2
High world market prices reduces quantity sold domestically but increases exports

Price S

Exports

P2 D2
P1

D1

Q 22 Q1 Q2
Quantity

Assume that there is a reduction in transportation costs so that the world market price for local
fishermen is increased to P2. Down to this price, the relevant demand schedule is still D1, or the
local demand. However, at this price individual fisherman can sell as much fish as they want at the
world market price, so local fishermen will therefore not be willing to sell at the local market for a
lower price. The demand schedule therefore becomes flat at this price, as the demand schedule D2
has in the figure. In the scenario drawn in Figure 2, at the price P2, total quantity sold will be Q2.
The quantity sold locally is Q22 and the exported quantity is Q2-Q22. Since the quantity Q22 is less
than Q1 the exports lead to a reduction in the quantity supplied to the local market and an increase
in the price that fishermen receive for their catch. Fishermen’s income will therefore increase. If the
world market price increases to higher levels, the bend in the demand curve will be at higher price
levels, and a larger share of the catch will be exported. In this case the producers (i.e. the fishermen
and processors) gain from the trade but the local consumer looses. Overall society is better off and
it becomes a welfare issue for society how gains from trade are distributed.

The scenarios in Figures 1 and 2 are basically mirrors of each other when considering either a
truly regional market (that is not linked to the world market because the price that local fishermen
receive is too high compared to what they can get on the world market) or a local market where
consumers will not pay world market prices. As the wedge that transportation costs drive between
local and global markets becomes smaller, the local market might become a part of the global
market. When this happens, it is also possible that all locally produced fish will be exported or that
all consumption is imports.

Moreover, when imports start flowing in to a formerly local market, local fishermen will see that the
quantity they sell will decrease, as will the price they receive. Hence, their income will fall, and employment
in the fishing sector of the importing country falls. Consumers will gain, as they can consume a higher
quantity at lower prices. In the exporting market, fishermen will see their prices increasing, and will
respond by increasing landings, thus increasing revenues. Prices of fish on the local market will increase
relative to other goods, and consumers will find that their real income has decreased.

Most introductory texts in international economics will show that on the balance trade improves
social welfare, since the gainers from trade are always able, at least in principle, to compensate the
losers so that their utility is not diminished.9 This postulates that in countries where fish imports

9
See e.g. Krugman and Obstfelder (1994). With well managed fisheries this is also shown more rigorously by Hannesson
(1978).
 7

FIGURE 3
Standard trade model with a backward bending supply curve

Price

S1

P1
S2
P2

Q1 Q2
Quantity

FIGURE 4
High world market prices and backward bending supply curve in a local market

Price

P4

S
D2
P2

P1

D1

Q4 Q1
Quantity

increase due to trade, the society is better of, but the number of people employed in the fishery is
reduced. In exporting countries society is again better of, as the fishermen increase their income,
but everybody else is worse off since their real income is reduced. Hence, despite trade increasing
welfare for the society as a whole, some groups will lose.

The assumption of well managed fisheries might warrant some comment, since this is obviously
not true in many cases (Munro and Scott, 1985; Christy, 1996). Problems result when the fishing
technology used is powerful enough to fish the stock down below the level that gives Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY). This is because the supply schedule will be backward bending. This
means that harvested quantities can only increase up to a certain level and will then start to
decrease again even though the numbers of boats and crew members are increased.10 This situation
is shown in Figures 3 and 4 as supply schedule S1 and S respectively.

Figure 3 shows the situation for a potential importer of fish where fishing pressures are relatively
low. The supply schedule for local fishermen is S1, while the supply schedule when local fishermen

10
See Copes (1970) for detailed analysis of backward bending supply curves.
 8

compete with imported fish is S2. The price is reduced when imports are coming in and landings
from local fishermen are also reduced. The results are not affected by the introduction of the
backward bending supply schedule. Note that if the original local price is higher, this will not affect
the conclusion. Hence, an importer of fish will always benefit by increased trade.

The same scenario is shown in Figure 4 for a potential exporter of fish with limited or no fisheries
management system in place. Here the picture is somewhat different. The supply schedule S, is
backward bending, and local demand is given by the demand schedule D1. When there is no
trade, the transaction price and quantity is determined by the intersection of the two schedules
and gives the market price P1 and the quantity Q1. At this point the fish stocks are in good shape.
Introducing a world demand at the price P2, gives a new demand schedule D2. At this higher price,
the landed quantity is still Q1 because of the backward bending supply schedule.11 At price levels
above P1 but below P2 the supply will be higher. If the price is increased above P2 landings will
start to fall. For instance, at the much higher price P4, landings are reduced to Q4. In this case,
trade will not increase fishermen’s income except in the short term while they are fishing the stock
down to lower levels. It is therefore possible that trade in this case will reduce social welfare since
total income can be reduced and less fish is available at higher prices. Hence, efficient and effective
management of a fishery is necessary when that fishery is exposed to higher prices.

Simple economic analysis indicates that if the fisheries are well managed, all parties will gain by
trade, although there are groups both in importing and exporting countries that will loose. In
particular, fishermen in the importing countries will loose. However, not very many fisheries in the
world can be said to be well managed. In poorly managed fisheries, the importer will still gain by
trade. Exporters that manage their fisheries poorly can both gain and lose by trade. What will be
the outcome is an empirical issue. However, as trade value is increasing much faster than quantity
for the world as a whole, there is no doubt that the exporters gain by the trade. Moreover, as world
demand seems to be highly elastic and as transportation and conservation methods are likely to
continue to become better and cheaper, trade is likely to increase further in the future.

The models above show how important good management practices are for fisheries and that
trade will benefit both producers and consumers, given the right institutional structure and
infrastructure.

In most cases there are several market levels between the consumer and the producer of the
primary product and value is added at each level through processing, distribution or marketing.
The same methodology as before can be used to describe the value addition between market levels.
Figure 5 shows four different stages typical for seafood products.

At the first level there is a market for fresh fish supplied by fishermen and bought by processors
(1). The supply function (S in Figure 5) is assumed to be upward sloping, where the individual
fishermen will supply specific markets depending on price. If the supply function was backward
bending it would only affect graph number (1) in Figure 5. The other graphs would look the
same except in the case of overexploitation where the quantity on each market would decrease
with lower landings. If price increases, fishermen will supply more fish and vice versa for a price
decrease. The processor will buy more fish if the fish becomes available for a lower price and vice
versa for a price increase (D in the graph). The market will be in equilibrium at any given time
where the price will be P1 and the quantity Q1 as shown in the graph furthest to the left in the
above figure. The equilibrium price P1 becomes the minimum price at which the processor can sell
his product to the next market level, processing. The processor adds value by curing, freezing or
filleting using labour and machinery (or capital). The processor might also add ingredients, such

11
This is just a result of the way that the curves are drawn, although one such point will always exist.
 9

FIGURE 5
Four market levels for a typical seafood value chain

D S
P P P P
D S
D S P4
D S P3
P2 P2

P1 P1

Q1 Q Q2 Q Q3 Q Q4 Q

(1) (2) (3) (4)

as water, oil or breading. The wholesaler is the customer at the processing level, in graph (3) on
Figure 5. Again, the wholesaler adds value either through distribution or marketing and sometimes
acts as a buffer for the market, i.e. the wholesaler might store the products until the retail market
is willing to buy a specific product. In the final graph in Figure 5 we have the retail market where
the demand is Q4 at the price P4. The retail market adds its own value through distribution and
marketing but the price P4 is based on the value addition process throughout the whole value chain,
from landing ex-vessel to the retail market. Graph 4 in the figure above shows the share which each
market segment holds in the final market clearing price at the retail level for this particular case.

If markets are free and fulfill the assumptions of perfect market conditions each market level will
receive the price needed to clear the market. However, location, infrastructure, lack of information
and market power of individual companies at each market level can all affect how the final product’s
value is distributed through the seafood value chain. As an example one can think of small scale
fishermen located in a remote location. They have only one possible harbour facility to land the
catch and there is only one company which buys the seafood. The fishermen do not have access to
information from the final consumer and hence might not realize what the potential price for their
product is. If those same fishermen had access to computerized auction markets where numerous
buyers and sellers participate in the auction the price would move closer to the market clearing
price, the right price from the economic standpoint. However, local structure, agreements between
processors and fishermen and the structure of the economy all affect the final price paid to the
fisherman. The right economic price might therefore be higher or lower than the current price the
fisherman receives. Information flow and transparency between market levels are therefore crucial
conditions for an efficient distribution of seafood value throughout the seafood value chain.

The discussion in this section has shown the possible impact of increased trade on the welfare
and income of fishermen, consumers and societies as a whole. It has also shown how important
it is for efficient distribution of seafood prices that a transparent marketing system with strong
infrastructure exists to facilitate trade. The next step is to set forth methodology in order to
examine how individual markets work and how seafood value is distributed throughout different
value chains.

2.3 Analysing seafood value chains

There are several means and ways of measuring the distribution of benefits to different groups;
however, the objective is always the same: trying to put an objective measure on something which
is not stated explicitly, or is not directly measurable. In this case the methodology needs to be
robust, yet simple and easily accessible. It must also be easily comparable to studies from sectors
other than fisheries.
 10

FIGURE 6
Schematic presentation for a typical seafood value chain

Primary Secondary
Harvesting Wholesale Retail Consumer
processing processing

The methodology used in this research is based on the concept of value chains, as defined in the
business literature and production/marketing margins, as defined by the agricultural economics
literature.

The value chain can be described as the range of activities required to bring a product or service
from conception, through the intermediary phases of production to delivery to final consumers
(Kaplinsky, 2000). A typical seafood value chain consists of harvesting (either through fishing or
aquaculture, or a combination of both), primary processing, secondary processing, distribution
and marketing and finally consumption. Figure 6 shows a schematic presentation for typical
seafood value chain.

As in other industries there are few, if any, companies which control the whole value chain although
concentration within individual segments, or sometimes between levels, has been increasing over
the years.

In Figure 6 there are six steps. In reality there could be fewer or more but each step serves as a
function which is vital for the entire value chain, i.e. each step adds value to the final product. In
traditional business analysis of value chains the focus is on margins or real value added at each
level.12

Each step in the value chain is analysed in terms of cost items and profit margin. This allows for
calculation of the relative weight of each cost item in the overall consumer value.

Figure 7 shows an example of the cost items used in the analysis for the harvesting segment and
for secondary processing. In order to make the comparison simpler the number of cost items has
been kept to a minimum.

Each segment can then be evaluated as a share of the total consumer value. At this step the analysis
is similar to analysis which the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture
has conducted for several decades. This allows direct comparison between domestically produced
agricultural products and internationally traded seafood products. The comparison is interesting
because one would expect significantly different outcomes since the value chain for international
trade is considerably longer than for products traded domestically. Vertical integration has also been
a major issue in the production and marketing of agricultural products in the US, something which
is increasingly seen in the seafood industry. Hence, one could expect that the seafood value chain
might develop in similar ways as the US agricultural value chain has over the past two decades.

2.4 Marketing margins and value chains in US agriculture.

Over the past 30 years there have been substantial changes in the value chains for agricultural
products in the United States of America. Figure 8 shows expenditure on food items split between

12
For detailed explanations see Shank and Govindarajan (1993) and Porter (1985)
 11

FIGURE 7
Value chain analysis for a seafood product – schematic presentation

Primary Secondary
Harvesting Wholesale Retail Consumer
processing processing

100% 100%
Margin Margin
90% 90%
Other costs Other costs
80% 80% Overhead
70% Fixed costs 70% Maintenance
60% Fishing gear/maintenance 60% Packaging and transportation
50% Energy
50%
Fuel
40% 40%
30% Cost of raw material
30%
20% Crew share 20%
10% 10% Labour
0%
0%
Fishing Secondary
1
vessels processing

FIGURE 8
Farm value and marketing bill as a share of consumer expenditure, 1970–2000

90%
% Marketing bill
80%
% Farm value
70%

60%

50%
%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Year

Source: USDA – Economic Research Unit

farm value and the marketing bill, measured in constant US dollars. The marketing bill refers to
all costs associated with getting the product from the primary producer (in this case the farmer) to
final consumption by the customer.

The figure shows that the marketing bill has increased its share from 68 percent of consumer
expenditure to 82 percent in 2000. There are several reasons for this increase, most notably higher
expenditures on away-from-home food items. Consumers in the United States are buying more
food that is prepared away from home, or prepared and consumed away from home. Hence, more
 12

non-food resources are needed to provide these services, TABLE 4: US farm value share of retail
including labour for services and premises for restaurants. price in 2000
This trend seems to be continuing and as a result the farm Product %
Beef, choice, 1 lb. 49
value will decrease as a share of consumer expenditure in
Chicken, broiler, 1 lb. 48
the near future. Pork, 1 lb. 31
Peas, 303 can (17 oz.) – canned 22
The marketing bill is a combination of various activities but Potatoes, 10 lbs. – fresh 17
the USDA measures the activities by use of inputs rather Chicken dinner, fried, 14
than as a value chain of activities. In 2000 non-farm labour Green beans, cut, 1 lb. – frozen 5
was the single largest input with 39 percent of the consumer Tomatoes, whole, 303 can – canned 7
Raisins, 15-oz. box 16
dollar in the US, next was packaging with 8 percent and
Flour, wheat, 5 lbs. 19
transportation with 4 percent. Other items include energy, Rice, long grain, 1 lb. 14
insurance, advertising, interests and profits. Potatoes, French fried, frozen, 1 lb. 10
Bread, 1 lb. 5
Farm value as a share of retail value varies substantially Corn flakes, 18-oz. box 4
between food items. Table 4 shows the farm value as a Corn syrup, 16-oz. bottle 3

percentage share of the retail value for several common Source: USDA

food items.

The table shows that the farmer’s share ranges from 3 percent for corn syrup to 50 percent for
beef. At this point it must be emphasized that the share of farm value in the retail price does not
say anything about how well individual farmers are doing financially. The economic performance
of individual farmers depends on farm related costs, given the revenues for the crop or livestock.
Hence a farmer who receives 3 percent of the retail price might do better financially than a farmer
who receives 50 percent of the retail price. The table above reveals some additional facts when
examined closely. All fresh products receive a higher share of the retail price compared to frozen
and canned products. The farmer receives 17 percent of the retail price for fresh potatoes in
contrast to 10 percent of the retail value for French fried potatoes. The lower share for the French
fries reflects the value added activities in cutting and frying the potatoes for the consumer.

The methodology in this report represents only a snapshot of the distribution of revenues through
value chains in order to estimate the share of each market level in the chain. In order to utilize
this information to the fullest extent it would be necessary to collect information over a period of
time, or at selected points in time, to estimate the changes in the share of each market level when
price changes at the consumer level. That type of analysis might yield information about market
efficiency and transparency of information between market levels.

An issue that has not been addressed so far is the increasing degree of concentration in the
retail sector, particularly in developed economies. In many European countries as well as North
America, large supermarket chains have developed rapidly during the last decades and now control
as much as 80 percent of retail sales in many markets. This has led to concerns that these outlets
are exploiting buyer power (Cooper, 2003). A similar development has also taken place in many
processing industries as the efficient scale of operations increase. The same trend has also been
seen in the seafood industry. For instance, Murray and Fofana (2002) show that in the UK, the
supermarket chains share of seafood sales increased from about 20 percent in the 1980s to over
80 percent in 2000. Little empirical research has been conducted on these issues. However, it is
clear that concentration is not necessarily bad. If concentration is due to a technical development
where increased scale of operation allows retailing and processing costs to be reduced, making
products less expensive for consumers, it improves welfare. Morrison (2001) indicates that this
is the case for the concentration in the US meat packing sector. As long as the retail price for the
product is reduced, some exercise of market power may also improve welfare. However, excessive
market power will reduce value added at other levels in the value chain. The methodology used
here does not allow detection of market power, but accumulation of a large share of the retail
 13

value of a product at a specific level in the chain compared to similar chains may be an indication
of market power being exploited.

Taking these caveats into account four different fisheries in four different countries are examined
in order to obtain a snapshot of each market level in the respective fisheries. The fisheries are
the Icelandic cod fishery, Tanzanian Nile perch fishery, the Moroccan anchovy fishery and the
Danish herring fishery. The Icelandic and Tanzanian fisheries produce fresh and frozen white fish
fillets sold in the US and Europe, while the Moroccan and Danish fisheries produce canned and
pickled (cured) products from small pelagic species, which are also sold in the US and Europe. The
diversity in product form and species makes direct comparison difficult but it gives a broad picture
of the complex seafood trade in the world.

3. CASE STUDIES

This chapter contains case studies on four different fisheries in four different countries. Two of these
countries are in Europe and two are in Africa. These case studies are based on the methodology
presented in previous chapters and are all systematically described in the same manner. The first
step is to describe the marketing chain (product form) for the selected species. Most marketing
chains have several different value chains, servicing different consumer markets. The criteria for
selecting each value chain are based on the relative share of the product in the total production of
each species, data availability and relevance to other case studies for comparison of results. Once
the value chain has been selected individual components are identified and value added activities
at each level are calculated. Finally the value chain is constructed from the value added activities
at each level of the chain.

Data used in these case studies are mostly secondary data collected from official documents and Web
resources. In some cases this data is supplemented by primary data collected at source in each country.

3.1 Iceland

The Icelandic cod fishery is a highly capitalized fishery with multiple fleet segments and a wide
variety of seafood products. The cod fishery is also the single most important fishery in Iceland
in terms of export value. Catch is harvested year round by vessels of three main categories: the
in-shore fleet using hook and line, the long lining and gillnet fleet, and the trawler fleet. Over the
past decade the total annual catch has ranged between 200 000 and 260 000 tonnes. This catch is
sold fresh, frozen, salted and dried. The utilization of the catch depends on factors like the size and
texture of the fish. Large cod is preferred as an input in the processing of salted cod while medium
sized cod is preferred for processing frozen cod fillets. Figure 9 shows an example of the catch and
its disposition to various markets.

The figure shows that there are several underlying value chains in the production of Icelandic cod
products. These value chains have different levels or stages from the very short ones with whole
fish sold at foreign fish markets to the longer value added products with two or more processing
stages selling their products to catering and restaurants. Cod products are mainly sold to three
markets; Europe, US and Asia, with the bulk of the catch going to Europe and the US. The US
market focuses primarily on the restaurant/catering business while the European market is more
mixed between restaurants and retail.

Fish is exported by ships or airfreight. Over the past years efficient airfreight systems have
developed allowing fresh fish from Icelandic waters to be in retail stores within 48 hours in Europe
and 72 hours in the United States. Exporting by ship takes at least five days. Rapid changes in the
shipping and airfreight industries in Iceland, along with computerized and centralized fish auction
has been the main driving force behind this development.
 14

FIGURE 9
Value chains for the Icelandic cod fishery

Restaurants
Catering
Export
Trawlers Processor Wholesaler
companies
Retailers

Gillnet
Longliners
Fish market
Restaurants
Processor
Catering

Foreign
Hook and Containers
fish markets Retailers
line

FIGURE 10
The value chain for Icelandic cod fillets exported to the United States

Retail
Distribution Restaurant
Fishing Processing Exporting and marketing Catering

Fishing and Icelandic US marketing

processing companies export companies and wholesale
(based in the US) companies

Even though the European market is the largest, with more than 75 percent of all seafood exports
going to the European Economic Area (EEA), it is also the most segmented with many country
specific sub-markets within the EU and EEA. In contrast on the US market Icelandic companies
offer a more homogenous range of products over all states. The US cod market is also the single
most important market for cod with more than 12 percent of the total export value in cod for 2003.
Hence, for the purpose of this study it was determined that the value chain for cod fillets on the
US market would best demonstrate the distribution of revenues through the value chain.

The value chain

The value chain for cod fillets sold on the US market has five segments; Fishing, processing,
exporting, marketing/distribution and finally retailing or food service, such as restaurants or
catering. Figure 10 shows a schematic representation for frozen cod fillets from Iceland sold in
the US.

Most of the cod exported to the US is harvested by trawlers owned by the large processing firms.
The processing firms do both primary and secondary processing with the final product being
 15

FIGURE 11
Cost items as a share of total revenue for the Icelandic trawler fleet in 2001

100% Operating margin

90% 15%
1% Quota rent
80%
4%
Insurance and other
70% 9% fixed costs
4%
60% 13% Fishing gear

50%
13% Maintenance
40%
Other costs
30%

20% 40% Fuel

10%
Crew share and other
wages
0%
Trawlers

Source: Statistics Iceland

individually quick frozen cod fillets and portions of fillets. The final products are sold through two
export companies in the US,13 both are owned by two of the largest export companies in Iceland,
the SIF group and the Icelandic group. Both SIF and Icelandic use a network of brokers and US
owned distribution/marketing companies to sell their products throughout the United States.
Hence, Icelanders control the entire value chain from fishing, through primary and secondary
processing and exporting, as well as a part of the distribution network.

Value chain analysis for Icelandic cod products

The trawler fleet in Iceland caught approximately 80 000 tonnes in 2001, or 33 percent of the total
cod catch of 240 000 metric tons. The trawler catch was valued at 33 billion Icelandic krónur at
2001 price level (or US$318 million valued at 2001 exchange rates). Operating costs (excluding
depreciation and other capital costs) are estimated at 23 billion Icelandic krónur which gives an
operating margin of 8.2 billion Icelandic krónur for the entire trawler fleet. Financial charges and
depreciation amounted to 8 billion kronur, giving a net profit of 0.2 billion krónur for the trawler
fleet (wetfish and freezing trawlers). Individual costs items are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 shows crew share and other wages are the largest cost items for harvesting of cod. This
item accounts for 40 percent of the total revenue for the fleet. Fuel and maintenance are the other
large cost categories with 13 percent and 9 percent respectively. Fishing gear accounts for 4 percent
of total revenue and other categories account for less. It is interesting to note that quota rentals
have a very low share in the total revenue of the trawler fleet, while other fleet categories have a
substantially higher percentage for this category (up to 8 percent for medium sized boats). This
reflects the nature of the operations where trawler companies tend to be large multi-vessel firms
which hold their own quota. The operating margin is 15 percent of total revenue. The operating
margins pay all other expenses including depreciation, capital expenses and taxes. In 2001 the net

13
As of May 2005 these two companies have merged into one. Hence there is one dominant company on the US market
today selling Icelandic cod products. There are also several smaller companies that export to the US as well.
 16

FIGURE 12
Share of each cost item in processing of cod fillets in Iceland

100%

17% Operating margin

90%

80% 8%
1% Other expenses
70%
3%
60% 18%
Transportation

50%

40% Packaging

30%
52% Wages
20%

10% Raw material

Source: Statistics Iceland and own survey data
0%

profit was estimated by Statistics Iceland to be 2.7 percent of gross revenues assuming a 6 percent
cost of capital to the user.

The 240 000-tonne annual catch resulted in 116 000 tonnes of exported seafood products, with
46 000 tonnes used for freezing of whole fish, fillets and fillet portions. Of the 46 000 tonnes of cod
products, 14 000 tonnes were exported to the United States. The total (FOB) value of frozen cod
products exported to the US was 7.5 billion Icelandic krónur in 2001. These products are processed
in the same processing plants as cod products sold to other markets and therefore it is difficult to
assign costs to specific product forms. An attempt was made to estimate these costs by doing a
survey with several main processing companies. A phone survey was conducted with 7 Icelandic
processing companies asking them about production costs of IQF fillets. That survey indicated a
relatively higher raw material cost than in the official statistics on production costs by Statistics
Iceland. Other cost items from the survey were similar to the official survey. An attempt was then
made to combine the survey data with the overall industry wide data collected by Statistics Iceland.
The result is believed to give a consistent estimate of individual cost items in processing frozen
fillets and fillet portions. The share of individual cost categories is shown in Figure 12.

The operating margin is similar to the fishing fleet. However, capital expenses, including deprecation
were much lower, relatively speaking, for the processing industry than the fishing industry. As a
result profitability in the processing sector was good in 2001, with net profits of 5 billion Icelandic
krónur (18 percent of total earnings in the freezing sector as a whole) as estimated by Statistics
Iceland using a fixed cost of capital of 6 percent.

Unfortunately information is not available on the individual cost items for distribution and
marketing of cod fillets in the United States for reasons of commercial confidentiality, since there
are two competing Icelandic companies that sell cod fillets in the US market.14 However, the cost
items consist of transportation costs, tariffs, insurance, storage, marketing, distribution, capital costs
and other costs. The products are mostly sold to foodservice establishment (restaurants, catering).

14
From May 2005 these two US based companies merged into one company under the ownership of Icelandic Group.
 17

FIGURE 13
Distribution of retail value for Icelandic cod fillets sold in restaurants in the US

100%
Value added at the retail and
secondary processing levels:
90% Details not known
Retail
80% 33% Value added at the primary
processing level:
Note: Excluding raw material
70%
Wages 34%
Packaging 6%
Wholesale/secondary
60% Maintenance 6%
processing Electricity 3%
19% Transportation 2%
50%
Other inputs 7%
Operating margin 42%
40%
Processing
30% 29% Value added at the harvesting
level:
20% Wages 40%
Fuel 13%
Fishing Maintenance 9%
10% Fishing gear 4%
19% Insurance 4%
Other operating costs 15%
0% Operating margin 15%
1

With the information above we can construct the entire value chain for Icelandic cod products
exported to the US foodservice market by calculating the value added at each stage, where value
added represents the services used to get the product from one stage to the next. This is illustrated
by reference to one kilogram of final product sold in the US market for which prices have to be
established at each level of the value chain.

First and most difficult is the retail price. No consistent and centralized data collection exists
for retail seafood prices in the United States and all official information is published at highly
aggregated levels. Hence information was collected by looking at samples of prices for different
products. An additional difficulty is that most of these products are sold to restaurants and other
food service establishments with further added value and other ingredients before selling it to the
final customer. A rule of thumb within the industry is that the main item of any meal served in
a restaurant should not cost more than 30 percent of the menu price for that dish. Typical prices
for battered cod in US restaurants range between US$8 and US$14 per serving. Further assuming
that the average portion is 8 oz. it is possible to deduce15 a retail price for the fish fillet in the
range of US$12 to US$20 per kilogram of fillet, or US$6 to US$10 per pound. The median price
for Icelandic cod fillet at the wholesale level (Brown, 2001) was US$3.6 per pound, or US$7.9 per
kilogram, which is the value that retailers/restaurants paid on the average in 2001. Hence it is safe
to assume US$14 as a reasonable estimate for the retail price of Icelandic cod fillet sold on the US
retail market in 2001. This US$14 dissipated through the value chain both in terms of segments
and individual cost categories. Figure 13 shows the percentage share of each segment in the value
addition through the cod fillet value chain.

The retail level contributes about 33 percent of the value added to the product. This value addition
includes everything that is needed to provide the customer with the product, such as facilities and

15
The price per kilo is found by multiplying the price for battered fish by 0.333 to obtain the price of the fish on the main
menu. That price is then divided by the fish weight in grams (8 ounces = 227).
 18

FIGURE 14
Value added at each level in the value chain from 2000–2004

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Retail
Wholesale
50% Processing
Fishing
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

services. The next level is wholesale and/or secondary processing. The products imported from Iceland
as IQF fillets are most often further processed as breaded or battered fillets. This level also provides
a sales network and distribution of the products to the retail level. The wholesale level has about 19
percent of the total value added in the value chain. The third level is processing. This processing is
conducted within Iceland and is in the form of cutting the fillet from whole fish, and cleaning, skinning,
cutting and freezing the fillet. This primary processing contributes about 29 percent of the total value
added in this value chain. In most cases the processing facilities also operate the fishing vessels,
harvesting the cod for the land based factories, but these fishing activities contribute about 19 percent
to the total value. Overall then it can be concluded that activities within Iceland contribute about
48 percent of the total value and activities in the United States about 52 percent. Icelandic companies
own companies that provide a further 19 percent of the total value and hence Icelandic companies
control about 70 percent of the total value chain for Icelandic cod fillets sold in US restaurants and
catering establishments. The primary activity of fishing derives 19 percent while getting the product
into consumable form and getting it to the market receives 81 percent. The 81 percent is a similar share
for the marketing bill as the share for the US marketing bill (see Figure 8).

The year 2001 was an unusually profitable year for the Icelandic fishing industry since the Icelandic
króna depreciated in value, resulting in very high prices measured in krónur. It is therefore
interesting to examine how these values have changed over time. Figure 14 provides an overview
of the development at each segment of the value chain from 2000 through 2004.

This figure shows the impact of the depreciation and then appreciation of the Icelandic króna. As
prices in Icelandic krónur became higher the fishing companies and processing companies received
a higher share in the total value chain assuming the retail and wholesale levels could not increase
their price in US dollars and hence they received a smaller share of the total value, measured
in Icelandic krónur. As the Icelandic krónur appreciated in 2004 the retail and wholesale firms
received a higher portion of the value chain. It should be emphasized here that this does not reflect
how profitable each level was at the same time but rather shows how the same activities can vary
in importance between years when there are external changes such as exchange fluctuations. This
also shows the importance of using time series when monitoring the distribution of seafood value
throughout the value chain.
 19

Overall it can then be concluded that there has been relative stability in the cod fillet value chain
on the US market with a 50/50 split between the primary (fishing and filleting) and secondary
(distribution and marketing) sectors.

Analysing the Icelandic seafood value chain for frozen cod exported to the United States has
yielded several interesting facts. The harvesting sector receives about 19 percent of the wholesale
value in the US. The largest single cost item in the harvesting sector is wages, at 40 percent of
total revenues. Fuel and fishing gear are the second largest with 10 percent each. In the processing
sector raw material is the single largest cost item with 44 percent of total revenues going towards
purchase of raw material. Wages account for 19 percent of the total and other items are less than
10 percent. An interesting fact here is that the operating margin is 23 percent for the Icelandic
processing industry. The operating margin is calculated before interest, taxes and profits and given
that the Icelandic processing industry is capital intensive, as a result of general use of computerized
manufacturing technology, it is not surprising that capital costs could be substantial within this
sector. Another explanation is that 2001 was an exceptionally good year for Icelandic fisheries
since the Icelandic krónur was valued at record low levels throughout the year, benefiting Icelandic
export companies.

It was not possible to yield specific cost items from the wholesale/distribution sector but this
sector receives about half of the overall wholesale value. This is not surprising since marketing of
food products has become the single largest cost item associated with food production, as was seen
in the case of US agriculture (see section 2.4).

In the past five years Icelandic fishing companies have been consolidating and have also invested
in fishing and seafood companies overseas. This is seen as a response to developments in the
retail sector where there is a high level of concentration in the food retail and catering business.
Hence these companies are trying to become bigger players in the value chain in order to be better
prepared to meet the demands of a highly competitive market.

The situation for the Icelandic cod fishery is much like the one described in figure 1 in section two,
where there is a well managed fishery which is a net exporter of seafood products. Historically
Icelanders have exported all their cod while consuming the closely related, but lower valued
haddock. Hence, high international market prices lead to almost no domestic consumption of
cod. The market system from retail level to fish markets also seems to be efficient both in physical
transportation and price formation. Figure 14 showed that the share each sector acquires in the
value chain changes quite rapidly with changes in exchange rates and other external factors. Good
fisheries management systems along with strong infrastructure and efficient marketing systems
result in a strong seafood sector which, in the case of cod exported to the US, leads to a high degree
of control by Icelandic companies over a large share of the seafood value chain.

3.2 United Republic of Tanzania16

Lake Victoria is the second largest lake in the world after Lake Superior in North America. It
is shared by three East African countries: United Republic of Tanzania (51 percent), Uganda
(43 percent) and Kenya (6 percent). It is estimated that the lake has a cachement area of about
194 200 km2. The lake provides all the basic resources for the population in the area such as food
and water as well as means for trade and transport linking the three riparian states. It forms a
natural, social, geographical and political bridge linking the three countries.

16
Mr Geofrey F. Nanyaro provided data and descriptive analysis for this case study. Geofrey F. Nanyaro, Fisheries
Division, PO Box 2462, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Fax: 255222110352. E-mail: [email protected]
 20

FIGURE 15
The marketing chain for Nile perch in the United Republic of Tanzania

Fish
Fishermen
Fishermen collectors Processor
Processor Exporters
Exporters
collectors

Export
Export
market
Market

Domestic
Domestic
market
market

The lake supports the most important fisheries in East Africa owing to its diversity, nutritional and
economic values. It is the most productive inland fishery in the world; an introduced species, Nile
perch (Lates niloticus), holding the leadership in abundance and socio-economic value. Other fish
in order of importance are the native, sardine-like dagaa (Rastrineobola argentea); and the Nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), which was also introduced to the lake’s ecosystem.

During the late 1970s Nile perch contributed only 2 percent of the lake’s fisheries, while
Haplochromis contributed about 80 percent and the remainder was other mixed species. The
Nile perch population exploded and became the dominant population in the lake by mid-1980,
followed by a rapid decrease or disappearance of other native species (Witte et. al., 1992). As Nile
perch increased it consumed a good proportion of the indigenous fish species, which then formed
a relatively good source of income and cheap protein for the local population. Being an exotic fish
species, Nile perch was not well accepted initially by the local consumers and this triggered an
outcry by the local population that Nile perch was a menace, which should be eliminated from the
lake. However, this was no longer a feasible approach since elimination of Nile perch at this stage
would have had a further adverse impact on the whole ecosystem.

In the early 1990s investment began for the exploitation of the Nile perch stock on the Tanzanian
side of the lake, resulting in the establishment of a number of Nile perch processing plants. Its
abundance has led to the development of several important export-oriented Nile perch fish processing
establishments in the riparian regions of Kagera, Mara and Mwanza; as well as the processing of by-
products for local and regional markets. The main products are frozen and fresh/chilled fillets as well
as headed and gutted fish and more recently skins, which are exported to various overseas markets.
Trimmings and carcasses are processed locally for local consumers and the regional markets of Zaire,
Rwanda and Burundi. In general, the Nile perch industry provides direct and indirect benefits to
more than 2 000 000 individuals (i.e. fishers/processors/traders and service providers).

The structure of the marketing chain for Nile perch in the Tanzanian economy is shown in Figure 15.

Harvesting is primarily based on artisanal fisheries from canoes, using either sails or outboard
motors. Fishermen own their own boat or operate boats owned by a processing plant or a fish
collector. Often the fishermen are obliged to land at a specific processing plant or a fish collector
due to loan contracts. These contracts are on a barter level, i.e. a fisherman is provided with an
outboard motor or net but a certain percentage of the future catch is retained as a payment for the
motor or net.

Nile perch fish processors are of two categories; artisanal and industrial processors. The artisanal
fish processors aim exclusively at the internal and regional market while the industrial processors
are geared for the export markets, the main markets being the European Union, Japan, United
 21

States, Israel and Australia. What is rejected by the processing plants for export is sold to the
domestic/regional market in various product forms, including fresh, smoked and salted.

The processing plants primarily produce fresh and frozen fillets. These fillets are exported directly,
or through export brokers, to foreign markets. Nile perch exports account for about 15 percent by
value of Tanzania exports and the European Union market absorbs about 60 percent of Nile perch
fillets exports. Since the European market is the most important for Tanzania it was decided to make
a detailed examination of the value chain for Nile Perch fillets exported to the European Union.

The value chain

The value chain for the Tanzanian Lake Victoria Nile perch fishery, exported to the European
Union, is split into five different segments; fishing, fish buyers/collectors (on shore collectors),
processors, exporters and the EU retail market, as shown in Figure 16.

Mechanized industrial fishing was prohibited in 1994. Fishers with little capital use canoes
(planked and/or dug-out) that are propelled by paddles and sails and only a few relatively rich
fishers utilize outboard engines. Use of outboard engines has made it possible for poor fishers to
reach distant fishing grounds as their fishing boats are towed by a mother fishing boat under a
special arrangement where by the engine owner is paid a fee for towing a fleet of canoes to and
from the fishing grounds. Gillnets and long lines are the major fishing gears for catching Nile perch
for export purposes.

The second group of fishers is that with all modern facilities for commercial small scale fishing.
Such fishers have boats with hygienic fish holds and are powered by engines. On average such
boats can carry up to five (5) tonnes.

The standard practice for processing Nile perch is to land the fish at one of many landing stations
dotted along the lake’s shoreline and on the numerous islands in the lake. It is also collected directly
from fishers by collector boats at the fishing grounds and ferried directly to the fish processing
plants without passing through the landing sites.

The fish processing establishment forms the third segment in the flow diagram. This segment receives
all fish (raw material) collected from segments 1 and 2. The segment is also important as it is the main
source for raw materials used in preparing products intended for local and regional markets. The raw
materials for these two segments come from the fish rejected by the exporter as being of poor quality,
byproducts or illegally caught fish seized by the authorities and latter sold as low grade fish.

The final market segment is the export market. Usually, fish is sold in bulk to European Union
importers. They in turn sell the fish to wholesalers, supermarkets, processors, etc. The fillets
are also re-exported straight away (with the same or different identity). There are companies or
consignors based in the European Union that are major importers of Nile perch fillets and trade
the same product to other destinations such as USA, Australia and South America. Fillets are also
sold to factories for further processing.

FIGURE 16
The value chain for Lake Victoria Nile perch from the United Republic of Tanzania

EU
EU
Fish
Fish
Fishermen
Fishermen Processor
Processor Exporters
Exporters retail
Retail
collectors
collectors market
Market
 22

Value chain analysis for Tanzanian Lake Victoria Nile perch

The annual average ex-vessel price for Nile perch from 1994 to year 2003 is shown in Figure 17.
Prices are per kilogram and are quoted in US$.

In almost all cases, respondents informed interviewers that the price for Nile perch at the landing
station or at beach level is not determined by fishers but by collectors who are directly influenced
by the processing plants. Factors such as transportation costs, availability of transportation vessel
or vehicles at the time of landing will automatically influence the prices at this level. Independent
fishers can have their day when there is a shortage of fish while “contract” fishers work at the
prices agreed. The growth of an individual fishers operation is constrained by the fact that they
have no preservation facilities and therefore delay in sale would result in low quality fish, which
means lower prices.

Figure 17 shows a progressive increase in Nile perch prices at the landing sites, except for 1999
when the European Union imposed a ban on imports of Nile perch products from the Lake
Victoria region due to a cholera outbreak. The ban resulted in significant economic losses to the
population of the three riparian countries of Lake Victoria.

In the last three years prices have abruptly gone up because of a decline in landed quantities of Nile
perch. This might be due to over exploitation of the resource leading to shortage of supply of raw
materials. A fisher is now forced by circumstances to invest more in terms of fishing effort and
has to fish in distant places compared to the end of the 1990s. The national fishers survey for 2002
shows a substantial increase in the fishing effort, but at the end of a day a fisher comes back home
with less Nile perch than before. That means that Nile perch harvesting costs are higher compared
to past years. This represents a situation as described in Figure 4 in chapter 2 where it is shown
that increased prices due to an excessive demand from foreign markets can have an adverse effect
on the resource if there is no proper fisheries management system in place.

The average prices in US$ paid to fisherman by collectors, and to collectors by processing plants
is shown in Figure 18. The shaded areas show the net price for each market segment. Increased
demand from the EU has obviously resulted in increased prices at these levels though the price
increase has not been symmetrical.

FIGURE 17
Average landing values for Tanzanian Nile perch

0.9

0.8
EU ban on imports of Nile perch
0.7

0.6
US$/kg

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
 23

FIGURE 18
Prices paid at ex-vessel level and the factory gate

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Fish collectors
1.2
Fisherman
US$/kg

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: Information collected at the source

Other factors such as, raw materials, cost of packaging materials, salaries and other running costs
(electricity, taxes etc.) are not shown on the graph; hence it only shows net revenues but not cost
of harvesting, transporting and handling.

The export market will determine the type of product traded and this reflects the final price to the
consumer. Higher orders of fresh chilled Nile perch fillets by a buyer from the European Union
market will drive an exporter to increase his bid price in acquiring raw materials so that the order
is filled in the shortest possible time. Such instances result in intense competition resulting in price
increase which benefits the collecting agent but not necessarily the fisher. Figure 18 shows this
situation towards the end of 2003. Prices increase both at the fishing and fish collecting levels, but
the increase at the fish collecting level is relatively higher than at the fishers’ level.

In 1996 the government imposed a minimum export price to be reported for all exports. This was
due to systematic under-reporting of prices by the fish processors and other exporters of Nile
perch from the United Republic of Tanzania. This minimum export price was lowered in 2000
after the market collapse because of the cholera scare in 1999. Fish collectors have increased their
share in the past few years but fishers still get a higher share than the collectors. From the fishers
revenues one must subtract cost of harvesting, including nets, capital costs for investments, wages,
etc. Unfortunately this information was not available. However, it has been noted that increased
pressure on the Nile perch fish stocks has lead to increased effort/kg of harvest. This simply means
that fishermen must work harder for each kilogram of fish harvested.

Prices at the processing level are shown in Figure 19 (i.e. prices which the processing plants receive
for their product).

The price reflects the minimum export price implemented by the government in order to collect
export tax or levies. Due to the structure of the export market the above graph does not give any
meaningful information for this analysis. It is more relevant to examine import prices to the EU,
shown in Figure 20.

The figure shows average values for fresh and frozen fillets imported by the European Union.
Import prices have risen over the past seven years, reflecting increased demand for, and less supply,
of Nile perch in the European Union. Though this price increase has not been reflected in the
export prices from the United Republic of Tanzania it has obviously been reflected in the increase
 24

FIGURE 19
Prices at the processing level

2.5

2
US$/kg

1.5

0.5

0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: Information collected at the source

FIGURE 20
Import value (US$/kg)
4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0
US$/kg

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: Eurostat

in prices to fish collectors and fishers, as shown in Figure 18. The price increase is therefore
transferred through the entire value chain.

In order to look at the distribution of value through the value chain the year 2001 was selected. The
biggest challenge was to establish a retail price for Nile perch. Retail values are difficult to obtain
but Bambona (2002) estimated retail value between US$11 and US$12 per kilogram of fillet in 2002.
Hence in this study a retail value of US$10 was selected as the price for a kilogram of fresh fillet sold
at the retail level in EU in 2001. It is emphasized that this is a rough estimate of the true retail value.

When the retail price has been established one simply subtracts the import value to find the value
added at the retail level, and then subtracts the export value from the United Republic of Tanzania
from the import value in order to find the value added at the import level. The value added at the
processing level is shown with the value added at the import level due to problems with reporting
of export prices in the country, as mentioned earlier. Value added at the collector level is the fish
 25

purchased by the processors minus the cost of raw material. The raw material is the harvest by the
fisherman. In order to make one kilogram of fillets one needs 2.8 kilograms of raw material, assuming
a yield ratio of 35 percent. Since only 35 percent of the fish is used to make the fillet 65 percent is
left as byproducts. In the United Republic of Tanzania most of these byproducts are sold on local
and regional markets. Hence, the price of the raw material should be split proportionally between
the main product (fillets) and the byproducts (offcuts, skeleton, head, etc.). This is however rather
problematic and complicates the analysis considerably. One can also argue that the cost of raw
material for the byproducts is almost zero, since the processor would simply throw the byproducts
away if there was no market for them. If there is no market for the fillet it would simply mean that
there is no market for the fish at all. Hence in this analysis the price of the whole fish is considered
to be the cost of the raw material for producing fish fillets from Nile perch.

In order to make one kilogram of fillet the processor needs to buy 2.8 kilograms of fish. The
revenue received by the collectors and fisherman is therefore the value of 2.8 kilograms rather than
price/kg as is usually reported.

Unfortunately individual cost categories are not available for each segment of the value added
chain, but the major categories are known. Hence Figure 21 shows the percentage of value addition
at each segment in the value chain, with references to the major cost categories at each level.

The figure shows that fishers obtain about 15 percent of the value of the retail price for Nile perch
while fish collectors obtain about 5 percent of the retail value. The processing and export sector in the
United Republic of Tanzania obtain between 10 and 15 percent of the retail value and the processor
and EU importers (which might be the Tanzanian exporter) receive a combined about 20 percent of
the retail value. The retailer receives about 60 percent of the retail value. The 15 percent received by
the fishermen is similar to the average 19 percent received by the US farmer for his products, and is
also similar to the percentage share the Icelandic fisherman receives for a cod fillet.

Data collected at collector and factory level in Tanzania indicate that several changes have occurred
in the cost of producing Nile perch fillet in the United Republic of Tanzania. Notably labour
costs have increased over the years but transportation costs have declined due to better roads and

FIGURE 21
Value added for one kilogram of Nile perch fillet in the Tanzanian Nile perch fishery

100%

90%

80%
Value added at the retail level:
70% Retail Marketing, transportation, storage, insurance
handling, re-packaging, wages, finance charges etc.
60%
US$/kg

50% Value added at the processing/import level:

Transportation, storage, insurance
40% handling, wages, energy, packaging, finance charges etc.
Processing
30%
& Imports Value added at the collector level:
Transportation, bulk collection
20%
Value added at the fishermen level:
10%
Harvesting
0%
Value added
 26

other infrastructure. Transportation costs are though still a big part of the domestic and export
value added. Transportation cost pr. kg. of fillet is as high as US$1.50 from the United Republic of
Tanzania to the EU, and higher to the United States and Asian markets. Domestic transportation
costs might be as high as 20 to 25 percent of the value added at the collector and processing levels.

The above analysis has shown that the value chain for Nile perch fillets from the United Republic
of Tanzania to the EU has a similar structure to other value chains for fisheries and agricultural
products. Fishermen are receiving higher prices due to increased demand, but the price increase
is not perfectly symmetric between market segments, indicating that price formation could be
improved through better distribution of information. Higher prices should mean higher revenues
for Tanzanian fishers and hence they should be better off. However, as shown in Figure 4 in
section 2.3 this does not have to be the case and reports of decreased landings and increased effort
on behalf of the fishers is an indicator that higher prices are starting to have adverse effects on
the Nile perch fish stock in Lake Victoria. In order for the Tanzanians to enjoy the benefit of
higher prices it is necessary to implement a sustainable fisheries management system. Tanzanian
fishers can not expect to obtain a much higher percentage in the value chain compared to other
value chains. The marketing system of Nile perch seems to be fairly efficient in distributing the
products from the United Republic of Tanzania to the marketplace. However, high transportation
costs due to lack of infrastructure make the system relatively expensive. The system also seems
to be very ad-hoc as short term fluctuations in demand and supply can cause considerable (and
often local) price fluctuations. This increases uncertainty and makes it more difficult for businesses
to engage in long term arrangements with wholesalers and retailers. Regulated minimum export
prices also make it difficult to estimate the share which Tanzania receives in the entire value chain,
but it seems that Tanzanian fishing industries control a smaller part of the value chain than for
example Icelandic companies. This makes it more difficult for the United Republic of Tanzania to
compete on the globalized world market for white fish fillets. The analysis above also shows that
there is considerable room for improving efficiency and profitability in the Tanzanian fisheries
by improving infrastructure, establishing a fisheries management system (which controls total
allowable catch) and by assisting Tanzanian fish traders to gain control over a bigger portion of
the value chain, through collective efforts and improved business strategies.

3.3 Morocco17

The Kingdom of Morocco has a 3500 km coastline extending along the Mediterranean from the
north to the Canary Islands on the Atlantic coast in the south. This corresponds to an EEZ of
1.1 million km². Morocco is the top fish producer in Africa and ranked as the 21st largest producer
in the world in 2000 (FAO, 2006). According to official information the exploitable aquatic
resources of Morocco can be estimated as between 1.5 and 2.5 million tonnes annually, with a value
US$1 billion (Eurofish 2005).

Fishing in Morocco can be categorized into three major fisheries; coastal, artisanal and industrial
(Malvarosa, 2002). In total more than 21 000 vessels participate in these three fisheries of which
the artisanal fleet has the greatest in number of vessels (18 000) but the industrial fleet is largest
in GRT (146 000 GRT). The coastal and artisanal vessels fish in the coastal areas but the industrial
vessels fish in deep sea waters within the Moroccan EEZ.

The artisanal fleet consists of 18 000 vessels scattered along the entire coast, though the biggest
concentrations are on the south part of the Atlantic coast. They have outboard engines and usually
a crew of two to three. These are day-fishers that land their catch fresh.

17
Information for this chapter was collected by: Chaibi Ahmed, Institut agronomique et vétérinaire Hassan II,
Département des industries agricoles et alimentaires, BP 6202, Rabat, Morocco, with assistance from Lahsen Ababouch,
Fish Utilization and Marketing Service, Fisheries Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.
 27

There are four different types of boats used in the coastal fleet; purse seiners, bottom trawlers,
longliners and mixed gear boats. In 1999 there were 2523 vessels with a total 76,761 GRT (an average
size of 30 GRT) (Malvarosa, 2002). However, these vessels differ greatly in numbers, length and
GRT. In 1998 this fleet segment consisted of 428 trawlers, 397 purse seiners, 971 long-liners, 587
multipurpose vessels and 103 other fishing vessels. The majority of these boats makes 150 to 250
fishing trips per year and contributes about 70 percent of total catches. In 2002 the coastal fleet
landed 770 000 metric tons, valued at 208 million Euros, with pelagic species (mostly sardines and
anchovies) being the mainstay of the catch. Most purse seiners harvest both anchovies and sardines.

The industrial fleet had 454 vessels in 1998, totaling 146 000 GRT (an average size of 321 GRT). In
some cases these vessels have freezing capacity and can stay out fishing for several days or weeks.
This fishery harvests the most valuable species, including several mollusc species, whitefish and
shrimp. In 2002 the industrial fleet caught 134 000 tonnes, valued at US$460 million, by far the
most important category measured in terms of value.

In terms of volume the sardine is the most important species accounting for 60 to 75 percent
of the annual catch between 1997 and 2002. Anchovies are the second most important species
for the coastal fleet, with a total of 40 220 tonnes in 1999, valued at 79.39 millions of MDH, or
US$7.7 million.

Fish caught on the Moroccan coasts is sold at the central fish market, fish landing sites or through
the certifying counter for fish destined for further processing into canned fish or by-products
(fishmeal or fish oil). This counter is called “Comptoir d’agréage du poisson industriel” or CAPI.
Wholesalers and retailers are the main agents involved in fresh fish distribution and trade.

This study is mostly concerned with value added products from Morocco. Semi-processed
anchovies are the most important of these and this product also has the major part of the total
market share of similar products in the United States and several European countries. Though
there is no specific anchovy fishing fleet, the majority of the anchovies are caught by the coastal
fishing fleet (purse seiners) and the artisanal fleet targeting sardine. Hence, information for the
purse seiners and information about anchovy processing will be used for this study.

Anchovy is a small pelagic fish which can be marketed fresh, frozen, dried, smoked, salted and/or
canned and is destined for human consumption. It can also be processed as fishmeal and fish oil
for animal feed.

Similar to other small pelagic fish, anchovy is handled and transported in fish boxes with or
without ice both for processing and marketing for human consumption. More recently, some
fishing boats have introduced tanks using refrigerated sea water or chilled sea water to preserve
the fish until landing.

The most common way of processing anchovies is by packing the salted fillets in oil, mainly olive
oil. The traditional three-piece can has been replaced by new easy open cans of 48 g to 800 g. The
other popular packaging medium for salted anchovies is glass containers.

The value chain

There are several value chains for anchovy products, based on product form and the final market
for consumption. In terms of country of destination: 35 percent of anchovy exports go to France,
24 percent to Italy and 16 percent to the United States. The market share of Moroccan anchovies in
the US semi-processed anchovy market is close to 50 percent (based on trade statistics from 2000)
and hence the US market is an important market for Moroccan producers. Due to ease of data
collection from US trade statistics and the fact that the US market is a major market for Moroccan
 28

FIGURE 22
The value chain for exports of Moroccan anchovy

Fish traders Exporting/

Fishermen Collectors Processing marketing Retail

anchovy processors the value chain for semi-processed anchovies produced for that market was
selected as the objective of this study. The value chain for this market is shown in Figure 22.

The fishermen land their catch either directly at the processing plants, through CAPI offices or to
a fish trader who buys on behalf of the processing companies. The processing companies for semi-
processed anchovies are concentrated in the middle part of the country with 10 out of 25 factories
situated in Agadir. Some of the processing firms produce and export under their own label while
others produce for specific marketing companies.

Value chain analysis for Moroccan anchovies

In Morocco both the coastal fleet and the artisanal fleet harvest anchovies which are used for salted
products subsequently exported to the EU, Japan and the United States. The bulk of the catch
comes from the coastal fleet: up to 85 percent of the pelagic catch (Baddyr and Guénette, 2001).
The focus here is therefore on purse seine vessels in the coastal fleet. In order to estimate operating
costs for these vessels a survey of 15 vessels in this category was conducted. Table 5 shows the
descriptive statistics for the sample.

The vessels have a crew of 24 to 35 fishermen, depending TABLE 5: Average vessel characteristics for
on size and technology used on board. a sample of Moroccan purse seiners
Descriptive statistics
Length (m) 15.59
Looking at the expense side of the operation Figure
Age (years) 11.27
23 shows that crew share and other wage related costs Engine (horsepower) 241.8
(wage taxes, social security, etc.) account for 39 percent Number of fishing days 145.27
of total revenue of this fleet. Fuel accounts for 9 percent
and fishing gear and maintenance account for 6 percent.
Fixed costs and other non-categorized costs make up 24 percent of total revenue, a figure that
includes insurance costs, taxes (other than income tax) and fees, various rental charges, auction
charges etc. The operating margin comes to 22 percent of total revenue. The operating margin is
used to pay for depreciation of equipment, capital costs, income tax and dividend to owners.

In 2000 Moroccan fishermen harvested close to 40 000 tonnes of anchovy which 25 factories used
to make about 12 000 tonnes of semi-preserved anchovies in various product forms. The two main
product forms are salted and cured in olive oil. Both processing methods take several months and
require substantial manual labour and know-how. In Morocco this know-how has evolved over
the past 80 years, making many of the Moroccan anchovy products well known, with big market
shares for this specific product, both in the United States and in Europe. In order to estimate the
production cost for semi-preserved products figures were obtained from the annual operating
costs of a medium sized processing facility using 1 500 tonnes of anchovies per year. Given that
this is a representative company rather than information based on the average values for several
firms the numbers below must be seen as a crude approximation of overall production costs in the
anchovy industry.
 29

FIGURE 23
Share of individual cost items for Moroccan purse seine fishery

100%

90% Operating margin

22%

80%
10% Other costs
70%

60% 14%
Fixed costs

50% 6%

9%
40% Fishing gear/maintenance

30%
Fuel
20% 39%

10%
Crew share and wages

0%

FIGURE 24
Relative processing costs for Moroccan anchovy

100% Operating margin

90%
30%
80% Other costs
1%
70%
2%
10% Packaging and
60%
transportation
50%
Energy and fuel
40%

30% 57% Wages

20%

10% Raw material

0%
Processing

The cost of raw material represents more than 57 percent of total revenues while wages take
only 10 percent. The raw materials are anchovies and other fish used in the process, oil and salt.
Energy, packaging and transportation and other costs account for 3 percent of the total costs. The
operating margin of 30 percent is quite high but there may be two explanations for that. First in the
data collected no fixed costs were included and hence the fixed costs must be a part of the operating
margin. Also the processing method takes several months which means that it ties up operating capital.
Capital costs might therefore be high for this industry. Unfortunately it was not possible to verify
these hypotheses due to lack of data. It is interesting to note that despite substantial price decreases in
 30

FIGURE 25
The export value chain for Moroccan anchovies exported to the United States in 2000

100%

90% 17%

80%

70% Exports

60%
Processing
50%
72%
40% Fishing

30%

20%

10%
11%
0%
The export value chain

landed value of anchovies they still account for as much as 40 percent of the total production costs,
while oil and salt account for 19 percent combined. The average wholesale value at the factory gates
for processed anchovy was 52.2 DHM/kg or equivalent to US$4.91 in the year 2000.

It proved difficult to obtain a reliable estimate of anchovy prices at the retail level in the United
States. Estimates ranged from US$10 to US$39/kg. Since average retail prices and volumes were
not known it was decided to use only the import values to estimate the value chain for Moroccan
anchovies imported to the United States. In 2000 the average import value for whole anchovy
fillets cured in olive oil was US$5.95/kg, and had decreased by 21 percent from its high of US$7.46
in 1998.

Figure 25 shows only a part of the value chain: that part which represents the export value chain
from fishing to importing the product into the United States. This indicates that the value chain
for Moroccan anchovies follows a similar pattern to other highly processed food products, such
as canned tomatoes, corn flakes and corn syrup (see Table 1). This is not surprising since the
processing is complicated and requires several ingredients and time before it matures as semi-
preserved anchovy fillets.

This is however only part of the value chain because in order to complete the picture information
on retail prices is needed. A website advertised Moroccan anchovy fillets in oil for US$39/kg
in 2004 but in April 2004 a similar product sold for US$11/kg in Rome, Italy and a household
consumption survey done in 2001 in Italy calculated average prices paid for anchovies as US$19/kg.
Assuming that prices have not changed considerably since 2000, and assuming that there have not
been substantial changes in the cost categories over the same time period it would be possible to
construct the value chain for Moroccan anchovies exported to Italy. Though these calculations are
based on strong assumptions the value chain for Moroccan anchovies sold in Italy is shown in the
next figure. This is done to show how it could look, but it is emphasized that the Moroccan data
needs to be updated in order to make this more realistic.
 31

FIGURE 26
The value chain for Moroccan anchovies sold in Italy

100%

90%
Retail Italy

80%

70%
Processing
75%
60%

50%
Fishing

40%

30%

20%
21%
10%
3%
0%
Value chain for Italy

Figure 26 shows that 75 percent of the added value occurs within the retail sector, 21 percent
within the processing sector and 3 percent within the fishing sector, reflecting a value chain for a
highly processed product.

The analysis shows that the situation for the Moroccan anchovy fishery is similar to the case study
presented in Figure 1 in chapter two. The fish stocks are stable providing a relatively stable supply
of anchovy for the processing firms. The processing level is fairly sophisticated and the market
for raw material seems to be relatively transparent, since processors start to import raw material if
local prices rise. The CAPI system should also be able to provide accurate information on prices
and quantities available at any given time. The strong traditions and development of private labels
by Moroccan processors have resulted in Moroccans apparently controlling a fairly high portion of
the value chain. Hence the proportion of the retail price retained by the retail sector is surprising.
Given the inaccuracy of the data those results should not be extrapolated to all Moroccan anchovy
products but it shows that the Moroccan value chain warrants much more detailed study in order
to estimate each segment in the value chain.

3.4 Denmark18

The international market for herring is characterized by the presence of three strong market areas:
Northern Europe, Japan and West Africa. They are supplied by a limited number of fish stocks
from the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans.

The North European market, covering the area to the north of the longitude going through Paris
and Moscow, demands a variety of herring products, with sweet pickled herring preferred in Western
Europe and frozen herring preferred in Eastern Europe countries. The Japanese market prefers
herring with roe and the West African market demands large quantities of frozen whole herring.

18
Dr Max Nielsen co-authored this section.
 32

FIGURE 27
The Danish marketing chain for pickled herring

Imports

Domestic
Harvest retail

Primary Secondary
processing processing

Exports
Imports

Denmark geographically placed between the North Atlantic stocks and the three markets is the
world’s largest processor of herring, based on domestic raw materials as well as on imports from
Norway and other countries. Figure 27 shows a schematic graph of the marketing chain for herring
processed in Denmark.

Raw material comes from harvesting activities and imports. Raw material is mainly imported
from other Nordic countries, such as Norway and Iceland. Domestic harvesting is done by two
fleet segments, industrialized vessels and small vessels. They both harvest several species including
herring, mackerel and other fish for reduction. The industrialized segment includes 38 larger
vessels (pelagic trawlers and purse seines) which together account for 90 percent of total Danish
landings of herring and with 50 percent of their turnover originating from landings of herring.

Denmark produces two processed herring products: salted herring in bulk containers and pickled
herring in glass. Salted herring is a semi-processed product and is the most important item. It is
used either to process pickled herring in glass for final consumption or is exported directly for
further processing in the importing country which is mainly Germany. In Germany salted herring
is used for fish salads but also for the production of pickled herring in glass. Both products are sold
for final consumption in Germany. Besides the export of salted herring some quantities of fresh
herring and flaps of herring (gutted herring products without head and bones leaving only fillets
and skin) are also exported. This analysis focuses on the value chain for pickled herring produced
and consumed in Denmark.

The value chain

The value chain for the Danish production of pickled herring in glass containers consists of
four segments; Harvesting and salting (primary processing), pickled herring in glass (secondary
processing), and the retail market (domestic consumption) as shown in Figure 28.

The total catch in 1998 in the North Atlantic Ocean was 2.4 million tonnes. Catches in the
Northeast Atlantic make up 90 percent of this with the Atlanto-Scandian herring being the most
important. Norway is by far the largest supplier, with catches of over 830 000 tonnes, followed
by Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom, all with catches
less than 300 000 tonnes. Catches in the North Pacific Ocean have been of increasing importance
in recent years.
 33

FIGURE 28
The value chain for domestically produced pickled herring in Denmark

Primary Secondary Domestic

Harvest processing processing retail

Processing of herring in Denmark is limited to six–eight companies that process salted herring
while only six further companies are known to process pickled herring in glass. The industry
employs approximately 400 people.

Analysing the value chain

Based on the above data the price spreads and supplies of herring products, designated for human
consumption along the domestic value chain in Denmark are shown in Figure 29.

From Figure 29 it appears that the shares of fishers and processors of salted herring remained
relatively stable over the period as did the retail price, implying that only the distribution of price
spread between retailers and processors of pickled herring in glass changes. Even then the change
is not substantial.

Distribution of value added

Based on the data and the method described above, the distribution of value added is estimated
in Table 6, where the share of each cost component of total turnover in each company segment is
shown. The fisheries segment, one processing segment including producers of salted herring and
pickled herring in glass, a retailer segment including only fishmongers and a wholesale segment
are shown.

FIGURE 29
Quarterly price spreads from 1998 through 2000

50.00

45.00

40.00
Retailers
35.00
Dkr per kilogram

30.00 Processors of pickled

herring in glass
25.00
Processors of salted
20.00 herring

15.00 Fisheries

10.00

5.00

0.00
1

2
1

3
–0

–0

–0

–0
–0

–0

–0

–0

–0

–0
99

99

00

00
98

98

98

98

99

99
19

19

20

20
19

19

19

19

19

19
 34

TABLE 6: Accounts statistics, percentage of turnover, average 1998-2000

Company segment
Fisheries Processing Wholesalers Fishmongers
Turnover 100 100 100 100

Costs
Costs of purchased goods . 71.7 90.2 62.7
Fuel 11.7 . . .
Landings and sales costs 6.3 . . .
Maintenance 16.0 . . .
Wage, pension etc. 28.9 14.4 3.7 14.9
Depreciations 17.8 2.5 0.7 1.7
Other ordinary expenses 9.9 8.8 3.7 10.7
Profit on ordinary activities 9.4 2.6 1.8 9.8
Financial expenditures (net) 10.9 0.7 0.1 1.4
Extraordinary expenses . 0.1 -0.3 0.0
Corporation tax . 0.6 0.5 0.2
Net profit -1.5 1.2 1.4 8.3

Account statistics for the industry are shown in Table 6 with all numbers in relation to turnover
in the segment. For the herring fisheries segment, wages are the largest cost item, but costs related
to maintaining the capital stock, such as financial expenditures, depreciation and maintenance are
also substantial. Raw material costs only include fuel. The negative net profit reveals that in 2000
the activities of the fleet were limited by fisheries management decisions, implying that it might
not have been possible to utilize the capital stock fully.

For the three other segments costs of purchased goods is by far the largest element, as the companies
need to purchase goods in order to maintain their activities. For processors and fishmongers, wage
and other ordinary expenses are also large, while depreciation and financial expenditure are on
a lower level than in the fisheries segment. For wholesalers, wage and other ordinary expenses
are also on a certain level, although the costs of purchased goods are more than 90 percent of
turnover. Net profit is positive in all the three segments, although close to zero in the processing
and wholesale segment. This shows that net profit, as a percentage of turnover, increases along
the value chain. One explanation of this situation might be that there is more flexibility at the top
of the value chain. It is easier and less costly for fishmongers and wholesalers to change activity,
than it is for fishing companies and processors, due to the presence of a large and relatively unified
capital stock (vessels and plants).

Figure 30 shows the relative value added for all segments of the value chain and the relative share
of each cost item in the value adding process itself. Note that raw material does not appear in the
list of individual cost items since this is net value addition at each level (i.e. revenues minus cost of
raw material from the previous segment). Capital costs and profits are not included either in order
to make this figure more comparable to similar figures in the three other case studies. Herring in
the retail market is a highly processed product, going through at lease two processing stages. The
herring fishery is a large scale industrial fishery, with high catch volume per boat. This is well
reflected in the cost structure of the harvesting sector. Capital expenses, such as maintenance,
depreciation, capital costs and operating margin combined constitute a little over 40 percent of
total revenues. Though the harvesting sector receives a relatively small share of the value chain
individual fishermen receive relatively high wages on a national and global level.

This outcome is based on the assumption that the total cost structure of all fish processing
companies is representative for both the salted herring processors and for the processors of pickled
herring in glass. It also assumes that the cost structure of fishmongers is representative also for
supermarkets and that wholesale activities related to herring are not different from other wholesale
activities. In particular the cost share of purchased goods by processors seems too high for the
processors of salted herring and processors of pickled herring in glass, as herring is a low valued
 35

FIGURE 30
Relative value added at each segment and cost share by each item

100%
Value added at the retail level:
Wages 40%
90% Depreciations 5%
Other operating expenses 31%
80% Retail Operating margin 25%

70%
Value added at the processing level:
Wages 51%
60% Depreciations 9%
Other operating expenses 31%
50% Operating margin 9%
Secondary
40% processing
Value added at the harvesting level:
30% Fuel 12%
Landing and sales costs 6%
Maintenance 16%
20% Primary Wages 29%
Depreciations 18%
processing
10% Other operating expenses 10%
Operating margin 9%
Harvesting
0%
1

fish species. Provided that this is the case, processors costs of purchased goods are overestimated
and other costs components underestimated.

4. COMPARING VALUE CHAINS BETWEEN COUNTRIES

The biggest lesson learned from the four case studies is that there is a severe lack of consistent data
at the retail level for seafood products. Obtaining reliable retail data proved very difficult in all
cases. Hence, some critical assumptions had to be made about retail prices and their development
over the past five years.

This caveat is taken into account when comparing the results between individual case studies. The
most relevant comparisons are between Iceland and the United Republic of Tanzania, on the one
hand, and Morocco and Denmark on the other. This is because the fisheries and the final products
in these two pairs of countries are similar in nature.

In Iceland and the United Republic of Tanzania both fisheries provide a highly developed market
with white fleshed fillets distributed and processed through several stages before final consumption.
When comparing the value chains directly the most striking difference is in the value represented
by the retail sector in each case. Figure 31 shows the two value chains for Icelandic cod fillet on
the United States market and Nile perch fillets on the European market.

In the Tanzanian case the retailer absorbs about 60 percent of the overall value in the value chain
while in the Icelandic case the retail level represents about 36 percent. This reflects the different
structure of the two value chains. Icelandic companies control a bigger share of the value chain
than the Tanzanian companies. Icelandic cod is exported to the US as fillets and is often further
processed in factories owned by Icelandic export companies. The Tanzanian Nile perch fillet is
exported directly from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU where it is usually sold fresh.
Any further value addition is then done by European companies and the distribution is in the
 36

FIGURE 31
Comparing the value chains for Icelandic cod and Tanzanian Nile perch

100%

90%

80% 36%

70% 61%

60%
18%
50%

40%

30% 27% 18%

20% 5%

10% 18% 16%

0%
Iceland United Republic of Tanzania

Fishing Fishmongers Processing Wholesale/secondary processing Retail

hands of European companies. In the case of Icelandic cod the distribution is outsourced to large
food distribution companies but the fish is sold through agents that the export companies deal
with directly. The Tanzanian processing sector adds about 18 percent of the overall retail value
while the Icelandic processing sector adds 28 percent. Unfortunately it was not possible to directly
compare individual cost items at this level, due to shortage of data from Tanzania, but different
cost structures, such as lower wages in Tanzania might be a plausible reason for this difference.
Tanzanian fish traders are also a part of a fish collecting system for the processing factories taking
up about 5 percent of the total retail value. In Iceland fish markets and fish processors themselves
are the channel for distribution of raw material from dockside to the processors. Hence, some of
the value which fish traders receive in Tanzania might be included in the value added at processing
and fishing levels in Iceland. The Tanzanian fishermen receive about 15 percent of the retail value
versus the 19 percent which the Icelandic fishing companies receive. It is important to make a
distinction between these two since in the Tanzanian case most of the fishing is done with low
capital highly labour intensive canoes, resulting in low labour productivity, while the Icelandic
fishermen receive about 40 percent of the 19 percent (or 7.6 percent of retail value) that the
fishing company receives. On the other hand the Icelandic fisherman works in a highly capitalized
industry, resulting in high labour productivity and high wages as a result of large quantities of fish
per fisherman. Thus the lower share which the Icelandic fisherman receives actually yields higher
annual wages for each fisherman. This demonstrates how important it is in value chain analysis
not to focus on the absolute percentage each sector receives but rather to compare efficiency and
productivity of capital and labour. A comparison between relative costs in the other countries,
for instance, reveals that higher prices at the retail level have led to increased fishing pressure
threatening the sustainability of the Tanzanian fisheries due to lack of fisheries management. The
same situation is described in chapter two Figure 4. Decreased sustainability will result in lower
fishers’ incomes and increased poverty. Higher prices in the Icelandic fisheries in 2001 and 2002
resulted in higher wages for the fishers through the crew share system. Due to effective fisheries
management the catch only changed according to biological parameters and increased prices did
 37

FIGURE 32
Comparing value chains for Danish herring and Moroccan anchovy

100%

90%

80% 37%

70%
75%
60%

50%
38%
40%

30%

20%
17% 21%
10%
8% 4%
0%

Denmark Morocco

Fishing Processing Wholesale/secondary processing Retail

not increase the fishing pressure, at least not in such a way that it threatened the sustainability of
the Icelandic cod stock.

The comparison of the value chains for Icelandic cod and Tanzanian Nile perch has shown the
importance for fishing communities to participate in the ever increasing globalization of the export
seafood trade to provide both income and foreign currency. However, in order to give Tanzanian
fishing communities more influence in the overall value chain they must work together to create
strong export structures in order to market their products directly to the large super-market chains
which control consumer markets. The immediate danger is that although international trade has
benefited local fishers and fishing communities the lack of effective fisheries management and poor
infrastructure threatens the sustainability of the fishery. These results also largely confirm a similar
analysis of the Ugandan Lake Victoria Nile perch fishery (Ikwaput-Nyeko, 2004).

There are several common factors between the Danish herring fishery and the Moroccan anchovy
fishery. Both are pelagic species, high in fat and caught by purse seine. Both need considerable
processing before they are put on the market. The Danish herring fishery is larger in volume but
fished with fewer and larger boats than in the Moroccan fishery. The Moroccan fishery is based on
both small and medium sized vessels. Figure 32 shows the value chains for the Moroccan anchovy
fishery and the Danish herring fishery. When comparing these it must be kept in mind that the data for
the Moroccan fishery was of considerably lower quality than that for the Danish fishery. Therefore
higher variability should be expected in the actual numbers for the Moroccan fishery. The comparison
is presented here as an example rather than an accurate comparison of the two fisheries.

The Danish harvesting sector receives about 8 percent of the retail value while the Moroccan
fishery receives about 4 percent. When comparing individual cost items for the fishing sectors
it comes as a surprise that the share of wages in the total costs for the Danish fleet is lower than
the Moroccan fisheries. The Moroccan fleet paid 39 percent of total revenues as wages while the
 38

Danish fleet paid 29 percent. There is no apparent reason for this but a plausible explanation might
be that the Danish fleet is more capitalized than the Moroccan fleet. A more capitalized fishery
should have a higher operating margin in order to pay for the extra capital expenses but in this case
it is not explained by differences in operating margins which are approximately the same for both
fisheries. Fishing gear and maintenance is considerably higher in the Danish case, or 16 percent
of total revenues, compared to only 6 percent for Morocco. Since all other costs are similar the
higher maintenance costs are the only indication of differences in the two fisheries. This is also
interesting because the Danish fleet operated at a loss over the period while the Moroccan fleet was
still profitable after deduction of interests, taxes and other capital expenses. This warrants further
investigation in the future, including comparison of wages of the fisherman and more detailed
study of each cost category.

The Danish and Moroccan primary processing sectors receive 17 and 21 percent respectively.
Comparing individual cost categories for processing sectors in each country reveals that the
Danish industry pays just over 70 percent of their total revenues for raw material, i.e. herring at the
dockside or imported, compared to 57 percent in Morocco. Wages and other costs are similar but
the main difference is in the operating margins where the margin for the Danish industry is about
5 percent while it is about 30 percent for the Moroccan industry. This difference might reflect the
fact that Moroccan processing takes more time and requires more specialized facilities, while the
Danish herring processing is fairly standardized, requiring a relatively shorter processing period.
To fully understand this difference a more detailed analysis is needed, especially in the Moroccan
case where the information is based on a representative firm rather than a collection of firms as
for Denmark

When comparing the secondary processing and retail levels for each country an interesting fact is
revealed. In Denmark the retail level adds 38 percent and the secondary processing adds 37 percent
of total value to the overall value chain, while in Morocco the retail value adds up to 75 percent of
the total value chain. Hence, the Danish processing sector receives a considerably higher portion
of the value chain. It was not possible to confirm that no additional repackaging or storage is done
at the retail level in Italy and hence the Italian retail sector is left with yellow and orange stripes
in the graph, indicating that some secondary processing occurs at this stage. There could be many
explanations for this difference in the structure of the two value chains, including differences in
import duties (Denmark is within the common European market while import duties must be
paid for the Moroccan products imported to the common market), greater competition among
suppliers of anchovies or lack of competition among retail stores in Italy. None of this can be
confirmed without a detailed study of the retail markets for each product.

The comparison between the Danish value chain for herring and the Moroccan value chain for
anchovies have yielded some interesting differences. Though in principal the products have
common features their value chains are quite different. Throughout the entire value chain the
operating margins are higher for the Moroccan products and yet they receive a lower share of
the entire value chain. In order to explain these differences one would have to go into a detailed
description of each industry with emphasis on explaining institutional organizations, such as
industry and market structure.

Figure 33 shows all four value chains on one graph with two striking differences. First, the Danish
and Moroccan harvesting sectors (pelagic fisheries) receive a lower share of the value chain than
the Icelandic and the Tanzanian fisheries (demersal fisheries).

The value chains for pelagic fisheries show similar characteristics to value chains for highly processed
agricultural products on the US market. In Table 4 it was shown that for highly processed products
such as canned tomatoes or corn flakes the farmer received between 4 and 7 percent. At the same
 39

FIGURE 33
Comparing value chains for the four case studies

100%

90%

36% 37%
80%

70% 61%
75%
60%
18%
50%
38%
40%

27%
30%
23%
20%
17% 21%
10% 18% 16%
8% 4%
0%
Iceland United Republic Denmark Morocco
of Tanzania

Fishing Processing/Fishmongers Wholesale/secondary processing Retail

time pork, poultry and beef products (often seen as substitutes for fish proteins from whitefish
such as cod or Nile perch) returned between 30 and 50 percent of the retail value to the farmers.
This difference between fish proteins and animal proteins is interesting and is discussed further
in the chapter on the Icelandic value chain for cod. The second interesting comparison is that
despite the low quality of some of the data from Morocco and Tanzania the pelagic and demersal
industries show similar characteristics in the value chain structure. For pelagic fisheries the retail
and secondary processing sectors combined receive about 75 percent of the retail value while in
demersal fisheries this combination represents 55–60 percent of the total retail value.

Comparing the four value chains highlights some important facts for seafood value chains,
including similar trends to those for agricultural products. This means that the share of farmers/
fishers becomes relatively lower as the product becomes more processed. It also shows that the
share in the value chain does not reflect the profitability of firms or well being of fishermen. An
example is in Iceland where fishers receive higher wages than the national average but a lower share
of the total retail value than their Tanzanian counterparts. In the Danish fishery the fishermen
receive good wages but the fishing companies are run at a low operating margin, resulting in net
loss after capital expenses. However, the Moroccan industry pays a higher share of revenue as
wages, and yet operates at a higher operating margin than its Danish counterparts.

There are also lessons on the usefulness of analysing value chains and the potential pitfalls. Value
chain analysis only becomes meaningful to compare the net value added at each level, however,
as this research has shown, obtaining information on that is very difficult. Another difficulty is
comparing profits between countries where tax codes are different and accounting for capital costs
is done in different ways. This would require detailed studies of company level data that would be
very costly. These difficulties make it clear that value chain analysis should be interpreted carefully
and not taken out of the context of its environment.
 40

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to demonstrate how the revenues from seafood trade are distributed
over the entire seafood value chain. The value chains were shown to have similar characteristics to
value chains for agricultural products where the primary sectors receive a relatively lower share
of the retail value of highly processed products and a higher share in less processed and fresh
products.

The study also revealed that the developing countries seemed to control a relatively lower share of
the overall value chain than developed countries. An example is the Icelandic case where Icelandic
owned companies control as much as 70 percent of the entire value-chain while Tanzanian and
Moroccan companies controlled less than 50 percent.

This is perhaps the most important lesson to be learned. The Icelandic and Tanzanian fisheries
produce very similar products, going into the same markets, or market segments, in Europe
and the United States. The Icelandic export sector has been developing over the past 60 years
and started with state monopolies on exports (or monopolized export licences), ending with
completely free trade of seafood products in the early 1990s. This has been a long process for the
Icelandic companies but it created strong export companies which strategically marketed their
products under their own brand names.

The Danish companies in this study seemed to control a larger share of the value chain than
their Moroccan counterparts, but this did not ensure profitability of the harvesting sector. The
European Union has been struggling with its fisheries policy for decades. Overfishing caused by
too large fishing fleets has forced cuts in quotas, making it difficult for fishing companies to survive
financially. Control of the seafood value chain does not necessarily guarantee good livelihoods for
fishermen or fishing companies. In this paper it has been shown that good fisheries management
is a necessity in order to allow fishermen to reap the benefits from higher export prices. Without
proper management in place increased prices can lead to increased fishing pressures and hence
threaten the sustainability of the resource and profitability of the fishing companies. This was also
shown in the Icelandic and Moroccan fisheries where in both cases good management practices
are in place, limiting the total catch to sustainable levels. Price changes then do not threaten the
resource but simply have a direct impact on the income fishermen receive. In Morocco increased
prices force the processors to import anchovies from other countries but when prices drop they
buy only from domestic sources. This shows how international trade can actually help in relieving
the pressure on fishing grounds when prices become very high due to increased demand or if
catches decline through natural fluctuations. Fishing is based on a natural resource which can
fluctuate dramatically between years. International trade helps seafood companies in diversifying
these risks by opening up access to different sources of raw material. This again helps stabilize
markets and increased stability helps in operating seafood businesses.

However, in order to reap benefits from international trade it is necessary to have the proper
institutions in place and to have social capital which can use the opportunities found in global
businesses. The government in each country must ensure that the proper infrastructure is available
for fast and effective communication with its trading partners. The governments must also build
social capital through education and training.

More in-depth analysis of the factors driving each segment in the value chains in this study are
needed in order to be able to better assess how changing conditions on global markets affect
local fishing communities. To achieve this consistent data collection at all levels or segments is
needed over a long period of time. Such information would reveal the structure of each market
and whether any one segment is able to exercise monopoly powers directly or indirectly. It would
also help in comparing value chains between countries and allow more advanced studies of market
 41

integration, price formation and changes in profitability at various market levels. These studies
would help to identify where there was a need for improved infrastructure in order to facilitate
fair trade and distribution of retail value throughout the seafood value chain.

The studies reported here are among the first to attempt to analyse value chains for fisheries in
developing countries. As such they should be regarded as a first step. The publication contains
the theoretical background underpinning the work and lays out the methodology that can also be
applied to other fisheries in other countries. Although the four studies point up some interesting
correlations and trends they cannot be said to be representative of all fisheries and as pointed
out more in-depth investigation and analysis is needed. It is hoped that this publication will be a
starting point for further investigations, using the same methodology, particularly in developing
countries.

REFERENCES
Anderson, J.L. 2003. The International Seafood Trade. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England.
Anderson, J.L. & Fong, Q.S.W. 1997. Aquaculture and International Trade. Aquaculture Economics
and Management, 1, 29-44.
Asche, F. 1997. Trade Disputes and Productivity Gains: The Curse of Farmed Salmon Production?
Marine Resource Economics, 12, 67-73.
Asche, F. & Sebulonsen, T. 1998. Salmon prices in France and the UK. Aquaculture, Economics and
Management, 2, 21-30.
Asche, F., Bremnes, H. & Wessells, C.R. 1999. Product Aggregation, Market Integration and
Relationships between Prices: An Application to World Salmon Markets. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 81, 568-581.
Asche, F., Hartmann, J., Fofana, A., Jaffry, S. & Menezes, R. 2002. Vertical Relationships in the Value
Chain: An Analysis Based on Price Information for Cod and Salmon in Europe. Working Paper, SNF
project report no. 5310, Centre for Fisheries Economics, Institute for Research in Economics and
Business Administration, Bergen, Norway.
Baddyr, M., & Guénette, S. 2001. The fisheries of the Atlantic coast of Morocco 1950-1997. In Fisheries
impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets. S. Guénette,
V. Christensen & D. Pauly, eds. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9(3).
Bambona, A. 2002. Marketing Opportunities of Ugandan Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) in the European
Union. Project report, United Nations University, Fisheries Training Program, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Brown, P.B. (ed.) 2001 Seafood Price Current. Urner Barry Publications, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Christy, F.T. 1996. The Death Rattle of Open Access and the Advent of Property Rights Regimes in
Fisheries. Marine Resource Economics, 11, 287-304.
Cooper, D. 2003. Findings from the Competition Commission’s Inquiry into Supermarkets. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 54(1): 127-43.
Copes, P. 1970. The Backward Bending Supply Curve of the Fishing Industry. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy 17:69-77.
DeVoretz, D.J., & Salvanes, K.G. 1993. Market Structure for Farmed Salmon. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 75, 227-233.
Eurofish. 2005. Morocco easy fact sheet. Online-resource June 2005 (http://www.eurofish.dk/
indexSub.php?id=1673).
FAO. 2006 Fisheries Statistics: Capture, Aquaculture and Commodities. FISHSTAT Plus: software for
statistical time series. http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/fishplus.asp
Gordon, D.V. & Hannesson, R. 1996. On Prices of Fresh and Frozen Cod. Marine Resource
Economics, 11, 223-238.
Gordon, D.V., Salvanes, K.G. & Atkins, F. 1993. A Fish is a Fish is a Fish: Testing for Market Linkage
on the Paris Fish Market. Marine Resource Economics, 8, 331-343.
Gonzales, F., Guillotreau, P. & Le Graul, L. 2002. The Transmission of Price Variability along the
French Cod Value Chain. XIVth EAFE Conference Proceedings, Faro, 25-27 March, University of
Algarve, Portugal.
 42

Hannesson, R. 1978. A Note on the Welfare-Economic Consequences of Extended Fishing Limits.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5, 187-197.
Hannesson, R. 2000. Renewable Resources and the Gains from Trade. The Canadian Journal of
Economics, Vol. 33, No.1, February 2000, pp. 122-132.
Ikwaput-Nyeko, J. 2004. Co-management and value chains: The role of the Nile perch exports in
poverty eradication in Lake Victoria Fishing communities. Project report, United Nations University,
Fisheries Training Program, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Kaplinsky, R. 2000. Spreading the Gains from Globalisation: What Can Be Learned from Value Chain
Analysis? Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper 110, Sussex.
KPMG. 2004. Seafood industry value chain analysis: cod, haddock and nephrops. H. Curtis & A. Martin
of Seafish, UK; M. Gisvold Sandberg, A. Gjermundsen, E. Hempel & T. Olafsen of KPMG Centre
for Aquaculture & Fisheries.
Krugman, P.R. & Obstfeld, M. 1994. International Economics: Theory and Policy, Harper Collins,
New York.
Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World, Penguin, New York.
Malvarosa, L. 2002. The Fish Trade of North African Mediterranean Countries: Intra-Regional Trade
and Import-Export with the European Union. FAO Fisheries Circular no. 978 FIIT/C978 (En).
Milazzo, M. 1998. Subsidies in World Fisheries, World Bank Technical Paper No. 406. The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Morrison Paul, C.J. 2001. Cost Economies and Market Power: The Case of the U.S. Meat Packing
Industry. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3): 531-40.
Munro, G.R. 1996. Approaches to the Economics of the Management of High Seas Fishery Resources.
In D. V. Gordon and G. R. Munro, Fisheries and Uncertainty: A Precautionary Approach to
Resource Management. University of Calgary Press, Calgary.
Munro, G.R. & Scott, A.D. 1985. The Economics of Fisheries Management. In Handbook of
Natural Resource and Energy Economics. A.V. Kneese & J.L. Sweeny, eds. Vol. II. North Holland,
Amsterdam.
Murray, A.D. & Fofana, A. 2002. The Changing Nature of UK Fish Retailing. Marine Resource
Economics, 17(4): 335-39.
Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free
Press, New York, London.
Roheim, C.A. 2005. “Seafood: Trade liberalization and impacts on sustainability”. In Global
Agricultural Trade and Developing countries. M.A. Aksjoy & J. C. Beghin, eds. The World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA.
Shank, J.K. & Govindarajan, V. 1993. Strategic Cost Management: The new tool for competitive
advantage. The Free Press, New York, USA.
Witte, F., Goldschmidt, T., Goudswaard, P.C., Ligtvoet, W., Van Oijen, M.J.P. & Wanink, J.H. 1992.
Species extinction and concomitant ecological changes in Lake Victoria. Neth. J. Zool. 42: 214-232.
TR/D/A0564E/1/6.06/1000