Content uploaded by Carlos Alberto M Lima dos Santos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carlos Alberto M Lima dos Santos on May 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Carlos Alberto M Lima dos Santos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carlos Alberto M Lima dos Santos on Jun 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fish Inspection Equivalence Agreements:
Overview and Current Developments - Developing Countries Perspective
by
Krissana Sophonphong
1
and Carlos A. Lima dos Santos
2
Paper presented at the International Workshop on Market Access to Seafood
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 15-16 September 1997
ABSTRACT
In the international market of fish and fishery products, one of the most serious
difficulties faced by exporters from developing countries consists in the different
standards and regimes being imposed by importing countries to ensure products
meet their domestic requirements. Even after the ratification of the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) under the World Trade Organization (WTO),
differences are expected to continue between various national standards and
inspection systems maintaining or creating new non-tariff trade barriers. Moving
towards the “equivalence” approach is now considered the best way to remove such
a burden and liberalize the international seafood trade without sacrificing food quality
or safety. “Equivalence” is the capability of different inspection and certification
systems to meet the same objectives, according to the Codex Alimentarius
Commission.
This paper offers an update description of developing countries’ efforts to
apply the “equivalence” approach in the field of inspection and quality control of
internationally traded fish and fishery products. Problems and difficulties to pursue
this kind of agreements are also identified.
Introduction
Developing countries are responsible for more than 50% of fish and fishery
products involved in international trade. Almost all developing countries export some
fishery products and for most of them the revenue from these exports is a major
source of foreign currency. The European Union (EU), Japan and the USA, account
for about 80% of world fish and fishery product imports. They dominate the market
both in terms of prices and quality requirements. Sanitary and hygienic regulations
imposed by main importing countries have come to play an increasingly important
role during recent years due to negative public perceptions which have grown in their
domestic markets (Ahmed, 1991).
Developing countries have often complained that they are being penalized by
the complexity of health and quality regulations applied by major importing countries.
In the past it has been suggested that these regulations have been used as non-tariff
barriers. There is no doubt that the way in which the regulations are implemented,
1
Division of Fish Inspection and Quality Control, Department of Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand
2
Fish Utilisation and Marketing Service, Fisheries Department, FAO of UN, Rome, Italy
2
and the lack of consistent criteria, has certainly inhibited seafood trade (Lima dos
Santos et al., 1993; Emberley, 1997).
The differences between the legislation, standards, organization and function
of inspection services, and “modus operandi “ of such services are among the most
important practical difficulties faced by developing countries to comply with the
requirements imposed by importing countries to ensure that products meet their
domestic standards. Certificate requirements of different countries cause
inconvenience to both exporter and responsible government regulatory agency.
There are a number of different forms and languages which often result in confusion.
Application of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept is
an alternative choice to such traditional barriers, which is now embraced everywhere
by public and private sectors. The world-wide application of HACCP principles is
expected to become the vehicle which will stimulate international harmonization of
the fish inspection system.
Following this direction, global efforts are being pursued towards the
establishment of country bilateral and multilateral agreements with the intended
effect of removing seafood trade barriers. The goal is to maintain and/or gain better
access to key international seafood markets, that means - basically - exporting
countries are seeking recognition from importing countries concerning their capability
to produce and sell safe and quality products.
This paper addresses guidelines recommended by internationally recognized
agencies and requirements set down by importing countries to achieve “equivalence”
recognition of inspection and certification system. Problems and difficulties
encountered, especially by the developing countries, to pursue this kind of
agreements are also identified.
What is “equivalence”? The international approach.
According to the SPS Agreement, “equivalence” is achieved when an
exporting country assures an importing country “the appropriate level of sanitary or
phytosanitary protection”, even though the measures adopted are not the same as
those of the importing country. That means we are not dealing with the equivalence
of specific standards of food products and their components (e.g. food hygiene,
additives and contaminants, labelling and quality requirements) but with that of the
inspection system .
According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), “Equivalence is the
capability of different inspection and certification systems to meet the same
objectives” (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1997). Accordingly, emphasis is given
on the capability of different inspection and certification systems to achieve the same
objectives, regardless of details related to the methods applied by both systems.
The “Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Design, Assessment and Accreditation
of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems” recently prepared
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997) recommend necessary steps to be
taken for determination of equivalence between two or more interested trading
3
countries. The matters of consideration should include the national legislative
framework, effectiveness and adequacy of enforcement and control programmes and
availability of facilities, equipment, transportation and communications. The
document also encourages the use of the HACCP approach and emphasizes the
importance of government and industry staff training on the subject. As indicated
before, the general assumption is that HACCP principles will play a fundamental role
in every equivalence agreement. Prerequisite requirements for sanitation, end-
product sampling and testing by exporting countries would play a minor but
necessary part to fulfil the objective of the agreement. Importing countries are
expected to avoid systematic physical checks on imports which will lead us back to
the traditional way of inspection.
A key point reiterated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in their
proposed draft guidelines is the need to abide by risk assessment principles. Risk
assessment is the scientific evaluation of the likelihood and severity of known or
potential adverse health effects resulting from human exposure to foodborne hazards
(FAO/WHO, 1995). For the determination of equivalence between inspection
systems, different countries may present different hazards and risk assessment.
Control methods can be different but able to achieve equivalent results. Inspection
services should draw up control programs based on precise objectives and
appropriate risk analysis. In the absence of detailed scientific research, control
programs should be based on requirements developed from current knowledge and
practice. Every effort should be made to apply risk analysis based on internationally-
accepted methodology.
With the world moving towards HACCP principles and equivalence
agreement, where control from harvesting to consumption is emphasized,
end-product analysis for certification purposes should be kept to a minimum. Time,
cost and effort should instead be shifted to prevent the occurrence of possible health
hazards in the production chain.
Equivalence and the European Union (EU)
The harmonization of national legislations of European Union countries into a
single Directive was a unique step in the field of upgrading inspection and quality
control of fishery products at international level. A shift to the preventive systematic
approach provided by the HACCP concept is the main technical characteristic of the
new inspection and quality control procedures included in the Council Directive
91/493/ EC of 22 July 1992 under the overall umbrella of its key word -”equivalence”
(Lima dos Santos et al., 1993). Though the primary objective of the legislation is to
harmonize practices within the European Community, it is a principle of the Directive
that its provisions should apply to imports from “third countries” (countries that do not
belong to the Community) and that there should be a common import system applied
by all member states of the Community. Therefore, exporters to the EC should
comply with the content of Article 10 of the Directive:
"Provisions applied to imports of fishery products from third countries shall be
equivalent to those governing the placing on the market of Community products."
4
The EU version of “Equivalence” is rather different from that of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission and USFDA (US Food and Drug Administration). To
achieve an equivalent status, the exporting country must demonstrate that its
“National Competent Authority” (NCA) has the capability to enforce EU legislative
regulations to ensure safe and wholesome products being produced and placed in
commerce.
There is no MOU (“Memorandum of Understanding”) kind of agreement in the
EU perspective. The “equivalence”, alias “harmonization”, according to EU
terminology, takes place in a form of specific Decisions made by the Commission of
the European Communities (EC) approving individual countries to export to the EU.
The NCA of an exporting country is required to submit a list of approved
establishments that comply with concerned Directives for subsequent approval by the
EC.
The EU has introduced a system called “Own Health Checks”, as appeared in
the Directive 94/356/EC issued on May 20, 1994. The system is based on HACCP
principles. There is no direct enforcement applied by the EU on how a plant
implements the system. The responsibility lies upon the NCA to ensure that an
approved establishment has a HACCP plan in place and effectively implements it.
The competent authority has to ensure appropriate training of inspection staff
authorized to perform official checks on the own-checks system.
One may state that EU is applying a true “equivalence” scheme, on its own
way, by approving processors of third countries under the supervision of exporting
countries’ NCAs. Exporting countries’NCAs take full responsibility for regular sanitary
plant inspection, verification of HACCP-plans, and end-product sampling and
analysis.
A health certificate is to be issued and signed by the authority to accompany
each shipment. The certification is still an important tool for reassuring EU that their
standards and requirements are constantly met. This creates a doubt if this
“equivalence” /”harmonization” approach is in line with the objectives of WTO and
SPS agreement to liberalize free trade globally.
The EU may be standing on the verge of utilising trade barriers in many
occasions. The EC allows higher residue level of food additives, such as benzoic
acid, in temperate water shrimp products than in tropical ones. Some EU member
states practically issue import alert lists for products from specific countries or
companies, without the support of EC Decision. Furthermore, the EC reserves the
right, according to Article 11(6) of the Directive 91/493/EEC, to approve an individual
establishment in a third country if the NCA of the exporting country is identified as
unable to satisfy EC import requirements. Generally, considerable efforts are made
by the NCA of an exporting country, both in terms of finance and human resources,
to comply with EC Directives and maintain its industry’s status in the EU market. The
pressure from EU is constant on third countries forcing to make NCAs strictly achieve
compliance. The scale of efforts, tension and losses faced nation-wide by the
governments and private sectors of exporting countries cannot compare with that of
a single company (in many occasions having a foreign owner, based in an EC
5
country). Therefore, the EC alternative of offering special approval for private
individuals is by all means unacceptable.
A common and serious complaint made by a number of countries exporting
fish and fishery products to the EU consists in inadequate qualification of the EC
inspectors being sent to perform official inspection missions in these countries.
European inspectors are not trained in the technology, hygiene, inspection and
quality control of fish and fishery products. They are not trained in the development
and application of the HACCP concept in the fish industry, and they do not have
practical experience in the inspection of fishing vessels, fish farms, fish handing
places and fish processing products. Generally, they are Veterinarians experienced
in technology and inspection of food of animal origin - but fish and fishery products.
Here is a first issue to harmonize and make “equivalence” a reality, i.e. the technical
and practical training qualification of fish inspectors at importing and exporting
country level.
Equivalence and the USA
Seafood processors of an exporting country are given two choices to enable
them to export their products to the US market after the D-day (18 December 1997):
the day the Mandatory Seafood HACCP Regulation will enter in force:
- Through the first option, the foreign processor must submit its HACCP-plan
to the US fish importer for approval. The US importer is responsible for verifying the
effectiveness and proper application of the plan. Hence, the importer can only
pursue trade with a foreign processor who has in place an efficient HACCP plan.
- Secondly, if there is an existence of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the governments of the US and the exporting country, all
establishments approved by the latter will gain access to the US market without the
complicated steps for the approval of the HACCP plan by the US importer.
To establish a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) with the USA, based
on the “equivalence” between the fish inspection systems, foreign countries are
provided with a do-it-yourself document prepared by the USFDA to use for
preliminary checking of its own inspection system. The process is known as a “side
by side comparison”, where health protection systems of both USA and the
requesting party are compared.
Seafood exporters would prefer very much to see their governments having
established equivalence agreement with the US. However, despite rigorous
approach and efforts attempted by governments of several exporting countries,
USFDA has yet to develop an agreement with any country - negotiations with
USFDA for reaching a MOU are still at a snail pace. According to USFDA, it is most
likely that no MOU will be signed until the end of 1997 ( FDA, 1997(a)). The
signature of a MOU with Canada may be the only possible exception, since the
negotiation between the two countries are said to be in an advanced step.
Guidelines developed by USFDA for the establishment of an equivalence
agreement between fish inspection systems are clear and precise. Differently from
compliance-based MOU signed in the past with a number of countries (eg.
6
New-Zealand), USFDA is now prepared to accept unidentical measures which can
achieve the same level of health protection. Nevertheless, there are still some
important hidden details to take into account. For example, the differences of
Maximum Residue Levels (MRL’s) for food contaminants or drugs between the US
legal standards and those of other countries. The latter must be able to demonstrate
that products exported to the US will not contain contaminants in excess of the US
MRL. In the same line, US labelling requirements are likely to remain unchanged
since there is still no conclusion on how determination of equivalence on this issue
should be made to be in line with the SPS agreements.
The US automatic detention scheme is a significant burden for USFDA to
decide on the development of bilateral agreements. With a number of fishery
establishments appearing on the import alert list, USFDA expresses its concern to
settle the existing problems first. Major causes of seafood detention are still
decomposition in canned tuna and canned shrimp, and detection of Salmonella
arizona and filth in frozen raw shrimp. These defects should be carefully revised in
the light of risk analysis. Processors appeared in the list may not be aware of their
status at all. Once a shipment from a listed plant arrives at a US port, the importer
seeks random sampling and analysis by a private laboratory and obtains a certificate
to proceed with custom clearance. The process can go on and on, but the alert list
remains unchanged. To be withdrawn from the list is too costly and time consuming.
Importers would prefer to deal with sample analysis on a shipment by shipment
basis. The USFDA should also solve this problem by investigating whether the
violation still exists. The USFDA may have to apply risk assessment for each specific
cause of rejection/detention as well. Close communication and co-operation
between USFDA and the exporting country’s NCA will help resolve this shortcoming.
The USFDA does not fully rely on end-product testing because the results of
the sampling may or may not be representative of the risk and quality of the whole
lot. Many factors are involved such as product uniformity and sampling size. Hence,
the USFDA does not require a certificate to accompany an imported shipment. This
has long been the USFDA approach for imports, which is in line with the HACCP
approach where raw material and processing controls are emphasized.
Nevertheless, it is expected that the USFDA will continue to sample and analyse lots
of seafood imports even after the HACCP regulation has taken effect - a reflection of
an existing thick umbilical cord with traditional inspection procedures.
After December 18, 1997, the trend is that less inspection will be conducted in
exporting countries by USFDA inspectors. This kind of control may be considered a
threat to a projected offshore establishment. Though stated in USFDA Federal
Register (FDA, 1997(b)) that an official inspection visit to a foreign processor will be
done after official consultation with the concerned NCA of the visiting country,
USFDA has in the past, on several occasions, made direct visiting arrangement with
foreign processors/exporters without local authority’s knowledge (eg. inspections
conducted by the USFDA programme on Low Acid Canned Food). Joint inspection
and regular exchange of information should be considered as the correct approach
when the USFDA considers a necessary inspection of an establishment in a foreign
country.
7
It is possible but rather difficult for most individual US importers to regularly
inspect and verify HACCP-plans of foreign seafood establishment. This shortcoming
creates job opportunities for HACCP consultancy firms. Many foreign processors are
mislead, purposely or not, that by obtaining consultancy assistance from firms
claiming to have a special approval from USFDA and/or relevant US private
associations, the processor will be guaranteed a ticket to enter the US market. Of
course, a tailored HACCP plan for each plant will be established and applied. There
is no technical harm in using competent consultancy assistance but the truth is that
such consultancy can cost a fortune and does not assure free access to the US
market. On the other hand, this procedure has serious negatives since it may
jeopardize national efforts, particularly in the case of a number of developing
countries. Several governments are doing their utmost to train and provide
technical guidance to the industry on the design and application of HACCP
principles. A significant number of seafood processing plants world-wide have
operational HACCP plans and are ready for the new regulation. At the same time
they are uncertain whether they can demonstrate the effectiveness of the plans to the
US importer and gain approval. Many are considering paying a huge sum of
consultancy fee to persons/firms who know their plants less than they do, just to
secure their place in the US market. A certificate and/or statement from the
exporting country’s NCA that the exported seafood product being sent to the US is
processed under an efficient HACCP plan should be adequate. The establishment of
MOU of “equivalence” between fish inspection systems between the US and the
government of its trade partners is a must.
Equivalence and Japan
Japan is the world largest seafood importing country. The Ministry of Health
and Welfare (MHW) is entrusted to control imports of all food products including
seafood in accordance with the Food Sanitation Law. Though, for many countries,
random sampling and finished product testings are no longer considered a reliable
measure to ensure full control of health hazards, Japan still depends heavily on the
traditional fish inspection system. Food imports are subjected to regulatory
inspection by food sanitation inspectors at the port of entry. Health certificates are
not required by Japanese laws, however, they obviously facilitate custom clearance
(Yamagata, 1992). A foreign laboratory performing analytical tests on the products
must be recognized by the Japanese authority. The MHW may accept documents
and test results from more than one recognized government agency in an exporting
country.
In order to simplify import procedures, products with good compliance history
will qualify for reduced inspection scheme. The MHW has introduced the advanced
confirmation or pre-certification system. Prior to importing, food products and its
manufacture may be registered with Japan through a recognized local authority.
However, it is necessary that the food product obtains clearance compliance with
Japanese food sanitation regulations. Import notifications for the registered products
are promptly accepted (Toyofuku, 1997). This system covers only processed
seafood such as surimi and surimi-based products. Monitoring programmes using
sampling and laboratory analyses are conducted continuously particularly on high
risk fishery products such as puffer fish and shellfish. The use of HACCP-based
systems is encouraged in seafood production but the system is voluntary.
8
As a major importer, Japan does not seem ready to adopt a global trend in
equivalence agreement based on inspection system. Japan appears to rely on close
collaboration with recognized foreign governments to resolve seafood safety
problems on a case by case basis. Whenever a violation to the laws is identified, the
MHW will require the exporting authority to immediately and closely investigate the
cause and exercise necessary steps to eliminate the problem. This approach
apparently has provided satisfactory and reasonable assurance to the Japanese
authority .
The Japanese government so far has had no MOU with the government of an
exporting country. However, being an exporter of fishery products as well, the Japan
Canned Food Inspection Association (JCFIA) which is a private agency, signed a
MOU with the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans in February 1997
regarding imports of canned tuna into Canada. The substance of the MOU is
identical to those previously established between Canada and Thailand and the
Philippines.
Equivalence and Canada
Canada has been actively and efficiently implementing a number of
“Memoranda of Understanding” with the government of trade partner countries. In the
case of imports, the substance of the agreements is to ensure that specific fishery
products processed in qualified fish processing plants and imported into Canada
meet Canadian requirements. The Canadian requirements are based on its Quality
Management Program (QMP), an HACCP-based mandatory system. Canada does
not require a health certificate to accompany a shipment. The frequency of import
inspections depends on the performance history of the exporting company.
Preferred Status or reduced inspection rate is given to a foreign firm covered by a
respective MOU. So far, among those countries having successfully established
MOU with Canada are Australia, Ecuador, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, and
Philippines.
Equivalence is not a novelty to the Canadian perspective. In April 1996, the
Canadian DFO signed an Equivalence Agreement with New Zealand on control
measures for the safety and quality of fish and fishery products. A Mutual
Recognition Agreement (MRA) on the equivalence of fish and fishery products
inspection control system, which may be claimed the first recognition of unidentical
systems in the world, was signed in April 1997 with Thailand. The MRA was drafted
in accordance with the guideline recommended by the Codex Committee on Food
Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. It is foreseen that Canada
will continue to pursue this kind of agreement with other trading partners equipped
with a National Competent Authority (Government Inspection Agency) and qualified
processing plants. The approach has proved efficient and dramatically encouraged
trade flow.
Current Developments
Among developing countries, those from Asia and Latin America are working
harder in the pursue of equivalence recognition for their national fish inspection
9
programmes. In most cases, the objective is to obtain a special treatment for their
seafood products in the major importing countries, in particular the EU and the USA.
However, Brazil and Argentina are also worried with protecting their national markets.
The efforts of developing countries are aimed at the establishment of bilateral or
multilateral agreements.
Bilateral agreements
The agreement on the equivalence of fish and fishery products inspection and
quality control system signed between the governments of Canada and Thailand on
April 9, 1997, deserves particular attention. The Mutual Recognition Agreement
(MRA) was the result of a long-term Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Thai Department
of Fisheries (DOF). This MOU was initiated in the early 1980’s specifically for
inspection and quality control of canned tuna. It was then converted to an umbrella or
basic MOU in 1992 adding another product, i.e. frozen raw shrimp, and in 1996
incorporating cooked and value added shrimp products to the annexes.
The above MOUs significantly contributed to the success of the Thai export of
seafood products to Canada. Thailand has enjoyed a satisfactory market share for
canned tuna and frozen shrimp in Canada of 65 % and 21 % during the first half of
1997, respectively. Nevertheless, the number of establishments under the previous
MOUs were limited. When the Thai Government had confidence in its inspection
system and in the performance of the fishery industry, the country has approached
the Canadian Government for negotiation of the MRA. After a lengthy period of
paper review and plant visits, the MRA was finally established. The agreement
covers fish and fishery products with the exception of live molluscan shellfish. More
qualified processing plants are included providing better opportunities to access the
market. Privileges for minimized sampling are given as an incentive. Substance of
the MRA is that both parties are committed to maintain close collaboration in
notification and consultation if a problem regarding public health and consumer
protection arises. A specific time frame is laid down for reporting of any serious and
immediate concerns.
With regard to the audit procedures for assessment and verification of the
effectiveness of the system, the MRA abides by the “Guidelines on Procedures for
Conduction and Assessment and Verification by an Importing Country of Inspection
and Certification Systems of and Exporting Country” as developed by the Codex
Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems and
adopted by Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997).
Canada also has a similar two-way agreement with the New Zealand
Government. The “Equivalency” arrangement, signed in April 1996, recognizes
mutual control measures for the safety and quality of fish and fishery products. The
essence of the arrangement is to facilitate bilateral trade in fish and fishery products
that are safe and wholesome for consumers.
Indonesia, the Philippines and, more recently, Ecuador also succeeded in
signing a MOU with Canada which gives their products (frozen shrimp for all and
10
additional canned tuna for the Philippines) a special treatment by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency.
Due to dramatic changes in Brazil’s international trade policies, since a few
years Brazil has been importing larger amounts of seafood than it exports.
Therefore, its traditional Federal Food Inspection Service (DIPOA) has been pursuing
the establishment of MOUs not only with Inspection Services of countries that import
seafood from Brazil but also with that which export seafood products to Brazil. These
MOUs aim at achieving mutual recognition of inspection systems.
According to the Brazilian approach, it is the foreign government of the
exporting country that is responsible for the evaluation of their fish
processing/exporting plants and authorize those which may export to Brazil. The
Brazilian Inspection Service monitors the effectiveness of the enforcing government’s
control programme in accordance with the established MOU. Under presently
established MOUs, the enforcing Official Inspection Service of the exporting country
should provide the Brazilian authority with periodic lists of processors that meet the
requirements of the mutual recognition agreement (Costa Jr., 1997).
Actually, MOUs have been established by Brazil with Argentina and Peru,
while negotiations for establishing MOUs with Norway and Ecuador are well
advanced. Preliminary correspondence was initiated with Canada in 1996 aiming at
establishing a MOU. Chile and Uruguay are the next target countries for Brazil
concerning the establishment of such agreements, due to the volume of imports from
these two countries.
Multilateral agreements:
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was
established in France in 1960 and comprises, to date, 29 member countries from
Europe, North America, Asia and Australia: all of them are developed countries
except for Mexico and the Republic of Korea. OECD has policies to promote
cooperation among members to sustain expansion of economy and trade. Realizing
the significance of determining equivalence of fish inspection systems among
member countries, the OECD Committee for Fisheries will organize a Workshop on
Seafood Inspection early in 1998. Member countries are expected to share
information on their existing fish inspection systems. Similarities and dissimilarities
will be identified, summarized and presented during the workshop. Representatives
from FAO and the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems are invited to participate and provide input to
the workshop.
The above OECD initiative aiming at determining equivalence in seafood
inspection procedures reflects a strong determination and transparency strategy to
achieve seafood safety as well as fair market access to seafood. This is a positive
effort of industrialized countries towards harmonization of fish inspection systems,
provided that the benefits will not only benefit upon themselves. The outcome of the
workshop must be practical and realistic for developing countries as major trading
partners.
11
Member countries of MERCOSUR - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and
Paraguay - actively work on the establishment of a subregional agreement aiming at
harmonizing their fish inspection systems. In this direction, MERCOSUR countries
established a Seafood Safety Committee during July 1997. MERCOSUR countries
are also trying to establish a common front of discussion with the European Union.
Common problems and difficulties concerning the application of EC Directives and
Decisions, the different criteria applied during the official visits of EU Inspectors, the
different hygiene criteria applied by EU with reference to fishing vessels from EU
Member countries and those from Third Countries are among the relevant issues
discussed. Attention is also given to problems and difficulties which might occur from
December 18, 1997, in consequence of the enforcement of the USFDA Final Rule for
seafood imports to USA.
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) - though established with
the major objective of promoting free trade among USA, Canada and Mexico by
streamlining border-crossing process and eliminating tariff, - signatories have been
working on the harmonization of standards, testing and certification procedures. The
provisions of the agreement also emphasize removal of trade barriers by allowing
free flow of goods which meet “rules-of-origin” requirements. That means goods are
not subject to repeated inspection at subsequent ports of entry. The policy, in turn,
benefits fishery exporting countries especially those having an equivalence
agreement or MOU with any of the NAFTA members. However, this free movement
will be markedly affected when the HACCP mandatory will be in force in the US.
Founded on the basis of common economic interests, APEC (Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation) is promoting equivalence agreement on foods and food
products among 18 member countries. APEC Mutual Recognition Arrangement on
Conformity Assessment of Foods and Food Products or APEC Food MRA is a
voluntary mechanism designed to facilitate trade by minimizing food inspection
controls at the point of entry into importing economies (countries) on the basis of
assurances provided through pre-export conformity assessment using official and
officially recognized inspection and certification systems, and by establishing a
mechanism for resolving issues which may otherwise disrupt trade. The agreement
could be established between two economies at first stage. APEC encourages
multilateral agreements to form from the nucleus which will promote more trade
flows. HACCP is recommended to be included as an integral component of the
exporting party’s inspection program. The agreement shall be established in
accordance with SPS and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) Agreements and with
principles detailed in standards, guidelines, and recommendations developed by
Codex, in particular those developed by the Codex Committee on Food Import and
Export Inspection and Certification Systems.
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is a
regional, intergovernmental body comprising 20 member countries in Africa. This
international collaboration aims at promoting economic cooperation among member
states and trade within and outside the region. COMESA has been cooperating
closely with FAO on improving regional fish inspection and quality assurance system.
A recent proposed project to receive technical assistances from FAO identifies the
needs for implementation of a national HACCP-based quality assurance system for
fish and fishery products to ensure compliance with the new requirements for fish
12
imports to EU and USA, as well as to improve the safety and quality of seafood sold
on the national markets of the COMESA region.
Effects of Equivalence Agreement
Positive Effects
Achieving an agreement with main seafood importing countries based on the
“equivalence” of fish inspection systems is the highest goal for fish exporting
countries. However, the process is long, complicated and tedious. The main reason
is that there is no compromise in food safety. Some countries may find that there is
so much to improve and change throughout quality and legislative systems.
However, most exporting countries are reacting positively to these new challenges.
There have been increasing demands world-wide for technical assistance extended
by international aid organizations such as FAO. The “Equivalence” approach may be
considered not appropriate for some exporting countries with a lack of basic
infrastructure, facilities, qualified personnel of both government and private sectors,
effective legislative structure and basic Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).
To exporting countries, the main advantages of “Equivalence” agreement on
fish inspection systems are the following:
• to reduce or eliminate the risk of placing health hazardous fishery products on
the market;
• to reduce the rate of shipment rejection and economy losses;
• to maintain and/or increase access to international markets;
• to reduce financial and personnel resources actually spent in end-product
testing and certification;
• to facilitate import administrative measures and speed up custom clearance;
• to shift regulatory agency efforts to main fish illness problem areas,
strengthening the role of the agency in the field of prevention and control of
foodborne diseases and seafood quality assurance and
• to liberalize trade and remove trade barriers caused by the imposition of too
stringent or non-scientific based standards and unnecessary hygiene
regulations.
Not only the exporting party will benefit from equivalence approach, but also
the importing party will enjoy the positive aspects of such agreement, as follows :
• to ensure that importing standards and requirements are constantly met, and
safe and wholesome products are being domestically marketed;
• to reduce financial and human resources actually spent in the regular imports
inspection both at local and overseas levels;
• to ensure that seafood safety problems are quickly identified and dealt with
through close liaison with National Competent Authorities of foreign countries,
as a substance of the agreement and
• to increase opportunities to access the other party’s market as well.
Negative effects
13
The obligation of the establishment of “Equivalence” agreements could also
create adverse effects to exporting countries that are not ready for the new approach.
Fishery products from those countries could be less competitive. Specific restrictions
may be imposed against their imports resulting in additional costs and possible
delays in the importing process. For example, when the inspection and quality
control systems are not deemed equivalent, extensive end product sampling and
testing are still mandatory. Importers may prefer to import from countries having
easier access and given privileges to enter their market.
The exporting countries, as suggested by Goulding and Stroud (1997), will
need to urgently improve necessary infrastructure, increase knowledge and
awareness of food hygiene, modify existing government legislation to coincide with
importing countries requirements, training staff and effectively implement GMP and
HACCP. Financial investment is another burden to achieve this improvement.
Importing countries, especially developed nations, always when possible, should
provide financial and technical support. Co-operation at regional level should be
established as well, apart from the assistance which may be provided by international
agencies.
Whilst equivalence may not be an immediate goal for several countries, to
remain competitive on the global market, first priority should be given to improving or
establishing an effective fish inspection and quality control as well as regulatory
systems. Compliance with basic requirements, such as implementation of HACCP or
EU Directives, in order to acquire import permission is a more realistic goal to
achieve for the time being.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In achieving global free trade and providing maximum health protection,
equivalence agreement based on recommended Codex guidelines should be actively
pursued. The ultimate goal cannot be accomplished if communication,
understanding and mutual confidence between inspection services of both trading
partners are not improved. Importing countries should exercise more positive
attitudes towards fish inspection and quality control efforts made by exporting
countries. The introduction and mandatory implementation of preventive approach or
HACCP concept has obviously made a considerable impact in national inspection
services world-wide. It reflects in a number of developing countries that are in the
process of promulgating new legislatiion to mandate HACCP in fish processing
establishments and throughout the production chain. While exporting countries are
struggling to implement HACCP under intense scrutiny by the buyers, the latter
should also ensure that a proper HACCP based system is effectively applied within
their own fish industry. It should be noted that, despite strong efforts made by
international organizations such as WTO and CODEX to oppose against non-tariff
trade barriers, the problem is still existing and far from elimination.
Importing countries which are well advanced in fish inspection system should
contribute to less developed trading partners in terms of technical assistance and
financial supports. This would lead to a mutual benefit to all parties concerned.
Problems of shortage of qualified staff, adequate training and auxiliary facilities to
achieve better performance in the field of inspection and verification should be
14
addressed and tackled by international aid organizations as well as industrialized
countries. Exporting and importing countries should organise and implement joint
training programmes for their inspectors so as to promote better understanding and
communication between inspection agencies. Traditional fish inspection approach of
end product testing should be reduced to a minimum to avoid unnecessary economic
losses in carrying out laboratory tests and misleading consumers in the level of
health protection. Certificate requirements should no longer be considered a major
criteria for accepting a shipment. The process only yields additional work and
creates false expectation in the quality of the certified lot. Importing countries should
apply more realistic and achievable standards and regulations based on scientific
justification and risk assessments recommended by recognized international
organizations.
References
Ahmed, F. E. 1991. Seafood safety. Foods and Nutrition Board. Institute of
Medicine. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D. C. National
Academy Press, Washington D. C. 432 p.
Codex Alimentarius Commission. 1997. Report on the fourth session of the Codex
Committee on food import and export inspection and certification systems,
Sydney, Australia, February 17 - 21, 1997.
Costa Jr., G. A. 1997. Brazil’s implementation of HACCP Programs. In Fish
Inspection Quality Control and HACCP : A Global Focus. Edited by Martin, R.
E., Collette, R. L and Slavin, J. W. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.,
Lancaster, Penn., USA. pp. 667 - 678.
EEC Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991. 1991. Laying down the health
conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products.
Official Journal of the European Communities, L 268. pp. 15-34.
EEC Commission Decision 94/356/EC of 29 May 1994. 1994. Laying down rules of
council directive 91/493/EEC as regards own health checks on fishery
products. Official of the European Communities, L 156, pp. 50-57.
Emberly, B. J. 1997. A global approach to determining equivalency between
inspection and certification systems. In Fish Inspection Quality Control and
HACCP : A Global Focus. Edited by Martin, R. E., Collette, R. L and Slavin, J.
W. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, Penn., USA. pp. 767 -
771.
FAO/WHO. 1995. Application of risk analysis to food standards issues : Report of
the joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 13 - 17 March
1995.
FDA. 1997(a). A guide for importers and foreign processors - Questions and
answers. Seafood HACCP regulations special requirements for imported
products. September 1997. 15 pp.
15
FDA. 1997(b). Federal Register : June 4, 1997. United States Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. Vol. 62. No. 107. pp. 30593 - 30600.
Goulding, I. and Stroud, G. 1997. Practical experience in applying EU fish hygiene
Directives to exporting countries. In Fish Inspection Quality Control and
HACCP : A Global Focus. Edited by Martin, R. E., Collette, R. L and Slavin, J.
W. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, Penn., USA. pp. 153 -
157.
Lima dos Santos, C. A., Josupeit, H., and Santos, D, C. 1993. Impact of Council
Directive 493/37/EC on seafood trade from third countries: The case of
developing countries. In New Markets for Seafood: The proceeding of an
international conference held at the International Fisheries Institute, University
of Hull, Hull, North Humberside, United Kingdom, September 29 - October 1,
1993.
Toyofuku, H. 1997. Quality requirements for fish and fishery products - Japan.
INFOFISH International. 3 : 43 -48.
Yamagata, M. 1992. Regulatory requirements for fish and fishery products
inspection in Japan. In Proceeding of the Workshop on Fish Inspection,
Jakarta, 30 November - 3 December, 1992. Edited by Limpus, L. G. And
Yamagata, M. Regional Centre for Information Preparation and Dissemination,
Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. pp. 122 - 138.
