236233565 Final Report Mapping Fishmeal Supply Chain in Songkhla (1)

8/11/2019 236233565 Final Report Mapping Fishmeal Supply Chain in Songkhla (1)

1/156


2/156


3/156

MAPPING SHRIMP

FEED SUPPLY CHAIN

IN SONGKHLA PROVINCE

TO FACILITATE FEED

DIALOGUE

FULL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO OXFAM THAILAND

Lead Researcher: Sarinee Achavanuntakul Research Team: Srisakul Piromwarakorn

James True

Pattraporn Yamla-Or

Sasiwimon Khlongakkhara

Koranis Tanangsnakool

March, 2014


4/156

1. Research Background 13

1.1 Objective of this project 14

1.2 Objective of this report 14

1.3 Methodology and Limitations of Research 15

2. Overview of Fishmeal Industry 16

2.1 Thailands Fisheries from the Past 16

2.2 Why trawlers and push nets are banned 20

2.3 Characteristics of Fishmeal 22

2.4 Overview of Fishmeal Industry 26

2.4.1 Global 26

2.4.2 Thailand Fishmeal Production 28

2.4.3 Thailand Fishmeal Consumption 31

2.4.4 Thailand Fishmeal Exports 31

2.4.5 Thailand Fishmeal Imports 33

2.4.6 Songkhla Fishmeal 34

2.5 Fishmeal Price 35

2.6 Classification 37

2.7 Government policies and regulations 38

3. Literature review: impact of trash fish industry on ecosystems 39

4. Literature review: Changes and Impact on Local Artisanal Fishing Community 48

4.1 Definitions of Artisanal Fisheries 48

4.2 Thailands Artisanal Fishing Communities 49

4.3 Conflicts between Commercial Fishermen and Artisanal Fishermen 49

4.4 Impact of Commercial Fisheries in the 3,000-Meter Prohibited Areas on Artisanal Fishermen 50

5. Existing regulations and standards relating to trash fishing and Thailand implementation 54

5.1 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the EU regulation on IUU fishing 54

5.1.1 The development of IPOA-IUU 54

5.1.2 The definition of illegal, unreported and unregistered fishing activities 56 5.1.3 The European Union regulation to combat IUU fishing 57

TABLE OFCONTENTSTABLE OFCONTENTS


5/156

5.2 Standards on trash fishing at an international level 57

5.2.1 Marine Stewardship Council 57

5.2.2 Aquaculture Stewardship Council 58

5.2.3 The certification standard for the Responsible Supply of Fishmeal and Fish Oil 58

5.2.4 Best Aquaculture Practices 59

5.2.5 Global Good Agricultural Practice (Global G.A.P) 60

5.2.6 Friend of the Sea 60

5.2.7 ASC, GAA, and Global G.A.P. agreement on responsible sourcing of fishmeal and fish oil 60

5.3 National regulations and standards 67 5.3.1 Thai fisheries law 67

5.3.2 Control of IUU fishing 70

5.3.3 Compliance to the EU Requirements: Thailand catch certificate scheme 74

5.3.4 Fishmeal certificate scheme in Thailand 76

5.3.5 A Roadmap for Sustainable Development of Thailands Fisheries 80

6. Estimates of biomass diverted to fishmeal supply chain 81

6.1 Preamble 81

6.2 Data collection summary 85

6.3 Biomass analysis conclusion 95

7. Supply Chain of Fishmeal Industry in Songkhla and Its Activities 97

7.1 Supply Chain and Stakeholders activities 97

7.2 Responsible sourcing of fishmeal raw material 112

7.2.1 Animal feed mills 112

7.2.2 Fishmeal producers 114

7.2.3 Suppliers of raw materials 115

7.3 Supplementary information: field research at Ta Sa-aan Port 116

8. Case Study: Sustainable Fishing in Peru 120

8.1 Overview of Perus anchoveta industry 120

8.2 History of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery 121

8.3 Toward fishery sustainability 124

8.4 Lessons from Peruvian sustainability 129

9. Impact of Supply Chain Activities, Gap Analysis, and Recommendations 132

9.1 Direct Impacts on Thai marine ecosystem 132

9.2 Indirect Impacts on Thai marine ecosystem 132

9.3 Gap analysis and recommendations 135

Appendix 149


6/156

Figure 1: Marine Production in Thailand from 1950 - 2011 17

Figure 2: Catch Per Unit Effort from 1961 2010 (kilograms per hour) 18

Figure 3: Thailands EEZ map 19

Figure 4: Number of fishing boats by type, 2011 21

Figure 5: Volume of wild-caught marine production by type of fishing gears, 2010 (tons, % of total) 21

Figure 6: Main species and share of global output and export 22Figure 7: Species of fish usually found in trash fish 23

Figure 8: Production process of fishmeal and fish oil 25

Figure 9: Composition of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade fishmeal 26

Figure 10: Worlds fishmeal production, 1988 - 2009 27

Figure 11: Top six fishmeal producing countries (thousand tons) 27

Figure 12: Top six fishmeal consuming countries (thousand tons) 27

Figure 13: Top six fishmeal exporting countries (thousand tons) 28

Figure 14: Top six fishmeal importing countries (thousand tons) 28

Figure 15: Thailands fishmeal production by year, 2006-2011 29

Figure 16: Thailands fishmeal production and producers, 1987 - 2011 29Figure 17: Thailands top five fishmeal producing provinces in 2011 30

Figure 18: Raw materials of fishmeal, 1987 - 2011 30

Figure 19: Thailands fishmeal export by year, 2008-2013* 32

Figure 20: Thailands fishmeal export by category, 2007 2013* 33

Figure 21: Thailands fishmeal export by category, 2008 2013* 33

Figure 22: Raw materials of fishmeal in Songkhla, 1999 2011, divided into trash fish,trimmings (by-product) and other fish 34

Figure 23: Average prices of fishmeal by province in 2011 (Baht per kilogram) 35

Figure 24: Peruvian fishmeal price from 1980 2013 (US$ per ton) 36

Figure 25: Prices of trash fish, 1st and 2nd grade fishmeal, and Peruvian fishmeal, 2007-2011 (Baht per kilogram) 36

Figure 26: Estimated quantity of livestock and feed ingredients required for sufficient animal feedin Thailand, 2003-2012 (tons)* 37

Figure 27: Reported finfish landing in the Gulf of Thailand 43

Figure 28: MSY model 44

Figure 29: Simplified coastal food webs 46

Figure 30: Average daily income per boat of artisanal fishermen in Songkhla during 1993-1999 51

Figure 31: Average daily cost per boat of artisanal fishermen in Songkhla during 1993-1999 52

Figure 32: Average daily profit/loss per boat of artisanal fishermen in Songkhla during 1993-1999 53

Figure 33: Requirement for Sourcing of fishmeal and fish oil of BAP, ASC, G.A.P. 61

Figure 34: Summary of international standards and certified Thai companies 62

Figure 35: Figure 35: Key features of Fisheries Act 1947, compared to draft of the new fisheries act 69Figure 36: Vessels registration process 71

Figure 37: Number of registered Thai fishing vessels, 2010-2013 71

TABLE OFFIGURES

TABLE OFFIGURES


7/156

Figure 38: Process of acquiring fishing license and fishing permit in Thai waters 72

Figure 39: Process of acquiring fishing license and fishing permit in overseas waters 73

Figure 40: Number of fishing vessels receiving and returning fishing logbook from 2010-2013 74

Figure 41: Catch Certificate Scheme 75

Figure 42: Amount of certified marine products exported to the EU and number of catch certificate issuedfrom 2010-2013 76

Figure 43: Fishmeal certificate scheme 78

Figure 44: Number of fishmeal certificate (submitted for verification), amount of materials, and amount of fishmealby source of materials from 10 June 31 December 2013 78

Figure 45: Summary of various schemes 79

Figure 46: Pla pet condition in Songkhla 82

Figure 47: Reported finfish landings in the Gulf of Thailand 83

Figure 48: Volume of marine fish landed at Songkhla (Ta sa-aan) 84

Figure 49: The fisheries pier at Songkhla just before dawn (Image S. Arunrugstichai) 86

Figure 50: Results composition of landed product at Songkhla 87

Figure 51: Summary of catch statistics for the vessels interviewed for this study 88Figure 52: Selections of pla pet found at port 89

Figure 53: Department of Fisheries Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) figures for 2010/11. 90

Figure 54: Composition of pla pet from a vessel offloading at Songkhla in August 90

Figure 55: Example composition of pla pet from a vessel offloading at Songkhla in September 91

Figure 56: Summary of the diversity of biota landed as pla pet in Songkhla in August and September 91

Figure 57: Average species composition of the food fish component of catches landed at Songkhla 92

Figure 58: A multispecies basket of fish landed in Songkhla 93

Figure 59: crustaceans, squids and fish mashed together into unrecognizability 94

Figure 60: Ta Sa-aan Afterwards 95

Figure 61: Peruvian fishmeal and fish oil supply chain 97Figure 62: Map of fishmeal supply chain in central and eastern regions of Thailand 98

Figure 63: Map of fishmeal supply chain on Andaman Sea side 99

Figure 64: Map of fishmeal supply chain on Gulf of Thailand side 99

Figure 65: Map of fishmeal supply chain in Songkhla 100

Figure 66: Fishmeal producers in Songkhla, ranked from largest to the smallest 102

Figure 67: Raw materials of fishmeal in Songkhla, 1999 2013, divided into trash fish, by-products and other fish 102

Figure 68: Relationships between top five fishmeal producers in Songkhla and fish-processing manufacturers 103

Figure 69: Fishmeal prices at Bangkok market announced by CPF on February 8, 2014 104

Figure 70: Fishmeal operation flow chart 105

Figure 71: Summary of trash fish usage (highlighted in red) and map of supply chain of fishmeal industryin Songkhla 108

Figure 72: Activity map of fishmeal supply chain and practices under Thailands fishmeal certificate 111

Figure 73: Animal feed mills based on fishmeal traceability, ranked from highest % to lowest % 114

Figure 74: Fishmeal produced from whole fish and fishmeal produced from non-traceable whole fish by purchasers(percentage) 116

Figure 75: Ta Sa-aan Port 117

Figure 76: Ta Sa-aan Port Landing Area 118

Figure 77: Peruvian anchoveta 121

Figure 78: Historical Peruvian anchoveta landing, major El Nio and fishery phases 122

Figure 79: Fleet size and number of fishmeal factories: 19502006 124

Figure 80: Peruvian rapid decision flow on fishing closure (IFFO 2009) 127Figure 81: Stakeholders activities and their impacts on Thai marine ecosystem 134

Figure 82: Gulf of Thailand at night, as seen from space 136


8/156

ABBREVIATIONS

APFIC The Asia-Pacic Fishery Commission ASC The Aquaculture Stewardship Council BAP Best Aquaculture Practices CC Catch Certicate

CD Customs Department, Ministry of Finance CPF Charoen Pokphand Foods CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DFT Department of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce DOF Department of Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAO-COFI Food and Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries FIP Fishery Improvement Project FMFO Fishmeal and Fish Oil FSARG Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group FOS Friend of the sea GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance Global G.A.P. Global Good Agricultural Practices GoT Gulf of Thailand IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative (Initiatief Duurzame Handel) IFFO International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization IFFO RS Responsible Supply of Fishmeal and Fish Oil IMARPE The Instituto del March del Peru IPOA The international plans of action

IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing IVQ Individual Vessel Quota MCPD Marine Catch Purchasing Document

MCPD-FM Marine Catch Purchasing Document FishmealMCTD Marine Catch Trans-shipping Document

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and CooperativesMSC Marine Stewardship Council

NPOA-IUU National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreportedand Unregulated Fishing

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organizations RPOA-IUU Regional Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported

and Unregulated Fishing SFP Sustainable Fisheries Partnership SNP Sociedad Nacional de Pesqueria (Perus National Fisheries Society)

TAC Total Allowable Catch TFMA Thai Feed Mill Association

TFM Thaiunion Feedmill TFPA Thai Fishmeal Producers Association

TUF Thaiunion Frozen Products UNGA United Nations General Assembly WWF World Wildlife Fund

TABLE OFABBREVIATIONS

TABLE OFABBREVIATIONS


9/156

FOREWORDFOREWORDThis research contributes to the Economic Justice Programme of

Oxfam Thailand. Oxfam is an international development agency that

works in more than 90 countries worldwide. We have the mission to work with

partners to end poverty and inequality. In Thailand, the Economic Justice

Programme empowers peoples organizations with knowledge and

information, and partners with key stakeholders in the country and regions

to achieve equal economic opportunities. Two main target groups are the

sherfolk and the small scale farmers. With close consultations with Oxfams

partners, we are working to achieve the community right to joint natural

resources management, climate change adaptation and gendered enterprise

and market.

This research is aimed to inform the Association of Thai Fisherfolk

Federations, civil society, relevant public and private sectors and hope it will

springboard discussions towards more sustainable marine management

which also takes sherfolks right into account.

Oxfam Thailand would also like to thank Thai Sea Watch Association

(TSWA), our partner, whose support for eld coordination and information

was crucial to the success of this research.


10/156

8

EXECUTIVESUMMARYEXECUTIVESUMMARYproduct which is completely unsaleable in any

other market (especially used in reference tobadly damaged or putrescent products). In Thai

sheries parlance, such trash sh is known as

pla pet and does not refer to low-value, but

otherwise edible sh.

This research nds that Thailands

demersal shery has been severely depleted

by overshing. Excess shing capacity over the

past four decades has meant that Catch Per

Unit Effort (CPUE) has been decliningcontinuously since 1961 from almost 300

kilogrammes per hour to 17.8 kilogrammes in

2010. The rapid depletion, contrasts with

published production gures, suggesting that

Thailand has been depending on resources

from other countries for a long time.

It is now widely recognized that unselective

shing aimed at maximizing the total catch, such

as bottom trawling which yields the kind of trashsh used in Thailands shmeal production,

tends to dramatically change marine ecosystem.

Small sh and invertebrates such as squids that

feed mainly on plankton will become over-

represented in the ocean, and will quickly

dominate the system. Oversh ing is

increasingly understood to result in changes

in the structure and functions of marine habitat,

especially organisms relative positions in the

food chain (technically called trophic level ofan ecosystem). Since populations of many small

sh species depend on adding new members

(recruitment in scientic term), overshing has

This research project is predicated on the

premise that in order to constructively engageshrimp industry in Thailand to implement more

sustainable supply chain practices, one of the

most important rst steps is to pinpoint the

impact of shmeal (shrimp feed) industry on the

livelihood of coastal communities in Thailand,

as well as map their supply chain in order to get

a clearer picture of business conducts of key

stakeholders for use in evaluating potentially

fruitful engagement strategies.

Fishmeal is a main protein ingredient for

animal feed, especially for sh and shrimp feed.

During this research, we encountered many

different accounts of ratio between whole sh,

trimmings, and trash sh used in shmeal

production. While the global norm for shmeal

is that 75% of raw materials comprise whole sh

(including trash sh in international denition,

i.e. undesirable or unpalatable sh), and 25%

trimmings, Thai Feed Mill Association claimsthat raw materials of shmeal in Thailand are:

35% trimmings from canned sh manufacturers,

18% trash sh, 15% sardinellas and other sh,

20% trimmings from Surimi producers, 2% trash

sh from overseas waters and the remaining

10% are trimmings from other sh processing

manufacturers.

In part, this variance can be explained by

the imprecision of the phrase trash sh.Whereas in Western countries, trash sh means

undesirable or unpalatable sh, in modern

Thailand, it means exclusively that fraction of


11/156

9

been suggested as the main reason for the

declining sh stock that is available to artisanal

shermen. This of course has tremendous

consequence to the livelihood and foodsecurity of artisanal shermen who rely on

natural replenishment of coastal sh stock. It

also affects industrial shermen who target adult

sh population.

From the statistics of small-scale shing

households, we found that the majority of the

artisanal shermen in Thailand use small

outboard powered boats. In Songkhla, the

percentage of artisanal shermen who usedsuch boats was 63.64% or 3,930 households in

2000, and about 27.5% or 1,683 households

did not use any shing vessel. Severe

overcapacity in the industrial shing industry

resulting in the depletion of near-shore marine

resources, has left local artisanal shermen with

very limited choices as 1) their boats, if any,

were relatively small, so they could not go to

sh very far from shore 2) many of them had no

skill other than shing. When the previouslyabundant coastal sea became barren, local

artisanal shermen faced a lot of problems, both

nancial and social. Financial problems include

decreasing incomes and increasing costs of

sheries eventually leading to informal debts.

One research in ve villages in Songkhla during

1993-1999 showed that local shermens

income in 1999 fell 3-40 times from the 1993

level.

Our eld research for this project

discovered that, with the exception of a single

vessel interviewed in August, the vessels

interviewed in September 2013 were landing

around 4 tons of commercial sh per trip on

Songkhla shing port, after spending anywhere

between one and two weeks at sea. This catch

was supplemented by roughly 6.5 tons of

pla pet. All of the skippers interviewed stated

that their shing was conducted in the vicinityof Mu Koh Kra (an offshore group of islands in

Nakhorn Sri Thammarat province). The vessels

were all standard medium otter-board trawlers

(24-40m in length, crew of 5-6, powered by

275-315 horsepower diesel engines, and

deploying trawl nets with 10 metre gape), and

represent a reasonable sample of the types ofmedium-sized commercial shing vessels

returning product to Songkhla at that time of

year.

The gures presented here represent an

average total return on shing effort (CPUE) of

approximately 49(17) kilogramme/hour for the

vessels landing catch in August and September.

The high catch rates of juvenile and trash sh

in demersal trawls can be explained byinappropriately ne mesh used in the cod-ends

of nets. The Thai Department of Fisheries

Master Plan suggests that 40 millimetres is an

appropriate mesh size for demersal trawl

sheries in the Gulf of Thailand. None of the

vessels surveyed used mesh larger than 25

millimetres, and most used 20 millimetres or

less. Push-net shermen use even ner

meshed nets (as little as 10 millimetres) and

frequently target areas utilised as nurseries bymany species of sh and crustaceans.

Juveniles of commercially valuable species and

those important in food security for local people

are killed in large numbers, wasting their

potential.

The wastefulness of overly-ne mesh sizes

is compounded by the use of long trawl duration,

often 6 hours or more, meaning that any product

captured during the rst few hours of the toweven if it is of commercially valuable species will

become ruined and unsalable and will become

pla pet. Tossapornpitakkul et al. (2008)

reported that the average pla pet composition

of catches in Nakhon Sri Thammarat and

Songkhla averaged 42.08% of the annual

capture for small otter board trawlers such as

those we interviewed. These authors also

suggested that the catch composition changes

throughout the year (with pla pet being 40% ofthe catch in the Northeast monsoon, 47%

between the monsoons, and 40% during the

Southwest monsoon). However, we found an


12/156

10

average of 62% pla pet in catches landed in

September, at the end of the Southwest monsoon.

This suggests that the situation has worsened.

Likewise, the volume of pla pet per vessel

landing (averaging slightly more than 6 tons)

coincides with Songkhla sheries records

(roughly 4000 vessel landings, for a total of

25,000 tons of pla pet.) Theoretically, 100% of

pla pet landed at Songkhla could be sold to

shmeal producers, as could any other wasted

or degraded product. However, most of the pla

pet was too decomposed to be used as

feedstock for the high grade shmeal preferredfor shrimp food production, so they are sold to

factories that produce lower-grade shmeal at

lesser value.

In-depth interviews with shmeal factories

based in Songkhla found that, of the 25,000 tons

total estimated pla pet amount landed every

year, approximately 5,760 tons or 23% are sent

to shmeal producers based in Songkhla; the

remaining 77% probably went to shmealproducers in other provinces.

The main raw materials used in shmeal

production in Songkhla are trimmings from

sh-processing manufacturers e.g. surimi, tuna

canning; sh ball producers as well as anchovy

producers and sh retailers at the markets which

accounted about 80% of the estimated total raw

materials of 100,215 tons, or 79,964 tons in

2013. Fishmeal producers also buy rawmaterials directly from commercial shing boats,

as well as brokers who collect trash shfrom

local shing boats from Songkhla and other

provinces. This accounted for 20% of raw

materials or 20,250 tons. Of this amount, 62%

or about 12,609 tons were sh landed in

Songkhla (which includes 5,760 tons of trash

sh or pla pet); the remaining 38% or 7,641 tons

were sh from other provinces such as Satun

and Pattani, as well as imported sh.

Animal feed mills activities that cause

indirect impacts are similar to those of shmeal

factories, as animal feed mills are major users

of shmeal produced from trash sh or sh

caught unsustainably. In effect, they are the

ones that create demands for trash sh. It startswhen they set buying criteria. Many feed mills

set buying criteria and prices based on the

qualities of the shmeal alone, not by how sh

raw materials of shmeal were caught. Thus,

shmeal produced from trash sh caught by

trawlers and push nets that destroy marine

ecosystem can be sold to animal feed mills. This

encourages shing boat owners to continue

their unsustainable shing practices.

The good news is that currently several

feed mills in Thailand already implement various

sustainable procurement practices, to varying

degrees of success, partly owing to pressures

from the ultimate buyers of frozen food exports,

particularly the European Union. For example,

as of March 2014 both Charoen Pokphand

Foods (CPF) and Thaiunion Frozen Products

(TUF), two major feed mills, are certied Best

Aquaculture Practices (BAP) 4-star or top levelstatus. CPF is also certied under Global Good

Agricultural Practice (Global G.A.P). CPF is farand away the largest buyer of shmeal

produced in Songkhla, with 45% market share

of shmeal sold to animal feed mills, followed

by Betagro (17%), Thaiunion Feedmill (11%),

Lee Pattana (9%), and Krungthai Feedmill (3%).

Top three players CPF, Betagro, and

Thaiunion have 73% share of the market

combined.

Our analysis of biomass catch as well as

shmeal supply chain in Songkhla show that

there is signicant room for improvement in

sustainable sourcing. Only shmeal used by

Betagro and Krungthai Feedmill is currently

100% traceable, since they both buy 100%

shmeal from one single shmeal producer that

is 100% traceable. Among major feed mill

players, CPF, Lee Pattana, and ThaiunionFeedmill have the highest share of shmeal

produced from non-traceable sources 74%

combined.


13/156

11

Our analysis of biomass catch as well as

shmeal supply chain in Songkhla show thatthere is signicant room for improvement in

sustainable sourcing. Only shmeal used by

Betagro and Krungthai Feedmill is currently

100% traceable, since they both buy 100%

shmeal from one single shmeal producer that

is 100% traceable. Among major feed mill

players, CPF, Lee Pattana, and Thaiunion

Feedmill have the highest share of shmeal

produced from non-traceable sources 74%

combined.

Complicating the picture is the fact that,

since trash shing is not yet considered

categorically illegal in Thailand, it is possible

even for traceable shmeal (i.e. complying with

the standards) to include trash sh raw

material. In other words, currently there is no

sustainability standard or shmeal certicate

scheme in Thailand that can ensure that no

trash sh was used in shmeal production.For example, there were 575 tons of shmeal

produced from trash sh sold to CPF, about half

of this amount was traceable and got the

shmeal certication under private sectors

shmeal certication scheme.

We observe three key limitations of current

sustainability standards and certicate schemes

as currently practiced in Thailand:

1. There is currently no sustainable

sourcing scheme or standard that all major feed

mills subscribe to. Unless any scheme/standard

incorporates all large feed mills, there would

still be a market for shmeal produced fromirresponsibly-sourced raw materials such as

trash sh, and therefore this practice will con-

tinue.

2. Most schemes rely on a self-report

mechanism. Nothing can assure full traceability

or guarantee that the shermen themselves

ll out the necessary documentation. More

specically, the source of shmeal raw materials

cannot be veried due to the lack of location-specic audit mechanisms, e.g. satellite-

positioning tools to ascertain that the shing

boat is really shing at the stated location.

Therefore, it is currently only possible to check

whether the documents are lled out correctly,

not the correctness of the document contents.

3. Currently every sustainable sourcingscheme and standard is based on the

internationally accepted denition of IUU

Fishing the catch must not be Illegal,

Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) to t

under this denition. But due to Thailands

outdated shery law, what is wide ly

considered damaging shing conduct e.g.

small mesh size of trawls, is not illegal in

Thailand. In addition, every illegal conduct

under sheries law is considered illegal only

when the sherman is caught in the act.

Therefore, damaging shing in Thailand is notconsidered IUU Fishing, and therefore no

standard based on IUU can effectively

discourage trash sh trawling. This is

Company

% Share of Fishmeal

from Songkhla Sold

to Animal Feed Mills

% of Traceability

Traceable

Fishmeal Amount

(tons)

CPF 45% 81% 6,839

Betagro 17% 100% 3,270

Thaiunion Feedmill 11% 47% 972

Lee Pattana 9% 36% 600

Krungthai 3% 100% 600


14/156

12

exacerbated by insufcient control and

monitoring systems due to limited resources.

Consequently, illegally-caught marine products

can be landed legally.

Lessons that Thailand can learn from the

case study of Perus sustainable shing industry

also show gaps in the current attempts toward

sustainable practices as follows:

1. Since overshing and destructive

shing are tragedy of the commons problem

in economics parlance, where efforts of a few

unscrupulous players i.e. free riders can ruinthe resources for everyone, it is necessary to

implement solutions and standards across the

board, i.e. encompassing every stakeholder.

Peru successfully utilizes a combination of laws

(e.g. Individual Vessel Quota (IVQs), mesh size,

by-catch regulation, seasonal closure, shing

rights) and industry involvement and self-

regulation (participation of SNP (Perus

National Fisheries Society) in setting quota and

resolving conicts) across the board, whileThailand still has serious gaps from the

legal denition (e.g. trash shing still not

categorically illegal, practices considered

only illegal when caught in the act), weak

enforcement, to piecemeal participation of

standards and voluntary schemes (e.g. only one

feed mill is offering monetary incentives under

shmeal certicate scheme).

2. Science-based data and technologyare both vital to ensure sheries sustainability

and effective enforcement. IMARPE, major

government marine research agency in Peru,

is recognized globally as a world class

authority, continually reporting maximum

sustainable yield, ecosystem conservation, and

resource sustainability considerations to the

government on which to base decisions such

as quota setting. On the technology front, all

commercial shing vessels in Peru are requiredto install satellite tracking devices to ensure

enforcement of seasonal closures and

individual quotas, since the government can

track the movement and location of vesselsin real-time. In Thailand, there is yet no

sustainability standard or scheme which

includes satellite tracking of shing boats toensure that traceability documentation is

correct, and maximum sustainable yield is not

yet a part of systematic decision-making at

policy level.

3. The clearer the business case for

sustainability, the more incentives players have

to comply with sustainability laws/standards/

schemes. In Peru, IVQs helped encourage eet

operators to maximize their efciency throughcarefully shing trip scheduling, accounting for

abundance, and proximity to shore to achieve

shorter and more successful shing trips.

Consequently, the eet receives fresher

landings, providing higher-quality shmeal

production and ultimately higher prots with

lower costs due to less fuel consumption. In

contrast, there is as yet no clear business case

for sustainability in Thailands shmeal industry

in Songkhla; most shmeal producers thatparticipate in the shmeal certicate scheme do

so only because they are paid a price premium

by the buyer (currently only CPF), or they must

do it as part of the buyers requirement.

There is only one shmeal producer that

cites competitiveness as the reason they

participate in the scheme; since they cannot

compete on quality, they offer full traceability

to build credibility and trustworthiness.

Given the above major gaps between

current practices and best practice in Peru,

we believe it is imperative that all current efforts

to move the shmeal industry in Thailand

towards a more sustainable pathway from new

sheries law to the industrys latest Fisheries

Improvement Project are synchronized and

truly encompass all stakeholders, designed to

close the above gaps as much as possible with

a view toward long-term sustainability of marineecosystems in Thailand.


15/156

13

Aquaculture is one of the fastest growingfood production systems with the total economicvalue around 150 billion USD worldwide. Thisindustry is controversial for its extensive impacton society and ecosystems. Yet it also presentssignicant food production and economic

opportunities for developing countries asdominant aquaculture producers, including therural areas in which that production takes place.

Thailand is the worlds largest exporter ofshrimp, and therefore has one of the largestshrimp feed industries in the world. However,the feed industry in Thailand is still littleconcerned with quality issues and lessincentivized to try and comply with existing

sustainability standard setting mechanisms (oreco-labels) such as RSPO, RTRS, SAN, MSC,FT and/or organic voluntary standards. Inaddition, the use of genetically-modiedorganisms (GMO) in these commodities is lesstransparent. Moreover, from a sustainabilityperspective, there is a blatant ecologicalinefciency in the system: it has been estimatedthat 2 kilograms of feed is required to produce1 kilograms of aqua-cultured sh.

The problem is that increasing demand forlesser quality sh, grains, and soy for aquaculturefeeds drives growing unsustainable negativeimpact on global food production systems aswell as livelihoods of poor people in sheriesand agriculture. This takes place particularly indeveloping countries; affecting agriculturepotential in rural areas, access to land for ruralpoor; and/or ecosystem services for thosedepending food production systems such ascapture sheries and forestry. Protein is themajor component for shrimp feeds and animalproteins have long been considered essential,since they are nutritionally appropriate andreadily digestible. Fishmeal has been the

traditional choice amongst all animal proteins inaquaculture feeds for its protein quality,palatability and as a source of essential aminoacids. It has been estimated that almost 50% ofby-catch and (legally) under-sized catch insheries goes into aquaculture feed. What this

means for the coastal artisanal shers ofThailand is largely unknown.

Oxfam in Thailand has been working withcivil society on community rights to coastalresource management and access to agriculturalland rights. Globally, Oxfam has been engagedin the development of the AquacultureStewardship Council (ASC; see: www.ascworldwide.org) and several standards this

certication system houses, in particular withregards to shrimp. One of the main drawbacksof the ASC system as a tool towards responsibleor sustainable aquaculture was and is that thefeed that goes into the aquaculture ponds is stillinsufciently captured by the ASC standards.Thus, despite the ASC being a tool to driveaquaculture practices towards sustainability,there is still a huge door open to negative impact(indirectly) caused by aquaculture; namelythrough the supply of aquaculture feed and feed

ingredients.

The ASC has recently announced the startof Feed Dialogues and invited intereststakeholders to participate. In order toconstructively engage major shrimp feedcompanies in Thailand, one of the mostimportant rst steps is to pinpoint, as accuratelyas possible, the impact of shrimp feed industryon the livelihood of coastal communities inThailand, as well as map their supply chain inorder to get a clearer picture of shrimp feedindustry business conduct for use in evaluatingpotentially fruitful engagement strategies.

RESEARCHBACKGROUND1.


16/156

14

1.1 Objective of this project

1) To establish and quantify, as much as

possible, the impact of shrimp feed industryon the livelihood of local shing communities

in Songkhla;

2) To map the supply chain of shrimp feed

industry in Songkhla, including market

shares and key activities of major stake-

holders in the supply chain; and

3) To spur more awareness and support for the

issue from the general public via an effectivecommunication plan that will be executed in

conjunction with research.

1.2 Objective of this report

1) Review background documents related to

depletion of coastal resources and livelihoodof local shing communities in Songkhla aswell as other relevant research papers andliterature;

2) Discuss with Oxfam teams and local NGOsinvolved in Oxfams ongoing programin Songkhla, as well as others which havecarried out similar works to gain furtherunderstanding of local condition and trend;

3) Establish and quantify, as much as possible,the impact of shrimp feed industry on thelivelihood of local fishing communities inSongkhla;

4) Submit a full analysis on the linkage betweenshrimp feed industry and livelihood of localshermen in Songkhla;

5) Identify key companies involved in both

upstream and downstream of shrimp feedbusiness in Songkhla, review their businesspractices, and identify potentials for moresocially and environmentally responsiblebusiness conducts; and

6) Review environmentally sustainablebusiness practices carried out in thesimilar context and formulate practicalrecommendations for further discussionswith business stakeholders


17/156

15

1.3 Methodology and Limitations

of Research

For this research, the research team conductedeld research on the following issues:

1) Supply chain structure and practices ofshmeal industry in Songkhla; and

2) Estimate and analysis of catch landed atSongkhla Ta Sa-aan Port

In addition, the team conducted desk researchand interviews on the following issues:

1) Literature review on the impact of trashshing on marine ecosystem in Songkhla;

2) Literature review on the impact of trashshing on livelihood of local artisanal shingcommunities in Songkhla;

3) Overview of the shmeal industry in Thailandand Songkhla;

4) Existing regulations and standards andproposed revisions; and

5) Literature review on sustainable shing inPeru

The research team found that existingresearch on the impact of trash shing on thelivelihood of local artisanal shing communities

in Songkhla is very limited. There appears to beno research on this specic topic; the closestwe were able to uncover were a few reports onthe impact of push net sheries in Pattani, andimpact of anchovy shing using luring light inSongkhla. The latter includes quantitative dataof incomes of local shermen during 1993 1999; this data was used to support the sugges-tion that destructive shing like anchovy shingusing luring light had impact on local shermen.The use of quantitative data in this research is

rare; most reports simply contain descriptionsof the causes, impact, and adaptations of localshermen.

We still cite the aforementioned researchin this report because we believe that, theaforementioned reservations notwithstanding,research data shows that local shermen inSongkhla were affected from the reduction ofmarine resources caused by destructive shing.When one considers decl ining marineresources, it is difcult to distinguish the effectsof trawlers and push nets from the effects ofanchovy shing using luring light. Even if it weredoable, no such data was collected or availableat this point.

Apart from limited information and/or literature available, much of the informationis a lso outdated. Both p ieces of theaforementioned research reports we reviewed

for this report were written in 2000, over 13years ago. Not only are research reportsoutdated, but key data e.g. Marine FisheryCensus, which records income of small-scaleshing households, is also outdated. Forexample, Marine Fishery Census, which wasconducted every 10 years, was discontinuedafter the 2000 Intercensal Survey of MarineFishery (B.E. 2543). Similarly, the Income ofSmall-Scale Fishing Households Survey wasalso last conducted in 2000 or B.E. 2543.


18/156

16

2.1 Thailands Fisheries from the Past

Commercial sheries in Thailand can betraced back to before World War II. Fishinggears used in the early days were simple, e.g.

hooks, pots, stow nets, set nets, or beachseines, and most of the shing boats werenon-powered boats such as sailboats, rowboatsor paddle boats. In 1945, there were only 65powered boats and 2,513 non-powered boats.Between 1953 1960, trawlers were introducedto Thailand, but they were not particularlysuccessful because shermen did not know thecharacteristics of the sea bottom where theytrawled, and the prices of the demersal1 sh

were very low because Thai people at thattime did not know demersal sh; they preferredpelagic2 sh l ike Indo-Pacic anchovy(Department of Fisheries, n.d.).

However, in 1960, the German governmentsent experts to train Thai shermen to usetrawlers; they were very successful. They foundthat marine resources in the Gulf of Thailandwere very rich, and that the most efcient gearto catch demersal fauna was the Otter Board

Trawl (OBT). Almost instantly, trawlers becamevery popular. At that time, the Thai Departmentof Fisheries (DoF) itself also supported the

use of pair trawlers (PT). They modied andconverted Chinese purse seiners to function astrawlers, and trained shermen in trawl shing.The trawl shery was booming, spurring theacquisition of more and bigger trawlers. In 1960,

there were only 99 trawlers, but in 1966 thenumber had skyrocketed to 2,695, equivalent toa 2,600% growth rate within six years.Meanwhile, marine production increased byover 600%, from 63,711 tons in 1960 to 448,554tons in 1966 (Boonwanich & Boonpakdee,2009.).

From 1967, Thai trawlers began shing inthe marine zones of Cambodia, Myanmar,Vietnam, and Malaysia, increasing Thaimarine production to 1,548,157 tons in 1972;Thailand became a top ten marine product-producing country (DoF, n.d.). In 1987, themarine production topped 2 million tons, ofwhich 68% was demersal fauna, composed of41% of demersal sh, 39% of trash sh3, 9%,of squids and other miscellaneous organisms,including shrimps (Kongprom et al., 2007).It stayed at levels of 2.4 2.8 million tons during1990 2006, reaching its peak of 2,827,400

tons in 1995. Since then it has graduallydeclined (Fishery Information TechnologyCenter [FITC], 2012).

OVERVIEW OFFISHMEAL INDUSTRY2.

1

Demersal sh are sh living at/near the seaoor e.g. sea bass, shark, red snapper, ray, grouper, atsh, sea catsh, bream.2

Pelagic sh are ocean sh which live in schools in the upper sea levels e.g. anchovy, mackerel, tuna, sardine, mullet, pomfret.3 Trash sh are a term shermen call small-sized, non-commercial sh and/or spoiled sh that cannot be sold for humanconsumption. In Songkhla, trash sh or Pla Kaiis a specic term for assorted small-sized, non-commercial sh sold to shmealproducers. If the same sh is sold to sh farms, it will be called bait sh or Pla Yue. Fish and other marine fauna that havebadly handled, smashed by the trawl net or are putrescent are termed Pla Pet.


19/156

17

4 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) is a reference number used to indirectly measure the abundance of the marine resources. It is thetotal catch divided by the total amount of effort spent on the catch. Reported CPUE is calculated as weighted number ofCPUEs reported by 85 stations of Marine Fisheries Research and Development Bureau in Gulf of Thailand (64) and AndamanSea (21); CPUE is calculated using standard vessels which will trawl for one hour using Otter Board Trawls with 2.5 cm meshsize during January to June every year (Marine Fisheries Research and Development Bureau, 2012).

5 From interview conducted with Marine Fisheries Research and Development Bureau, 2013.

Figure 1: Marine Production in Thailand from 1950 - 2011

Source: Oceans in the Balance, Thailand in Focus, 2013

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

tons

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

years

Although Thailands marine productionkept growing during the period 1960 1995,the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)4 has beendeclining continuously since 1961 fromalmost 300 kgs per hour to 17.8 kgs in 2010(Boonwanich & Boonpakdee, 2009). Thissuggests that marine resources of Thailandhave been declining, and that Thailands sheryproduction has been depending on resourcesfrom other countries for a long time. WhenMalaysia and Indonesia began imposing newregulations that disallow foreign boats to sh intheir maritime zones, Thai shing boats in those

waters had to be registered as Malaysian andIndonesian boats. When landing the catchesfrom these boats, the catches were consideredimported sh. Thailands marine production,therefore, sharply dropped to 1,644,800 tons in2008 (DoF, 2013) while the CPUE did notchange much. Even so, the ofcial FisheriesStatistics of Thailand does not accurately reectthe amount of sh caught in Thai waters,because the ofcial gures include sh caughtin the un-policed EEZs of Cambodia (in the Gulfof Thailand gures) and Myanmar and on thehigh seas (in Andaman Sea catch gures)5.


20/156

18

Figure 2: Catch Per Unit Effort from 1961 2010 (kilograms per hour)

Source: Boonwanich & Boonpakdee, 2009.

Therefore, in order to maintain or increasethe volume of marine production of the country,

Thailand has to search for more abundantshing grounds, exert more effort, useundiscriminating shing gears that can catchalmost everything, and/or build more boats.

Fishing Grounds

Thailand covers an area of 514,000 km2,and has two coastlines 2,600 km long.The coastline on the Gulf of Thailand (GoT)side is 1,840 km in length, and that of the

Andaman Sea is 865 km. According to Fisheryand Aquaculture Country Proles of the King-dom of Thailand (FAO, n.d.), the main shingground for Thai shing boats is GoT which ac-counts for 41% of total wild-caught sh and

seafood. (19% in the Andaman Sea and 40% inthe waters outside Thailands EEZ (Exclusive

Economic Zone) According to the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), EEZ is dened as the area within200 nautical miles (nm) from baseline. Eachcountry has the sovereign right to explore,exploit, conserve, and manage the marineresources both living and non-living in thewaters superjacent to the sea-bed, sea-bed, andsubsoil within the EEZ. Thailands EEZ coversan area of 323,488.326 km 2 (120,812.12 km2

of the Andaman Sea and 202,676.20 km

2

ofGoT) (Hydrographic Department, Royal ThaiNavy, 2012 cited in Department of Marine andCoastal Resources, n.d.).

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

CPUE

(kg.

/hr.

)

2504

2513

2535

2522

2544

2507

2516

2538

2525

2548

2510

2531

2519

2541

2528

2551

297.8 kg./hr.

17.8 kg./hr.

6 There are many numbers of Thailands EEZ e.g. 316,000 km2 (FAO), 316,118.3 km2 (Greenpeace Southeast Asia), 420,280km2 (Khemakorn, 2009), 306,365 (See Around Us Project), but we use the one from Department of Marine and Coastal Re -sources which cited from Hydrographic Department, Royal Thai Navy.


21/156

19

Figure 3: Thailands EEZ map

Source: Hydrographic Department, Royal Thai Navy, 2012 cited in Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, n.d.

Internal Water

Territorial Sea

Contiguous Zone

Exclusive Economic

Zone-Malaysia - ThailandJoint Development Area

Explanation of Map Symbols

Basic Marine and Coastal Information

Maritime Zone of Thailand

Province Location

Road WaterwayProvince Boundary


22/156

20

Apart from EEZ, UNCLOS also denedshelf area7 that each country can claim itsrights. In 1971, Vietnam imposed law on its shelf

area, and so did Cambodia in 1972. To protectits rights, Thailand claimed its shelf area in1973. The claims over shelf areas of the threecountries created the overlapping areas thatcause disputes between the three nations. Theoverlapping areas are as follows:

1. Thailand Cambodia 8,733 nm2

2. Thailand Vietnam 3,903 nm2

3. Cambodia Vietnam 18,311 nm2

After both Vietnam and Cambodia laidclaims over shelf areas, they claimed on EEZwhich directly affected Thai shery industry asit lost around 300,000 nm2of high seas that Thaishing boats used to sh, making shing boatssmaller than 22 meters to return to Thai watersand compete with the same size or smallershing boats shing there trying to catch as

much as possible. Middle-sized boats, on theother hand, bought concessions to sh at thesame areas or operate illegally while large boatswent even further to sh in the high seas thatwere not claimed.

Those small shing boats including trawlersthat returned to sh in Thai waters worsenedthe overcapacity problems in GoT, and hadconicts with other small shing boats thatalready were shing in these areas. Thus, later

on, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives(MOAC) enacted regulations concerningtrawlers, trawl shing, push nets, and push netshing, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives decree on forbidden zones to usetrawlers and push nets B.E. 2515 (1972),regulation on the practice of reducing trawlersand push nets B.E. 2523 (1980), and regulationon the control of trawlers and push nets B.E.2539 (1996).

2.2 Why trawlers and push nets are

banned

Th e M i n i s t r y o f A g r i cu l t u r e a n dCooperatives (MOAC) latest regulation ontrawlers and push nets, issued in B.E. 2539(1996), stipulates that the Thai governmentwill no longer grant licenses to new trawlers;only those who already own the licenses canapply for license renewal. As a result, thenumber of registered trawlers and push netshas been declining. For example, in 1989,there were 13,113 trawlers, but in 2011,the number was 3,466 (Boonwanich &

Boonpakdee, 2009; FITC, 2013). The reasonsMOAC enacted these regulations werebecause they realized that marine resourceswere exploited faster than the reproductiveability of nature, which could lead to depletionof the resources which would eventually affectthe economy. Also, there were too many shingboats, particularly trawlers and push nets, andtrawlers and push nets are destructive shinggears that catch everything indiscriminately

(Boonwanich & Boonpakdee, 2009).

Trawlers and push nets catch sh andother marine fauna living at or near the seaoor.They sweep everything including juveniles ofcommercial sh into the cod-end as well asdestroy coral reefs, spawn grounds and habitatsof sh when they drag pass, making the sea-bedsmooth, plain, muddy seaoor (Plathong, 2012).There are three types of trawls: 1) otter boardtrawl (most popular), 2) pair trawl, and 3) beam

trawl. In 2011, of 17,203 registered shingboats, 20.1% or 3,466 were trawlers. Of thetotal number of the trawlers, 65.1% (2,256) wereregistered as otter board trawlers, 31.5%(1,092) were pair trawlers, and 3.4% (118) werebeam trawlers. Although trawlers account foronly 20.1% of the total number of shing boats,capture by trawlers comprised 773,317 tons, or48% of the wild-caught marine production totalof 1,610,418.

7 Shelf area is the area of the seaoor that naturally extends from the land until it merges with the continental margin or within200 nm from the baseline.


23/156

21

Figure 4: Number of shing boats by type, 2011

Figure 5: Volume of wild-caught marine production by type of shing gears, 2010 (tons, % of total)

Source: Fishery Information Technology Center, 2013

Source: Fishery Information Technology Center, 2012

trawlers

purse seine

gill nets and entangling nets

falling nets

lift nets

push nets

other nets

hook & lines

miscellaneouse

3,719,22%

3,466, 20%

32, 0%32, 0%

1,498, 9%

7,825, 45%

274, 2%375, 2%

11, 0%

trawlers

purse seine

gill nets and entangling nets

falling nets

lift nets

push nets

other nets

hook & lines

miscellaneouse

773,317, 48%

533,016, 33%

77, 849, 5%

22,682, 1%

60,384, 4%

3,352, 0% 16,596, 1% 123,222, 8%

The composition of sh caught by trawlers reveals why they are considered destructive shinggears. Kongprom et al. (2007) reported that of the total sh and seafood caught by trawlers smallotter board trawls, medium otter board trawls and pair trawls, 36.08% - 71.94% were trash sh,of which between 15.18% - 54.57% were juveniles of commercial sh. If these juveniles had notbeen caught and allowed to grow, they would have much higher economic values both as largersh and as a source of replenishment of the exploitable stock when they recruited to the spawningpopulation.


24/156

22

2.3 Characteristics of Fishmeal

Fishmeal is brown powder made from

cooking, drying, and squeezing trash sh8

and/or trimmings of sh (Nordahl, 2011). Rawmaterials used to produce shmeal includewhole sh and trimmings (i.e. trimmings) fromsh production such as sh heads, bones, etc.According to C.J. Shepherd and A.J. Jackson(2012) from International Fishmeal and Fish OilOrganisation (IFFO), the global norm forshmeal is that 75% of raw materials comprisewhole sh (including trash sh in internationalparlance, i.e. undesirable or unpalatable sh),

and the remaining 25% are trimmings.However, according to the Thai FishmealProducers Association (TFPA), shmealproduced in Thailand is made from 65%trimmings and 35% trash sh (Personal

communication, August 13, 2013).

Yet another set of gures is cited by the

animal feed industry. According to Thai FeedMill Association, raw materials of shmealcome from 35% trimmings from canned shmanufacturers, 18% trash sh, 15% sardinellasand other sh, 20% trimmings from Surimiproducers, 2% trash sh from overseas waters,and the remaining 10% are trimmings fromother sh processing manufacturers (Fishmeal,2011).

The species of whole sh used in shmeal

production vary from region to region. Forexample, in South America, the main speciesare anchovy and Northern Europe blue whitingwhile in Thailand, various species are used toproduce shmeal.

Based on Bureau of Agricultural Economics Research, species of sh caught depend on theshing gears shermen used. If the shermen use gillnets or purse seines, sh caught will bepelagic sh only such as Sardinellas. But if they use trawlers otter board trawl, pair trawl or bottomtrawl or push nets, most of the sh caught will be demersal sh which consist of various kinds ofspecies usually referred to as Pla Benchapan (literally means ve kinds of sh) or trash sh. Figure7 show the species of sh usually found in trash sh.

8 Trash sh is an all-encompassing term used to describe low economic-value sh, usually small species that are not preferredby consumers. They are bycatch from non-selective sheries; in some countries, trash sh will be discarded while in manycountries they are used for 1) making shmeal for animal feed, 2) direct animal feed, and 3) human consumption. In Thailand,trash sh or Pla Ped/Pla Kaiis usually referred to small size sh (both true trash sh which is still small when maturing e.g.sardinella and juveniles of high economic value sh) and damaged sh, which are used to produce shmeal.

Figure 6: Main species and share of global output and export

Country/Region

of productionMain species used in production

Global production

share 2007

Global export

share 2007

Peru Anchove 25% 41%

Chile Jack Mackerel, Anchovy, Sardines 13% 16%

China Various 19% 0%

Thailand Various 8% 3%

USA Menhaden, Alaske pollock 5% 3%

Iceland Blue-whiting, Herring, trimmings 2% 4%

Norway Blue-whiting, Capelin, trimmings 3% 1%

Denmark Sandeel, Sprat, Blue-whiting, Herring 3% 5%

Japan Sadine, Pilchard 4% 0%

Total 81% 73%

Source: FAO Fishstat 2009 cited in Nordahl, 2011


25/156

23

Figure 7: Species of sh usually found in trash sh


26/156

24

Source: Thai Fishmeal Producers Association, 2013

Figure 7 (continued)


27/156

25

Production Seasons

Peru the worlds major shmeal producer

and exporter has two shing seasons. Therst Peruvian shing season starts from Mayto July, and the second season runs fromNovember until January (IFFO, 2009). Theshing seasons in each region of Thailand areas follows:

1. Southeast region (Andaman Sea):November April

2. Southwest region (Gulf of Thailand):May October

3. East region (Gulf of Thailand):September April (Bureau ofAgricultural Economics Research, 2012)

In Thailand, shmeal production seasonis principally in the non-Monsoon period fromApril July; the shmeal producers receive alot of raw materials during this period. Thecomposition of product that is diverted toshmeal production changes during the year,

with a larger proportion of juveniles and truetrash sh after the recruitment pulses thatcoincide with monsoon seasons.

Figure 8: Production process of shmeal and sh oil

Pelagic sh(globally 75% of input)

Trimmings(globally 25% of input)

Step 1

Cooked at 95oC

Step 2

Squeezed

Crude shoil

Fishoil yield2.5 - 4.5%

Step 3

Flame Dried

(low quality shmeal)

Steam Dried

(high quality shmeal)

Fishoil yield22 - 24%

Fishmeal Production Process

Fishmeal production process in Peru is

different from the process practiced in Thailand.In Thailand, the producers do not separate shoil from shmeal, so the shmeal contains a lotof fat resulting in a short shelf life. The shmealand sh oil production process in Peru as shownin gure 8 is divided into three steps: 1) cook 2)squeeze, and 3) dry. The rst step is to check,clean, and cook the sh at around 95 degreeCelcius. The second step is to squeeze theliquid out of the cooked sh, and the third stepis to dry the sh (Nordahl, 2011). The oil is

extracted between stages 2 and 3.

In Thailand, there are two types of shmealproduction process: 1) squeezing and 2) drying.The squeezing system is the traditional processthat causes water pollution. This system can bedescribed in four steps: 1) cook 2) squeeze 3)dry and 4) grind. Fishmeal produced by thesystem has low protein and fat because someof protein and fat are lost during the squeezing

step. The drying system consists of four steps:1) chop 2) cook 3) dry and 4) grind. Fishmealproduced by this system will contain 58-65%protein, but it has a short shelf life (Bureau ofAgricultural Economics Research, 2012).

Source: Nordahl, 2011


28/156

26

From IFFO estimates, outputs from the Peruvian production process include 4.79% sh oil,22.5% shmeal, and 72.8% water steam (Shepherd and Jackson, 2012). According to IFFO9 ,composition of shmeal includes 60-72% of protein, 10-20% of ash, 5-12% of fat as well as the

fatty acids EPA and DHA or omega-3. This breakdown is similar to the Study of Economicproduction and Market of Fishmeal under the Quality Assurance System that states that shmealcontains protein, ash, salt, humidity, and remains (Kak). According to Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives of Thailand, shmeal is graded by its composition as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Composition of 1st, 2nd, and 3rdgrade shmeal

Fishmeal 1stGrade 2ndGrade 3rdGrade

Protein (not less than) 60% 55% 50%

Ash (not more than) 26% 28% 30%

Salt (not more than) 3% 3% 3%

Humidity (not more than) 10% 10% 10%

Remaining (not less than) 2% 2% 2%

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives of Thailand, 2012

9cited in Is the Aquaculture Industry Caught in a Fishmeal Trap? by Per Gunnar Nor (2011)

2.4 Overview of Fishmeal Industry

2.4.1 Global

Fishmeal is a main protein ingredient foranimal feed, especially for sh and shrimp feed.The global production of shmeal in 2012 was4.73 million tons (Bureau of AgriculturalEconomics Research, 2012); however, the trendis declining because of the El Niothat causes

the reduction of sh stock which is the rawmaterial of shmeal. Also, Peru a majorshmeal producer and exporter introduced ashing quota. It produced 1.34 million tons ofhigh quality shmeal with 65%+ protein in 2009while Chile the second largest producer produced 0.65 million tons in the same year.The two countries accounted for 41.63% of the

total shmeal production, so when theyintroduced shing quotas, it affected the globalsupply of shmeal and resulted in increasingprices. Other major shmeal producers includeThailand, USA, Japan and Denmark.

Even though globally there is high demandfor aqua-cultured animals, the trend of shmealconsumption is declining because of thegrowing prices of shmeal (Fishmeal, 2013).

The major consumers are China who in 2004used 1.528 million ton, Japan 0.703, Chile0.467, Thailand 0.409, and Norway 0.309.China is also the biggest importer of shmeal.In 2009, China alone imported about 1.31 milliontons while Peru exported about 1.583 milliontons of shmeal (Seash, 2011).


29/156

27

Figure 10: Worlds shmeal production, 1988 - 2009

Worlds Fishmeal Production 1988 - 2009

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

8000000

7000000

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

0

tons

years

Worlds Fishmeal Production /

Source: IFFO, 2010 cited in Seash, 2011

Figure 11: Top six shmeal producing countries (thousand tons)

Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total 5,997.4 6,201.7 5,401.6 6,274.5 6,022.7 5,230 5,052.8 5,006.8 4,775.2

Peru 1,844 1,941 1,251 1,982.7 2,019.9 1,378 1,407 1,430.3 1,346.9

Chile 699 839 664 933.1 870.4 854.7 781.9 729.7 641

Thailand 381 387 397 403 473.4 461.2 428 468 381.2

USA 342 337 318 353 268.8 232 251 216.2 249

Japan 227 225 230 295 221.9 219.6 210 202.9 192

Denmark 299 311 246 259.2 213.1 209.4 166 161.3 180.9

Source: IFFO, 2010 cited in Seash, 2011. No revision has been made to the gures.

Figure 12: Top six shmeal consuming countries (thousand tons)

Country 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

China 1,240 1,516 1,113 1,366 2,030 1,682 1,406 1,183 1,528

Japan 802 792 699 744 710 691 687 596 703

Chile 293 261 149 351 270 222 351 36 467

Thailand 566 466 418 481 504 484 408 405 409

Norway 232 320 247 223 361 276 246 289 309

Taiwan 308 315 303 254 253 250

Source: IFFO, 2005 cited in Seash, 2011. No revision has been made. Figure of Chile in 2003 is believed to be a typo.


30/156

28

Figure 13: Top six shmeal exporting countries (thousand tons)

Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Peru 1,937 1,520 1,372 1,751 2,000 1,338 1,219 1,561 1,583

Chile 491 497 576 494 709 470 474 478 609

Denmark 307 305 203 247 254 253 161 210 240

Iceland 190 125 126 158 104

Mexico 19 9 12 51 39 83 94

Morocco 27 20 35 34 55 48 33 70 92

Source: IFFO, 2010 cited in Seash, 2011. No revision has been made.

Figure 14: Top six shmeal importing countries (thousand tons)

Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

China &Hong Kong

984 976 797 1,147 1,598 980 986 1,352 1,310

Norway 143 127 150 162 202 211 220 242 328

Japan 478 480 388 402 376 412 350 309 281

Taiwan 295 242 239 238 234 213 152 150 180

Vietnam 29 20 60 61 96 83 104 114 115

UK 233 192 184 143 138 143 91 92 114

Source: IFFO, 2010 cited in Seash, 2011. No revision has been made.

2.4.2 Thailand Fishmeal Production

Thailands shmeal production wasestimated to be around 0.43 0.50 million tonsduring 2008 2013. These numbers areestimated numbers from Thai Fishmeal

Producers Association (TFPA) since Thailanddoes not have any report or record of actualshmeal production. These statistics are alsodifferent from those from Fishery StatisticsAnalysis and Research Group (FSARG) atDepartment of Fisheries (DoF), which are quite

low compared to TFPAs gures: FSRAGestimated annual shmeal production at 0.33 0.35 mill ion tons between 2007 2011.According to interviews with both organizations,we found that they use different methods toestimate annual production, and these different

methods lead to different gures. TFPA has localcommittees in each province estimate theirmonthly shmeal productions, while FSARG hasshmeal producers in each province report theirproductions to DoFs provincial ofce.


31/156

29

Figure 15: Thailands shmeal production by year, 2006-2011

Thailands Fishmeal Productions 2006 - 2011600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

02006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Production(tons)

TFPA

DoF

Source: Thai Fishmeal Producers Association (TFPA), 2013; Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (DoF), 2013

From Figure 15, the production of shmeal in recent years is quite stable. Despite theincreasing demands for animal feed, declining sh stock in Thai waters meant that production fellbehind demand, even compensated by trimmings from sh processing manufacturers (Fishmeal,2010a) Apart from declining supplies of raw materials, decreasing production capacity the numberof shmeal producers, also affects the total shmeal production, as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Thailands shmeal production and producers, 1987 - 2011

Thailands shmeal productions and producers

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

500,000450,000

400,000350,000

300,000250,000200,000

150,000

130120

110100

908070

60

Numberofshmealproducers

Number of shmeal producers Fishmeal productions (tons)

Fishm

ealproductions(tons)

Years

Source: Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (FSARG), DoF, 2013

According to the Thai Fishmeal Producers Association (TFPA), there are 64 shmeal producersregistered as members of the association. The total production of these producers combinedaccounts for approximately 80% of national production (Personal communication10, August 13,2013). Fishmeal industry consists of many medium and small players who try to work together tonegotiate shmeal prices. The industry landscape is unlike animal feed industry in that there is no

dominant producer; most members of the association are similar in size, and no company is as largeor as powerful as any of the major animal feed mills. Because of this, and because animal feed mills

10Interview with Khun Sanguansak Akaravarinechai, President and Khun Nichkamol Kumaree, Manager on August 7, 2013;email from TFPA on August 13, 2013.


32/156

30

are the main purchaser of shmeal and mandate quality, animal feed mills therefore have vastbargaining power to set shmeal prices (Bureau of Agricultural Economics Research, 2009).

In Thailand, the largest shmeal producing province is Samutsakorn; in 2011, it produced 138,420tons or 27.51% of total production according to TFPA, and 115,668 tons or 35.3% accordingto Department of Fisheries (DoF). Production in other provinces differs according to the variousestimates used by TFPA and DoF (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Thailands top ve shmeal producing provinces in 2011

Rank TFPA DoF

1 Samutsakorn, 138,420 tons or 27.51% Samutsakorn, 115,668 tons or 35.3%

2 Nakorn Sithammarat, 66,490 tons or 13.21% Songkhla, 39,402 tons or 12.03%3 Songkhla, 56,960 tons or 11.32% Ranong, 31,640 tons or 9.66%

4 Pattani, 42,459 tons or 8.41% Phuket, 25,127 tons or 7.67%

5 Trang, 37,840 tons or 7.52% Pattani, 24,243 tons or 7.4%

Source: Thai Fishmeal Producers Association, 2013; Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (DoF), 2013

Figure 18: Raw materials of shmeal, 1987 - 2011

Raw materials of shmeal

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2,000,000.00

1,500,000.00

1,000,000.00

500,000.00

-

Years

other shtrash sh trimmings

Tons

Source: Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (DoF), 2013

As mentioned in an earlier section, rawmaterials of shmeal produced in Thailandconsist of whole sh and trimmings. According

to TFPA, in 2012, shmeal raw materialscomprised 30% trimmings from shing canningmanufacturers, 25% trimmings from Surimiproducers, 10% trimmings from sh processingmanufacturers 10%, and the remaining 35% arewhole sh (interview with TFPA, August 13,2013). This is similar to data reported by FSARGindicating that in 2011, shmeal raw materialsconsisted of 39% whole sh (comprising 28%

trash sh labeled in the report as pla pet, and11% true trash sh meaning not-yet-decomposed sh that are used as shmeal

raw materials, i.e. in line with internationalstandards and juveniles) and 61% trimmings.From the past until 1996, raw materials ofshmeal were whole sh (trash sh, true trashsh, and juveniles). But beginning in 1997,trimmings have played a more important role asmain raw material for shmeal, while thepercentage and amount of whole sh have beendeclining continuously as shown in Figure 18.


33/156

31

2.4.3 Thailand Fishmeal Consumption

Since it is not required for shmeal

producers in Thailand to report the amount ofshmeal they produce, we obtained estimatedgures of shmeal production with some detailson provincial data from TFPA and DoF. Fishmealconsumption gures are far more obscure andinconsistent than production gures.

According to Bureau of AgriculturalEconomic Research (2012), Thailand in 2012consumed around 0.45 0.48 million tons ofshmeal, mainly for aquaculture especially for

Whiteleg shrimps. This is similar to gures inAnimal Feed Business magazine volume 135,November December 2010 that showed thatshmeal consumptions during 2006 2010were around 0.42 0.52 million tons (Fishmeal,2010a). Nevertheless, they were conictedwith gures shown in Animal Feed Businessmagazine volume 134, September October2010 that said the increasing livestockpopulations increase the demand for shmealas follow ... in 2009 total demands are 0.556million tons, and in 2010 total demands are0.578 million tons (Fishmeal, 2010b, p. 27).These numbers were derived from tables oflivestock populations, amount of animal feed,and amount of raw material in 2009 and 2010published on Thai Feed Mill Association website(www.thaifeed mill.com).

Once again, the above gures areestimated, and we found that the gures do

not reect the actual demands for shmeal.For example, based on an interview with TFPAand an ofcial of DoF, shmeal is no longer usedto produce animal feed for chicken, and it isused very little in feed for pigs only for pigbreeding stock. However, in the TFPA-publishedtable of livestock populations, the amount ofanimal feed, and amount of raw material in2013, demands of shmeal for all types ofchicken still account for a high proportion almost 50% of the total estimated demands.

This is because gures for such published tableare still calculated theoretically from the amountof livestock, as opposed to using actual gures.

Similar to shmeal production andconsumption gures, there is no public data onthe amount or percentage of shmeal used by

major animal feed producers; nonetheless,based on an interview with Thai FishmealProducers Associat ion (TFPA), TFPArepresentative estimated that CharoenPhokphand Foods (CPF) is the largest shmealbuyer in Thailand; the company is thought topurchase approximately 40-50% of shmealproduced domestically every year. Majorshmeal buyers include CPF, KrungthaiFeedmill, Thaiunion Feedmill, and Lee Pattana.Based on their reported nancials in 2012, CPF

was ranked the rst with 56,471 million Bahtrevenues, followed by Krungthai Feedmill at5,294 million Baht, Thaiunion Feedmill 4,951million Baht, and Lee Pattana 4,071 millionBaht. In 2010, CPF was the worlds largestanimal feed producer, with annual production ofapproximately 23.2 million metric tons.

2.4.4 Thailand Fishmeal Exports

Unlike production and consumption,imports and exports of shmeal are subject tocustoms process, so we then have ofcialrecords of imported and exported shmeal, butagain we found the conicts between numberspublished by the Ofce of Commodity Standards(OCS), Department of Foreign Trade (DFT),Ministry of Commerce (MOC) and the CustomsDepartment (CD), Ministry of Finance.

OCS publishes data of exported shmeal

dividing it into three grades: 1st grade, 2ndgrade, and 3rd grade; while CD categorizes dataaccording to Harmonized System Codes (HSCode), and shmeal is divided into fourcategories: shmeal with >60% protein content,shmeal with


34/156

32

Looking at Figure 19, we see although the

numbers are different, particularly in 2010 and2011, the trends are very similar; actually in2012 and 2013 their gures are very close 54,534,47 (CD), 58,365.61 (OCS) in 2012, and110,848.54 (CD), 109,213.09 (OCS) in 2013.Compared to the gures in 2012, shmealexport doubled in 2013. This is probablybecause in 2013 Thailands shrimp industryfaced Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) problem,causing shrimp production to reduce by half to

0.25 million tons (Shrimp Export Shrinks, 2013).This led to the decline of shrimp feed demandsfollowed by the reduction of the domesticdemands for shmeal; therefore, shmealproducers had to sell their stocks to exportmarkets. Accordingly, if Thailands shrimpindustry faces the same problem in 2014,shmeal producers will probably have to rely onexport again.

Thailands major export markets for

shmeal include Vietnam, China, Taiwan, andIndonesia. According to OCS and CD, in 2013,Thailand exported around 42,000 tons ofshmeal to Vietnam and around 24,000 tons to

Figure 19: Thailands shmeal export by year, 2008-2013*

Fishmeal Export, 2008 -2013

120,000.00

100,000.00

80,000.00

60,000.00

40,000.00

20,000.00

-

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tons

Customs Department Ofce of Commodity Standards

Years

Source: Ofce of Commodity Standards, Department of Foreign Trade, 2013; the Customs Department, 2013

Note:* Number in 2013 of OCS is from Jan. Oct. while that of CD is from Jan. Nov. For OCS, we use data of all

three grades of shmeal, and for CD, we use two categories of shmeal: shmeal with >60% protein content (HS

CODE 2301.20.20), and shmeal with 60% proteincontent, as shown in Figure 20 and 21.


35/156

33

Figure 20: Thailands shmeal export by category, 2007 2013*

Fishmeal with 60% protein content

Fishmeal Export, 2007 -2013*

Years

120,000.00

100,000.00

80,000.00

60,000.00

40,000.00

20,000.00

-

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tons

Source: The Customs Department, 2013

* From Jan. Nov. 2013

Figure 21: Thailands shmeal export by category, 2008 2013*

Years

3rd grade Fishmeal2nd grade Fishmeal1st grade Fishmeal

Fishmeal Export, 2008 -2013*

120,000.00

100,000.00

80,000.00

60,000.00

40,000.00

20,000.00

-

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tons

Source: Ofce of Commodity Standards, DFT, MOC, 2013

* From Jan. Oct. 2013

2.4.5 Thailand Fishmeal Imports

Since Thailand can produce only 25% of high protein (60%+) shmeal, it has to import high-protein shmeal from other countries (Animal Feed Business, 2011) According to CD records, in

2013 Thailand imported around 6,092 tons of shmeal mainly from Myanmar (45.87%) and Vietnam(36.68%). However and again, we found the conicts of shmeal import gures even from the samesource. For example, in Animal Feed Business magazine volume 134, September October 2010,it says that in 2008 Thailand imported 12,968 tons of shmeal, in 2009 the number increased to16,755 tons, and in the rst half of 2010, Thailand imported about 7,220 tons of shmeal (Fishmeal,


36/156

34

2010b). However, these gures conict withthose in the next issue volume 135, November December 2010 that says in 2010 Thailand

imported only around 1,000 tons of shmealreducing from 2,000 tons in 2009 (Fishmeal,2010a). The gures in the volume 135,however, match the gures we get from theCustoms Department.

2.4.6 Songkhla Fishmeal

Currently shmeal industry in Songkhlaconsists of 9 shmeal producers, according toThe Thai Fishmeal Producers Association,

declining from 18 producers listed on thewebsite of Department of Internal Trade (www.dit.go.th) as of 2010. Based on their revenuesin 2012, the top ve shmeal producers inSongkhla were 1) Jana Fish Industries with28.6% share of total revenues 2) PaesaeSongkhla 16.1% 3) Pacic Fishmeal Industrial14.7% 4) Samila Fishmeal 11.8%, and 5) ThaiCharoen feed mill 10.4%.

According to TFPA, in 2013, Songkhlaproduced around 41,000 tons of shmeal,equivalent to about 8.2% of total production of

the country. This makes Songkhla the secondlargest shmeal producer in the Southern regionand fourth largest nationally, after Samutsakorn,Samutprakarn and Nakhon Si Thammarat.

Based on data from DoF, most rawmaterials used to produce shmeal inSongkhla are trimmings (by-product) as shownin Figure 22. In 2011, 94.95% of total rawmaterials or 134,986 tons were trimmings whileonly 5.05% or 7,178 tons were whole sh (of

which 5,428 tons were trash sh). However,please note that of the gure for trash sh herewas of those going to shmeal producers atSongkhla, not trash sh landed at Songkhla.Based on interviews with DoF ofcials, TFPArepresentatives, and shmeal producers peo-ple, we found that shmeal producers sourcetheir raw materials across provinces.

Figure 22: Raw materials of shmeal in Songkhla, 1999 2011, divided into trash sh,

trimmings (by-product) and other sh

Raw materials of shmeal in Songkhla, 1999 - 2011

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,00040,000

20,0000

Years

Other shTrash sh Byproduct

Tons

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (FSARG), DoF, 2013

For the prices in 2011, the average 1st grade shmeal with 60%+ protein at Songkhla was30.43 Baht per kilogram (Ofce of Internal Trade Songkhla, 2013) or 0.30 and 6.21 Baht lower whencompared with 30.73 Baht of the national average price, and 36.64 Baht of Peruvian F.O.B. price.


37/156

35

In 2011, the average trash sh price at Songkhla was 4.33 Baht per kilogram, 4.27 Baht lowerthan the national average price of 8.60 Baht (Ofce of Agricultural Economics, 2012). When we lookat the average prices of shmeal by province in 2011, the price of shmeal at Songkhla was among

the cheapest prices, ranking number 3 from the bottom. This reects the relatively poor quality ofshmeal produced in Songkhla, which depends largely on the quality of raw materials.

Figure 23: Average prices of shmeal by province in 2011 (Baht per kilogram)

Puket

Province

nAverage price of shmeal sold at the province

Rayong

Chum

phon

Phangn

ga

Rano

ng

Songkhla

Patta

ni

Samut

Sakho

n

Chanth

aburi

Samut

Praka

n

Chon

Buri

Samut

Son

gkhr

am

Prachu

abKhir

iKha

nTra

t

Trang

Satu

n

Nakho

nSi

Tha

mmarat

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.0020.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

Baht

Average price of shmeal by province, 2011

Source: Fishery Statistics Analysis and Research Group (FSARG), DoF, 2013.

(Note: Fishmeal prices of all grades are the same throughout the country, but differences in the average prices here

reect different grades of shmeal sold at the provinces.)

For details of estimated market shares inSongkhla of animal feed mills, and estimates ofquantities of shmeal produced in Songkhla,

see Chapter 7 of this report.

2.5 Fishmeal Price

Fishmeal price has been trending upwardsdue to high demand of shmeal for aquaculturefeed, especially from China, and low supply forthe major shmeal producers due to disruptionscaused by El Niophenomenon and decreasingmarine resources (Globesh, 2009-2013;Mavromichalis, 2013). As shown in Figure 19,the price started climbing since 2009 asshmeal production decreased in conjunction

with high demand for shmeal and expectedEl Nio. Subsequently, one of major shmealproducers Chile was damaged by

earthquake in 2010, coupled with low stock inChina, so the price climbed back up. However,when the price became very high, buyers werehesitant to buy and turned to substitute productsthat also have high protein content, such assoybean instead. Furthermore, shmealproduction decreased in the second half of2011, and this resulted in price drop. In 2012,demand for animal feed from aquaculture andlivestock industries were positive again, whilelow catches and low shmeal production werereported, so the price went up and remainedhigh during the rst two months of 2013.(Globesh, 2009-2013)


38/156

36

Figure 24: Peruvian shmeal price from 1980 2013 (US$ per ton)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

1/1/1980

1/7/1981

1/1/1983

1/7/1984

1/1/1986

1/7/1987

1/1/1989

1/7/1990

1/1/1992

1/7/1993

1/1/1995

1/7/1996

1/1/1998

1/7/1999

1/1/2001

1/7/2002

1/1/2004

1/7/2005

1/1/2007

1/7/2008

1/1/2010

1/7/2011

1/1/2013

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2013

Figure 25: Prices of trash sh, 1stand 2ndgrade shmeal, and Peruvian shmeal,

2007-2011 (Baht per kilogram)

50

45

40

3530

25

20

15

10

5

0

Price of assorted trash sh

Second grade shmeal with60% protein

FOB price of Peruvian sh-meal

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economic, 2012; Fishmeal, 2010

Figure 25 showed that shmeal prices inThailand increased signicantly in 2008, thenhas held steady thereafter. In practice, prices inThailand are set and announced by CPF, amajor feed mill company, and t

236233565 Final Report Mapping Fishmeal Supply Chain in Songkhla (1)

Documents

Transcript of 236233565 Final Report Mapping Fishmeal Supply Chain in Songkhla (1)