The E.U.’s dependency on imported fisheries and aquaculture products – now accounting for between 65 percent and 70 percent of its overall seafood supply – continues to rise.
Ahead of the European Commission’s proposal for autonomous tariff quota (ATQ) volumes for select fishery products in 2024 and 2025, including key whitefish species like cod, pollock, and hake, as well as shrimp and cephalopods, E.U. Fish Processors and Traders Association (AIPCE) President Guus Pastoor and European Federation of National Organizations of Importers and Exporters of Fish (CEP) President Peter Bamberger spoke with SeafoodSource to explain why they believe it is vital for the entire seafood value chain that the region continues to have viable, easy access to essential raw materials from third countries.
SeafoodSource: What is AIPCE-CEP hoping for or expecting in the E.C.’s new ATQ regulation?
Pastoor: We hope the E.C. will support our needs for the processing industry. AIPCE-CEP has assessed the need for materials per member state and has presented these findings to the E.C. The numbers are one thing, but the principle is another. Policymakers need to understand that the processing/trading/logistic sector is generating most of the added value and employment in our value chain. Following the E.U. Green Deal and its sustainability goals, we all want production in Europe, but production is misinterpreted as only primary production. That’s an incomplete understanding: It’s also processing and logistics. We want to buy as much seafood [stemming] from E.U. origins as possible. Look at the fish auctions: every day, everything is sold.
However, the E.U. has a large deficit in terms of seafood. So, the alternative to processing in the E.U. is importing finished products from third countries. In many cases, the costs of those products can even be lower. In that scenario, we lose the added value and employment in Europe, and fishermen will end up with fewer, weaker buyers for their supply. The principle of the need for ATQs should not be subject to discussion every two or three years when the regulation is revised.
SeafoodSource: Some E.U. fisher organizations have said that while they don’t oppose a tariff-free setting for fishery products that aren’t sufficiently produced in the E.U., they are concerned at the rising volumes of duty-free seafood allowed to come into the market that don’t adhere to the same standards as the E.U. fleet. In other words, they say the playing field is uneven. What are your thoughts in this regard?
Pastoor: Fishermen must understand that decreasing E.U. catch quotas and increase the need for products from third countries. If we want to keep seafood processing in Europe, factories need to run at high capacity, and with most species, that’s not possible with only the E.U. supply.
We agree that imported products need to meet the same standards as E.U. products because that’s what consumers expect and that’s what we want to offer them. That’s why the E.U. has border controls on origin, food safety, and legality of catches. We’ve always supported strict border controls, just as we support strict controls on E.U. landings. If certain third countries cannot provide the certainty that their products comply with E.U. regulations, they should be blocked and not able to export to the E.U. The E.C. has the power to do so with support from the member states. The ATQ discussion should not be mixed up with these other elements. On top of that, all major retail and catering companies have their standards and controls. If something is rejected, the processor/trader is the one to pay the bill.
The other thing is the costs; just as E.U. processors feel competition from third countries, fishermen can have the same because of the high production costs in Europe. However, studies done by the E.C. show imports of raw materials do not affect the prices for fishermen in Europe. In many cases, the species are different, and/or market segments are different.
The fear from fishermen that imports from third countries cause lower prices for E.U. fishermen is not in line with reality. Just look at the prices fishermen get for their catches. Prices are so high that consumers look for alternatives. Our common goal should be to offer a broad variety of seafood to consumers to stimulate the consumption of healthy, sustainable food. The protein transition is not just to move to plant-based products; It’s also to move to water-based products. Seafood has the right proposition to offer for consumers, so let’s put our effort into promotion of our sector and our products and grow the market for all species.
SeafoodSource: How has the E.U.’s dependency on third-country imports been affected by Britain’s departure from the E.U. and the Ukraine-Russia conflict?
Pastoor: Brexit limited catch areas and created challenges in the E.U. [regarding] fishing negotiations with the U.K. and Norway, as well as Iceland and the Faroe Islands. As the U.K. is now a third country, supplies from the U.K. are now imports and deteriorate self-sufficiency in the E.U. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine puts further pressure on the market. There is less raw material from Russia into the E.U. as the result of market preferences for other origins. As there are no immediate alternatives for these species, prices for certain raw materials have increased.
SeafoodSource: AIPCE-CEP advocates for “favorable” trade agreements and ATQs. What could happen to E.U. processing without these trade instruments?
Bamberger: Favorable trade agreements are agreements that guarantee supply to the E.U. without [duty] or with low duty that fit the needs of our sector. However, trade agreements in most cases also cover finished products. That’s the difference with the ATQ regulation that only covers raw materials for processing. So, with each trade agreement, we need to study the species and product presentations covered by the agreement. If you can import canned tuna from low-labor third countries without duty, that’s to the detriment of the canning industry in Europe.
SeafoodSource: How important are these agreements when factoring in the decreasing consumer purchasing power brought by current E.U. inflation levels?
Bamberger: In the end, it is the consumer who must pay the bill. With import duties on top of existing high prices, demand will decrease even more than we see right now. To keep the products affordable and improve the competitiveness of the processing industry, trade instruments are essential for the value chain.
SeafoodSource: Does the E.U. need all of its existing ATQs?
Bamberger: We evaluate our needs from period to period. The difficulty is that the past doesn’t always provide answers for the future. If the market demand for certain species is expected to grow in the coming years, we should take that into account now and higher the ATQ. But it can also be the product presentation that changes.
We’ve seen the demand for seafood in a modified atmosphere, such as prepackaged products, in supermarkets growing fast over the past [few] years. However, packing in a modified atmosphere does not always qualify for the ATQ regulation. You can only get the zero duty if the processing process fits the strict definition in the regulation. In those cases, we should amend the old definition of processing that is used in the regulation. The ATQ is meant to be a flexible technical instrument for the processing sector, not one for political parading.
Photo courtesy of the Global Shrimp Forum
