Out of Stock: The Impact of Climate Change on
British Columbia’s Staple Seafood Supply and Prices
U. Rashid Sumaila1 and Vicky W.Y. Lam2
1.  Fisheries Economics Research Unit; OceanCanada Partnership & Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia
(r.sumaila@fisheries.ubc.ca);
2.  Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Sea Around Us & NEREUS project, University of British Columbia
(v.lam@fisheries.ubc.ca)

Highlights
•  Ocean physics and chemistry is being affected significantly by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, impacting key
marine and coastal organisms, ecosystems and the services they provide us, including seafood.
•  These impacts will occur across all latitudes, including in the waters of British Columbia and Canada.i This will have
direct impacts on the fish species that are consumed by residents of B.C.
•  The supply of B.C.’s “staple seafood” species such as Pacific salmon (e.g., sockeye and chum), Pacific halibut,
groundfish species (e.g. sablefish), Pacific hake, crabs and prawns will be affected.
•  This study predicts that by 2050:
  We could see a 21-per-cent decline in sockeye, a 10-per-cent decline in chum, and a 15-per-cent decline in
sablefish stocks.

n

  Prices of iconic West Coast species such as sockeye, chum and sablefish are projected to increase by up to $1.33,
$0.77 and $0.64 per pound for sockeye, chum and sablefish, respectively, under climate change
scenario alone.

n

  Climate change will add pressure on already skyrocketing prices, contributing to an increase of more than
70 per cent in the price per pound in 2015 dollars of B.C.’s iconic species such as sockeye and chum salmon.

n

  For the 10 staple seafood species of British Columbia, the net change in price attributable to climate change
could cost British Columbians up to $110 million a year in 2015 dollars.

n

•  To begin to solve the problem, federal and provincial governments and private actors (businesses, NGOs and
individuals) need to work together to make rapid reductions in CO2 emissions and eventually atmospheric CO2
drawdown, and instate other measures to protect ocean health.
•  Without action, there will be massive and mostly irreversible impacts of climate change on ocean ecosystems and
the fish they provide.

Make Good Money (TM) is a trademark of Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.

1

 Introduction

Methods

Climate science and marine ecosystem research informs us
that marine fish species are already being impactedii and
that they would continue to come under increasing stress
over the course of the 21st century as global climate change,
ocean acidification and de-oxygenation combine with other
stresses on the ocean. These factors will change the primary
productivity, growth and distribution of fish populations,
resulting in changes in the potential yield of exploited
marine species worldwide, including in the waters of B.C.
and Canada.iii The ultimate impact of climate change on the
biophysics and ecology for people is through economic (e.g.
prices, cost of fishing changes),iv social and cultural channels.v

Our analysis is based on secondary research and data that
are used to forecast the likely effects on seafood supply
changes as a result of climate change to the people of B.C.
We evaluate changes to the main fish species consumed by
residents of B.C. under the current high emissions trajectory
(Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, RCP8.5 of the
IPCC). To do this, we draw on the latest and best available
science in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) assessment report and the wider literature.viii

Seafood consumption in B.C.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans reports that in 2013,
Canadians consumed about 7.74 kg of seafood per person
per year.ix On the other hand, the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations states that the average
per capita food fish supply in Canada is 22.6 kg per capita per
year (FAO 2013). This apparent discrepancy is due to the fact
that the DFO numbers are expressed in edible weight and
are not adjusted for losses, such as waste and/or spoilage in
stores, households, private institutions or restaurants or losses
during preparation. FAO’s numbers are simply the available
global catch of fish to Canadians divided by the population of
the country. For our analysis, we use the FAO numbers since
they represent the estimated catch from the ocean.

Given these predicted changes and the fact that marine fish
species provide us benefits such as seafood, jobs and profits,vi
it is important for the public to understand how these
changes would affect their pocketbooks.
Statistics Canada reported recently that the price of food is
increasing at an alarming rate in Canada. For instance, they
reported an increase in the price of fresh and frozen fish of
38% between April 2000 and April 2015.vii
The objective of Out of Stock: The Impact of Climate
Change on British Columbia’s Staple Seafood Supply and
Prices is therefore twofold. First, we estimate the impact of
climate change on the prices of the main fish species (by
value) consumed by residents of B.C. (what we define as the
staple seafood species of B.C.). Second, we estimate how
climate change would likely affect the seafood budget of
residents of B.C. via its impacts on fish prices. We address
these questions using the best available data and by making
reasonable assumptions.

The total quantity of seafood consumed by British Columbians
is, therefore, about 104,667 tonnes per year (that is, 22.6 kg per
capita per year multiplied by 4.61 million people living in B.C.x).

Staple seafood species of B.C.
Given that our goal is to determine how climate change is
likely to impact the household budgets of residents of B.C.
via its impacts on fish prices, we define the “Staple Seafood
Species” of B.C. as those that residents spend the most on.
The top 10 species groups that generate the highest landed
values and therefore on which residents of Vancouver spend
the most on are considered the staple seafood species of the
region. Table 3 indicates the species groups that made it to
the list. They are:

Estimating the impact of climate change on seafood prices
in B.C. would inform the public and policy-makers, and
contribute to local dialogue and debate on not only the
problems we face with increasing global warming but also
how this would affect us directly in terms of dollars and
cents. This would provide a basis for B.C. residents to discuss
possible solutions, and how they can contribute to mitigating
and adapting to climate change.

• halibut,
• geoducks,
• prawns,
• crabs,

2

• tuna,
• sablefish,
• rockfish,
• hake,

•  sockeye salmon,
•  chum salmon.

 Sources of B.C.’s seafood supply

Table 1. Major importing countries and the quantity imported

As Canada has the longest coastline in the world, bordering
three oceans (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic), the country therefore
sources a good chunk of the fish consumed from its waters. But
Canada is also big on the fish trade, exporting a large proportion
of the fish it catches while importing a sizable amount of the
fish consumed domestically from other countries.

Country

B.C. waters as a major source
The total annual marine fish caught and landed in B.C. is
approximately 168,800 tonnes in 2011.xi About 80% of fish
caught in B.C. waters are destined for exports. Thus, we
assume that the remaining 20% are consumed locally in B.C.
This works out to 33,754 tonnes (i.e., the total annual marine
fish catch in B.C. multiplied by 20%). Therefore, the amount
of seafood from B.C. waters consumed by British Columbians
is about 32% of the total seafood consumption in B.C.

Imports into
Canada in 2008
(tonnes)*

Imports consumed
in B.C. (tonnes)

United States

169,000

22,023

Thailand

62,000

8,079

China

58,000

7,558

Peru

54,000

7,037

Chile

19,000

2,476

Total

362,000

47,173

The rest of Canada also contributes
We treat the contribution of the rest of Canada as a residual.
That is, we deduct from the total consumption of seafood
by British Columbians, the contribution from B.C. waters
and imports and the remainder is then assumed to be the
contribution from the rest of the country. Based on this, 9,946
tonnes per year is assumed to come from the rest of Canada.
Hence, 32% of the seafood consumed by British Columbians
comes from B.C. waters; 58% from imports, 10% from the rest
Canada. Table 2 provides the quantity of B.C. staple seafood
species by source.

Imports as an important source
To meet its seafood demand of 104,667 tonnes per year,
B.C. consumes seafood not only from its waters but also
from other countries. We estimated the amount of seafood
consumed in B.C. that is imported from other countries by
prorating the quantity of imported seafood by Canada. The
United States, which contributes about 36% of the total
imported seafood, is the top country from which Canada and
therefore B.C. imports most of its seafood.xii The second top
importing country is Thailand (13%), followed by China, Peru
and Chile at 12%, 11% and 4%, respectively. The remaining 23%
is contributed by other countries combined. This means that
the effect of climate change on the price of fish available
to British Columbians depends partly on how it affects fish
populations in the waters of these countries too.

Table 2. Sources of seafood in B.C.
Quantity of
seafood (tonnes)

Percentage of
total seafood
consumption in B.C.

B.C. waters

33,754

32.2

United States

21,922

20.9

Rest of Canada

9,946

9.5

Thailand

8,043

7.7

China

7,524

7.2

Peru

7,005

6.7

Chile

2,465

2.4

Other countries

14,010

13.4

104,667

100

Sources of Seafood

The total amount of imported seafood was estimated by
using the total amount of imported seafood to Canada and
the proportion of the country’s population that resides in B.C.
(i.e., 13.2% of the total population in Canada). Thus, the total
amount of seafood from other countries consumed in B.C. is
estimated at 47,173 tonnes per year (Table 1).

Total

3

 Climate change impacts on the supply of B.C.’s staple
seafood species

With this information, we calculated the changes in the
potential catch of each of the 10 staple seafood species
from all seafood sources under climate change in the 2050s,
the closest year for which reasonable model predictions of
the impact of climate change can be made. This does not
mean that the impacts of climate change on fish prices and
household budget would not be felt in the next 10 years. It is
just that this time period is too short for modellers to capture
the changes with reasonable certainty.

Scientists have demonstrated that warming and acidification
of surface ocean waters will increase as CO2 emissions increase.
xiii
Our knowledge of these impacts is based on modeling,
fieldwork and lab experiments. Uncertainty and short-term
variability (like unpredictable ocean cycles) makes predictions
difficult. This short-term fluctuation is the reason why climate
models have a hard time predicting changes over 10-15 years,
but do very well with predictions several decades into the
future, as the work of the IPCC illustrates. Consequently,
findings in the literature suggest that under current rate of
emissions, many marine organisms will have very high risk of
impacts by 2050,xiv and that the seafood we obtain from ocean
ecosystems will as a result be impacted. This risk increases as
we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Economic impacts of climate change
For most goods, including seafood, the price of the good
is determined, for the most part, by the interplay between
supply and demand. This class of goods are known as normal
goods; the price of the good increases when the supply of
the good decreases and vice versa, everything else staying
equal. Most fish species consumed by residents of B.C. are
normal goods.

These impacts are likely to be cumulative or synergistic with
other human impacts, such as overexploitation of living
resources, habitat destruction and pollution. In addition,
impacts of climate change on food supply and food prices
are going to be not only on seafood but also on agriculture
via its impacts on water, energy, etc.

Factors other than quantity supplied that affect fish prices
include personal income and the supply of other animal
protein types (e.g. beef, chicken). To isolate the impact of
climate change on fish prices through changes in supply, we
have to keep all other factors that can affect price constant.
Economists employ econometric models to study and
estimate demand functions.xvii

Given the difficulty in making short-term predictions, we
use model results for 2050 in this analysis, and focus on the
10 staple seafood species identified above. We explore the
potential consequences of continuing on the current high
emissions trajectory (Representative Concentration Pathway
8.5, RCP8.5) where the average temperature could increase by
as much as 5°C by the end of the 21st century.

Climate change effects on B.C.’s staple seafood prices
Several economists have studied the sensitivity of fish
prices to changing quantities of fish supplied to the market.
Examples of earlier studies that estimate the effects that
changing quantities (amongst other factors caused by
changing quotas) have on prices are Bartend and Bettendorf
1989;xviii Burton, 1992,xix Jaffrey et al. 1999xx).

The projected potential catch change for each of the staple
species under these scenarios was estimated, in the waters of
the rest of Canada and in the waters of importing countries, by
using an updated set of results reported in Cheung et al. 2010xv).
The models were used to estimate the changes in maximum
catch potential based on projected changes in species’
distribution and primary productivity. The models applied in
these papers simulate how changes in temperature and oxygen
content (represented by O2 concentration) as well as other
variables such as ocean current patterns, salinity, and sea ice
extent, would affect growth and distribution of marine fishes
and invertebrates (Cheung et al. 2011xvi), whereas the empirical
model projects species’ maximum catch potential (MSY) based
on the total primary productivity within its exploitable range,
the area of its geographic range, and its trophic level.

Bartend and Bettendorf (1989) studied the sensitivity of fish
prices to quantities for the eight major types of fish (haddock,
cod, whiting, redfish, plaice, sole, ray, and turbot) landed
at Belgian fishing ports. They found that as the aggregated
quantity of fish increases the normalized price goes down. By
the same token, price increases with a decrease in aggregate
quantity supplied. This “supply-price” dynamics has actually
been observed in real life. For example, the ex-vessel price of
Atlantic cod landed in the United States rose from USD 2,327
per tonne to USD 3,465 per tonne in 2005 real dollars between
1996 to 2006 when the abundance of this species declined.xxi

4

 Burton (1992) developed an empirical analysis of the demand
for wet fish in the United Kingdom using both the direct and
indirect Translog models. He aggregated the fish he studied
into the following four groups:

In this case, the price effect is stronger than the quantity
effect. If demand for a good is elastic (that is, the price
elasticity of demand is greater than 1), an increase in price
implies the price effect is stronger than the quantity effect
with the implication that the price increase is more difficult
to transfer to consumers since consumers are able to reduce
their consumption of fish to offset the increase in price. If
the demand for the good is unit-elastic (that is, the price
elasticity of demand is 1), an increase in price does not change
household budgets for the fish or the total revenue received
by fishing companies. In this case the price and quantity
effects offset each other.

1.  White: cod, saithe, haddock, hake;
2.  Smoked White: smoked cod, smoked haddock;
3.  Fat: Herrings, kippers, mackerel, smoked mackerel;
4.  Other: plaice, skate, lemon sole, whiting, rock salmon.
For these groups of species, Burton estimated, among other
things, the flexibilities – both own and cross – with respect to
the quantity of fish supplied to the market.xxii He estimated the
own flexibilities for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be -0.48, -0.26, -0.49
and -0.31, respectively. The cross flexibilities were estimated
to be -0.46, -0.11, -0.05 and -0.30 for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4,
respectively. These numbers were all negative as expected and
the estimates were similar to those reported by Bartend and
Bettendorf (1987). Note that a flexibility of 0.48 means that a
10% change in quantity will result in a 4.8% change in price.

Economists study price and expenditure elasticities, as well as
elasticities of substitution between fish products and other
protein commodities in order to understand the relationship
between supply and demand for fish products. Results
reported in Wellman (1992)xxiii indicate that with the exception
of shellfish, demand for the various fish products is relatively
inelastic. The author also found that cross-price elasticities are
generally moderate while expenditure elasticities are large and
positive for fresh fish and shellfish.

The study by Jaffrey et al. (1999) set out to estimate the own
and cross-price flexibilities for four high valued species (bass,
lobster, sole and turbot) landed in the United Kingdom. They
developed a system of equation models using the vector
error correction model (VECM) approach. Their analysis
suggests that a 10% reduction in bass landings will in the long
run increase its normalized price by about 4% while a 10%
reduction in lobster landings will increase the price of bass
by only 1.5%, an indication that lobster is a mild substitute for
bass. Next, a 10% reduction in landings of lobster will increase
its normalized price by 1.9%. Also, the authors found that a
10% reduction in the landings of sole will increase its price
by 2.5%, whereas a 10% reduction in landings of turbot will
increase the price of sole by just 1.0%. Lastly, a 10% reduction
in landings of turbot will increase its own price by almost 3%.
A 10% reduction in landings of sole will also result in about a
2.2% increase in the price of turbot.

In another study of elasticities and household expenditures,
Cheng and Capps (1988)xxiv found that the main factors
explaining the variation of expenditures on seafood
commodities were own price, household income, household
size, and seasonality. They also found that own-price
elasticities ranged from −0.45 for flounder/sole to −1.13
in the case of oysters. Furthermore, they found that
cross-price effects of red meat and poultry were not
statistically significant.
To determine how much households actually spend on the
staple seafood of B.C., we need to determine how much they
pay for fish at the end of the fish chain i.e., at the retail stage.
A number of studies have looked at the split of the retail value
of fish that accrues to the fishing and post-harvest sectors. An
example of such a study is one done on Alaska salmon. The
study found that between 29 – 40% of the retail value of salmon
is kept by the fishing sector with the remainder captured by
the post-harvest sector.xxv Based on our knowledge of fish
chain analysis, we assumed for this study that the split is 30:70
in favour of the post-harvest. This assumption can easily be
modified and the analysis redone quickly.

We used the above numbers to assume a range of percentage
changes in price that would result as the supply of seafood
changes. The assumed numbers are reported in Table 5 for
each of the listed B.C. staple seafood species.
Climate change effects on B.C. household budgets
Price elasticity is defined as the percentage change in
quantity demanded of a good or service divided by the
percentage change in its price, all things remaining constant.
If demand for a good is inelastic (that is, the price elasticity
of demand is less than 1), an increase in price of fish due
to climate change can, at least, partly be transferred to
consumers by producers.

5

 Key Results

The bulk of fish consumed in B.C. comes from the 10 top
species defined here as the staple seafood species because
most expenditures on seafood are on these. We see from
Table 3 that a total of just over 51 thousand tonnes of these 10
species are supplied to the B.C. market at a value (at the dock)
of about $349 million a year (Table 4).

Depletion of supply and increases in costs
Considering the combined climate change impact on all
sources, we find the catch of the iconic West Coast sockeye
salmon drops up to 21%, followed by sablefish (15%) and chum
salmon (9%) by 2050.

Table 4. Price and landed value of B.C.’s staple seafood species

Consequently, the prices of iconic West Coast species such as
sockeye salmon, sablefish and chum are projected to increase
by up to $2,925, $1,703 and $1,397 per tonne under the climate
change scenario analysed. This change is equivalent to an
increase per pound of $1.33, $0.77 and $0.64 for sockeye
salmon, halibut and sablefish, respectively in 2015 dollars.
For the 10 staple seafood species of British Columbia, the net
change in price attributable to climate change could cost British
Columbians up to $110 million a year in constant 2015 dollars.
When the additional impact of climate change is considered
along with projections from Statistics Canada’s reported
price increase of 38% for fish over the past five years,xxvi the
predicted impact on B.C. pocketbooks is staggering.

Table 3. Total B.C. consumption of seafood
Total
consumption
(tonnes)

Halibut

800

195

1,829

2,824

Geoducks

320

0

0

320

Prawns

560

3434

10,974

14,968

Crabs

1,000

2257

2,439

5,696

Tuna

1080

13

3,658

4,751

Sablefish

440

0

0

440

Rockfish

3,600

0

0

3,600

Hake

11,080

182

0

11,262

Sockeye

600

0

1,871

2,471

Chum

1160

0

3,616

4,776

20,640

6082

24,387

51,109

Total

Halibut

11,400

9,120,000

2,220,107

20,850,944

Geoducks

25,813

8,260,000

0

0

Prawns

14,286

8,000,000

49,059,016

156,774,019

Crabs

6,500

6,500,000

14,672,580

15,851,595

Tuna

5,315

5,740,000

70,878

19,441,914

Sablefish

12,364

5,440,000

0

0

Rockfish

1,444

5,200,000

0

0

298

3,300,000

54,235

0

Sockeye

4,067

2,440,000

0

7,607,103

Chum

1,828

2,120,000

0

6,609,450

56,120,000

66,076,816

227,135,025

Grand Total

349,331,841

Total

B.C. consumption and value of seafood
The total amount of seafood consumed in B.C. is reported
in Table 3 together with the contributions from the three
main sources. We see from the table that B.C. is estimated
to source about 32% of the main species of fish it consumes
from the waters of B.C., 58% from imports and the remainder
from the waters of the rest of Canada (10%).

B.C. seafood Rest of Canada Imported
consumed in
seafood
seafood
B.C. (tonnes) consumed in consumed in
B.C. (tonnes) B.C. (tonnes)

Price
($/tonne)

Hake

With time, climate change will add pressure on prices,
contributing a projected increase of more than 70% in the
price per pound of sockeye and chum salmon by 2050.

Seafood
group

Seafood
group

6

Landed value
of B.C. seafood
consumed in
B.C. ($)

Landed value of
rest of Canada
seafood consumed
in B.C. ($)

Landed value
of imports
consumed in
B.C. ($)

 Changes in catch and supply
Our climate model of marine ecosystems and fisheries
indicate numerous impacts (see Table 5):

In Table 6, we report the changes in the supply of the staple
seafood species of B.C. from all sources. In the last two
columns of the table, we make the assumption, because of
the uncertainty in the model projections, that any change
in supply that is below 5% can be considered as no change
in potential catch. With this assumption, we considered
changes in catch for only 7 of the 10 species, and for all but
one species, the projected change in catch from all sources
of seafood to British Columbians is negative.

•  Within B.C. waters, four of the 10 stable seafood species
would likely see decreases in catch with warming under
the scenario explored. The species with the highest
potential decrease in catch is the iconic West Coast
sockeye salmon while the catch of crabs would increase
the most.
•  In the waters of the rest of Canada, seven of the species
would likely decrease in catch under both scenarios, with
only two projected to see increases under both scenarios.
One species under only one scenario is projected to see an
increase in its catch.

Table 6. Change in seafood supply under different scenarios

•  For the waters of countries that B.C. imports fish from, all
but one of the six imported species group would suffer
a loss in catch, and even for this one (tuna), there is a
decrease in catch under only one scenario.
Table 5. Change in catch potential under different climate
change scenarios
Seafood
group

Change in catch
potential in B.C.
waters

Change in catch
potential in rest of
Canada waters

(RCP26) (%)

(RCP85) (%)

11.3

10.2

-20

-18

-1.5

-8.0

Geoducks

-5.0

-9.4

-5

-9

0.0

0.0

Prawns

8.8

3.3

-5

-4

-3.2

-11.2

Crabs

18.7

36.7

-11

-12

-7.3

-15.0

Tuna

6.5

3.3

-2

5

-3.2

1.8

Sablefish

-5.0

-14.9

-5

-15

0.0

0.0

Rockfish

7.8

8.5

8

9

0.0

0.0

-6.8

-7.9

-7

-8

0.0

0.0

-22.7

-36.1

-23

-36

-11.5

-15.5

4.8

8.0

5

8

-11.5

-15.5

Halibut

Hake
Sockeye
Chum

(RCP26) (%)

(RCP85) (%)

Change in catch
potential from
imports
(RCP26) (%)

(RCP85) (%)

7

Seafood
group

Change in
supply under
RCP 26 in the
2050s (%)

Change in
supply under
RCP 85 in the
2050s (%)

Change in
Change in
supply under supply under
RCP 26
RCP 85 in the
considering
2050s (%)
uncertainty (%)

Halibut

1

-4

0

0

Geoducks

-5

-9

-5

-9

Prawns

0

-9

0

-9

Crabs

0

0

0

0

Tuna

0

0

0

0

Sablefish

-5

-15

-5

-15

Rockfish

8

9

8

9

Hake

-7

-8

-7

-8

Sockeye

-14

-21

-14

-21

Chum

-8

-10

-8

-10

 Changes in B.C. seafood prices and budgets
In the first and second columns of Table 7, we report a range for the expected change in price for a 1% drop in the supply of each
of the 10 species based on our review of the literature. We see from the table that for species such as halibut, a range of 0.5 – 1.00 is
assumed; for crabs and prawns, 0.25 – 0.75 and salmon, 0.75 – 1.25. The rest of the table contains estimates of the percentage change
in prices as a result of changes in supply attributed to climate change.
Table 7. Percentage change in price due to change in supply
Seafood group

Effect of a 1% decrease
in supply on price (%)

Halibut

Low

High

-0.5

-1

Change in price under RCP 26
in the 2050s (%)

Change in price under RCP 85
in the 2050s (%)

Low

High

Low

High

0

0

0

0

Geoducks

-0.25

-0.75

-1.3

-3.8

-2.4

-7.1

Prawns

-0.25

-0.75

0

0

-2.3

-6.8

Crabs

-0.25

-0.75

0

0

0

0

Tuna

-0.25

-0.75

0

0

0

0

Sablefish

-0.5

-1

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5

-14.9

Rockfish

-0.5

-1

3.9

7.8

4.3

8.5

Hake

-0.5

-1

-3.4

-6.8

-3.9

-7.9

Sockeye

-0.75

-1.25

-10.7

-17.8

-15.4

-25.7

Chum

-0.75

-1.25

-5.7

-9.5

-7.4

-12.3

In Table 8, we report the changes in price per tonne and the landed value for each of the stable seafood species of B.C. We see
that only the price of rockfish is projected to decrease and that the change in landed value ranges from about $9 to $33 million a
year depending on the scenario and whether the change in price is on the low or high ends.
Table 8. Change in price per tonne of fish due to change in supply
Seafood group

Change in price under
RCP 26 in the 2050s ($)

Change in price under
RCP 85 in the 2050s ($)

Change in landed values under
RCP 26 in the 2050s ($)

Low

High

Low

High

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

143

428

268

804

45,600

136,800

85,728

257,184

0

0

259

777

0

0

3,874,835

11,624,504

Crabs

0.3

0.9

0.0

0.0

1,704

5,111

0

0

Tuna

0.1

0.3

-0.1

-0.3

480

1,440

-481

-1,442

Sablefish

284

567

851

1,703

124,825

249,649

374,653

749,305

Rockfish

-443

-887

-486

-971

-1,596,456

-3,192,912

-1,748,304

-3,496,608

387

774

447

895

4,358,770

8,717,539

5,039,226

10,078,451

1,218

2,030

1,755

2,925

3,008,574

5,014,290

4,335,514

7,225,857

647

1,078

838

1,397

3,090,119

5,150,199

4,004,625

6,674,374

9,033,616

16,082,118

15,965,795

33,111,626

Halibut
Geoducks
Prawns

Hake
Sockeye
Chum

Low

Total

8

High

Change in landed values under
RCP 85 in the 2050s ($)
Low

High

 From Table 9 we see that the changes in catches stemming
from climate change results in a net increase in the
expenditure by households in B.C. of between $30 to $110
million a year in constant 2015 dollars depending on the
scenario and whether the change in price is on the low or
high ends.

Recommendations
The ocean provides compelling arguments for
rapid reductions in CO2 emissions and eventually
atmospheric CO2 drawdown. Climate change also
provides a strong reason for protecting our marine
ecosystems from other stressors and pressures such
overfishing, habitat destruction, oil spills and other
sources of pollutants.

Table 9. Estimated change in household seafood budget in B.C.
under the business-as-usual scenario
Seafood
group

Change in consumer
budgets for seafood ($)
Low

Halibut

Change in consumer
budgets for seafood ($)

High

Low

To begin to solve the problem at hand, this report
provides six key recommendations.

High

0

0

0

0

152,000

456,000

285,760

857,280

0

0

12,916,116

38,748,348

Crabs

5,679

17,037

0

0

Tuna

1,601

4,802

-1,602

-4,807

Sablefish

416,082

832,165

1,248,842

2,497,683

Rockfish

-5,321,520

-10,643,040

-5,827,680

-11,655,360

Hake

14,529,232

29,058,465

16,797,419

33,594,838

Sockeye

10,028,581

16,714,301

14,451,713

24,086,189

Chum

10,300,398

17,167,330

13,348,749

22,247,914

Total

30,112,053

53,607,060

53,219,316

110,372,085

Geoducks
Prawns

•  The federal and provincial governments need to
work, both individually and collectively with the
international community, to immediately and
substantially reduce CO2 emissions.
•  The federal and provincial governments need to
improve the management of Canada’s three oceans
and freshwater systems by eliminating harmful
fisheries subsidies such as those for fuel, and by
investing in science and monitoring activities such
as those provided by the coast guards.
•  Policy and management regimes need to be put in
place to make our ocean and freshwater systems
resilient to shocks such as those from climate
change and ocean acidification – at least 10% of
these systems, as agreed by the global community,
need to be protected.
•  Governments, businesses, NGOs and individuals
must work together to reduce the incidence of
oil spills and other pollutants such as effluent and
plastics in marine ecosystems.
•  Private actors (businesses, NGOs and individuals)
need to make conscious effort to reduce their
carbon footprint.
•  Consumer behaviours need to modified for the
coming changes and challenges. With the help of
sea choice and certification programs, consumers
should ensure that they purchase fish and fish
products that come from sustainable sources.
These actions would help prevent the massive and
mostly irreversible impacts of climate change on
ocean ecosystems and the fish they provide.

9

 References
i.  

Guattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Howes, E. L., Joos, F., Allemand, D.,Bopp, L., Cooley, S., Eakin, C.M., Hoegh-Guldberg,
O., Kelly, R.P. Sumaila, U.R. et al. (2015). Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different CO2 emissions scenarios. Science,
Vol. 349 no. 6243 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4722.

ii.   W. W. Cheung, R. Watson, D. Pauly, Nature 497, 365 (2013).
iii.   C. H. Ainsworth et al., ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 1217 (2011).
iv.   Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Pauly, D., Herrick S (2011). Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world
fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 449-456, DOI:10.1038/nclimate1301.
v.   Allison, E. H., Perry, A. L., Badjeck, M. C., Neil Adger, W., Brown, K., Conway, D., ... & Dulvy, N. K. (2009). Vulnerability of national
economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and fisheries, 10(2), 173-196.
vi.   Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Dyck, A., Gueye, K., Huang, L., Lam, V.W.Y., Pauly, D., Srinivasan, T., Swartz, W., Pauly, D., and Zeller, D.
(2012). Benefits of rebuilding global marine fisheries outweigh costs. PLoS ONE 7(7), e40542, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040542.
vii.   Loney, H. (2015). Beef leads the jump in food prices across Canada. Global News. globalnews.ca/news/2015920/beef-leads-the-jumpin-food-prices-across-canada/?hootPostID=cc7fabf3c9a8621fb297c93b5efcb5ef
viii.   Cheung, WWL et al., Global Change Biol. 16, 24 (2010); Bell et al., Nat. Clim. Change 3, 591 (2013); Lam, VW et al. (2014). Marine capture
fisheries in the Arctic: winners or losers under climate change and ocean acidification? Fish and Fisheries.
ix.   See www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/consumption-eng.htm (last accessed on May 24, 2015).
x.   Population of Metro Vancouver in 2014 according to Statistic Canada (2015).
xi.   Ministry of Agriculture 2011.
xii.   See www.fao.org/fishery/facp/CAN/en#CountrySector-SectorSocioEcoContribution accessed on May 12, 2015.
xiii.   AMAP. (2013). AMAP Assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean Acidification. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).
xiv.   Guattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Howes, E. L., Joos, F., Allemand, D.,Bopp, L., Cooley, S., Eakin, C.M., Hoegh-Guldberg,
O., Kelly, R.P. Sumaila, U.R. et al. (2015). Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different CO2 emissions scenarios. Science,
Vol. 349 no. 6243 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4722.
xv.   W. W. L. Cheung et al., Global Change Biol. 16, 24 (2010).
xvi.   Cheung, W. W. L., J. Dunne, J. L. Sarmiento and D. Pauly (2011) Integrating eco-physiology and plankton dynamics into projected changes
in maximum fisheries catch potential under climate change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 1008-1018.
xvii.  See for example Bell, F. W. (1968). The Pope and the price of fish. The American Economic Review, 1346-1350 and Wessells, C. R., &
Anderson, J. L. (1992). Innovations and progress in seafood demand and market analysis. Marine Resource Economics, 209 – 228.
xviii. Bartend, A. P., & Bettendorf, L. J. (1989). Price formation of fish: An application of an inverse demand system. European Economic
Review, 33(8), 1509-1525.
xix.   Burton, M. P. (1992). The demand for wet fish in Great Britain. Marine Resource Economics, 7(2), 57-66.
xx.   Jaffrey, S. A., Pascoe, S., & Robinson, C. (1999). Long run price flexibilities for high valued UK fish species: a cointegration   
systems approach. Applied Economics, 31(4), 473-481.
xxi.   Sumaila, R., Marsden, A. D., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. 2007a. A Global Ex-vessel Fish Price Database: Construction and   
Applications. Journal of Bioeconomics, 9 (1): 39 – 51.
xxii.  Here, flexibilities reveal the changes in prices that will occur as a result of changes in the exogenous supply of fish. Own   
flexibility refers to the responsiveness of the price of a good to changes in the quantity of the good. Cross flexibility   
refers to the responsiveness of the price of a good to a change in the quantity of its substitutes.
xxiii.  Wellman, K. F. (1992). The US retail demand for fish products: an application of the almost ideal demand system. Applied Economics,
24(4), 445-457.
xxiv.  Cheng, H. T., & Capps, O. (1988). Demand analysis of fresh and frozen finfish and shellfish in the United States. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 70(3), 533-542.
xxv.  www.alaskaseafood.org/industry/market/seafoodweb_apr13/april13/Salmonvalue.html (accessed on May 25, 2015).
xxvi.  Loney, H. (2015). Beef leads the jump in food prices across Canada. Global News.
globalnews.ca/news/2015920/beef-leads-the-jump-in-food-prices-across-canada/?hootPostID=cc7fabf3c9a8621fb297c93b5efcb5ef

10