EU Market Access for Fish and
Fishery Products
Francisco Blaha
Independent Advisor
The EU Market
• The European Union (EU) is
the biggest single market for
fish and fishery products
worldwide.
• Over 60% of the seafood
consumed there is imported.
(For Tuna the estimated figure
is 80-90%)
• The EU bases its seafood
import on government-togovernment assurances,
without the intervention of
any private type certification.
The 2 certifications
I will keep my presentation focused on the 2 certifications
required
•The “usual” deals with “fish as safe to eat food”, and provides
official guarantees from the exporting government to the EU
that the fish has been handled as required by the EU legislation.
It relates to the “health of the consumers”
•The “new one” who deals with “fish as a legally caught
resource”, and provides official guarantees from the vessel’s flag
state to the EU, that the fish was harvested in accordance with
applicable laws and international conservation and
management measures.
The Competent Authority
 The EU requires that the official guarantees in terms of

compliance of seafood exports should be given by a
competent authority (CA) “...central authority of a State
competent for the organisations of official control...” in
terms of the official controls as required in the relevant EU
legislation.
And emphasises that…The CA for performing official
controls should meet a number of operational criteria so as
to ensure their impartiality and effectiveness... “They
should have a sufficient number of suitably qualified and
experienced staff and possess adequate facilities and
equipment to carry out their duties properly”...
The Competent Authority
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
10)
11)
Management structure.
Independence.
Resources (including budget!).
Personnel.
Recruitment and training.
Legal/enforcement powers.
Prioritisation and documentation of controls.
Import controls.
Structured Control Plans.
Access to Laboratories (Health Certification only)
List of authorised countries


Animal products and foodstuffs of animal origin may be
exported to the EU only by the countries included on the list
authorised for the product in question.
For wild caught seafood, two criteria are taken into account
when drawing up the list:
 The recognition of the equivalence of the relevant
competent authority of the third country to the national
authorities of the Member States.
 The submission by the country concerned of an annual
residue monitoring plan for the products concerned.
Registration, Approval and Listing
Your country CA
registration
FBOs allowed to
produce food and
feed
all FBOs
under your
legislation
approval
FBOs allowed to
supply to FBOs
exporting to the
EU
EU
listing
DG Sanco
Market
list that goes to the EU
FBOs allowed to
export directly to
the EU (EU #)
vessels
vessels
reefers
reefers
cool stores
cool stores
hatcheries
factories
feed makers
aquaculture farms
ice factories
transporters
Health
landing sites
Certificate
Certificate
This list stays in the country
BIP
process and update the list
and pass it to all the BIPs
The Health Certificate
Catch Certification
•
•
The Catch Certification Scheme
deals with fish as a legally
caught resource.
Provides official guarantees
from the vessel’s flag state to
the EU:
•
•
that the fish was harvested in
accordance with their own
applicable laws
and international conservation
and management measures.
What it means?
• Prohibits the importation into the
Community of fishery products
obtained from IUU fishing.
• The catch certificate shall contain
all the information specified in a
expressed format, and shall be
validated by the CA of the flag
state of the catching vessel.
• The catch certificate may be
established, validated or
submitted by electronic means.
• Again... against the national
legislation and not the EU
imposed conditions.
What it means?
Flag State needs to prove
compliance with:
•Fisheries law
•MCS activities
•NPOA - IUU
•International agreements
•Bilateral agreements
•Coastal State controls
•Port State controls
•Flag State controls
•Market State controls
•Management measures of RFMOs
What it means?
What comes first?
•
To access the EU a country must be
“authorised” (sanitary), then all its
vessels intending to provide the EU
need to be to approved. Around 100
countries are presently approved.
•
•
•
The country need to be in the
approved notification list for Catch
Certificates.
While both regimes are as different
as the work scope of a Seafood
Safety Inspector and a Fisheries
Officer, there should be synergies in
between both certifications.
Both certificates cannot contain
discordant information.
The certifications and FIMS
Fish as Fish
Vessels
Ports
Fish as Food
Factories
Authorities EU
and others
National & Regional
Organisations
Compliance, Science
Trade statistics

e-cert or
paper
14
Eligibility
The origin of the raw materials and the way it arrives define the
eligibility in terms of “fish as food”
MoU
Philippines
PNG
PNG
PNG
Van/RMI/Kir/FSM
Taiwan
Ecuador
EU listed factory
Liberia
Eligibility
The FS validation of the catch certificate
defines the eligibility in terms of IUU fish
Flag state CA
PNG
PNG
Taiwan
EU listed factory
Van/RMI/Kir/FSM
Ecuador
Ecuador
Kiribati
EU listed factory
Transshipment or
Non processing statement
Funding and Cost Recovery
•
•
•
Any government activity will require funding and so inevitably,
there is a cost factor to be considered.
These costs will be significant since an effective certification
programme would require a reliable and constant source of
funding.
Since the certification of fish exports (on both counts!), will
ultimately be to the benefit of the resource users, it is logic to
establish as cost recovery structure.
• Although, this only makes sense where there is a direct economic benefit,
otherwise the additional cost to the sector does not make it worth.
•
I can’t tell you how much it will cost to have the system working,
but I can tell how the cost will be structured!
Funding and Cost Recovery
•
•
•
Set up costs: this is a long process and is to be based on an
evaluation of what they have now in terms of legislations,
human resources and infrastructure and an estimation to where
they have to go.
Running Costs
Fixed Costs: These are independent of product volumes
exported and are inherent to of the normal functioning of a CA,
such as:
• base personnel, technical training
• maintenance of schedules, annual reports,
• cost of official control and monitoring programs,
• development, management and maintenance of databases,
•
communications, vehicles,
etc...
Funding and Cost Recovery
•
•
•
•
Variable Costs
These costs are dependent on the level of compliance by
operators and the volume of exports. They include:
Certification: It recovers the cost of each certificate in terms of
inputs and a standard minimum provision of time incurred in its
production.
Verification of Conformity: The Cost of inspections can be
charged per unit of time spent by staff in terms of regulatory
checks and risk evaluation.
• Additionally this concept rewards operators that demonstrate better
compliance since their costs will be lower.
•
Capacity Building of new staff, technology updates, etc.
Is it worth?
Feasibility Assessment of Exporting Products of HS Headings 0304/ 0305 to the European Union - Gillet & Preston - Feb. 2012
Is it worth?
•
Direct exports does not seem feasible for many countries.
•
In some cases, the country does not have processing sites in their
territory, or their operations are aimed to non EU markets only.
• But, they have a locally flagged vessel fleet that operates in their
own as well as regional waters, transhipping for, or unloading in
other 3rd countries for processing and potential export to EU
markets.
• The lack of EU authorisation is a price disincentive for buyers
(even if in reality the product will get to the EU anyway)
•
This implies that the CA needs to be developed and run in a
“vessel only” oriented manner and in close collaboration with the
other countries. (This has particular complications)
Is it worth?
•
The EU has set up themselves in the “highest moral ground” in
terms of food safety and non IUU fish.
• They are in agreements with other major markets to
standardise the requirements
•
So this is becoming a bit like a “Ecolabel”…
– You are not required to have it, but...
– If you have it... there is no guarantee you going to get more
money for your fish
– Nevertheless, the pressure to be part of it... seems
relentless
– And, as we see... there are economic consequences for
those that are not part of “the club”
Situation in the Pacific
• In the sanitary approved and
notification list:
•
•
•
•
Fiji
French Polynesia/New
Caledonia/Wallis & Futuna
PNG
Solomon Islands
•
Working towards it
•
Support by
• FSM
• Kiribati
• Marshall Islands
•
•
FFA/DevFish II/SPC
the EU (in the past)
So what to do?
• Hard Question….
• Need to make numbers… it has
to be cost effective…
• Personally…
• I’ll get SPC/FFA to provide the
best advice on the set up and
routines of the CA
• I’ll recover directly the running
costs of developing and
maintain the CA out of the
fisheries access fees and
fisheries generated revenues to
the country
Thank you / Merci