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 …
Photo courtesy of Europêche
