The European Commission (E.C.) is currently preparing an autonomous tariff quota (ATQ) proposal for volumes of select fishery products in 2024 and 2025. In response, companies like fishing industry body Europêche have highlighted that growing volumes of third-country-caught seafood have continued to enter the E.U. market with zero duties, while significantly increased controls placed on European fishers are infringing on fishers’ livelihoods throughout the Union.
In an interview with SeafoodSource, Europêche Managing Director Daniel Voces de Onaíndi and Europêche Tuna Group Director Anne-France Mattlet said while their organization doesn’t oppose a rational, tariff-free environment for fishery products that aren’t sufficiently produced in the E.U., it advocates for policymakers to adopt a more coherent approach to end what’s become a worrying trend.
SeafoodSource: How has this situation with ATQs evolved, and has the E.C. given any justification for the approach it has taken?
Voces de Onaíndi: There is an obvious imbalance in the treatment of E.U.-produced seafood compared to imported fish products. It partly comes as a consequence of the European Commission’s will to always impose higher standards on its own fleet, without being able to impose or control similar rules on other fleets. As an example, the new E.U. control regulation imposes burdensome and costly technological demands on fishers, such as the mandatory introduction of CCTV, devices monitoring engine power, and tougher sanctions. The E.C. has little power to impose these rules and devices to non-E.U. fleets.
The E.U. must respect the seafood products caught by non-E.U. fleets, which are perfectly legal under their own national frameworks but unsustainable or poorly controlled under our own standards.
The main argument used by the E.C. is that the E.U. has to lead by example. However, this approach has evident consequences for the competitiveness of our fleet, and for that reason, we always ask for a level playing field.
Furthermore, under the E.U.’s IUU [illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing] regulation, member states shall refuse the importation of fishery products into the E.U. in cases of noncompliance. However, when compared to the number of imports received annually into member states, the number of refusals is tremendously low. For instance, in 2018 and 2019, a total of 47 consignments were refused out of the 580,000 imports received by member states. How is that possible? So, while E.U. fishers’ operations and landings are extremely monitored and controlled in Europe, there is no reflection on seafood imports.
SeafoodSource: Is there any evidence that, through these actions, the E.C. is indirectly driving down the prices and value of E.U. fishery products?
Voces de Onaíndi: Compliance with tight control measures, as well as with high environmental, safety, hygiene, and labor standards, is costly and burdensome for our companies. So of course it has an impact on the price that needs to compensate for high operational costs. However, the same level of scrutiny and standards is not being applied for imported products, which can offer better prices due to lower standards and operational costs.
The issue here is the trade and customs policies for fishery products proposed by the Commission and endorsed by member states. In fact, the E.U. imposes tariff duties on imports for several reasons, including promoting fair competition as well as protecting domestic industries to safeguard local jobs and businesses from being undercut by cheaper imports. Tariffs can also be applied to products from countries with lower environmental or labor standards to encourage compliance with international norms.
Mattlet: The ATQ policy is precisely navigating against these goals. Therefore, when the E.U. reduces the tariff on tuna loins mainly coming from China, originally set at 24 percent, to zero, it automatically drives down the prices in the market for a product that is already cheap in every respect. As a result, it creates unfair competition, garners frustration in the E.U. fleet, and sends the wrong message by rewarding those who do nothing or little for sustainability and fair treatment of people.
Therefore, the ATQ system forces the E.U. fishing industry to reduce prices and seek alternative, non-domestic markets. It also adversely affects longstanding partnerships with African, Caribbean, and Pacific states. These partners experience discrimination and the loss of valuable market opportunities. The sustainability standards they have to comply with under their trade agreements with the E.U. do not exist in the ATQ framework.
SeafoodSource: Similarly, is there a feeling that the E.C. is failing E.U. consumers by allowing large volumes of largely unchecked, non-E.U. products to enter the market that may not meet expectations related to sustainable best practices?
Voces de Onaíndi: To some extent, yes. There is a need for consumers to have a clearer idea of how the fish they eat is caught, as well as the fishermen and vessels behind the catch. Equally important, they need to know whether companies respect proper environment and labor conditions onboard [their vessels].
This is ensured by the common fisheries policy and other E.U. policies for European production, but it is not the case for many imported products that are not bound by our standards. The E.U. IUU policy guarantees the legality of the product but not the sustainability. Furthermore, traceability exists, but it does not always reach the final consumer. Once the fish is processed – inside or outside the E.U. – it is not mandatory to provide the consumer with the origin of the product. The place of harvest is not clear either, as only the Food and Agriculture Organization zone is clearly indicated. Who knows about FAO zones?
The ATQ system treats fish products from all countries equally, without any differentiation in terms of sustainability or origin. The consumer is, therefore, completely unaware whether unsustainable products they are buying have been granted trade preferences making the product cheaper. In this respect, despite repeated requests, the E.C. is not disclosing data on the ATQ consumption relating to the country of origin of each fishery product and the member state importing the product. This must change now.
SeafoodSource: What solutions would Europêche and E.U. fishing companies like to see implemented by the E.C.’s decision-makers?
Voces de Onaíndi: It is clear that the E.C. must address the deficiencies of the ATQ policy, starting by limiting ATQs for species not sufficiently provided by E.U. fleets and/or through trade agreements with third-party countries. Europêche calls for policy coherence and urges the E.C. to introduce sustainability indicators to decide on trade preferences. Europêche also calls on the E.C. to utilize the ATQ system as a measure to address unsustainable and irresponsible practices in the Northeast Atlantic, particularly those observed by Norway and the Faroe Islands. Their overfishing of Atlantic mackerel and their persistent challenge to the well-established historical rights of the E.U. fleet, all while demanding increased access to our market, make it imperative to take action. Equally important, member states must allocate sufficient capacity and resources to ensure consignments containing suspicious or illegally caught products are refused entry to the E.U. market. Imported products must also be subject to more frequent sanitary controls.
Concerning labeling and consumer information, the E.C. should propose legislation requiring the mandatory declaration of the place of catch, the vessel's flag, and gear used for semi-processed and canned products entering our market to enable consumers to make better-informed choices and support responsible consumption. A consumer information campaign aimed at promoting the sustainability of the E.U. fleet and centered around an emphasis for citizens to “consume European” would be highly necessary.
SeafoodSource: Do E.U. processors need access to large volumes of overseas raw materials to remain competitive?
Voces de Onaíndi: Yes, processors need access to raw materials as much as fishers need access and quotas to fish, but this has to be done in a responsible way. The argument that we need to increase cheap imports to remain competitive is no longer valid. The E.U. Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy cannot stop at our borders. The food imported into the E.U., and even more so if it’s benefiting from trade preferences, needs to be sustainably caught. Furthermore, as even recognized by the processing industry in the Market Advisory Council, the ATQ instrument must be solely used when there is not sufficient seafood supply for our markets and cannot be intended to import non-sustainable products nor put pressure on E.U. producers’ prices.
We observe, likewise, extreme worrying cases which raise both political and ethical concerns. According to EUMOFA [European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture], E.U. imports of Alaska pollock from Russia grew by 29 percent in quantity and 31 percent in value from 2020 to 2021. Despite the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, E.U. imports of Russian pollock continued at an all-time high level in the first half of 2022. Additionally, frozen whole Alaskan pollock is China’s main import from the Russian Federation, accounting for 50 percent of all imported volumes in 2021. Once imported, the product is then processed and re-exported as frozen fillets/blocks. To a lesser extent, Russian cod and pollock is processed in Norway and re-exported to the E.U. as Norwegian fish. A staggering volume of 320 million kilograms of pollock enters our market annually at zero percent duty, many originating in those countries. The European Union is doing nothing to prevent this vicious circle and the lay citizen is not aware that they are consuming Russian fish.
Finally, Europêche recalls that it is in the gutting and cleaning of the fish where the greatest number of jobs are required for the E.U. processing industry. The fishing industry, therefore, argues that increased imports of fish fillets and loins already processed in third-party countries to the E.U. will result in a loss of said jobs and a decrease in prices. As a consequence of the latter factor, ATQs with a zero-tariff duty also force the E.U. catching sector to sell its products in other international markets in search of better prices. It also fosters a reliance on seafood imports from third-party countries.
SeafoodSource: You highlight there’s been a good recovery of E.U. fish stocks in certain areas. Do you feel the E.U.’s seafood economy could do more to become more self-sufficient moving forward?
Voces de Onaíndi: The common fisheries policy is crystal clear: “It should contribute to the supplying of highly nutritional food to the Union market and reducing the Union market's dependence on food imports. It should also foster direct and indirect job creation and economic development in coastal areas.” So, if adequate measures are taken to ensure the level playing field between E.U. and non-E.U. fleets, it would definitely help to remain competitive and secure European fish production.
However, harsh environmental policies, such as bans, area closures, landing obligations, etc., combined with detrimental trade policies championing unsustainable imports that compete with the production in our own market would definitely help to worsen the situation and jeopardize food sovereignty. [Also], if E.U. production decreases or [is] forced to be sold in non-E.U. markets in search of better prices, E.U. processors will be at the mercy of foreign operators, who will be free to increase their prices or refuse to supply the E.U. market.
Photo courtesy of Europêche
