Fresh or Frozen Fish

USITC Publication 3463

October 2001

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIES

U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

This report was prepared principally by

Roger Corey

Animal and Forest Products Branch

Agriculture and Forest Products Division

Vern Simpson

Robert A. Rogowsky

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

COMMISSIONERS

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Lynn M. Bragg

Marcia E. Miller

Jennifer A. Hillman

Dennis M. Devaney

Director of Industries

Director of Operations

www.usitc.gov
10/01

OMB No.: 3117- 0188

ITC READER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Fresh or Frozen Fish

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is interested in your voluntary comments

(burden < 15 minutes) to help us assess the value and quality of our reports, and to assist us in

improving future products. Please return survey by fax (202-205-2384) or by mail to the ITC.

Your name and title (please print; responses below not for attribution):

Please specify information in this report most useful to you/your organization:

Was any information missing that you consider important? Yes (specify below) No

If yes, please identify missing information and why it would be important or helpful to you:

Please assess the value of this ITC report (answer below by circling all that apply): SA—Strongly

Agree; A—Agree; N—No Opinion/Not Applicable; D—Disagree; SD—Strongly Disagree

" Report presents new facts, information, and/or data SA A N D SD

" Staff analysis adds value to facts, information, and/or data SA A N D SD

" Analysis is unique or ground breaking SA A N D SD

" Statistical data are useful to me/my organization SA A N D SD

" Subject matter and analysis are timely SA A N D SD

" ITC is the only or the preferred source of this information SA A N D SD

If not, please identify from what other source the information is available

Please evaluate the quality of this report (answer below by circling all that apply): SA—Strongly

Agree; A—Agree; N—No Opinion/Not Applicable; D—Disagree; SD—Strongly Disagree

" Written in clear and understandable manner SA A N D SD

" Report findings or executive summary address key issues SA A N D SD

" Figures, charts, graphs are helpful to understanding issue SA A N D SD

" Analysis throughout report answers key questions SA A N D SD

" Report references variety of primary and secondary sources SA A N D SD

" Sources are fully documented in text or footnotes SA A N D SD

Please provide further comment on any of the above performance measures, as appropriate:

Suggestions for improving this report and/or future reports:

Other topics/issues of interest or concern:

Please provide your Internet address and update your mailing address below, if applicable:
UNITED STATES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20436

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE, USE $300

FOLD

NO POSTAGE

NECESSARY

IF MAILED

IN THE

UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12840 WASHINGTON, DC

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

U.S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

500 E STREET, SW.

WASHINGTON, DC 20277--2840

ATTN:

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIES

Fresh or Frozen Fish
 

1

 The information and analysis provided in this report are for the purpose of this report only. 

Nothing in this report should be construed to indicate how the Commission would find in an

investigation conducted under statutory authority covering the same or similar subject matter.

i

PREFACE

In 1991 the United States International Trade Commission initiated its current Industry and

Trade Summary series of informational reports on the thousands of products imported into

and exported from the United States. Each summary addresses a different commodity/industry

area and contains information on product uses, U.S. and foreign producers, and customs

treatment. Also included is an analysis of the basic factors affecting trends in consumption,

production, and trade of the commodity, as well as those bearing on the competitiveness of

U.S. industries in domestic and foreign markets.1

This report on fresh or frozen fish generally covers the period 1995-99 and represents one of

several individual reports produced in this series in recent years. Listed below are the

individual summary reports published to date on the agriculture and forest products sectors.

USITC

publication Publication

number date Title

2459 November 1991 ........... Live Sheep and Meat of Sheep

2462 November 1991 ........... Cigarettes

2477 January 1992 ............. Dairy Produce

2478 January 1992 ............. Oilseeds

2511 March 1992 .............. Live Swine and Fresh, Chilled, or 

 Frozen Pork

2520 June 1992 ................ Poultry

2544 August 1992 .............. Fresh or Frozen Fish

2545 November 1992 ........... Natural Sweeteners

2551 November 1992 ........... Newsprint

2612 March 1993 .............. Wood Pulp and Waste Paper

2615 March 1993 .............. Citrus Fruit

2625 April 1993 ............... Live Cattle and Fresh, Chilled, or 

 Frozen Beef and Veal

2631 May 1993 ................ Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils

2635 June 1993 ................ Cocoa, Chocolate, and Confectionery

2636 May 1993 ................ Olives

2639 June 1993 ................ Wine and Certain Fermented Beverages

2693 October 1993 ............. Printing and Writing Paper

2702 November 1993 ........... Fur Goods

2726 January 1994 ............. Furskins

2737 March 1994 .............. Cut Flowers

2749 March 1994 .............. Paper Boxes and Bags

2762 April 1994 ............... Coffee and Tea
ii

PREFACE—Continued

USITC

publication Publication

number date Title

2859 May 1995 ................ Seeds

2865 April 1995 ............... Malt Beverages

2875 May 1995 ................ Certain Fresh Deciduous Fruits

2898 June 1995 ................ Certain Miscellaneous Vegetable 

 Substances and Products

2917 October 1995 ............. Lumber, Flooring, and Siding

2918 August 1995 .............. Printed Matter

2928 November 1995 ........... Processed Vegetables

3015 February 1997 ............ Hides, Skins, and Leather

3020 March 1997 .............. Nonalcoholic Beverages

3022 April 1997 ............... Industrial Papers and Paperboards

3080 January 1998 ............. Dairy Products

3083 February 1998 ............ Canned Fish, Except Shellfish

3095 March 1998 .............. Milled Grains, Malts, and Starches

3096 April 1998 ............... Millwork

3145 December 1998 ............ Wool and Related Animal Hair

3148 December 1998 ............ Poultry

3171 March 1999 .............. Dried Fruits Other Than Tropical

3268 December 1999 ............ Eggs

3275 January 2000 ............. Animal Feeds

3350 September 2000 ........... Grain (Cereals)

3352 September 2000 ........... Edible Nuts

3355 September 2000 ........... Newsprint

3373 November 2000 ........... Distilled Spirits
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Preface ................................................................ i

Abstract .............................................................. 1

Introduction ......................................................... 3

Background and summary ................................................. 3

The production process ................................................... 5

Harvesting technology .................................................. 5

Aquaculture technology ................................................. 6

Processing technology .................................................. 7

Products ............................................................... 7

U.S. industry profile ............................................... 8

Production levels and trends ................................................ 8

Number of firms and employment ............................................ 9

Input and production costs ................................................. 11

Harvesting ........................................................... 11

Processing ........................................................... 13

Marketing ............................................................. 13

Resource abundance ...................................................... 14

Government regulations affecting the U.S. fresh or frozen fish industry ................ 16

Foreign industry profile .......................................... 16

Overview .............................................................. 16

Canada ............................................................... 17

Japan ................................................................. 19

U.S. trade measures................................................ 20

Tariffs and nontariff measures .............................................. 20

U.S. Government trade-related investigations ................................... 21
iv

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Foreign trade measures .......................................... 22

Tariff measures ......................................................... 22

Nontariff measures ...................................................... 22

U.S. market .......................................................... 24

Consumption ............................................................ 24

Imports ................................................................ 24

Foreign markets .................................................... 25

Foreign market profile .................................................... 25

U.S. exports ............................................................ 27

U.S. industry performance in foreign markets ................................... 27

Appendices

A. Explanation of tariff and trade agreement terms ................................... A-1

B. Statistical tables .......................................................... B-1

Figure

1. Fresh or frozen fish: Structure of the U.S. industry and market ...................... 10

Tables

1. Fish: U.S. commercial landings, 1996-2000 ...................................... B-2

2. Fish: U.S. aquaculture production, 1996-99 ...................................... B-3

3. Fresh or frozen fish: Number of U.S. firms and employment, 1995-98 .................. B-3

4. Fresh or frozen fish: Labor productivity in fillets & steaks production, 1995-98 ........... B-3

5. Seafood establishments and product inspections, 1998 and 2000 ....................... B-4

6. Fresh or frozen fish: World production, by largest producers, 1996-99 ................. B-4

7. Fresh or frozen fish: World production by product, 1996-99 ......................... B-5

8. Fresh or frozen fish: Average export prices on world markets, 1996-99 ................. B-5

9. Fresh or frozen fish: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading; description; U.S. column

1 rate of duty as of Jan. 1, 2001; U.S. exports, 2000; U.S. imports, 2000 .............. B-6

10. Fresh or frozen fish products: Applied MFN tariff rates in selected foreign countries ....... B-10

11. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. production, trade, and apparent consumption, 1996-2000 ........ B-11
v

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

12. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. imports, by principal source, 1996-2000 .................. B-12

13. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. imports, by product, 1996-2000 ........................ B-13

14. Fresh or frozen fish: Asian production, trade, and consumption, 1996-99 .............. B-14

15. Fresh or frozen fish: European production, trade, and consumption, 1996-99 ........... B-14

16. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. exports, by product, 1996-2000 ......................... B-15

17. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. exports, by principal market, 1996-2000 .................. B-16

18. Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. export performance, 1996-99 .......................... B-17

1

ABSTRACT

This Summary addresses market, industry and trade conditions for the fresh or frozen fish

industry (excluding shellfish) for the period 1996-2000.

• The fresh or frozen fish industry produces a wide variety of seafoods, some of the

most popular of which are fresh cod and flounder fillets, frozen blocks from which

fish sticks and portions are cut, and swordfish and halibut steaks. The industry

discussed here includes the fleets of vessels that harvest the fish processed into

these products. The U.S. finfish harvest in 2000 totaled 3.6 million metric tons,

valued at $2.1 billion. This harvest represented a 8 percent drop in quantity and 6

percent in value from the 1996 harvest of 3.9 million metric tons, valued at

$2.3 billion. During the same period, U.S. production of fresh or frozen finfish

fillets and steaks, the industry’s principal product group, declined by 13 percent in

quantity and 8 percent in value: 2000 production reached 167,500 metric tons,

valued at $830 million, compared with 1996 production of 192,000 metric tons,

valued at $904 million.

• The U.S. trade deficit in fresh or frozen fish rose from $409 million in 1996 to $1.4

billion in 2000. U.S. imports of fresh or frozen fish, including frozen groundfish

fillets and fresh Atlantic salmon, rose from $2.2 billion in 1996 to $3.1 billion in

2000. The principal sources of U.S. imports during 1996-00 were Canada (23

percent), Chile (12 percent), and China (7 percent). U.S. exports of fresh or frozen

fish, such as surimi and frozen salmon, fell from $1.8 billion in 1996 to $1.3 billion

in 1998, before partially recovering to $1.7 billion in 2000. The main markets for

U.S. exports during 1996-00 were Japan (59 percent), Canada (13 percent), and

the European Union (10 percent).

• Global production of fresh or frozen fish products reached 17.1 million metric tons

(mmt) in 1999, up slightly from the average of 17.0 mmt produced annually during

1996-98. The largest producers are China, Japan, the United States, and Norway,

with a combined share of 42 percent of world production in 1999. From 1996 to

1999, world exports rose from 11.2 mmt to 11.8 mmt in quantity and from $20.3

billion to $22.4 billion in value. As a share of production volume, world exports

rose from 65 percent in 1996 to 69 percent in 1999.

• Declining resource abundance is the greatest problem facing the U.S. and many

foreign industries, both in terms of domestic supply of harvested fish and the

volume of fish available worldwide for import. Increasingly, the world’s most

valuable fisheries are becoming depleted through a combination of overfishing and

industrial (i.e., coastline) development. Aquaculture will play a growing role in

offsetting the declining availability of fish harvested from the seas.

 

1

 Shellfish, canned fish, and cured or otherwise prepared fish are covered in other Industry

and Trade Summaries.

 

2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes From the United States and Canada, 4th

ed., American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 12, 1980.

3

INTRODUCTION

Background and Summary

This Industry and Trade Summary covers fresh or frozen fish, except shellfish.1 Information

is provided on the structure of the U.S. industry, importers and exporters, and consumers.

Additional information is provided on certain foreign industries, domestic and foreign tariff

and nontariff trade measures, and the performance of the U.S. industry in domestic and

foreign markets. Fresh or frozen fish falls under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code

2092, Fresh and Frozen Processed Fish and Seafood, and under North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) Code 311712, Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing (both

include shellfish). Imports and exports of fresh or frozen finfish are recorded under headings

0302-0304 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). This report

generally covers the period 1996 through 2000, providing earlier historical data when

necessary, to show longer term trends. Appendix A contains an explanation of tariff and trade

agreement terms.

Finfish are limbless, vertebrate animals that live in salt- and freshwater bodies in every region

of the world. Taxonomists have divided the more than 20,000 known species into three

classes: Agnatha are the most primitive fishes, and include lampreys and other jawless fish;

Chondrichthyes include sharks, stingrays, and other lungless fishes with cartilage instead of

bones; and Osteichthyes, the most developed, are bony fishes with lungs.2 Most fishes have

scales and are cold-blooded; however, some, such as trout and catfish, have no scales, and

some, such as tuna, are warm-blooded. Fish range in size from the smallest, the half-inch

Philippine goby, to the largest, the 50-foot whale shark. The bluefin tuna, weighing in at more

than 1,000 pounds, is the largest bony fish. Most fish species yield edible meat, but only a few

are commercially important. Seafood is an important source of protein and in some island

nations (such as Japan and Iceland) it is the principal type of meat consumed.

The U.S. fresh or frozen fish industry consists of four largely distinct sectors: fishing

(harvesting), aquaculture, onshore processing, and offshore processing (factory ships).

Harvesting and onshore processing are, by far, the largest sectors and they form the traditional

base of the industry. Aquaculture and factory ships are relatively new developments in the

U.S. industry (but are well developed and common in foreign industries) and have only a small

place in the U.S. market to date. However, the future potential, especially for aquaculture, is

significant.

Within the harvesting and processing sectors, there are further, equally important divisions

based on geographic location and species of fish. The salmon fishermen and processors of

Alaska, for example, can be seen in some respects as a distinct industry; they are influenced
 

3

 Data from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations database. This database

can be accessed at www.fao.org/fi/statist/statist.asp.

4

only remotely by events in the fishery or market for cod in New England, flounder in the Gulf

of Mexico, or tuna in the so-called “distant-water” U.S. fisheries of the South Pacific.

Similarly, trout farmers in Idaho are neither directly affected by the supply of mackerel in the

Gulf nor severely threatened by the farming of shrimp anywhere. 

In the United States, the largest markets for fresh or frozen fish are supermarkets,

fishmongers, restaurants, and other retail links in the marketing chain between harvesters and

households. The growth of chains of fast-food and seafood restaurants has been especially

responsible for the growth in U.S. consumption of frozen fish and, indirectly, of fresh fish.

They have introduced seafood to many consumers, who are then more likely to buy fish at

stores for home consumption. Other markets for fresh or frozen fish include the export market,

which is of declining importance to the U.S. industry (see below), and canneries and curing

facilities, which are discussed in more detail in other Industry and Trade Summaries.

The world harvest of freshwater and saltwater fish (excluding shellfish) totaled 78.6 million

metric tons in 1999 (the latest available year), down only slightly from the record harvest of

80.9 million metric tons set in 1996.3 The former USSR was for many years the largest

harvester (in terms of volume), and Russia continues to rank in the top three harvesting

nations. Japan has for many years challenged Russia’s top spot with occasional success, and

the United States has been catching up to them in recent years. Together, Russia, Japan and

the United States account for about 15 percent of the world’s commercial fish harvest.

In addition to the commercial harvest, aquaculture (or fish farming) supplied another

21.5 million metric tons in 1999 (a record), for a total world fish supply of over 100 million

metric tons or more than 220 billion pounds, equal to more than 30 pounds of fish per person

on the planet. China has long been the world’s dominant aquaculturist, with extensive

freshwater farms that in 1999 produced 14.2 million metric tons of fish, or two-thirds of the

world’s total. China’s production has been steadily rising, and the 1999 supply was double

that of just six years earlier.

Of the global supply of fish, more than half is marketed in fresh or frozen form. About threefifths of this is in fresh form, compared with one-half in fresh form a decade earlier. Industry

and academic sources suggest that the rise in the share of supply held by fresh fish is due to

improved infrastructure (e.g., transportation) as well as incomes that enable consumers to

demand higher-valued fresh fish products.

The largest exporter of fresh or frozen fish is Norway, with about 12 percent of the world

total (by value) in recent years. The United States follows with eight percent (a share that is

steadily declining, for reasons discussed later in this report). The largest exporting nations’

global shares are shown in the following tabulation of FAO data based on the value of fresh

or frozen fish exports:
5

Exporter

1996-99

share

Percent

Norway ......................... 11.8

United States ..................... 7.7

Taiwan ......................... 6.5

Denmark ........................ 6.1

China ........................... 4.4

Chile ........................... 4.2

Canada ......................... 4.0

On the import side, the largest importer of fresh or frozen fish by far is Japan, whose 27-

percent share is more than twice that of the second largest importer, the United States (12

percent). Those and other large importing nations’ global shares are shown in the following

tabulation of FAO data based on the value of fresh or frozen fish imports:

Importer

1996-99

share

Percent

Japan .......................... 26.6

United States ..................... 12.2

Spain ........................... 6.1

France .......................... 6.0

Germany ........................ 5.6

Italy ............................ 4.2

Denmark ........................ 4.1

The Production Process

Harvesting Technology

Fish destined for the fresh or frozen markets (and indeed, for all other seafood markets) are

either harvested in the wild or raised by aquaculturists in coastal or inland fish farms. Wild

harvest is the traditional method of production in most regions, including North America. U.S.

harvesters and those of other developed economies employ a variety of fish-harvesting

techniques. The particular technique employed depends on the species targeted by the

harvester and on the eventual market. For example, large bag-shaped nets (called purse seines)

are best suited for skipjack tuna and herring, which are schooling fish and are destined for

canneries that generally are unconcerned about the bruising and other damage often done to

fish by large nets. Bluefin tuna, on the other hand, are usually destined for the Japanese sushi
 

4

 The terms aquaculture and mariculture are often used interchangeably; however, mariculture

– the raising of plants and animals in seawater – is a branch of the broader activity aquaculture.

In the United States, freshwater aquaculture is important for some finfish (e.g., catfish and trout),

while mariculture is used primarily for shellfish and seaplants, which are covered in other

Industry and Trade Summaries.

6

market, so they often are caught by traditional hook-and-line methods that preserve the high

quality of the freshly caught fish. Cod, haddock, and other species of groundfish dwell on the

ocean bottom and are best harvested with large, bottom-dragging nets called otter trawls. Most

harvesting methods require significant investment in labor and capital: a complement of 10

to 12 crewmembers on a harvesting vessel is not uncommon, and the cost of a vessel

(including hull, gear, and electronic sonar and other equipment) can range anywhere from

$50,000 for a small trawler to $20 million for a large tuna purse seiner.

Aquaculture Technology

Aquaculture is a recent development in the U.S. fish industry, although it has been practiced

for centuries in other countries, particularly in Asia.4 Its growing popularity in the United

States is due primarily to the rising cost of harvesting fish from depleted wild stocks of certain

commercially important fisheries. Aquaculture has thus been used mainly for relatively

valuable species (such as salmon); it is a particularly important source of supply to the fresh

or frozen fish markets, where fish usually command higher prices than for canning, curing,

or other purposes.

Aquaculture technology is relatively straightforward. From eggs, fish larvae are raised in

small containers (usually in hatcheries or other laboratories). Once the fry have reached a

certain size (e.g., a few centimeters in length), they are released into large swimming pool-like

tanks encased in concrete or fiberglass or into pens enclosed with netting that are suspended

in a bay, estuary, or fjord whose circulation keeps the tanks or pens supplied with clean water.

Once the fish reach marketable size they are harvested from the tanks or pens with nets and

shipped to market. Labor requirements consist mainly of skilled hatchery technicians.

Employment of family members is common in some aquaculture sectors. Capital investment

can be quite substantial, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, because of the high cost of

sophisticated incubator tanks, grow-out tanks, and other specialized equipment. According to

industry sources, apparent economies of scale can reduce unit costs in large aquaculture

operations. Facilities that do not raise their own larvae must buy them from hatcheries, which

can be more expensive than raising them oneself.

The main advantage to aquaculture is the reduction of the biological risk of supply

fluctuations. That is, the aquaculturist can more effectively control the number, size, and

quality of the harvested fish. The fisherman, in contrast, is at the mercy of weather, fish

abundance, and other elements of “fishing luck.” In essence, therefore, aquaculture is to

traditional fishing what farming is to hunting and gathering.
 

5

 Through joint ventures, foreign factory ships also buy fish “over the side” from U.S.

harvesters at sea. These joint ventures, authorized after application to the Departments of State

and Commerce, provide an outlet for “surplus” fish that otherwise might not find a market

because domestic demand is insufficient. Such fish are classified as U.S. exports if the transfer

takes place in the U.S. Customs Territory (i.e., within the 12-nautical-mile U.S. territorial limit),

but if the transfer takes place beyond 12 nautical miles (within the 200-nautical-mile Exclusive

Economic Zone) they are usually classified as landings in a foreign port and may be included in

the foreign country’s import data. Source: Commission staff communication with National

Marine Fisheries Service, Oct. 31, 2000.

 

6

 A fillet is a boneless (or nearly so) cut of meat from the side of the fish, cut along the body

from just behind the gills to near the tail. A steak is a cross section cut, usually with part of the

backbone and vertibrae intact.

7

Processing Technology

The principal market for both harvesters and aquaculturists is the processing sector. Fish

processors are found both onshore and, less typically, offshore (on large factory ships).

Onshore processors produce both fresh and frozen products, while factory ships generally

produce frozen products (or other seafoods, such as canned fish). Fresh-fish processing is

highly labor-intensive, mainly in the scaling, beheading, and filleting processes. These

processes have been automated to some extent, but the success of filleting machines, for

example, depends on high volume and consistent fish sizes, which the vagaries of fishing luck

make difficult to control. Frozen-fish processing is more capital intensive, largely because of

the additional investments in freezers, as well as the breaders, cookers, and other equipment

used by makers of fish sticks and other frozen fish products.

Factory ships are less common in the U.S. industry than in foreign industries such as Japan

and Russia, mainly because U.S. harvesters need not travel far from their coastline to find rich

fishery resources; their proximity to the coastline enables them to deliver their catch to

onshore processors. In contrast, the fishing fleets of Japan, Russia, and some other nations

have relatively few undepleted resources near their own shores (or they have a limited

continental shelf), so they must travel great distances to find fish. Factory ships of these

nations follow the harvesting fleets (or are equipped to do their own harvesting) to reduce the

spoilage of unprocessed fish.5

Products

The U.S. seafood industry produces numerous fresh or frozen fish products. The most

important, in terms of the value and volume produced, are fillets and steaks.6 U.S. production

of fresh or frozen fillets and steaks peaked in 1998, when production reached 199,000 metric

tons, valued at $1 billion, as shown in the following tabulation of data from the U.S.

Department of Commerce:
 

7

 All statistical tables may be found in Appendix B.

8

Item 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

All fillets and steaks:

Value (million dollars) ... 886 961 1,002 807 830

Quantity (1,000 mt) ...... 181 186 199 164 168

Groundfish fillets:

Value (million dollars) ... 447 457 486 469 401

Quantity (1,000 mt) ...... 126 114 129 111 119

Cod and Alaska pollock have traditionally been the principal species used to make fresh or

frozen fillets. However, dwindling cod stocks in Atlantic waters have led to a recent decline

in importance of this species, from 22 percent of all fillets in 1997 to 15 percent in 1999.

Factors behind these dwindling stocks, and government efforts to limit fishing and restore the

fish stocks, are discussed later in this report.

Most frozen fillets of groundfish (cod, haddock, pollock, etc.) are used in the production of

frozen blocks, from which are cut sticks, squares, and other shapes to make breaded fish

products for supermarkets, fast-food outlets, and other retailers. The bulk of the U.S. block

supply, however, is imported.

Fish steaks are generally processed from larger fish, including halibut, swordfish, and tuna.

Additional supplies come from shark and salmon. As with fillets, the supply of steaks is

affected by resource abundance for these species, and government regulatory efforts (see

below) that restrict U.S. harvests -- the principal supply of raw material for domestically

produced steaks and fillets.

U.S. INDUSTRY PROFILE

Production Levels and Trends

U.S. fresh or frozen fish production comes from two sources, commercial fisheries and

aquaculture. U.S. commercial fish landings (the harvest by commercial fishermen) totaled 3.6

million metric tons in 2000, down by 8 percent from the 1996 harvest of 3.9 million metric

tons (table B-1).7 The ex-vessel (or first-level) value of the harvest also declined, from

$2.3 billion in 1996 to $2.1 billion in 2000, a drop of 6 percent. Chief in value among the

many species harvested by U.S. fishermen is tuna, most of which is harvested for the cannery

sector, much of which is located offshore in U.S. possessions such as American Samoa. The

tuna harvest dropped sharply in 2000, after several years of stronger harvests, owing to

several factors including the availability of tuna itself, which is affected by environmental

conditions such as El Niño. The 2000 tuna harvest of $632 million accounted for 30 percent
 

8

 National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1998, Current Fisheries

Statistics Series No. 9800, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, July 1999; p. 96. Includes craft harvesting finfish and shellfish.

9

of the combined value of all U.S. fish harvests. In second place is salmon, which earned

harvesters in the North Pacific and adjacent rivers $270 million in 2000, or 13 percent of total

commercial landings. The value of the salmon catch has fallen sharply from levels during the

early 1990s, a result of both lower catches and lower prices. The species accounting for the

greatest landings volume is Alaska pollock, which reached almost 1.2 million metric tons in

2000 (33 percent of the U.S. total volume), but the total value of this low-priced species

accounted for only 8 percent of the industry total (table B-1).

Aquaculture is a smaller sector than commercial fishing, but it is an increasingly important

source of fish supply. U.S. aquaculture production reached $687 million in 1999 (the latest

available year), an increase of 7.4 percent from the 1995 level of $605 million (table B-2).

The 1999 output equaled about one-third and the value and one-tenth of the volume of the

previously discussed commercial landings in that year. Much fewer species are cultivated

than are commercially fished, but those species that are cultivated are relatively more valuable

than the average and they provide a significant share of total supply. Of additional

importance, the greater predictability of supply from aquaculture gives this sector a

competitive edge over the commercial fishery sector, particularly in the institutional trade

(e.g., restaurants). The most valuable cultivated fish by far is catfish: production reached

271,000 metric tons, valued at $439 million, in 1999, up by 26 percent in quantity and 20

percent in value from 1996. Other valuable types of cultivated fish include salmon and trout,

accounting for 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively, of total aquaculture value in 1999.

Tilapia, whose aquaculture is popular in other countries, accounted for an additional 4 percent

of the value of U.S. aquaculture production during much of the 1996-99 period.

Number of Firms and Employment

Figure 1 presents a profile of the U.S. fresh or frozen fish industry. The largest segment of the

industry in terms of number of firms, employment, and value added, is the harvesters. In

1998,the latest available year, there were 72,916 U.S. commercial fishing craft, of which twothirds were “boats” (craft displacing less than 5 net registered tons) and one-third were

“vessels” (craft 5 net registered tons and over).8 Harvesting craft can range in size and scale

from dories and other small boats that must be rowed, to “superseiners,” hundreds of feet

long, carrying their own helicopter and fleet of small speedboats (used to find and encircle

schools of fish). As most harvesting craft have multiple uses, the fleet in any one fishery

fluctuates considerably from year to year, and from season to season, depending on the

fortunes to be had in the target fishery relative to alternative species or geographic regions.

The processing segment of the industry consists of numerous, mostly privately held firms that

in virtually all cases produce multiple products (e.g., fillets of different species). The smallest

firms tend to produce only fresh products (because of the high cost of freezing equipment),

while the largest tend to produce only frozen products (which are often sold under nationally

known brand names and are more differentiable by brand than fresh fillets). In 1998, the latest

available year, there were 5,150 U.S. fish processing plants, employing an annual (as opposed

to seasonal) average of 118,000 workers (table B-3).
10

Figure 1

Fresh or frozen fish: Structure of the U.S. industry and market

Imports Harvesters Aquaculture

Foreign

joint

venture

Auction/

cooperative/

direct

Onshore

processors/

factory ships

Wholesalers/

direct

Exports

Restaurants/

hotels

Retailers/

Grocers

The U.S. fresh or frozen fish industry is covered under Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) Code 2092, Fresh and Frozen Processed Fish and Seafood, and in the North American

Industry Classification system under U.S. Industry 311712, Fresh and Frozen Seafood

Processing. Both include shellfish. 

Fresh or frozen fish is marketed mainly through retail outlets, such as grocery stores and

fishmongers, and through the institutional trade (e.g., schools and hospitals). Consumption is

largely a function of demographics, season, customs, and price. As with all seafoods, health

concerns about fat and cholesterol probably also play a role in demand. The U.S. production

of fresh or frozen fish, like other seafood production, is regulated on a voluntary basis at the

Federal (Department of Commerce) level. Seafood inspection is a policy issue of concern to

industry and consumers alike, and is discussed further later in this report.
 

9

 The license fee can reflect, in part, the value or cost of another vital “input” into fish

harvesting, the fish resource itself. In some cases, license fees are explicitly intended to siphon

off the surplus value (or “rent”) from this resource, while in others, the fee serves to restrict the

number of harvesters and relieve fishing pressure from a depleted resource. Fee income at both

the Federal and State levels frequently is earmarked for resource management and research.

 

10 Sources: Classified ads in Commercial Fisheries News, June 2000, and National

Fisherman, July 2000.

 

11 Source: Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, February 2001;

table B-73.

11

Input and Production Costs

Harvesting

The principal inputs into the harvesting of fish are the vessel (hull, nets, electronic equipment,

etc.), fuel, and labor. In some regulated fisheries, license fees are additional and can be quite

substantial.9 Vessels can be acquired either new or used. If new, the craft is usually built to

order. In some fisheries, especially depleted ones, harvesters may be losing money and such

cases used vessels can be purchased less expensively. The following tabulation is a sample

of recent asking prices for used U.S. fishing craft:10

Item Asking price

14' wood skiff ..................... $1,250

22' aluminum boat ................. 18,500

26' “Downeast” style:

With electronics .............. 55,000

Without electronics ........... 49,500

34' lobster/tuna boat ............... 42,000

40' dragger ...................... 65,000

51' longliner ...................... 220,000

53' gillnetter, includes permits ........ 250,000

55' steel dragger (no age given), full

electronics and permits ......... 245,000

68' tuna/swordfish longliner .......... 165,000

An important component of the capital cost of harvesting is the interest rate charged on the

loan for the craft’s purchase (or, equivalently the interest foregone on the money invested in

a craft owned free and clear). The following tabulation shows the trend in mortgage yields (as

a proxy for the long-term loan required to finance most crafts):11

Year

New-home

mortgage yield

1996 ........................... 7.80

1997 ........................... 7.71

1998 ........................... 7.07

1999 ........................... 7.04

2000 ........................... 7.55
 

12 “Fishing has consistently ranked as the most deadly occupation since 1992, when [the

Bureau of Labor Sadistics] started publishing fatality rates by occupation.” Dino Drudi, “Fishing

for a living is dangerous work,” Compensation and Working Conditions (U.S. Department of

Labor), Summer 1998, p. 3.

12

By this measure, the annual cost of financing a harvesting vessel declined steadily, from $7.80

per $100 borrowed in 1996 to $7.04 per $100 borrowed in 1999, before rising to $7.55 in

2000.

The principal variable costs of harvesting are fuel and labor. The trend in the cost of fuel can

be represented by the year-end producer price index for diesel fuel, as reported by the Bureau

of Labor Statistics (index 1982 = 100):

Year

Number 2

diesel fuel

1996 ........................... 75.7

1997 ........................... 58.6

1998 ........................... 38.8

1999 ........................... 72.4

2000 ........................... xx.x

By this index, the producer-level price of diesel fuel moved erratically during 1996-00. There

was an especially large change in the index in the last two years, from 38.8 in 1998 to xx.x

in 2000, an annual increase of xx percent.

The cost of labor in fish harvesting is more difficult to evaluate. The crew on many if not most

harvesting craft are paid on the “lay” system: they receive a share of the proceeds from the

sale of the catch. In a typical case, the gross proceeds from the sale of the catch are split

between the “crew share” and the “boat share” (the owner’s share). Expenses for the fishing

trip are split between the crew and boat: items such as food may be deducted from the crew

share; expenses for fuel and boat maintenance may be deducted from the boat share. Different

craft have different specific arrangements for such expenses. Further, of the overall crew

share, different crew members get different shares: the captain, mate, and engineer usually get

a greater share than a deckhand, and a seasoned deckhand gets a greater share than one with

limited experience. A captain who owns the boat gets both the captain’s and boat’s shares.

Thus, there is no straightforward way to measure the labor cost of a day fished, nor a standard

way to determine the labor cost of a ton of harvested fish. If no fish are harvested during a

week’s voyage, the labor cost is zero (disregarding expenses for crew food, etc.). If the sale

price for a trip’s catch is greater than the previous trip’s catch, the labor cost rises (because

the crew get a share of the sale) even though the tonnage of the catch may be the same.

Employment on a commercial fishing craft is the riskiest job in the United States,12 but it can

be highly remunerative: industry sources report that the average annual income of a deckhand

on an Alaskan crab or halibut harvesting craft can easily reach $100,000.
 

13 Daily and weekly fresh or frozen fish prices are also available electronically from the

Commerce Department at www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/index.html. These prices are in turn re-reported

internationally, along with prices in other world markets, on Internet sites such as

http://www.pesca.ismea.it and the Tokyo-based http://www.fis.com.

13

Processing 

Processing of fresh or frozen fish can be a cyclical business, with seasonal ups and downs

depending upon the abundance of fish inputs. Some smaller plants are closed for part of the

year for lack of alternative uses for fixed capital when the fishing season is over, while others

do have other, unrelated uses for plant assets. Therefore, actual employment in fish processing

also fluctuates, and there is a difference between seasonal and year-round equivalent

employment. Table B-3 presents data on the number of firms and employment in the

production of fresh or frozen fish in the United States.

Information on labor productivity in fish processing is provided in table B-4. Productivity has

fluctuated a great deal in recent years. On an average employment basis, pounds produced per

employee ranged from a low of 3,184 pounds (in 1996) to an estimated high of 3,718 pounds

(in 1998).

Marketing

The marketing of fish at the dockside or ex-vessel level is uncomplicated. The three principal

methods are direct sales from boat owners to wholesalers or processors; direct sales from

fishermen-owned cooperatives to wholesalers or processors; and auctions. In all cases, price

and quality are the key factors influencing buying decisions. Reliability of supply is desired

but, especially at the dockside level of marketing, is governed by nature more than anything

else. Fishermen’s cooperatives help increase reliability because they pool the “luck” of many

harvesters. They also give harvesters more influence over price and can improve quality by

implementing grading programs and other quality-control mechanisms that are too costly for

the individual harvester. Certain key locations set or influence prices for large surrounding

regions. The best example of this is New York’s Fulton Fish Market, the largest U.S. fish

market, whose prices influence dockside and wholesale prices along much of the eastern

seaboard and to lesser degrees, throughout much of the country. Daily and weekly ex-vessel

and wholesale prices at Boston, New Bedford, New York, Pascagoula, Seattle, and other

markets are published by the Department of Commerce.13

Although fish processors in the U.S. industry are sometimes vertically integrated upstream

into harvesting, they generally do not own or operate downstream marketing operations past

the wholesale stage. Rather, they rely on brokers and other distributors to market their product

to retailers. Such distributors often handle a wide variety of food products in addition to fresh

or frozen fish, which eases the marketing of such fish to large buyers such as supermarket

chains.

Fresh or frozen fish often is sold as a bulk, unbranded commodity in a simple marketing

process. This is especially true of fresh fish, which is often sold completely unbranded. Frozen

fish is usually sold under brand names. In some areas of the institutional trade, such as
 

14 Information on the economic and biological state of U.S. saltwater fisheries is available

from National Marine Fisheries Service, Our Living Oceans, U.S. Department of Commerce,

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-41 (1999), which may be found at

http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/olo99.htm. 

 

15 The Canadian industry, which shares the Northwest Atlantic resources, suffers similar lowabundance problems.

 

16 The experiences of these two fisheries illustrates a classic dilemma in renewable-resource

industries, particularly unregulated ones: high-valued resources become depleted and their yield

declines, which raises the product price, which attracts further harvesting and further declines in

yield. Low-valued fisheries, in contrast, exhibit “normal” upward-sloping supply behavior. This

creates a backward-bending supply curve for the product(s) from unregulated or open-access

fisheries. See, e.g., L. Anderson, The Economics of Fisheries Management (Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins, 1986). Regulatory efforts in commercial (and recreational) fisheries, discussed below,

typically are intended and designed to restrict harvesting effort and raise long-run or sustainable

yields.

14

schools and hospitals, brand and processor reputation are not very important because the final

consumer does not have a selection available and cannot make a choice between brands or

nationalities. For other institutions, especially restaurants, consistent quality and supply are

paramount and a reliable supplier can obtain premium prices for its fish. Here, aquaculture

has been influential because it enables the consistent quality and supply that allows

restaurants to put fish on the menu with the certainty that they will have it when the patron

orders it.

The nature of competition between imported and domestically produced fish also depends on

brands and on the marketing channel. For generic, bulk-marketed products, the imported

product is indistinguishable from, and is marketed in direct competition with, the domestic

product. The price is the same for either. For products where the label is important, however,

there are consumers who prefer domestic over imported and vice versa. Some buyers, such

as the Departments of Defense and Agriculture, are obligated to “buy American.”

Resource Abundance

One of the most important determinants of the economic state of a nation’s fish industry is the

abundance of fishery resources available to it. Abundant resources yield greater harvests at

lower unit costs than depleted ones. Although aquaculture supplies an increasing share of

world seafood consumption, a larger share still comes from the fish harvest from natural

stocks. But the principal resources traditionally fished by U.S. fishermen and most of their

foreign competitors currently yield their maximum harvest, and indeed, many resources are

depleted past the optimum point and yields are declining.

In the United States, many traditional and commercially important fisheries from all marine

regions – the Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Alaska coasts – are being harvested at or beyond

optimal levels.14 In the Northeast region, the demersal (bottom-feeding) fishery is at 56 percent

of its potential yield, due largely to overutilized cod, haddock, and flounder resources.15 The

pelagic (surface-feeding) fisheries of this region (e.g., mackerel and herring) also are well

under their potential yield but this is because weak markets for their products induce underrather than overutilization.16 In the Southeast, Gulf and Caribbean regions, reef fish are

heavily overutilized, and sharks are becoming more so. On the West Coast, where Pacific
 

17 Food and Agriculture Organization, Review of the State of World Fishery Resources: 

Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Circular No. 920 FIRM/C920, Marine Resources Service, Fishery

Resources Division, Fisheries Department (Rome: FAO, 1997).

 

18 Anderson, J.L., "Market Interactions Between Aquaculture and the Common Property

Commercial Fishery," Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1985), pp. 1-24.

15

salmon supports much of the industry, all five major salmon species are fully or overutilized,

with a combined yield at 52 percent of its potential (i.e., if optimally managed). Alaskan

salmon fisheries are in stronger shape and the salmon stocks are generally underutilized, as

are the flatfish (e.g., halibut) stocks. 

For the United States as a whole, 54 of the 160 fish stocks whose abundance status is known

are overutilized, 75 are fully utilized, and 31 are underutilized. As indicated, market

conditions are the key factor: without harvesting restrictions, fisheries with strong demand

tend to be heavily utilized and abundance may decline to the point that yields actually fall,

while those with weak demand remain abundant.

In other parts of the world, many fisheries are similarly overutilized.17 The problems faced in

the groundfish fisheries off the east coast of Canada and the United States are shared across

the Atlantic in Europe, where EU regulations are in place to limit the decline of important

fisheries such as cod and herring. This is no easy task, because of the competing claims by

the fleets of the various EU member states to fishing grounds they have occupied for

generations. In many regions of the world the problems of overutilization are worsened by the

effects of periodic environmental phenomena, such as El Niño in the Pacific waters off Latin

America, which alter ocean temperatures, coastal water salinity, and fish reproduction and

migratory patterns.

These resource abundance problems can be resolved not only with restrictions on harvesting

effort, but also with aquaculture. Aquaculture does not suffer from the backward-bending

supply behavior observed in open-access fisheries; the supply of aquacultured fish moves

directly with price and is constrained mainly by technology, rather than nature. More

important for the fate of ocean fisheries, however, is the potential effect of aquaculture

supplies on the prices received by harvesters of competing products. The supply of farmed

salmon, for example, can put downward pressure on the prices of “wild” salmon, thereby

reducing the incentive to harvest that resource. For overutilized fisheries, therefore,

competition from aquaculture may, perversely, lead to increased yields in the long run.18
 

19 21 CFR Parts 123 and 1240.

 

20 National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Fisheries of the United

States, 1998, p. 98.

 

21 FAO data discussed herein are for commodities provided for under HTS headings 0302

through 0304.

16

Government Regulations Affecting the U.S. Fresh or Frozen

Fish Industry

Unlike other U.S. meat products for human consumption, domestically produced seafood is

not subject to mandatory Federal inspection. There is, however, a voluntary inspection

program carried out by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). This Federal inspection

service, unlike mandatory inspection programs for other meats, is a fee-for-service program.

In addition to the inspection service, USDC operates a fee-for-service grading program which

distinguishes between products of differing levels of quality (e.g., “Grade A” versus the lessrestrictive “Lot Inspected”).

Services provided by the inspection program include vessel and plant sanitation, product

inspection and grading, label reviews, product specification reviews, laboratory analyses,

training, education, and information. In addition, consultative services are provided in foreign

countries, and inspection and certification services are provided for imported and exported

products. The USDC inspection program also enforces the mandatory Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) programs. In 1997, FDA implemented its Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP) rule19 regarding “Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing

and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products.” All seafood firms must be in compliance with

this rule, and the Commerce Department program provides HAACP training, implementation

assistance, and verification service to ensure such compliance.20 The number of establishments

and volume of product (all seafood, including fresh or frozen fish) inspected by the Commerce

Department in 1998 and 2000 are shown in table B-5.

FOREIGN INDUSTRY PROFILE

Overview

In 1999, world production of fresh or frozen fish products exceeded 17.1 million metric tons,

slightly above the 1996-98 average of 17 million metric tons (table B-6).21 More than 100

countries have reported production of fresh or frozen fish to the FAO in recent years. Nearly

half of world production of fresh or frozen fish products in 1999 was concentrated in Asia,

mainly along the Pacific Rim. Of particular importance are China (17 percent of the 1996-99

world total) and Japan (13 percent). Another 11 percent of world production comes from the

European Union, mainly the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom (each

with about 2 percent). The U.S. industry accounted for 6 percent of world production during
 

22 Joel Garreau, The Nine Nations of North America (New York: Avon Books, 1981).

Garreau suggested that, for many geographic regions in North America, such as the area

consisting of the Atlantic Provinces and New England, regional social and economic interests

outweigh the political boundary that the region overlaps. 

 

23 “Groundfish” is the common name for a group of demersal fish (fish that feed on the ocean

bottom, as opposed to pelagic or surface-feeding fish). The main species are cod, cusk, hake,

haddock, flounders and other flatfish, pollock, and ocean perch. 

 

24 Following extensions of fishery jurisdiction in 1977, both countries claimed parts of

Georges Bank, which both nations had fished for generations. The resulting protracted dispute

(continued...)

17

1996-99. The other NAFTA members, Canada and Mexico, each contributed about 1 percent

of the world’s output of fresh or frozen fish products.

The location of fish processing firms throughout the world, and the resulting patterns of

international trade in processed products, vary by species because of the economic incentive

to locate processing establishments near the raw material, raw fish. In addition, there are

inherent differences between the various species, making the final product from one species

distinct from another in the consumer’s view, as discussed elsewhere in this report. The main

products and species processed by the world’s fresh or frozen fish industries are listed in table

B-7. A basket category, “Frozen fillets,” HTS subheading 0304.20, covers about 12 percent

of world production. Another 11 percent of world production is covered by frozen tuna., HTS

subheadings 0303.41-0303.49. Frozen mackerel, HTS subheading 0303.74, accounts for 6

percent.

Prices of fresh or frozen fish, as measured by average export prices on world markets, have

exhibited mixed trends in recent years (table B-8). Notable shifts include declines in price for

frozen sardines (-33 percent during 1996-99), frozen herring (-28 percent) and frozen

mackerel (-24 percent). Large increases in prices include those for frozen Pacific salmon (26

percent), and frozen hake (19 percent). On average, export prices of fresh or frozen fish

products rose from $1.82 per kilogram in 1996 to $1.89 per kilogram in 1999. 

Of the major foreign industries, Canada and Japan are of greatest importance to the U.S.

industry and market.

Canada

The Canadian fresh or frozen fish industry is of interest because of its direct competition with

U.S. harvesters and processors. This competition is felt in two ways: on the fishing grounds,

where many fish resources are shared by both nations’ harvesters, and in the U.S.

marketplace, which is the biggest market for both nations’ industries. Indeed, one observer

went so far as to suggest that the two nations’ industries should be viewed as one, divided only

by a political boundary.22

Considerable international competition is found on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Harvesters from the Maritime Provinces face off against harvesters from New England for the

groundfish resources23 on Georges Bank (due east of Cape Cod and south of Nova Scotia) and

the Gulf of Maine, two of the richest fishing grounds in the world.24 On the Pacific side, the
 

24 (...continued)

eventually was resolved by the International Court of Justice in 1986. The Court’s decision to

split the fishing grounds down the middle, which both nations’ governments accepted, settled the

political dispute. However, it did not end the two industries’ conflict; to this day, the Canadian

Coast Guard routinely tracks down and apprehends U.S. harvesters found illegally fishing in

Canadian waters.

 

25 For further information on the Pacific salmon dispute and agreement, see United States

International Trade Commission, The Year in Trade: Operation of the Trade Agreements

Program During 1997, USITC Publication 3103 (May 1998); and The Year in Trade 1999: 

Operation of the Trade Agreements Program, USITC Publication 3336 (Aug. 2000).

 

26 One aspect of the Pacific dispute is rooted in history: there remains some disagreement over

the proper delimitation of the maritime extension of the U.S.-Canada land boundary (the “54o40'

or fight” parallel made famous by early 19th-century American extremists in the dispute with

Great Britain over the Oregon territory and later used during the 1844 presidential campaign of

James Polk).

 

27 Full-time and part-time employment depends on how much of the year is spent fishing.

However, in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, weather prevents fishermen from

working more than a few months a year; but they have few or no other employment

opportunities. Therefore, the extent of full-time fishing employment (in the sense of dependency

on the fishery for a livelihood) is probably understated by the reported statistics.

18

fishermen of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest States compete with British Columbia

harvesters for the rich salmon resources of the Northeast Pacific, fed by fish spawning in the

Columbia, Frasier, and other rivers. After many years of sometimes violent confrontation, this

competition led in 1999 to a final agreement on a bilateral treaty that lays out the rights (the

amount of fish each nation may harvest) and responsibilities (relating to resource

management) belonging to each nation.25 As with the Atlantic groundfish dispute, it may take

longer to resolve the economic aspects of the Pacific salmon dispute than the political

aspects.26

As suggested by the two disputes above, considerable U.S.-Canadian conflict over fisheries

centers on the different fishery management policies employed by the respective governments.

In particular, industry interests on both sides of the border believe that Canada exercises more

effective management control over its resources than does the United States. The problem

arises because, when two nations separately manage a shared fishery, the effectiveness of one

nation’s management actions is influenced by the management actions (and industry behavior)

of the other nation. For example, to the extent that one side overfishes its resource, the other

side suffers reduced resource abundance and higher harvesting costs. The potential conflict

is of particular concern to Canada because of the greater socioeconomic dependence of

Atlantic Canada than New England on the fishery. To date, however, only on the Pacific side

have the two nations even come close to agreement on a shared management scheme; no

effective system of cooperative management of shared U.S.-Canadian Atlantic fisheries has

yet been implemented.

There are about 40,000 registered fishing vessels in Canada, of which about 30,000 are found

in the Atlantic Provinces and the remainder are in British Columbia or freshwater fisheries.

These fleets are supported by a workforce of more than 100,000 full-time and part-time

fishermen, most of whom are in the groundfish fisheries of the Maritimes and

Newfoundland.27
 

28 Statistical Services Unit, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Landings

Information, found at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/stat_e.htm, retrieved 

Sept. 24, 2001. Value data expressed in U.S. dollars.

 

29 Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Databases

and Statistics, found at http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/statist.asp, retrieved Sept. 24, 2001.

19

In 2000, the Canadian harvest of finfish totaled 292,000 metric tons, at an overall value of

$85 million.28 Of this total, the Atlantic Provinces (the Maritimes, Quebec, and

Newfoundland-Labrador) accounted for 246,000 metric tons (or 84 percent of the total

quantity), valued at $52 million (61 percent of the total value). Atlantic groundfish landings

in 2000 totaled 151,000 metric tons, valued at $127 million.

Canadian production of fresh or frozen fish products totaled 134,000 metric tons in 1999,

down from 147,000 metric tons in 1998.29 This drop – the latest in an almost steady decline

in production since the peak year (340,000 metric tons) of 1988 – reflects continued severe

resource constraints, particularly in the heavily depleted Atlantic cod fisheries. The principal

products from the Canadian industry are fresh or frozen groundfish fillets and frozen blocks

(primarily Atlantic products), which accounted for more than half of the 1999 total.

Production of fresh or frozen Pacific salmon plummeted from 16,500 metric tons in 1995 to

7,700 metric tons in 1999, or by more than 50 percent.

Canada’s most important trading partner for fish products (and for trade generally) is the

United States. Total Canadian exports of fresh or frozen fish products reached 246,000 metric

tons, valued at $916 million in 1999, of which the U.S. market accounted for $705 million,

or 77 percent. On the import side, Canadian imports of fresh or frozen fish products in 1999

totaled 147,000 metric tons, valued at $430 million, of which the United States supplied $235

million, or 55 percent.

Japan

The Japanese fish industry supplies the world’s largest seafood market: Japan. However, it

does so with a fleet of harvesters that spends most of its time in other nations’ waters. This

is because Japan has a limited continental shelf, which reduces the plant life and plankton that

form the food chain on which larger, harvestable fish depend. Thus, Japan has traditionally

operated “distant water” fleets of trawlers, seiners, and other vessels, which typically deliver

to factory ships for further processing and/or to transport carriers that take the fish to onshore

processors and marketers.

One of the ways Japan obtains fish from other nations’ waters is through joint ventures, by

which Japanese factory ships take fish “over the side” from local harvesters. This helps both

nations: the harvesters have a ready buyer for their catch (without having to travel back to

onshore processors), and Japan has another source of fish. Joint ventures with U.S. harvesters

were popular in the North Pacific for many years, until the United States undertook an

“Americanization” policy of promoting U.S. processing and consumption of the harvest from

North Pacific fisheries.
20

In the 1970s many nations extended their offshore jurisdiction to 200 miles from the typical

12-mile territorial sea. The reduced access to foreign fishing grounds that began then set in

motion a transformation of the Japanese industry that continues to this day. Imports are

supplying a larger share of total seafood consumption. Much of the fleet of distant-water

harvesters has been refitted as refrigerated transport vessels for joint-venture operations. The

large fishing companies now do as much marketing as they do processing. Yet despite these

changes, the Japanese industry remains one of the world’s largest, with a fleet of modern,

highly efficient trawlers, longliners, and factory ships that numbers in the thousands. Onshore,

there is a complicated network of processing, wholesaling and retailing operations that is

concentrated both nationally and at the local market level. The aquaculture sector also is

making great strides as a means to replace lost ocean fisheries.

Japan is the major market for U.S. exports of fresh or frozen fish; such exports totaled

$898 million in 2000, or 53 percent of total U.S. exports. The principal product exported by

the United States to Japan is fresh or frozen Pacific salmon, which is prized for its flesh and

roe. Japan is not a significant source of U.S. imports, primarily because the large domestic

demand for seafood reduces the need to export. Overall, U.S. imports from Japan totaled $72

million in 2000, down from a peak of $93 million in 1997. By value, the main items imported

from Japan are frozen albacore (for canning), and frozen fillets of freshwater and other fish.

U.S. TRADE MEASURES

Tariffs and Nontariff Measures

U.S. tariffs on fresh or frozen fish imports for 2001 are presented in table B-9. Such tariffs

are affected by several trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round Agreement (URA) of the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade, which established the World Trade Organization (WTO). NAFTA directly affects

U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico, while U.S. obligations under the WTO affect trade with

most other nations. In addition, current or future negotiations under the auspices of other bior multilateral associations, such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, may also

affect future U.S. trade.

Under NAFTA, which incorporated the earlier U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the

United States eliminated its duties on fresh or frozen fish imports from Canada. In addition,

U.S. duties on fresh or frozen fish imports from Mexico are scheduled to be eliminated by the

year 2003. The NAFTA provisions relating to Canada affected $969 million in two-way trade

in 2000, while those with Mexico affected $58 million in two-way trade in 2000.

Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the United States agreed to bind its duties on

fresh or frozen fish against increases beyond certain specified levels (table B-9).
 

30 United States International Trade Commission, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from

Norway, Investigations No. 701-TA-302 and 731-TA-454 (Final), USITC Publication 2371 (Apr.

1991); and Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, Investigation No. 731-TA-768 (Final), USITC

Publication 3116 (July 1998).

 

31 The exact rate depends on the Norwegian exporting firm. The Norway-wide rate (applicable

to exporters not specifically assessed a duty) is 23.80 percent.

 

32 In a recent review, the Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing and

antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to the U.S. industry. United States International Trade Commission, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic

Salmon from Norway, Investigations No. 701-TA-302 (Review) and 731-TA-454 (Review),

USITC Publication 3282 (Feb. 2000). The Department of Commerce, in their review, found both

the level of subsidization and extent of dumping to be unchanged; thus, the duties were

unchanged. Federal Register, Feb. 4, 2000, pp. 5584-5587; and Feb. 7, 2000, pp. 5854-5857.

 

33 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Final Negative

Countervailing Duty Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile,” Federal Register, June

9, 1998, pp. 31437-47.

 

34 The exact rate depends on the Chilean exporting firm. The Chile-wide rate (applicable to

exporters not specifically assessed a duty) is 5.19 percent

21

U.S. Government Trade-Related Investigations

The injurious effects of U.S. imports of fresh Atlantic salmon have twice been the focus of

investigations by the USITC.30 The investigation concerning Norway resulted from a petition

brought by a coalition of salmon farmers in the States of Maine and Washington, alleging

injury from imports of fresh whole Atlantic salmon from Norway, the production and export

of which was alleged to be subsidized by the Norwegian Government and sold at less than fair

value (i.e., dumped). The petition ultimately was successful and led to antidumping duties of

18.39 to 31.81 percent31 and a countervailing duty of 2.27 percent.32

The investigation concerning Chile resulted from a petition brought by the same coalition of

U.S. salmon farmers, alleging injury from imports of fresh whole and filleted Atlantic salmon

from Chile, the production and export of which was alleged to be subsidized by the Chilean

Government and sold at less than fair value. The allegations regarding subsidization were

found by the Department of Commerce to be unsupported.33 However, the effort to

demonstrate dumping was successful and the investigations by Commerce and the

Commission led to antidumping duties of 0.21 to 10.91 percent.34
 

35 North American Free Trade Agreement, Annex 302.2, Tariff Schedule of Mexico

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).

 

36 North American Free Trade Agreement, Annex 302.2, Tariff Schedule of Canada

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).

22

FOREIGN TRADE MEASURES

Tariff Measures

Table B-10 presents tariff rates on fresh or frozen fish imports applied by selected large

consuming nations. The lowest foreign tariffs are found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand,

Iceland, and Norway, which have duty-free treatment of almost all fresh or frozen fish

products (for Canada, see also the following discussion of NAFTA). Tariffs in the European

Union are higher, reaching 15 percent on frozen sea bass and 23 percent on certain sardines.

Tariffs in Japan range from 5 to 10 percent on almost every fresh or frozen seafood item.

In the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, an important result concerning fresh or

frozen fish products was the agreement by major importing countries to bind their existing

tariffs against future increase. These agreements are significant to U.S. exporters because

earlier tariff reductions negotiated with foreign countries under previous rounds of

negotiations under the GATT have thereby been locked into place under the WTO. Other

significant results of the Uruguay Round for fish exporters concern nontariff barriers, which

are discussed in the following section.

NAFTA governs trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Prior to NAFTA’s

implementation, Mexico charged a straight 20-percent ad valorem duty on almost all imports

of U.S. fresh or frozen fish products. Under NAFTA, Mexico agreed to either immediate

(1994) elimination or staged elimination over 5 years of its duties on imports from Canada and

the United States of all fresh or frozen fish.35 Canada agreed to immediate elimination of its

duties on all fresh or frozen fish imports from the United States.36

Nontariff Measures

Nontariff measures are government regulations and policies other than tariffs, which can

either protect domestic producers from foreign competition or artificially increase exports of

domestic products. Nontariff measures (and tariffs) in foreign countries can hinder U.S.

exports to the markets where the policies are in place and, by depressing world prices, they

can also reduce prices received by U.S. exporters in other markets. There are a variety of

foreign sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, quotas, and other nontariff measures for food

products generally; these may also hinder U.S. exports of fresh or frozen fish. Such trade

policies are described in more detail in an annual review of foreign trade barriers published
 

37 United States Trade Representative, 2001 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign

Trade Barriers (Washington, DC: Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2001). This

report is available on the USTR website at http://www.ustr.gov.

 

38 Ibid.

 

39 The United States is a third party participant in a WTO dispute between Canada and

Australia concerning Australia’s import ban on fresh, chilled, or frozen salmon for alleged

health-related reasons. This ban also affects U.S. salmon exporters. See the 1998, 1999, and

2000 National Trade Estimate Reports on Foreign Trade Barriers, found at

www.ustr.gov/reports/index.shtml. Copies of relevant documents are also available on the WTO

website at www.wto.org. In 1999, the WTO ruled that Australia’s ban is unsupported by scientific

evidence and is therefore inconsistent with Australia’s WTO obligations. Following an import

risk assessment, Australia partially relaxed its ban in July 1999. However, the dispute is

continuing.

23

by the U.S. Government.37 Specifically for fresh or frozen fish, the most significant trade

barriers are found in Japan, including quantitative restrictions on herring, cod, mackerel, and

other products.38

U.S. laws that address foreign nontariff measures include section 301 of the Trade Act of

1974, which authorizes the President to retaliate against foreign nations that impose

burdensome nontariff measures or violate trade agreements; such retaliation can and usually

does take the forms of suspending previously granted trade concessions or imposing new

restrictions or fees on trade of the offending nation. No recent section 301 investigations

involving fresh or frozen fish products have been instituted.

In addition to section 301 and other unilateral actions, there are multilateral institutions that

provide mechanisms for trade dispute resolution. The largest is the WTO, which directly

addresses nontariff measures and other problem areas and provides means to eliminate or

resolve disputes. To date, no complaints regarding fresh or frozen fish products have been

filed with the WTO by the U.S. Government against another country.39

In addition to the WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement mechanisms, there are other

institutions available for addressing problems in U.S. trade in fresh or frozen fish products.

These include the Fisheries Committees of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) and the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. In

addition, there are periodic (usually annual) bilateral consultations between the United States

and Japan and between the United States and the European Union, and other bilateral

consultations that occur as they are needed. An increasingly common phenomenon is

environmental disputes that spill over into trade, including trade in fisheries products, where

the restriction of such trade is a policy tool used to resolve the environmental disputes. Such

problems may be resolved bilaterally or in multilateral fora such as the WTO, the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), NAFTA, and others.
24

U.S. MARKET

Consumption

Information on U.S. consumption of fresh or frozen fish is shown in table B-11. Total

consumption of whole or “round” (semiprocessed) fish during 1996-00 grew by 7.7 percent

in value, from $1.4 billion in 1996 to $1.6 billion in 2000. Imports accounted for about 80

percent of the total value of consumption in 2000, up from 74 percent in 1996. Total

consumption of fish fillets and steaks during 1996-00 grew by 37 percent in value, from $1.7

billion in 1996 to $2.3 billion in 2000. Imports of fillets and steaks accounted for about 82

percent of the total value of consumption of fillets and steaks in 2000, up from 70 percent in

1996.

In addition to the domestic market, U.S. production supplies foreign markets. U.S. exports of

whole or round fish accounted for a significant, but declining share of U.S. production through

1998, before rising to 80 percent in 2000. For fillets and steaks, exports accounted for 41 to

56 percent of production during 1996-00.

Imports

Total U.S. imports of fresh or frozen fish products reached a record value of $3.1 billion in

2000, an increase of almost $900 million, or 39 percent, over the 1996 level of $2.2 million

(table B-12). By quantity, imports totaled 788,000 metric tons in 2000, an increase of 9

percent over the 1996 import level of 724,000 metric tons. The greatest single source of U.S.

imports is Canada, whose shipments of 161,000 metric tons, valued at $716 million,

accounted for 20 percent of the volume and 23 percent of the value of total U.S. imports. On

a value basis, Chile was the second largest source of imports, with 14 percent of total value,

due mainly to imports of fresh farmed salmon. China ranked third, with 9 percent of total

value, followed closely by Iceland, with 6 percent of total imports.

Table B-13 presents information on the principal fresh or frozen fish products imported into

the United States. By far the largest non-basket category item is frozen fillets of groundfish

(cod, cusk, haddock, etc.). Such imports in 2000 reached 92,000 metric tons, valued at $369

million, 12 percent of both the volume and the value of total fresh or frozen fish imports. Also

important is fresh whole or round salmon, imports of which reached 61,000 metric tons,

valued at $305 million, in 2000. Frozen blocks of groundfish have long been a significant

import item: in 2000, block imports totaled 81,300 metric tons, valued at $190 million. Block

supplies on world markets have tightened in recent years owing to the depleted state of many

groundfish resources, particularly in the North Atlantic.
25

FOREIGN MARKETS

Foreign Market Profile

Japan is by far the largest market for U.S. exports of fresh or frozen fish products and is a

large fish consuming nation. However, total consumption in that country has declined in recent

years, from 3,991 metric tons in 1996 to 3,721 metric tons in 1999, a decline of about 7

percent. The following tabulation presents FAO data on Japanese production, trade, and

consumption of fresh or frozen fish products (in thousands of metric tons).

Year

Productio

n

Net

 imports

Apparent

consumption

1996 .............. 2,409 1,582 3,991

1997 .............. 2,459 1,485 3,944

1998 .............. 2,285 1,394 3,679

1999 .............. 2,050 1,671 3,721

On average, prices of fresh or frozen products in the Japanese market, evidenced by average

annual import prices, have declined in recent years. On average, fresh or frozen fish prices fell

almost continuously from $3.86 per kilogram in 1996 to $3.55 per kilogram in 1999, a drop

of about 8 percent. Some specific products, however, have shown larger declines, and some

have increased in price, as shown in the following tabulation of FAO data (in dollars per

kilogram):

Product 1996 1999

Percent

 change

Fresh fillets ........ 10.13 7.90 -22

Frozen trout ........ 4.23 5.03 19

Frozen livers & roes . . 9.21 9.34 1

Frozen eels ........ 46.00 31.00 -33

Frozen mackerel .... 1.33 1.16 -13

During 1996-99, some fresh or frozen fish items fell in price by as much as a third (in the case

of frozen eels). Prices of other fresh or frozen seafoods rose: the price of frozen trout, for

example, grew by 19 percent between 1996 and 1999. Additional data on production, trade

and consumption of fresh or frozen fish products throughout Asia are presented in table B-14.
 

40 Sameer Dhargalkar, “Seafood Market Hong Kong/Guangdong,” Consulate General of

Canada, Hong Kong, Aug. 1996.

 

41 Additional information on cured fish may be found in Industry and Trade Summary: Cured

Fish, Except Shellfish.

 

42 One possible explanation for the excess of exports over production is that the data do not

account for re-exports, thus overstating both exports and imports.

26

Demographic, economic and political changes are playing a role in shaping Asian demand for

seafood. In southern China, for example, economic growth and a greater proportion of

younger people has boosted consumer demand for high-valued seafood and increased the

emphasis on price and quality in seafood marketing.40 Higher prices for seafood enable sellers

to provide more fish products in fresh rather than the traditional cured forms.41

A large and increasing share of the supply of fish in Asia comes from aquaculture, or fish

farming. This ancient method of raising fish enables fish sellers to provide a more dependable

supply to fish processors and other consumers, and consequently, at a more stable price. This

is an advantage less available to fish processors in the U.S. industry, where wild fisheries

rather than aquaculture provide most fish (notable exceptions include catfish, trout, and

Atlantic salmon).

Europe is another large fish consuming region and a large market for U.S. exports. Total

European consumption of fresh or frozen fish reached 5,584 metric tons in 1999, up from

4,711 metric tons in 1996 (table B-15). The bulk of European consumption of fresh or frozen

fish takes place in the European Union (EU). In recent years, EU consumption of fresh or

frozen fish averaged 2.2 million metric tons annually, or about 55 to 60 percent of the total

for Europe.

France is one of the largest EU markets for fresh or frozen fish; the following tabulation

presents FAO data on French production, trade, and consumption (in 1,000 metric tons).42

Year

Producti

on

Net

 imports

Apparent

consumption

1996 ............. 186 173 359

1997 ............. 159 160 319

1998 ............. 148 205 353

1999 ............. 144 240 384

Groundfish accounts for about 60 percent of total French production reported by the FAO.

Salmon makes up much of the remainder. An increasing share of France’s reported production

was exported during 1996-98, largely because, according to industry sources, quality

improvements maintained export demand in the face of declining domestic production. 

Prices in the European market for fresh or frozen fish, evidenced by average annual import

prices, are shown in the following tabulation of FAO data (in dollars per kilogram).
27

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent

 change

Fresh fillets .......... 4.60 4.49 5.36 5.47 19

Frozen fillets ......... 2.82 2.65 3.05 3.09 9

Fresh whole cod ...... 1.64 1.73 2.34 2.47 50

Fresh herring ......... 0.50 0.34 0.33 0.28 -44

Fresh sardines ........ 0.82 0.72 0.45 0.50 -39

Fresh whole mackerel . . 0.72 0.78 0.84 0.44 -39

Frozen whole mackerel . 0.82 0.72 0.74 0.60 -27

Frozen Pacific salmon . . 2.20 2.50 2.52 2.25 2

With a few exceptions, prices have declined somewhat in the European market. On average

the price per kilogram of fresh or frozen fish declined by 2 percent, from $2.15 in 1996 to

$2.09 in 1999. However, some prices fell much more dramatically, including those for fresh

whole herring (down by 44 percent), fresh whole sardines (39 percent), and fresh whole

mackerel (39 percent). The average price of fresh fillets (which tend to be made from species

other than the above) increased by 19 percent during 1996-99. Additional data on production,

trade and consumption in Europe are presented in table B-15.

U.S. Exports

Between 40 and 60 percent of U.S. production of fresh or frozen fish fillets and steaks, by

value, has been exported in recent years. Tables B-16 and B-17 summarize U.S. exports by

product form and destination, respectively. U.S. exports declined in the late 1990s, largely

because of conditions in the Japanese market, which accounts for more than half of all U.S.

exports of fresh or frozen fish products. These market conditions weakened on the demand

side, where a general economic slowdown and a rise in the yen/dollar exchange rate likely

reduced Japanese demand, and on the supply side, caused by a U.S. salmon harvest that fell

short of expectations.

On a quantity basis, total fresh or frozen fish exports to Japan fell from 401,700 metric tons

in 1996 to 261,000 metric tons in 1998, before recovering to 301,200 metric tons in 2000.

Increased U.S. exports to Canada, the second largest market, partially offset this decline; such

exports rose from 72,800 metric tons in 1996 to 82,300 metric tons in 2000.

U.S. Industry Performance in Foreign Markets

This section examines U.S. performance in major world markets for fresh or frozen fish.

Performance is evaluated here by the share held by U.S. producers or exporters in domestic

or foreign markets. This approach is commonly referred to as constant market share (CMS)

analysis. An increase in the U.S. share of a particular market signifies an improvement in
 

43 CMS analysis is described in detail in a paper, “Constant Market Share Analysis of Export

Growth,” presented in Edward E. Leamer and Robert M. Stern, Quantitative International

Economics (Chicago: Allyn and Bacon, 1970), ch. 7. 

 

44 In this discussion, data on “world import markets” vis-a-vis U.S. exports exclude U.S.

imports from the world total.

28

U.S. export performance vis-a-vis competing suppliers in that market, and vice versa.43 Thus,

even a decrease in the absolute level of U.S. exports to a particular declining market could be

consistent with an improvement in U.S. export performance if the market itself is declining

at a faster rate than U.S. exports.44

Table B-18 presents data on U.S. export performance in selected markets for fresh or frozen

fish. In world markets for frozen whole Pacific salmon (HTS subheading 0303.10), the

largest U.S. export, U.S. exporters have captured a diminishing share of world imports in

recent years: as a share of world import value, U.S. exports fell from 46.1 percent in 1996

to 39.6 percent in 1999, equivalent to $48.2 million in decreased exports. The largest losses

by far were registered in Japan, where decreased market shares caused U.S. exports to fall by

nearly $63 million from 1996 to 1999.

In the world market for frozen fish fillets (HTS subheading 0304.20), the share held by U.S.

exporters has traditionally been quite low. In recent years that share has risen somewhat, from

1.9 percent in 1996 to 2.1 percent in 1999. If U.S. exporters had maintained in 1999 the 1.9-

percent share they had in 1996, the value of 1999 exports would have been $9.3 million lower

— thus, exporters achieved a market-share gain of 11 percent of the actual 1999 export level

of $84 million.
APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF TARIFF AND TRADE

AGREEMENT TERMS
A-2

TARIFF AND TRADE AGREEMENT

TERMS

In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), chapters 1 through 97 cover

all goods in trade and incorporate in the tariff nomenclature the internationally adopted

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System through the 6-digit level of product

description. Subordinate 8-digit product subdivisions, either enacted by Congress or

proclaimed by the President, allow more narrowly applicable duty rates; 10-digit

administrative statistical reporting numbers provide data of national interest. Chapters 98 and

99 contain special U.S. classifications and temporary rate provisions, respectively. The HTS

replaced the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) effective January 1, 1989.

Duty rates in the general subcolumn of HTS column 1 are normal trade relations rates, many

of which have been eliminated or are being reduced as concessions resulting from the Uruguay

Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Column 1-general duty rates apply to all countries

except those listed in HTS general note 3(b) (Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and

Vietnam) plus Serbia and Montenegro, which are subject to the statutory rates set forth in

column 2. Specified goods from designated general-rate countries may be eligible for reduced

rates of duty or for duty-free entry under one or more preferential tariff programs. Such tariff

treatment is set forth in the special subcolumn of HTS rate of duty column 1 or in the general

notes. If eligibility for special tariff rates is not claimed or established, goods are dutiable at

column 1-general rates. The HTS does not enumerate those countries as to which a total or

partial embargo has been declared.

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) affords nonreciprocal tariff preferences to

developing countries to aid their economic development and to diversify and expand their

production and exports. The U.S. GSP, enacted in title V of the Trade Act of 1974 for 10

years and extended several times thereafter, applies to merchandise imported on or after

January 1, 1976 and before the close of September 30, 2001. Indicated by the symbol "A",

"A*", or "A+" in the special subcolumn, the GSP provides duty-free entry to eligible articles

the product of and imported directly from designated beneficiary developing countries, as set

forth in general note 4 to the HTS.

The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) affords nonreciprocal tariff

preferences to developing countries in the Caribbean Basin area to aid their economic

development and to diversify and expand their production and exports. The CBERA, enacted

in title II of Public Law 98-67, implemented by Presidential Proclamation 5133 of November

30, 1983, and amended by the Customs and Trade Act of 1990, applies to merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 1984.

Indicated by the symbol "E" or "E*" in the special subcolumn, the CBERA provides duty-free

entry to eligible articles, and reduced-duty treatment to certain other articles, which are the

product of and imported directly from designated countries, as set forth in general note 7 to

the HTS.
A-3

Free rates of duty in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol "IL" are applicable to

products of Israel under the United States-Israel Free Trade Area Implementation Act of

1985 (IFTA), as provided in general note 8 to the HTS. 

Preferential nonreciprocal duty-free or reduced-duty treatment in the special subcolumn

followed by the symbol "J" or "J*" in parentheses is afforded to eligible articles the product

of designated beneficiary countries under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), enacted

as title II of Public Law 102-182 and implemented by Presidential Proclamation 6455 of July

2, 1992 (effective July 22, 1992), as set forth in general note 11 to the HTS.

Preferential free rates of duty in the special subcolumn followed by the symbol "CA" are

applicable to eligible goods of Canada, and rates followed by the symbol "MX" are applicable

to eligible goods of Mexico, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, as provided

in general note 12 to the HTS and implemented effective January 1, 1994 by Presidential

Proclamation 6641 of December 15, 1993. Goods must originate in the NAFTA region under

rules set forth in general note 12(t) and meet other requirements of the note and applicable

regulations.

Other special tariff treatment applies to particular products of insular possessions (general

note 3(a)(iv)), products of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (general note 3(a)(v)), goods

covered by the Automotive Products Trade Act (APTA) (general note 5) and the Agreement

on Trade in Civil Aircraft (ATCA) (general note 6), articles imported from freely

associated states (general note 10), pharmaceutical products (general note 13), and

intermediate chemicals for dyes (general note 14).

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), pursuant to the

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, is based upon the earlier GATT 1947

(61 Stat. (pt. 5) A58; 8 UST (pt. 2) 1786) as the primary multilateral system of disciplines

and principles governing international trade. Signatories' obligations under both the 1994 and

1947 agreements focus upon most-favored-nation treatment, the maintenance of scheduled

concession rates of duty, and national treatment for imported products; the GATT also

provides the legal framework for customs valuation standards, "escape clause" (emergency)

actions, antidumping and countervailing duties, dispute settlement, and other measures. The

results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral tariff negotiations are set forth by way of

separate schedules of concessions for each participating contracting party, with the U.S.

schedule designated as Schedule XX. Pursuant to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing

(ATC) of the GATT 1994, member countries are phasing out restrictions on imports under

the prior "Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles" (known as the Multifiber

Arrangement (MFA)). Under the MFA, which was a departure from GATT 1947

provisions, importing and exporting countries negotiated bilateral agreements limiting textile

and apparel shipments, and importing countries could take unilateral action in the absence or

violation of an agreement. Quantitative limits had been established on imported textiles and

apparel of cotton, other vegetable fibers, wool, man-made fibers or silk blends in an effort to

prevent or limit market disruption in the importing countries. The ATC establishes

notification and safeguard procedures, along with other rules concerning the customs

treatment of textile and apparel shipments, and calls for the eventual complete integration of

this sector into the GATT 1994 over a ten-year period, or by Jan. 1, 2005.

 

APPENDIX B

STATISTICAL TABLES
B-2

Table B-1

Fish: U.S. commercial landings, 1996-2000

Item 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-001

–––––––––––––– Million dollars –––––––––––––

Tuna2............................... 589 605 532 713 632 7.3

Salmon ............................. 369 270 257 360 270 -26.8

Alaska pollock ........................ 238 243 190 163 161 -32.6

Halibut .............................. 83 117 104 125 144 73.3

Sablefish ............................ 109 109 92 97 101 -7.2

Flounder ............................ 154 131 97 90 110 -28.6

Atlantic groundfish, except flounder3....... 53 53 60 62 62 16.4

Swordfish ........................... 36 34 29 33 38 5.6

Other ............................... 638 655 523 542 614 –3.7

Total3........................... 2,269 2,217 1,884 2,175 2,132 6.1

–––––––––– Thousand metric tons ––––––––––

Tuna2............................... 207 207 217 218 153 -26.1

Salmon ............................. 398 257 292 370 285 -28.4

Alaska pollock ........................ 1,190 1,140 1,232 1,055 1,182 -0.6

Halibut .............................. 22 32 33 36 34 55.0

Sablefish ............................ 27 24 20 22 23 -16.7

Flounder ............................ 208 257 177 150 187 -10.0

Atlantic groundfish, except flounder3....... 39 39 39 39 37 -5.9

Swordfish ........................... 6 6 7 7 8 35.0

Other ............................... 1,823 2,017 1,739 1,840 1,709 -6.3

Total3........................... 3,920 3,979 3,756 3,735 3,618 -7.7

1

 Calculated from unrounded data.

2

 Includes U.S.-harvested tuna landed in U.S. possessions. 

3

 Includes cod, cusk, haddock, hake, ocean perch, and pollock.

3

 Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, Current Fisheries Statistics Series

No. 9800 (annual; various issues), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce.
B-3

Table B-2

Fish: U.S. aquaculture production, 1996-99

Item 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent

change,

1996-991

–––––––––––– Million dollars ––––––––––––

Catfish ................................ 365 372 419 439 20.3

Salmon ............................... 61 65 63 77 25.9

Trout ................................. 57 60 60 65 14.0

Tilapia ................................ 24 30 27 27 11.3

Other ................................. 91 95 82 79 -12.4

Total2............................. 597 623 650 687 14.9

–––––––– Thousand metric tons –––––––––

Catfish ................................ 214 238 256 271 26.4

Salmon ............................... 14 18 15 18 27.6

Trout ................................. 24 26 25 27 12.5

Tilapia ................................ 7 8 8 8 11.2

Other ................................. 13 13 12 12 -9.0

Total2............................... 273 302 315 336 23.1

1

 Calculated from unrounded data.

2

 Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, Current Fisheries Statistics Series

No. 9800 (annual; various issues), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce.

Table B-3

Fresh or frozen fish: Number of U.S. firms and employment, 1995-98

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998

——————— Number ——————

Firms ............................................... 5,100 5,250 5,130 5,150

Employment:

Average ........................................ 115,000 125,000 112,000 118,000

Seasonal ....................................... 128,000 145,000 125,000 130,000

Source: Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Commission staff communication.

Table B-4

Fresh or frozen fish: Labor productivity in fillets & steaks production, 1995-98

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

—— Pounds produced per employee ——

On an average employment basis ......................... 3,350 3,184 3,658 3,718

On a seasonal employment basis ......................... 3,010 2,745 3,277 3,375

Source: Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Commission staff communication.
B-4

Table B-5

Seafood establishments and product inspections, 1998 and 20001

Source 1998 2000

–––––––— Number ––—–––––—

Establishments:

SIFE2.................................................... 8 1

In-plant3.................................................. 289 257

— Million pounds —

Quantity inspected:

PUFI4................................................... 301.1 248.7

Grade A4................................................. 70.3 59.8

No mark5................................................. 189.6 117.4

Lot ...................................................... 319.6 399.0

Total ................................................. 880.7 824.9

1

 All seafood, including fresh or frozen fish.

2

 Fish processing establishments approved for sanitation; products are not processed under inspection.

3

 Sanitarily inspected establishments approved for sanitation processing products under Commerce

Department inspection.

4

 Products processed under Commerce Department inspection in inspected establishments and labeled with

USDC inspection mark as “Processed Under Federal Inspection” (PUFI) and/or “U.S. Grade A.”

5

 Products processed under inspection in inspected establishments but bearing no USDC inspection mark.

6

 Lot inspected products checked for quality and condition at the time of examination and located in

processing plants, warehouses, cold storage facilities, or terminal markets anywhere in the United States.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1998, Current Fisheries Statistics

Series No. 9800, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (July 1999).

Table B-6

Fresh or frozen fish: World production, by largest producers, 1996-99

Source 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent

change,

1996-991

––– Thousand metric tons––

China ............................................ 2,828 2,879 2,885 3,068 8.5

Japan ........................................... 2,409 2,459 2,285 2,050 -14.9

United States ...................................... 1,068 1,019 1,041 994 6.9

Norway .......................................... 1,020 1,030 903 1,081 6.0

EU:

Netherlands .................................... 274 358 305 353 28.9

Germany ....................................... 321 282 295 324 1.2

Spain ......................................... 323 319 301 316 -2.1

United Kingdom ................................. 262 249 252 270 3.0

Other EU ....................................... 671 606 569 540 -19.4

Total EU2.................................. 1,850 1,814 1,722 1,804 -2.5

Canada .......................................... 142 112 147 134 -5.8

Mexico ........................................... 119 127 120 108 -9.5

Other ............................................ 7,671 7,684 7,786 7,905 3.1

Total2........................................ 17,108 17,124 16,889 17,145 2.0

1

 Calculated from unrounded data.

2

 Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
B-5

Table B-7

Fresh or frozen fish: World production, by products, 1996-99

Heading and description 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent

change,

1995-99

––––– Thousand metric tons –––––––

Frozen tunas ............................... 1,786 1,860 2,095 1,960 9.8

Frozen mackerel ............................ 1,350 1,290 1,133 1,045 -22.6

Frozen herring .............................. 599 671 441 480 -19.8

Frozen fillets ............................... 1,946 1,843 1,977 2,017 3.6

Frozen hake ................................ 241 341 266 251 4.0

Frozen sardines ............................. 377 309 241 331 -12.3

Frozen Pacific salmons ....................... 298 361 347 320 7.2

Other ..................................... 10,511 10,449 10,389 10,742 2.2

Total .................................. 17,108 17,124 16,889 17,145 0.2

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Table B-8

Fresh or frozen fish: Average export prices on world markets, 1996-99

Fish product 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent

change,

1996-99

––––––– Dollars per kilogram –––––––

Frozen tuna .......................... 1.97 2.01 1.76 1.88 -4.6

Frozen mackerel ...................... 0.93 1.00 0.86 0.71 -23.7

Frozen herring ........................ 0.61 0.53 0.50 0.44 -27.9

Fresh fillets .......................... 4.55 4.38 4.79 5.26 15.6

Frozen hake .......................... 1.29 1.23 1.31 1.54 19.4

Frozen sardines ....................... 0.60 0.46 0.38 0.40 -33.3

Frozen Pacific salmon .................. 3.16 3.09 2.74 3.99 26.3

Other ............................... 1.88 1.81 1.86 2.00 6.4

Weighted average for all products ......... 1.82 1.76 1.77 1.89 3.8

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
B-6

Table B-9

Fresh or frozen fish: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading; description; U.S. column 1 rate of duty as of Jan. 1, 2001; U.S. exports,

2000; U.S. imports, 2000

Column 1 rate of

duty

as of 1/1/01 U.S. Trade in 2000------- 

HTS subheading Description General Exports Imports

Percent or $/kg –– Thousand dollars ––

0302 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fillets and other fish meat

of heading 0304:

Salmonidea:

0302.11.00 Trout ......................................................... Free 1,930 5,976

0302.12.00 Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon, and Danube salmon ..................... Free 70,320 304,525

0302.19.00 Other salmonidae ................................................ Free 1,200 70

Flatfish:

0302.21.00 Halibut and Greenland turbot ....................................... Free 22,903 51,671

0302.22.00 Plaice ......................................................... Free 3,165 270

0302.23.00 Sole .......................................................... 1.1¢/kg 339 6,038

0302.29.00 Other ......................................................... Free 3,838 7,615

Tunas, skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito:

0302.31.00 Albacore or longfinned tunas ........................................ Free 784 6,424

0302.32.00 Yellowfin tunas .................................................. Free 1,126 70,274

0302.33.00 Skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito ...................................... Free 11 0

0302.39.00 Other ......................................................... Free 14,612 44,028

0302.40.00 Herrings ......................................................... Free 4,270 3,634

0302.50.00 Cod ............................................................ Free 6,539 7,683

0302.61.00 Sardines, sardinella, brisling or sprats .................................. Free 3,520 140

0302.62.00 Haddock ......................................................... Free 162 17,771

0302.63.00 Atlantic pollock .................................................... Free 737 1,766

0302.64.00 Mackerel ........................................................ Free 519 1,654

0305.65.00 Dogfish and other sharks ............................................ Free 8,515 2,559

0302.66.00 Eels ............................................................ Free 60 391

Other:

0302.69.10 Scaled, in immediate containers weighing with their

contents 6.8 kg or less .......................................... 3% (

1

) 1,818

See footnotes at end of table.
B-7

Table B-9—Continued

Fresh or frozen fish: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading; description; U.S. column 1 rate of duty as of Jan. 1, 2001; U.S. exports,

2000; U.S. imports 2000

Column 1 rate of

duty

as of 1/1/01 U.S. trade in 2000-------

HTS subheading Description General Exports Imports

Percent or $/kg –– Thousand dollars ––

Other:

0302.69.20 Smelts, cusk, hake, pollock, shad, sturgeon,

swordfish and freshwater fish ................................... Free (

1

) 86,565

0302.69.40 Other ....................................................... Free 55,243 181,414

0302.70 Livers and roes:

0302.70.20 Sturgeon roe .................................................... 15% (

2

) 15

0302.70.40 Other ......................................................... Free 25,770 844

0303 Fish, frozen, excluding fillets and other fish meat

of heading 0304:

0303.10.00 Pacific salmon, excluding livers and roes ................................ Free 271,059 5,536

Other salmonidae, excluding livers and roes:

0303.21.00 Trout ......................................................... Free 963 1,311

0303.22.00 Atlantic salmon and Danube salmon .................................. Free 583 22,587

0303.29.00 Other ......................................................... Free 2,212 342

Flatfish, excluding livers and roes:

0303.31.00 Halibut and Greenland turbot ....................................... Free 29,797 13,643

0303.32.00 Plaice ......................................................... Free 528 998

0303.33.00 Sole .......................................................... 1.1¢/kg 631 4,632

0303.39.00 Other ......................................................... 1.1¢/kg 63,273 2,757

Tunas:

0303.41.00 Albacore or longfinned tunas ........................................ Free 6,047 127,332

0303.42.00 Yellowfin tunas .................................................. Free 765 18,731

0303.43.00 Skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito ...................................... Free 52 2,751

0303.49.00 Other ......................................................... Free 997 4,919

0303.50.00 Herring .......................................................... Free 19,771 2,949

0303.60.00 Cod ............................................................ Free 124,979 2,798

0303.71.00 Sardines, sardinella, brisling and sprats ................................. 1.1¢/kg 25,845 2,737

0303.72.00 Haddock ......................................................... Free 218 11,240

0303.73.00 Atlantic pollock .................................................... Free 22,556 533

0303.74.00 Mackerel ......................................................... Free 7,188 11,878

See footnotes at end of table.
Table B-9—Continued

Fresh or frozen fish: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading; description; U.S. column 1 rate of duty as of Jan. 1, 2001; U.S. exports,

2000; U.S. imports 2000

Column 1 rate of

duty

as of 1/1/01 U.S. trade in 2000-------

HTS subheading Description General Exports Imports

Percent or $/kg –– Thousand dollars ––

B-8

 0303.75.00 Dogfish and other sharks ............................................ 1.1¢/kg 7,981 631

0303.76.00 Eels ............................................................ Free 2,516 6,453

0303.77.00 Sea bass ........................................................ Free 599 6,087

0303.78.00 Whiting and hake .................................................. Free 8,125 2,204

0303.79.20 Smelts, cusk, pollock, shad, sturgeon, swordfish and

freshwater fish .................................................. Free (

3

) 62,962

0303.79.40 Other ........................................................... Free 175,351 120,208

0303.80 Livers and roes:

0303.80.20 Sturgeon roe .................................................... 15% (

4

) 0

0303.80.40 Other ......................................................... Free 283,254 5,812

0304 Fish fillets and other fish meat, fresh, chilled or frozen:

0304.10 Fresh or chilled:

0304.10.10 Cod, cusk, haddock, pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch .................... Free (

5

) 45,324

0304.10.30 Hake .......................................................... Free (

5

) 348

0304.10.40 Other ......................................................... Free 21,749 548,853

0304.20 Frozen fillets:

0304.20.20 Skinned, whether or not divided into pieces, and frozen

into blocks each weighing over 4.5 kg ............................... Free N/A 189,817

0304.20.30 Cod, cusk, haddock, pollock and Atlantic ocean perch .................... Free (

6

) 368,567

0304.20.50 Hake .......................................................... Free (

6

) 4,999

0304.20.60 Other ......................................................... Free 76,517 679,815

See footnotes at end of table.
Table B-9—Continued

Fresh or frozen fish: Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading; description; U.S. column 1 rate of duty as of Jan. 1, 2001; U.S. exports,

2000; U.S. imports 2000

Column 1 rate of

duty

as of 1/1/01 U.S. trade in 2000-------

HTS subheading Description General Exports Imports

Percent or $/kg –– Thousand dollars ––

B-9

0304.90 Other frozen:

0304.90.10 In bulk or immediate containers weighing with their

contents over 6.8 kg each ........................................ Free (

7

) 18,615

0304.90.90 Other ......................................................... 6% 326,028 1,928

1

 Included in subheading 0302.69.40.

2

 Included in subheading 0302.70.40.

3

 Included in subheading 0303.79.40.

4

 Included in subheading 0303.80.40.

5

 Included in subheading 0304.10.40.

6

 Included in subheading 0304.20.60.

7

 Included in subheading 0304.90.90.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States; data compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-10

Table B-10

Fresh or frozen fish products: Applied MFN tariff rates in selected foreign countries1

HTS subheading Description European Union Canada Japan

Percent (ad valorem or ad valorem equivalent)

Fresh whole:

0302.12 Atlantic and Pacific salmon .......... 2.0 0.0 5.0

0302.21 Halibut and Greenland turbot ........ 8.0-15.0 0.0 5.0

Frozen whole:

0303.10 Pacific salmon ................... 2.0 0.0 5.0

0303.50 Herring ........................ 0.0-15.0 0.0 10.0

0303.60 Cod ........................... 12.0-13.2 0.0 0.5

0303.71 Sardines, sardinella, brisling or sprats ... 0.0-23.0 0.0 10.0

0303.80 Frozen livers and roes ............... 0.0-10.0 4.0 5.0-10.0

0304.10 Fresh fillets, steaks, and other fish meat . 0.0-18.0 0.0 10.0

Frozen fillets, steaks, and other fish meat:

0304.20 Fillets ......................... 2.0-18.0 0.0 5.0-10.0

0304.90 Steaks and other meat ............. 0.0-15.0 0.0 5.0-10.0

1

 Most Favored Nation rate, applicable to imports from the United States. The MFN policy in the United States

is now known as Normal Trading Relations (NTR) status; other nations retain the MFN name. The duty reported for

Canada is applicable to MFN countries other than the United States and Mexico, imports from which are duty free

under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Source: The International Customs Journal, International Customs Tariffs Bureau.
B-11

Table B-11

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. production, trade, and apparent consumption, by product form,

1996-2000

Item 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-001

——————— Value (million dollars) ——————

Whole or “round” fish:2

Production3................. 1,791 1,722 1,447 1,558 1,595 -11.0

Exports4.................... 1,413 1,156 895 1,180 1,281 -9.3

Imports4.................... 1,070 1,171 1,175 1,243 1,245 16.4

Apparent consumption5........ 1,448 1,737 1,727 1,621 1,559 7.7

———––————— Percent ———–—––————

Ratio of--

Exports to production ........ 79 67 62 76 80 na

Imports to consumption ...... 74 67 68 77 80 na

——————— Value (million dollars) ——————

Fillets and steaks:

Production .................. 904 961 961 807 830 -8.2

Exports6.................... 407 453 394 455 424 4.3

Imports6.................... 1,159 1,300 1,466 1,701 1,858 60.3

Apparent consumption5........ 1,656 1,738 2,034 2,053 2,264 36.7

———––—————— Percent ————––————

Ratio of--

Exports to production ........ 45 47 41 56 51 na

Imports to consumption ...... 70 75 72 83 82 na

1

 Calculated from unrounded data.

2

 “Round” fish may be scaled, beheaded, and/or eviscerated.

3

 U.S. domestic commercial landings.

4

 HTS headings 0302 and 0303.

5

 Apparent consumption = production - exports + imports.

6

 HTS heading 0304.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, Current Fisheries Statistics Series

No. 9800 (annual; various issues), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce. Trade data are compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-12

Table B-12

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. imports, by principal source, 1996-2000

Source 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-00

———————— Million dollars ————————

Canada ......................... 509.3 585.0 627.8 704.5 715.7 40.5

Chile ........................... 240.7 276.5 329.0 331.6 449.0 86.5

China ........................... 128.2 137.1 165.4 214.4 280.4 118.7

Iceland ......................... 163.8 165.9 171.1 218.6 173.8 6.1

Taiwan ......................... 131.7 139.7 171.3 176.0 138.4 5.1

Russia .......................... 90.9 86.1 95.1 135.1 86.4 5.0

European Union:

United Kingdom ................. 15.1 13.4 22.2 50.0 37.2 146.4

Netherlands .................... 20.4 24.0 23.5 21.3 18.6 -8.8

Denmark ...................... 11.1 14.6 23.1 19.4 15.8 42.3

Other ......................... 40.0 10.3 17.8 18.3 16.2 -59.5

Subtotal EU .................... 86.6 62.3 86.7 109.0 87.8 1.4

Other ........................... 877.7 1,018.5 995.1 1,055.5 1,171.9 33.5

Total ........................ 2,228.9 2,471.1 2,641.5 2,944.7 3,103.4 39.2

——————— 1,000 metric tons ———————

Canada ......................... 141.3 150.6 166.7 171.6 161.1 14.0

Chile ........................... 55.0 61.3 68.2 62.9 84.1 52.9

China ........................... 66.7 64.6 80.9 98.0 119.1 78.6

Iceland ......................... 38.0 35.3 33.0 38.1 29.8 -21.6

Taiwan ......................... 68.9 69.4 100.8 82.3 58.2 -15.5

Russia .......................... 50.8 46.0 35.6 42.4 31.8 -37.4

European Union:

United Kingdom ................. 4.6 3.3 5.1 10.5 8.9 93.5

Netherlands .................... 3.2 3.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 -12.5

Denmark ...................... 3.0 3.8 4.8 3.9 3.4 13.3

Other ......................... 26.7 2.5 15.8 3.3 3.5 -86.9

Subtotal EU .................... 37.4 13.2 19.2 20.5 18.6 -50.3

Other ........................... 265.7 297.4 291.8 273.4 284.9 7.2

Total ........................ 723.8 737.8 796.2 789.2 787.6 8.8

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-13

Table B-13

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. imports, by product, 1996-2000

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-00

—————––— Million dollars ————————

Frozen fillets of cod, cusk, haddock,

pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch ...... 267.3 292.2 311.1 404.5 368.6 37.9

Fresh whole or round Pacific, Atlantic and

Danube salmon ................... 284.4 312.3 294.1 316.4 304.5 7.1

Frozen groundfish blocks ............ 191.0 213.3 248.9 223.3 189.8 -0.6

Frozen whole or round albacore ....... 137.4 136.5 122.5 139.5 127.3 -7.4

Fresh whole or round halibut and

Greenland turbot .................. 29.7 32.7 36.7 52.5 51.7 74.1

Fresh fillets and steaks of cod, cusk,

haddock, pollock, and Atlantic ocean

perch ........................... 38.0 40.8 42.5 46.7 45.3 19.2

Frozen whole or round yellowfin tuna ... 32.1 22.1 44.1 24.9 18.7 -41.7

Other ........................... 1,249.0 1,421.2 1,541.6 1,736.9 1,997.5 59.9

Total ........................ 2,228.9 2,471.1 2,641.5 2,944.7 3,103.4 39.2

————— Thousand metric tons —————

Frozen fillets of cod, cusk, haddock,

pollock, and Atlantic ocean perch ...... 71.6 71.4 76.2 92.0 92.0 28.5

Fresh whole or round Pacific, Atlantic and

Danube salmon ................... 59.2 61.5 61.6 62.3 61.0 3.0

Frozen groundfish blocks ............ 94.7 97.7 93.3 84.7 81.3 -14.1

Frozen whole or round albacore ....... 57.6 55.9 54.4 63.3 51.0 -11.5

Fresh whole or round halibut and

Greenland turbot .................. 4.2 4.7 6.8 7.6 6.5 54.8

Fresh fillets & steaks of cod, cusk,

haddock, pollock, and Atlantic ocean

perch ........................... 7.7 8.1 7.6 7.9 7.6 1.3

Frozen whole or round yellowfin tuna ... 21.5 12.0 28.0 9.4 3.3 -84.7

Other ........................... 407.3 426.5 468.3 462.0 484.9 19.1

Total ........................ 723.8 737.8 796.2 789.2 787.6 8.8

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-14

Table B-14

Fresh or frozen fish: Asian production, trade, and consumption, 1996-99

Year Production Exports1Imports1

Apparent

consumption2

Exports/

production

Imports/

consumption

—————— Thousand metric tons ————— ———— Percent 

————

1996 ................... 9,801 3,506 4,723 11,018 36 43

1997 ................... 9,695 3,858 4,752 10,589 40 45

1998 ................... 9,760 4,132 4,591 10,219 42 45

1999 ................... 9,496 4,043 5,352 10,806 43 50

Percent change, 1996-99 .... -3.1 15.3 13.3 -1.9 na na

1

 Includes intraregional trade.

2

 Apparent consumption = production - exports + imports.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Table B-15

Fresh or frozen fish: European production, trade, and consumption, 1996-99

Year Production Exports1Imports1

Apparent

consumption2

Exports/

production

Imports/

consumption

——–——— Thousand metric tons ——–——— ——— Percent ————

1996 .................... 6,048 6,517 5,180 4,711 108 110

1997 .................... 6,116 6,829 5,541 4,828 112 115

1998 .................... 5,860 6,481 5,918 5,297 111 112

1999 .................... 6,441 6,713 5,856 5,584 104 105

Percent change, 1996-99 ..... 6.5 3.0 13.0 18.5 na na

1

 Includes intraregional trade. One possible explanation for the excess of exports over production is that the

data do not account for re-exports, thus overstating both exports and imports.

2

 Apparent consumption = production - exports + imports.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
B-15

Table B-16

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. exports, by product, 1996-2000

Product 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-00

——————— Million dollars ———————

Frozen Alaska pollock surimi ......... 217.7 204.7 167.2 216.1 255.3 17.3

Frozen Alaska pollock roe ........... 154.6 162.4 84.6 109.5 157.4 1.8

Frozen whole sockeye salmon ........ 310.3 183.0 116.4 189.1 145.9 -53.0

Frozen salmon roe ................. 55.6 35.3 25.8 43.0 67.5 21.4

Frozen whole chum salmon .......... 25.9 26.4 17.1 37.6 49.8 92.3

Frozen whole coho salmon .......... 26.5 13.1 19.8 31.6 34.3 29.4

Frozen surimi (except Alaska pollock) . . 50.4 124.8 80.4 83.0 24.6 -51.2

Frozen cod fillets ................. 20.8 13.9 32.3 36.3 22.6 8.7

Frozen whole herring .............. 41.2 43.0 29.1 29.7 19.8 -51.9

Frozen herring roe ................. 34.0 13.0 11.6 28.8 18.9 -44.4

Other ........................... 882.5 789.5 704.4 829.7 909.0 3.0

Total ........................ 1,819.5 1,609.1 1,288.7 1,634.4 1,705.1 –6.3

——–——— Thousand metric tons ——————

Frozen Alaska pollock surimi ......... 101.5 87.8 77.2 85.1 132.8 30.8

Frozen Alaska pollock roe ........... 13.3 16.9 12.1 11.2 12.8 -3.8

Frozen whole sockeye salmon ........ 70.2 45.6 23.6 37.6 32.9 -53.1

Frozen salmon roe ................. 7.9 4.6 4.1 4.4 5.3 -32.9

Frozen whole chum salmon .......... 11.1 10.5 7.1 12.8 18.5 66.7

Frozen whole coho salmon .......... 7.7 3.6 5.1 7.9 7.0 -9.1

Frozen surimi (except Alaska pollock) . . 27.0 52.3 38.1 39.1 14.7 -45.6

Frozen cod fillets ................. 8.4 5.6 15.1 13.0 7.8 -7.1

Frozen whole herring .............. 23.0 35.3 21.1 19.5 14.2 -38.3

Frozen herring roe ................. 10.1 7.4 4.7 5.7 9.3 -7.9

Other ........................... 408.5 387.7 350.6 375.2 412.4 1.0

Total ........................ 688.7 657.2 558.7 611.5 667.7 –3.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-16

Table B-17

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. exports, by principal market, 1996-2000

Source 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent

change,

1996-00

—————–—— Million dollars ———–————

Japan ........................ 1,223.3 1,025.3 684.3 899.1 897.5 -26.6

Canada ....................... 198.0 170.1 187.6 235.3 253.1 27.8

European Union:

France ...................... 52.1 57.2 47.1 42.6 39.4 -24.4

Germany .................... 20.4 16.2 36.9 17.8 36.2 77.5

Spain ....................... 21.6 20.0 28.0 25.1 27.2 25.9

United Kingdom ............... 8.8 10.6 13.3 14.5 14.9 69.3

Other ....................... 44.4 33.1 44.0 74.5 53.2 19.8

Subtotal EU .................. 147.3 137.1 169.3 174.5 170.9 16.0

Korea ........................ 124.0 109.2 87.6 169.0 187.0 50.8

China ......................... 32.1 69.1 49.4 43.2 66.7 107.8

Taiwan ....................... 28.8 24.4 17.9 25.0 22.9 -20.5

Norway ....................... 6.3 9.7 22.3 16.1 22.3 254.0

Other ......................... 59.7 64.2 70.3 72.2 107.6 80.2

Total ...................... 1,819.5 1,609.1 1,288.7 1,634.4 1,705.1 -6.3

————— Thousand metric tons ———————

Japan ........................ 401.7 360.0 261.4 285.3 301.2 -25.0

Canada ....................... 72.8 60.2 63.6 73.1 82.3 13.0

European Union:

France ...................... 19.4 22.1 4.3 14.6 15.8 -18.6

Germany .................... 6.1 5.5 14.5 5.9 15.2 149.2

Spain ....................... 8.5 6.9 11.5 10.4 11.9 40.0

United Kingdom ............... 4.4 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.3 -2.3

Other ....................... 16.7 12.7 34.5 30.1 19.7 18.0

Subtotal EU .................. 55.1 51.0 69.2 65.0 66.9 21.4

Korea ........................ 79.7 56.7 44.9 80.3 94.7 18.8

China ......................... 25.3 78.8 51.2 29.5 42.3 67.2

Taiwan ....................... 6.5 5.7 7.3 6.9 5.1 -21.5

Norway ....................... 3.5 5.9 11.2 6.7 9.4 168.6

Other ......................... 44.1 38.9 49.9 64.7 65.8 49.2

Total ...................... 688.7 657.2 558.7 611.5 667.7 –3.0

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
B-17

Table B-19

Fresh or frozen fish: U.S. export performance for selected products, 1996-99

U.S. exports 

U.S. share

(percent) of

foreign import

market1

 

U.S. export

gain (loss) from

rise (fall) in

market share1 

Item Market 1996 1999 1996 1999 Value

As a share of

1999 exports

1,000 dollars —Percent---

1,000

dollars --Percent--

0302.12; Fresh or chilled World ... 62,773 70,849 4.1 4.0 -2,356 -3.3

Pacific, Atlantic, and

Danube

Canada . . 47,872 49,441 95.4 87.2 -4,649 -9.4

salmon, whole or dressed Japan ... 12,460 16,582 8.4 11.1 3,951 23.8

0303.10; Frozen Pacific World ... 396,574 293,896 46.1 39.6 -48,194 -16.4

salmon, whole or dressed Japan ... 329,714 213,712 43.4 33.5 -62,994 -29.5

Canada . . 21,746 23,611 94.9 93.2 -419 -1.8

0303.60; Frozen cod, World ... 71,000 99,897 24.1 22.8 -5,646 -6.0

whole or dressed Norway . . 3,718 9,616 7.5 7.2 -523 -5.4

Portugal . . 891 19,429 1.4 17.9 17,963 92.5

0303.79; Frozen fish, World ... 182,571 173,425 6.7 6.6 -3,184 -1.8

n.e.s.i., whole or dressed Japan ... 133,681 99,596 14.3 13.1 -8,726 -8.8

Korea ... 9,453 36,105 4.5 9.6 19,358 53.6

0303.80; Frozen fish livers World ... 259,404 208,479 31.1 27.4 -27,512 -13.2

and roes Japan ... 225,134 179,702 40.9 33.1 -42,223 -23.5

Korea ... 11,454 12,559 9.4 8.7 -1,135 -9.0

0304.10; Fresh fish fillets World ... 14,630 18,934 2.0 2.3 2,547 13.5

EU-15 ... 3,017 4,398 0.6 0.7 815 18.5

0304.20; Frozen fish fillets World ... 68,357 84,241 1.9 2.1 9,344 11.1

Japan ... 23,376 28,386 4.0 4.4 2,592 9.1

Canada . . 12,526 22,723 15.5 20.9 5,835 25.7

0304.90; Frozen fish meat, World ... 323,780 351,537 29.3 34.9 56,349 16.0

except fillets and steaks Japan ... 251,489 224,629 38.0 35.6 15,051 6.7

Korea ... 33,975 85,320 33.6 88.3 52,825 61.9

1

 Calculated from unrounded data. “World” imports exclude U.S. imports.

2

 Less than 0.5 percent.

Source: Derived by Commission staff from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.