 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commonwealth fisheries’ production | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The real value of Australian fisheries’ production has declined at an average annual rate of 4.3 per cent since the start of this decade, reaching $2.2 billion in 2006-07 (figure 2). Most of this fall is attributed to declines in the value of fisheries production in Commonwealth and state wild catch fisheries, falling at an average annual rate of 7.4 per cent and 5.4 per cent respectively over the period 1999-00 to 2006-07. The real value of aquaculture production fell at an average annual rate of 1.1 per cent over the same period, reaching $823 million. After peaking in 2000-01 at $582 million, the real value of Commonwealth fisheries production has declined by 48 per cent to $304 million in 2006-07. This declining trend reflects that production in Commonwealth fisheries has been affected by unfavourable movements in a number of important economic variables. For example, over this period, fishing effort and catches have been negatively impacted by rises in the cost of fuel, and an appreciating Australian dollar, which makes exports less competitive and imports more attractive to consumers. With increasing costs and a deteriorating competitive position, financial returns from operating in the industry have been negatively affected. Although AFMA is unable to influence these variables it can influence the amount of fishing effort, the size of the catch and therefore the size of the stock. By restricting effort to the point of maximum economic yield, the fish stock is thicker, which in turn reduces the costs of fishing. By pursuing an economically sustainable fishery, there is a greater likelihood that the industry can be resilient in the way it adapts to changes that it has no control over, such as higher fuel prices. While management responses to short-term changes in fish prices or the costs of fishing are unlikely to improve the financial stability of the industry, unfavourable long-term changes in key economic variables may justify a management change that favours reduction in fishing effort in order to promote sustainability of the industry in the long run. The value of production of the Commonwealth fisheries is presented in figure 3. The southern and eastern scalefish and shark (SESS) fishery generates the highest value of production of all Commonwealth fisheries. It is an amalgamation of the following former fisheries: the Commonwealth trawl sector; the gillnet, hook and trap sector; the Great Australian Bight trawl sector; and the east coast deepwater trawl sector. Overall, the gross value of production for the SESS fishery (excluding the east coast deepwater trawl sector) was $96.3 million in 2006-07 (figure 3). In the same year, the northern prawn fishery generated a gross value of production of $63.8 million, the highest value of production for a single method fishery. The eastern tuna and billfish fishery is also important in value terms as it generated $32.6 million in 2006-07. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The southern bluefin tuna fishery is estimated by ABARE to have been worth $41 million in 2006-07. Post-harvest aquaculture operations resulted in the value growing to $138 million. This higher amount accrues to the South Australian aquaculture sector rather than the associated Commonwealth fishery. The method for estimating the gross value of production of the Commonwealth southern bluefin tuna fishery is explained in box 4. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Exchange rates and Australian fisheries trade | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Exchange rates | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A significant part of Australia’s fishery production is exported. Consequently, changes in the value of the Australian dollar against the currencies of trading partners affects the value of Commonwealth fisheries’ production. It is common for the US dollar to be used as the reference price for international trade. An appreciation of the Australian dollar relative to the US dollar reduces the prices received for exports and vice versa. The relationship between the real value of Commonwealth production and recent movements in the Australian dollar is shown in figure 4. The appreciation of the Australian dollar from US52 cents per Australian dollar in 2001-02 to US78 cents in 2006-07 (50 per cent appreciation) is tracked in figure 4 along with the 47 per cent decrease in the real value of production for Commonwealth fisheries. While changes to the exchange rate would not be the only factor contributing to the fall in the value of production, it is likely to have had a substantial impact. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Australian exports of fisheries products | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information about Australian exports of fisheries products is disseminated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Each product is classified according to the Australian Harmonised Export Commodity Classification system. In most cases this system records each product’s species group and form of processing (such as fresh and chilled or frozen), as well as the originating state or territory and the country of destination. However, using this source of data, it is generally not possible to identify the fishery from which a product was landed. Therefore, in this section, Australian fisheries exports as a whole are discussed; Commonwealth fisheries are not specifically identified. Approximately 80 per cent of the total value of Australian exports of fisheries products relates to edible seafood products. Pearls account for 93 per cent of the value of the remaining 20 per cent of value that represents non-edible exports. In 2006-07 the main exported products in value terms were rock lobster (31 per cent of gross value of exports), pearls (21 per cent), abalone (16 per cent), whole tuna (11 per cent) and prawns (6 per cent) (figure 5). The gross value of Australian fisheries exports fell in 2006-07 by $53 million to $1.49 billion (figure 6). However, over the six years to 2006-07 the total value of exports fell by 43 per cent, from a peak of $2.6 billion in 2000-01. Both edible (fish and shellfish) and non-edible fisheries exports declined in value over this period, by 43 per cent and 37 per cent respectively. As a relatively small producer of fisheries products, Australia receives prices for seafood exports that are set predominantly on world markets. There have been a few factors at work depressing the export value of Australian fisheries products since 2000-01. First, the volume of exports of edible fisheries products has fallen by 26 per cent since 2000-01 to around 48 000 tonnes in 2006-07. Second, in general, prices of fisheries products have fallen on world markets. Third, the appreciating Australian dollar against the currencies of major trading partners has further reduced the prices received by Australian exporters. The general decline since 2000-01 in the prices of major fisheries commodities exported from Australia is shown in figure 7. In 2006-07 Hong Kong continued to be Australia’s main export market for edible fisheries products after overtaking Japan in 2005-06 (figure 8). In value terms, 40 per cent of Australia’s edible fisheries products were exported to Hong Kong ($462 million) and 27 per cent were exported to Japan ($316 million). The United States is Australia’s third largest export destination, followed closely by China. In 2006-07, these four markets accounted for 83 per cent of the value of Australia’s exports of edible fisheries products (figure 8). Over the six years to 2006-07 the total value of Australia’s seafood exports to Japan fell by 65 per cent in real terms (2007-08 dollars) from $893 million in 2000-01 to $316 million in 2006-07. This was caused largely by substantial reductions in the volume of exports of key products (rock lobster, prawns and other fish) and the appreciation of the Australian dollar relative to the Japanese yen, the effect of which has been compounded by declining yen prices for key export species, particularly prawns (figure 9). For example, the yen price of prawns fell by around 26 per cent over the period 2000-01 to 2006-07. In addition, the Australian dollar relative to the yen appreciated by 51 per cent over that period. These two factors resulted in the real price of prawn exports declining by 51 per cent over the period. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Australian imports of fisheries products | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Australian fisheries products compete on the domestic market with imported products. The value of Australian imports of fisheries products increased by $172 million to $1.52 billion between 2005-06 and 2006-07, which is equivalent to approximately 66 per cent of the value of Australian fisheries production. More than 80 per cent of the gross value of imports was edible fisheries products, with pearls accounting for 64 per cent of non-edible imports. The main edible products imported into Australia were prawns (21 per cent of the gross value of edible seafood imports), fresh, chilled or frozen finfish fillets (20 per cent) and canned fish (21 per cent) (figure 10). Thailand, New Zealand, China and Viet Nam were the major sources of edible fisheries products imported into Australia. In 2006-07, imports from these four countries accounted for 66 per cent of total edible imports by value (figure 11). Nearly 70 per cent of Australia’s imports of canned fish, 20 per cent of fresh, chilled or frozen prawns, and 30 per cent of canned crustaceans and molluscs were sourced from Thailand. New Zealand was the source of 59 per cent of Australia’s imports of fresh, chilled or frozen fish products and 36 per cent of fresh, chilled or frozen mollusc imports. In recent years, the gross value of imports from China and Viet Nam has grown steadily. China and Viet Nam were the source of 25 per cent and 35 per cent of fresh, chilled or frozen prawn imports respectively. Also sourced from China was 60 per cent of fresh, chilled or frozen mollusc imports. The volume of edible seafood imports continued to rise in 2006-07. Over the past five years the volume of edible seafood imports rose by 36 per cent from 144 409 tonnes in 2001-02 to 198 600 tonnes in 2006-07. Of particular note was the increase in prawn imports from China and Viet Nam and imports of frozen finfish fillets from Viet Nam. The volume of fresh, chilled or frozen prawn imports from China increased from 384 tonnes in 2001-02 to 8469 tonnes in 2006-07, while the volume of fresh, chilled or frozen prawn imports from Viet Nam increased from 1842 tonnes to 7229 tonnes over the same period. Frozen finfish fillets from Viet Nam also rose steadily from 1450 tonnes in 2001-02 to 11 300 tonnes in 2006-07. The appreciation of the Australian dollar relative to trading partners’ currencies has reduced the price Australians pay for imports of fisheries products. This increased competition from overseas suppliers has affected the prices received by Australian producers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fuel prices and fishing costs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results from ABARE’s fishery surveys indicate that fuel is a major cost of fishing, ranging between 10 per cent and 39 per cent of the total costs of operating a vessel depending on the fishery (table 4). In the northern prawn fishery and Torres Strait prawn fishery, the proportion is even higher, at 38.5 per cent and 38.8 per cent respectively. This reflects the longer distances travelled and that trawling is relatively fuel intensive. Increases in world oil prices in recent years have caused diesel prices to increase. At the same time, generally thinning fish stocks in some Commonwealth fisheries means fishers have had to travel further to make catches. The average wholesale diesel price (given in figure 12) rose from 100 cents a litre in 2002-03 to 141 cents per litre in 2007-08. Further, fishers are entitled to a rebate on their fuel expense under the Energy Grants Credit Scheme (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). For claims made after early January 2006, the rebate was approximately 38 cents a litre. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||