Effects of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Entry into Force on Aquatic Products Trade Among Parties

Abstract

Asia accounted for 167.1 million tons of global fisheries and aquaculture production, 75 percent of the world’s total. Seafood, especially aquaculture products, is a dominant and growing sector and crucial in the Asia-Pacific region for ensuring global food security, supporting sustainable livelihoods, reducing poverty for small-scale fisheries, and promoting environmental sustainability. However, amidst the current backdrop of the World Trade Organization (WTO)‘s inefficiency and dysfunctional mechanism, coupled with a slowdown in global economic growth and the resurgence of trade unilateralism and protectionism, these challenges have created significant barriers to trade, limiting market access and hindering the sustainable growth of the seafood industry. The implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) offers Asia-Pacific economies a promising opportunity to expand trade and stimulate economic growth sustainably. In this study, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential effects of the RCEP on aquatic products trade among the parties. A key marginal contribution in our study is that we adjusted the existing tariff rates under other FTAs to the same period as tariff rates under RCEP and compared the concession rates between these different FTAs to clearly illustrate the potential tariff effects of RCEP. On the non-tariff side, we analyze specific provisions in the RCEP agreement that could potentially affect aquatic products trade and evaluate their possible impacts. The results showed that, as of 2022, in almost all RCEP parties, the average tariffs under the RCEP agreement are generally higher than those under other existing FTAs, which indicates that the tariff concession efforts under RCEP are limited for most parties. However, due to certain progressiveness compared to other FTAs in terms of its provisions on non-tariff measures, such as rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) regulations, etc., RCEP has the potential to benefit a broader range of countries and products, making market access more convenient and inclusive for the seafood industry.

Full text

Citation: Xue, F.; Chen, T.; Xu, M.
Effects of Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership Entry into
Force on Aquatic Products Trade
Among Parties. Sustainability 2024,16,
10620. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su162310620
Academic Editors: Sayed Saghaian
and Hosein Mohammadi
Received: 4 October 2024
Revised: 23 November 2024
Accepted: 26 November 2024
Published: 4 December 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Effects of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Entry
into Force on Aquatic Products Trade Among Parties
Fei Xue 1,2 , Tinggui Chen 1and Minghao Xu 3,*
1College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Ocean Univeristy, Shanghai 201306, China;
xuefeibruce@163.com (F.X.); tgchen@shou.edu.cn (T.C.)
2Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, 00153 Rome, Italy
3Faculty of Arts and Social Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*Correspondence: xuminghao0520@gmail.com
Abstract: Asia accounted for 167.1 million tons of global fisheries and aquaculture production,
75 percent of the world’s total. Seafood, especially aquaculture products, is a dominant and growing
sector and crucial in the Asia-Pacific region for ensuring global food security, supporting sustainable
livelihoods, reducing poverty for small-scale fisheries, and promoting environmental sustainability.
However, amidst the current backdrop of the World Trade Organization (WTO)‘s inefficiency and
dysfunctional mechanism, coupled with a slowdown in global economic growth and the resurgence
of trade unilateralism and protectionism, these challenges have created significant barriers to trade,
limiting market access and hindering the sustainable growth of the seafood industry. The implemen-
tation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) offers Asia-Pacific economies a
promising opportunity to expand trade and stimulate economic growth sustainably. In this study, we
aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential effects of the RCEP on aquatic products
trade among the parties. A key marginal contribution in our study is that we adjusted the existing
tariff rates under other FTAs to the same period as tariff rates under RCEP and compared the conces-
sion rates between these different FTAs to clearly illustrate the potential tariff effects of RCEP. On the
non-tariff side, we analyze specific provisions in the RCEP agreement that could potentially affect
aquatic products trade and evaluate their possible impacts. The results showed that, as of 2022, in
almost all RCEP parties, the average tariffs under the RCEP agreement are generally higher than
those under other existing FTAs, which indicates that the tariff concession efforts under RCEP are
limited for most parties. However, due to certain progressiveness compared to other FTAs in terms
of its provisions on non-tariff measures, such as rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary measures
(SPS) regulations, etc., RCEP has the potential to benefit a broader range of countries and products,
making market access more convenient and inclusive for the seafood industry.
Keywords: RCEP; aquatic product trade; tariff concession; NTM measures; provisions interpretation;
sustainable fisheries
1. Introduction
Asia is responsible for 167.1 million tons of global fisheries and aquaculture produc-
tion, representing 75% of the total worldwide output. The region leads global production,
contributing 70% of aquatic animals and 97% of algae. In 2022, aquaculture surpassed
capture fisheries for the first time as the dominant source of aquatic animals. Asia produced
119.7 million tons of aquaculture products, making up 91.4% of the global total. In Ocea-
nia, aquaculture production reached approximately 250,000 tons in 2022. The top seven
aquaculture-producing nations are all located in Asia: China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam,
Bangladesh, the Philippines, and the Republic of Korea, together accounting for 86.2% of
the global production in 2022. Aquaculture products are a dominant and growing sector
and crucial in the Asia-Pacific region for ensuring global food security, supporting sustain-
able livelihoods, reducing poverty for small-scale fisheries, and promoting environmental
Sustainability 2024,16, 10620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310620 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 2 of 19
sustainability. As aquaculture is an efficient way to produce protein with a relatively
lower environmental impact compared to traditional livestock farming, it contributes sig-
nificantly to sustainable development goals (SDGs) by helping to address food security
while minimizing resource use. Additionally, the sector plays a crucial role in maintaining
biodiversity, enhancing coastal ecosystems, and providing climate-resilient livelihoods for
millions of small-scale fishers and aquaculture farmers in the region. More sustainability
requirements for seafood are being integrated into free trade agreements. Certifications like
MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) ensure responsible practices, promoting environmental
and social standards while supporting sustainable trade, while ACS (Aquaculture Stew-
ardship Council) focuses on sustainable aquaculture, ensuring that the farming of seafood
meets environmental protection and social responsibility standards. However, Asia-Pacific,
being at the center of trade protectionism, frequently faces market access limitations and
restrictions from other economies [
1
–
3
]. In the current global landscape, characterized by
sluggish world economic growth and the rise of unilateralism and protectionism, countries
have not only resorted to traditional tariff barriers but also implemented various non-tariff
measures to safeguard their local markets [
4
]. Moreover, the World Trade Organization
(WTO), as a multilateral trade organization, has faced challenges with the obstruction of
the selection and appointment of appellate body judges, resulting in a near-stalling of the
dispute settlement mechanism and hindered reform agenda [5,6].
In this context, the entry into force of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partner-
ship (RCEP) has emerged as a significant development in regional economic integration.
After eight years of negotiations, RCEP, which integrates ASEAN along with Australia,
China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand, has come into effect. This land-
mark FTA covers nearly half of the world’s population, one-third of global trade, and
economic output.
Asia-Pacific, being the world’s largest regional market for agricultural trade, places
great emphasis on agricultural issues [
7
,
8
]. As a crucial component of agricultural trade,
aquatic products hold a significant position in the trading landscape in the area. In 2021,
the total trade value of aquatic products of RCEP parties amounted to 25.424 billion US
dollars, representing a substantial one-fourth of global aquatic product trade. Therefore,
the influence of aquatic product trade within the RCEP should not be underestimated [
9
,
10
].
However, most current studies focus on the trade of aquatic products within individual
countries in the RCEP area [
11
–
15
], while some concentrate on trade between Asia-Pacific
countries and those outside of the RCEP area, such as the EU [
16
,
17
]. There is a notable lack
of research on the trade of aquatic products among countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and
limited investigation into how Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) in this region impact aquatic
products trade. Therefore, as one of the most important trade agreements in Asia-Pacific,
what impact has RCEP had on the trade of aquatic products among parties? This paper
aims to explore the changes in aquatic product trade after the implementation of RCEP
from both tariff and non-tariff perspectives. It has been more than a year since the RCEP
came into force. As one of the most important trade agreements in Asia-Pacific, what
impact has RCEP had on the trade of aquatic products among parties? This paper aims to
view from the perspectives of tariff and non-tariff measures. A key marginal contribution
in our study is that we adjusted the existing tariff rates under other FTAs to the same period
as tariff rates under RCEP and compared the concession rates between these different FTAs
to clearly illustrate the potential tariff effects of RCEP. On the non-tariff side, we analyze
specific provisions in the RCEP agreement that could potentially affect aquatic products
trade and evaluate their possible impacts. The results showed that as of 2022, in almost
all RCEP parties, the average tariffs under the RCEP agreement are generally higher than
those under other existing FTAs, which indicates that the tariff concession efforts under
RCEP are limited for most parties.
In the following, Section 2, we provide a brief overview of aquatic products trade in
the countries and regions covered by the RCEP. In Section 3, we analyze the innovative
aspects of the non-tariff provisions in the RCEP agreement. Section 4discusses the potential

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 3 of 19
effects of tariffs and NTMs on aquatic products trade among the parties. In the final section,
we have summarized the challenges and potential solutions, while also pointing out the
limitations of this manuscript and suggesting possible directions for future research.
2. Overview: Trade, Non-Tariff Measures, and RTAs Among RCEP Parties
2.1. Aquatic Products Trade
Table 1shows the import value, export value, and the share of total trade in aquatic
products among RCEP member countries in 2023, as well as their respective proportions
within the overall trade in the RCEP region.
Table 1. Aquatic products trade value in 2023.
Trade Value (in USD) Proportion
Parties Import Export Import Export
ASEAN 3,968,536,754 7,609,470,893 42.11% 59.76%
China 3,932,064,591 4,687,603,670 20.94% 44.96%
Japan 2,878,468,385 898,417,660 28.63% 54.18%
The Republic of Korea 2,013,965,563 1,237,764,249 39.25% 71.32%
Australia 624,512,845 568,123,418 68.51% 65.41%
New Zealand 70,697,011 653,484,544 55.00% 55.06%
Data showed that the total trade value of aquatic products among RCEP parties
reached USD 29.1 billion in 2023. ASEAN contributed the highest share of trade value,
reaching USD 11.5 billion, followed by China with USD 8.6 billion (Table 1). The fourth
and fifth columns of Table 1refer to the proportion of aquatic product import and export
values among RCEP parties to the rest of the world. We can observe that aquatic product
trade among RCEP parties has already reached a considerable scale. ASEAN and China,
being two of the world’s largest exporters of aquatic products, export more than 40% of
their aquatic products to RCEP countries.
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, respectively, show the total trade value, import value,
and export value of aquatic products between RCEP parties and member countries from
2017 to 2023.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Figure 1. Trade value to RCEP parties.
For importation, all parties except New Zealand experienced growth in import value
after the implementation of RCEP. On the exportation side, ASEAN saw a significant in-
crease in export value after RCEP came into effect, and among other countries, except for
Australia, there was also a notable growth in export value as well.
Figure 2. Import value from RCEP parties.
-
2,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
12,000,000,000
14,000,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Trade to RCEP Parties (In USD)
ASEAN China Japan Korea Australia New Zealand
-
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Import from RCEP Parties (In USD)
ASEAN China Japan Korea Australia New Zealand
Figure 1. Trade value to RCEP parties.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 4 of 19
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Figure 1. Trade value to RCEP parties.
For importation, all parties except New Zealand experienced growth in import value
after the implementation of RCEP. On the exportation side, ASEAN saw a significant in-
crease in export value after RCEP came into effect, and among other countries, except for
Australia, there was also a notable growth in export value as well.
Figure 2. Import value from RCEP parties.
-
2,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
12,000,000,000
14,000,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Trade to RCEP Parties (In USD)
ASEAN China Japan Korea Australia New Zealand
-
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Import from RCEP Parties (In USD)
ASEAN China Japan Korea Australia New Zealand
Figure 2. Import value from RCEP parties.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Figure 3. Export value to RCEP parties.
In summary, aquatic product trade among RCEP countries has shown significant
growth, particularly with strong contributions from ASEAN and China. The implementa-
tion of RCEP has boosted both imports and exports, highlighting the growing potential of
aquatic product trade in the Asia-Pacific region.
2.2. Non-Tariff Measures of RCEP Parties
Non-Tariff Measures are policies, distinct from tariffs, that can affect international
trade by influencing the value or pricing of traded goods [18]. Initially, NTMs were be-
lieved to play specific roles in ensuring food safety, preventing the spread of pests, pro-
tecting the environment, and ensuring consumer safety. However, with the establishment
of various FTAs and a consistent reduction in tariff levels subsequently, the restricting
impact of tariff barriers on imported goods has waned [19,20]. As a result, NTMs, known
as a measure characterized by its flexibility and targeting, have increasingly become a
method to restrict the circulation of goods, especially in agricultural trade [21,22].
According to UNCTAD’s definition [18], NTMs are subdivided into 16 chapters, as
detailed in Table 2.
Table 2. Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) by chapter.
Chapters Measures
A Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
B Technical barriers to trade
C Pre-shipment inspection and other formalities
D Contingent trade-protective measures
E
Non-automatic import licensing, quotas, prohibitions, quantity-control
measures and other restrictions not including sanitary and phytosanitary
measures or measures relating to technical barriers to trade
F Price-control measures, including additional taxes and charges
G Finance measures
H Measures affecting competition
I Trade-related investment measures
J Distribution restrictions
-
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
9,000,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Export to RCEP Parties(In USD)
ASEAN China Japan Korea Australia New Zealand
Figure 3. Export value to RCEP parties.
Most parties ratified the RCEP, which came into force in 2022. Figure 1indicates
that there was a certain increase in the trade value of aquatic products among all parties
compared to the previous year. Notably, ASEAN registered a 22.40% increase in its trade
value of aquatic products from 2021, while China witnessed an increase of 17.92%. Japan,
the Republic of Korea, and Australia increased by 7.82%, 12.36%, and 10.16%, respectively.
The trade value of New Zealand remained relatively stable.
For importation, all parties except New Zealand experienced growth in import value
after the implementation of RCEP. On the exportation side, ASEAN saw a significant
increase in export value after RCEP came into effect, and among other countries, except for
Australia, there was also a notable growth in export value as well.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 5 of 19
In summary, aquatic product trade among RCEP countries has shown significant
growth, particularly with strong contributions from ASEAN and China. The implementa-
tion of RCEP has boosted both imports and exports, highlighting the growing potential of
aquatic product trade in the Asia-Pacific region.
2.2. Non-Tariff Measures of RCEP Parties
Non-Tariff Measures are policies, distinct from tariffs, that can affect international
trade by influencing the value or pricing of traded goods [
18
]. Initially, NTMs were believed
to play specific roles in ensuring food safety, preventing the spread of pests, protecting the
environment, and ensuring consumer safety. However, with the establishment of various
FTAs and a consistent reduction in tariff levels subsequently, the restricting impact of tariff
barriers on imported goods has waned [
19
,
20
]. As a result, NTMs, known as a measure
characterized by its flexibility and targeting, have increasingly become a method to restrict
the circulation of goods, especially in agricultural trade [21,22].
According to UNCTAD’s definition [
18
], NTMs are subdivided into 16 chapters, as
detailed in Table 2.
Table 2. Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) by chapter.
Chapters Measures
A Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
B Technical barriers to trade
C Pre-shipment inspection and other formalities
D Contingent trade-protective measures
E
Non-automatic import licensing, quotas, prohibitions, quantity-control
measures and other restrictions not including sanitary and phytosanitary
measures or measures relating to technical barriers to trade
F Price-control measures, including additional taxes and charges
G Finance measures
H Measures affecting competition
I Trade-related investment measures
J Distribution restrictions
K Restrictions on post-sales services
L Subsidies and other forms of support
M Government procurement restrictions
N Intellectual property
O Rules of origin
P Export-related measures
Based on the target objects, UNCTAD categorizes NTMs into non-horizontal measures
and horizontal measures. Non-horizontal measures refer to NTMs that are not universally
applicable but are specifically aimed at countries. In contrast, horizontal measures encom-
pass non-discriminatory measures that are applied to goods for all importing countries.
Table 3shows the number of NTMs (Non-Tariff Measures) for aquatic products among
RCEP member countries. The number within brackets represents the number of non-
horizontal measures among all the NTMs. All the data were collected from UNCTAD
Trains Online, while data from Australia are not available.
Table 3. Number of NTM measures for aquatic products among RCEP parties.
NTM ASEAN China Japan The Republic of
Korea Australia New Zealand
ASEAN 1240(9) 1224(7) 1247(16) 1231(0) 1239(8)
China 302 307(11) 300(3) 297(0) 298(1)
Japan 44 42(5) 42(5) 40(3) 41(4)
The Republic of
Korea 156 156(30) 130(4) 126 126
New Zealand 247 236(10) 234(4) 240(10) 274(58)

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 6 of 19
Since ASEAN consists of 10 member countries, it has the highest number of NTMs
applied to other aquatic products of RCEP parties, with an average amount of 1236. Among
these NTMs, there are nine NTMs targeting Chinese aquatic products, seven for Japan,
sixteen for the Republic of Korea, eight for New Zealand, and there are no specific NTM
measures for Australia. Within the horizontal measures, ASEAN countries primarily focus
on SPS measures and export-related measures (Table 3).
China has the second-highest average NTMs targeting aquatic products among RCEP
parties, with an average amount of 300. There is a total of 302 NTMs targeting ASEAN
countries, with SPS and TBT accounting for 24.83% and 27.48%, respectively. Export-
related measures account for 31.79% (Table 3). Among the non-horizontal NTMs, Japan has
the highest number with a total of eleven measures where SPS predominate with seven
measures, primarily involving import bans on aquatic products from certain regions and
requirements for radiation and origin checks on imported aquatic products (Certificate of
detection of radioactive material and certificate of origin). Both Japan and the Republic of
Korea have three export-related measures, mainly requiring inspections of live eel products
before export.
Japan has relatively fewer NTM measures targeting aquatic products, with an average
amount of 42. However, it is important to note that the very strict food hygiene inspection
and quarantine standards of Japan, which are known as the “Positive List System” specified
in the Food Sanitation Law, have been implemented since 29 May 2006, aiming at addressing
food chemical residues. It is one of the strictest regulations in the world targeting pesticide
residues in food and covers a wide range of exported aquatic products. Japan’s quality
standards for imported aquatic products are extremely rigorous, with strict inspection
requirements that are generally higher than international average standards [
23
]. The
cumbersome import procedures and clearance processes hindered the access of aquatic
products from developing countries to the Japanese market to some extent.
The Republic of Korea has an average amount of 139 NTM measures targeting aquatic
products. Most non-horizontal NTMs are for China. Besides, export-related measures
account most for 83.3%.
The highest number of NTMs New Zealand imposed on is the aquatic products from
Australia, with 58 measures. This is primarily due to the Australia-New Zealand Food
Standards Code, an agreement between the two countries that ensures consistent food
safety and quality standards in both markets, aiming at facilitating trade between them [
24
].
Figure 4shows the main types of NTMs across the member parties.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
access of aquatic products from developing countries to the Japanese market to some ex-
tent.
The Republic of Korea has an average amount of 139 NTM measures targeting
aquatic products. Most non-horizontal NTMs are for China. Besides, export-related
measures account most for 83.3%.
The highest number of NTMs New Zealand imposed on is the aquatic products from
Australia, with 58 measures. This is primarily due to the Australia-New Zealand Food
Standards Code, an agreement between the two countries that ensures consistent food
safety and quality standards in both markets, aiming at facilitating trade between them
[24].
Figure 4 shows the main types of NTMs across the member parties.
Figure 4. Major horizontal NTMs in RCEP member countries.
In summary, tough import rules from developed countries can make it extremely
difficult for developing countries to access their markets. Additionally, non-horizontal
measures targeting specific countries further complicate trade, creating obstacles for the
growth and sustainability of the seafood industry within the region.
2.3. RTAs
In general, a trade agreement can have multiple impacts on trade, and tariffs often
play a direct role in influencing these trade changes [25]. In fact, prior to the implementa-
tion of RCEP, a series of FTAs had existed among various countries in Asia-Pacific (Table
4). These FTAs included provisions for tariff concessions on certain imported aquatic
products, providing a solid foundation for the tariff concession commitments within the
RCEP agreement [26–28]. Each of these different RTAs has its own tariff concession prom-
ises and levels. However, for the relatively new RCEP, there has been no research com-
paring its tariffs, nor has any study converted the tariff concessions of RCEP and other
RTAs into the same period based on their tariff reduction commitments for comparison.
In our study, we would like to apply this method for a detailed analysis of the RCEP tariffs
(Section 4).
0 102030405060
ASEAN
CHN
JPN
KOR
NZL
P O E B A
Figure 4. Major horizontal NTMs in RCEP member countries.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 7 of 19
In summary, tough import rules from developed countries can make it extremely
difficult for developing countries to access their markets. Additionally, non-horizontal
measures targeting specific countries further complicate trade, creating obstacles for the
growth and sustainability of the seafood industry within the region.
2.3. RTAs
In general, a trade agreement can have multiple impacts on trade, and tariffs often play
a direct role in influencing these trade changes [
25
]. In fact, prior to the implementation
of RCEP, a series of FTAs had existed among various countries in Asia-Pacific (Table 4).
These FTAs included provisions for tariff concessions on certain imported aquatic products,
providing a solid foundation for the tariff concession commitments within the RCEP
agreement [
26
–
28
]. Each of these different RTAs has its own tariff concession promises and
levels. However, for the relatively new RCEP, there has been no research comparing its
tariffs, nor has any study converted the tariff concessions of RCEP and other RTAs into the
same period based on their tariff reduction commitments for comparison. In our study, we
would like to apply this method for a detailed analysis of the RCEP tariffs (Section 4).
Table 4. Major FTAs between RCEP members.
ASEAN Australia China Japan The Republic of
Korea New Zealand
ASEAN AANZFTA ACFTA AJCEP AKFTA AANZFTA
Australia AANZFTA ChAFTA JAEPA,
CPTPP KAFTA
ANCERTA,
CPTPP,
PACER
China ACFTA ChAFTA CKFTA,
APTA NZCFTA
Japan AJCEP JAEPA,
CPTPP CPTTP
The Republic of
Korea AKFTA KAFTA CKFTA,
APTA NZKFTA
New Zealand AANZFTA
ANCERTA
CPTPP,
PACER
NZCFTA CPTTP NZKFTA
Some ASEAN FTAs are not shown in the table.
3. Interpretation of the NTMs Provisions of RCEP
3.1. Rules of Origin
The rules of origin constitute one of the core aspects of free trade agreements, and
RCEP demonstrates a degree of innovation in this realm. Specifically, in determining the
origin of goods, RCEP has classified them into three categories. For goods produced in a
party exclusively from originating materials from one or more of the parties and goods
produced in a party using non-originating materials, RCEP outlines the determination
criteria for their origin. The agreement allows for the flexible adoption of two rules: Change
in Tariff Classification (CTC) and Regional Value Content (RVC). The CTC rule primarily
uses alterations in the HS code of goods as the criteria for determination, while the RVC rule
predominantly relies on the proportion of the value component within the RCEP member
countries. The agreement presents two distinct formulas for calculating RVC, outlined as
follows.
(a) Indirect/Build-Down Formula
RVC =FOB −VNM
FOB ×100 (1)
RVC is the regional value content of a good, expressed as a percentage;

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 8 of 19
FOB is the FOB value, which is defined as the value of the good free on board, inclusive
of the cost of transport (regardless of the mode of transport) to the port or site of final
shipment abroad;
VNM is the value of non-originating materials used in the production of the good.
(b) Direct/Build-Up Formula
RVC =VOM +Direct Labour Cost +Direct Overhead Cost +Profit +Other Cost
FOB ×100 (2)
VOM is the value of originating materials, parts, or produce acquired or self-produced,
and used in the production of the good;
Direct Labour Cost includes wages, remuneration, and other employee benefits;
Direct Overhead Cost is the total overhead expense.
RCEP sets the RVC standard at 40%, and the value components from any 15 RCEP
parties can be taken into account. Moreover, compared to the previous “10+1” agreements,
RCEP further diversifies the types of origin certificates [
29
]. In addition to traditional origin
certificates, approved exporter declarations and exporter’s self-declarations will also be
accepted as valid alternatives to origin certificates [30].
As a result, the rules of origin under RCEP will further loosen compared to some FTAs’
rules of origin. More aquatic products from RCEP parties will be included, allowing them
to benefit from more favorable tariff rates.
3.2. General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions
In order to reduce the market access limitations for goods, Article 2.17, Chapter 2 of
the RCEP agreement explicitly states that no party shall adopt or maintain any prohibition
or restriction other than duties, taxes, or other charges, whether made effective through
quotas, import or export licenses, or other measures, on the importation of any good of
another party or on the exportation of any good destined for the territory of another party,
except in accordance with its rights and obligations under the relevant provisions of the
WTO Agreement. This provision reduces the non-tariff barriers imposed by contracting
parties on imported aquatic products.
3.3. Customs Procedures and Trade Facilitation
RCEP simplifies customs clearance procedures and promotes efficient management
of customs processes through measures such as pre-determination, pre-arrival processing,
and the use of information technology. The provisions, which are closely related to the
clearance of perishable goods such as aquatic products, are stated in Article 11, Chapter 4.
With a view to preventing avoidable loss or deterioration of perishable goods, and pro-
vided that all regulatory requirements have been met, each party shall provide for the
release of perishable goods from customs control within two circumstances: under normal
circumstances, in the shortest possible time, and to the extent possible in less than six hours
after the arrival of the goods and submission of the information required for release; and in
exceptional circumstances, where it would be appropriate to do so, outside the business
hours of its customs authority. It is also stated that each party shall give appropriate priority
to perishable goods when scheduling any examinations that may be required and claim
that proper storage arrangements for perishable goods are required.
3.4. Standards, Technical Regulations, and Conformity Assessment Procedures
RCEP promotes the reduction of unnecessary technical barriers to trade. It encourages
standardization bodies of the parties to enhance information exchange and cooperation in
the field of standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures [31].
3.5. Technical Consultations on Non-Tariff Measures
The RCEP’s provisions on consultations not only define them as technical con-
sultations between the parties but also outline the conduct and requirements of these

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 9 of 19
consultations [
32
,
33
]. The RCEP provisions further specify the timeframe, manner, and
ultimate outcomes of consultations between the parties, making the content of the RCEP
more precise and actionable.
3.6. Transparency Provisions
RCEP provides more specific requirements regarding the involvement of personnel
from other parties in public consultation procedures, timely notification of detained im-
ported goods, and proactive information sharing among parties. A party must provide a
60-day comment period after notifying through WTO channels, considering requests for
extensions. Upon request, the notifying party must share documents or summaries of draft
measures within 30 days, in English.
These provisions represent a certain level of progress. However, when compared to
the transparency requirements for technical barriers to trade in agreements such as the CAI
and CPTPP [34–36], the RCEP’s provisions are still relatively conservative.
3.7. Conformity Assessment Procedures
In the formulation and adoption of conformity assessment procedures, the RCEP
emphasizes international standardization to achieve coordination and consistency. In
the implementation phase, it highlights the importance of mutual recognition based on
equivalence, enhancing the operability of mutual recognition of conformity assessment
procedure results through mechanisms, information exchange, leveraging the role of re-
gional organizations, and fostering cooperation among conformity assessment bodies. It
also establishes a mechanism for justifying reasons, thereby constraining situations where
mutual recognition is not achieved. These efforts propel the development of conformity
assessment procedures among RCEP parties towards procedural equivalence and mutual
recognition of results, greatly facilitating the feasibility of mutual recognition of conformity
assessment procedure outcomes [
37
]. The development and implementation of procedures
serve as trade facilitation barriers for the entry of products from other parties.
4. Potential Effect of Tariffs and NTMs on Aquatic Products Trade Among Parties
The tariff concessions were quantified, relying on the concession rates under the
Schedule of Tariff Commitments under RCEP, ranging between 5 and 15% over the next
15 years. In this section, how the RCEP tariff concession commitments could potentially
impact the trade of aquatic products among parties will be analyzed. The analysis will
take the tariff levels and the respective tariff concession commitments under both existing
FTAs and RCEP into consideration. We compared the RCEP tariff with existing tariffs
under other FTAs and assessed the extent of tariff concessions between RCEP and other
FTAs. This analysis allows for a more straightforward examination of the tariff impacts
that RCEP may bring to the aquatic food trade from a tariff perspective. At the same
time, an analysis of non-tariff measures will also be conducted in this section to secure a
comprehensive conclusion.
4.1. ASEAN
Singapore and Brunei have exempted all imported aquatic products from tariffs under
both the 10+1 FTA and the RCEP. Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, contribute little trade
value, and Indonesia ratified the RCEP only in 2023. As a result, these countries will not be
discussed in this paper. Subsequently, the following section will be centered on Thailand,
Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Compared to 2021, the trade volume of these four
countries increased by 19.38% in 2022.
4.1.1. Thailand
From the perspective of Thailand’s aquatic product trade structure, the proportion of
aquatic product exports and imports is relatively balanced. In terms of trading partners,

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 10 of 19
the trade value of aquatic products with non-ASEAN RCEP parties is nearly double that
with ASEAN RCEP parties.
The aquatic product trade value of Thailand remained stable before and after the
implementation of RCEP, with both import and export values maintaining consistency. This
could be attributed, in part, to the less pronounced impact of reduced tariffs under RCEP.
Table 5shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between Thailand and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.
Table 5. FTA tariff of Thailand.
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude 1
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs After
Concessions 2
Japan FTA 0.42% 5.08% 91.58% 0.42%
China FTA 0% Not available 100% 0%
Australia FTA 0% 8.35% 100% 0%
New Zealand FTA 0% 8.42% 100% 0%
Australia/
New Zealand AANZFTA 0% 9.07% 100% 0%
The Republic of
Korea 10+1 0.63% 8.64% 87.42% 0.63%
All RCEP Parties RCEP 5.05% 8.96% 66.12% 0.41%
1
The baseline tariff rates for non-duty-free commodities, minus the tariff rates after the recession period for such
commodities under each FTA.
2
The average tariff for all aquatic products (including duty-free aquatic products),
calculated by simple averaging after the recession period under each FTA.
Thailand grants identical tariff concessions to all RCEP parties according to the sched-
ule of tariff commitments. According to the data from WTO Tariff Online, since the imple-
mentation of the RCEP, aquatic products exempted from tariffs stand at 42.95%. Presently,
the average tariff rate for all items aquatic products imported from RCEP parties stands
at 5.05%, which is higher compared to the other ASEAN countries, and an average tariff
of 7.45% for dutiable aquatic products, with a maximum rate of 28% on the most heavily
dutiable aquatic products. After the 15-year tariff reduction period, the average tariff will
decrease to 0.41%, resulting in a 66.12% proportion of zero-tariff products, increasing by
23.17% compared to the initial implementation.
Thailand has a range of FTAs in place, including not only a bilateral trade agreement
with New Zealand and Australia, respectively, but also a trilateral FTA (AANZFTA), both
of which have fully implemented a zero-tariff scheme on all imported aquatic products.
Additionally, under the ASEAN “10+1” agreement with China, Japan, and the Republic of
Korea, Thailand has implemented zero tariffs on all aquatic products from China, while
Japan and the Republic of Korea have seen 70% of their aquatic products being implemented
with zero tariffs. However, for the remaining 30% of aquatic products, the average tariff is
about 5%.
In summary, previously signed FTAs have granted New Zealand, Australia, and China
commodities duty-free privileges. However, the RCEP tariff concessions under the RCEP
schedule are less effective than those of other FTAs. For Japan and the Republic of Korea,
the schedule of tariff commitments under the RCEP implies that tariff levels will remain
higher than those of other FTAs in the short term. In the long term, the RCEP tariff rate will
eventually be lower than those of other FTAs, but the scope of duty-free goods covered by
RCEP commitments is smaller.
4.1.2. Malaysia
In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Malaysian
aquatic product trade data. The trade value decreased by 8.07% in 2020 compared to the
previous year. However, there was a rebound in 2021, with a 13.2% increase in trade volume
compared to the previous year, followed by a 3.11% increase in 2022. The growth was

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 11 of 19
primarily driven by export figures, with Malaysian exports increasing by 20.95% in 2021
and 12.11% in 2022 compared to the previous year.
Approximately 60% of the Malaysian aquatic product trade consists of imports, with
around 60% of these imports originating from ASEAN member countries. Since the
implementation of the RCEP, the volume of imported aquatic products from non-ASEAN
member countries has increased by 14.68%, while imports from ASEAN member countries
have grown by 10.59%.
Table 6shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between Malaysia and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.
Table 6. FTA tariff of Malaysia.
Contracting
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
Japan FTA 0.00% 1.70% 100.00% 0.00%
10+1 0.00% 1.33% 100.00% 0.00%
China 10+1 Not available
Australia FTA 0.00% 0.82% 100.00% 0.00%
New Zealand FTA 0.00% 1.26% 100.00% 0.00%
Australia/
New Zealand AANZFTA 0.00% 1.26% 100.00% 0.00%
The Republic of
Korea FTA 0.00% 1.31% 100.00% 0.00%
10+1 0.00% 1.32% 100.00% 0.00%
All RCEP Parties RCEP 0.22% 0.82% 100.00% 0.00%
From the perspective of tariffs, Malaysia has signed the “10+1” FTAs with non-ASEAN
parties and has additional bilateral free trade agreements with RCEP parties, except for
China. Malaysia is also a member of the CPTPP, along with Japan and Australia. Con-
sidering the common features of these tariff commitments, Malaysia currently applies a
zero-tariff policy to all the aforementioned FTA parties. It is worth noting that the extent
of tariff concessions under these FTAs is not substantial, indicating that Malaysia has
maintained relatively low tariff levels for imported aquatic products.
Therefore, these free trade agreements have provided a very solid foundation for the
import of Malaysian aquatic products. While the effectiveness of RCEP, in terms of tariff
preferences, may not be as significant as other FTAs, it has, to a certain extent, facilitated
the reduction of non-tariff barriers. This includes technological barriers, inspection and
quarantine restrictions, service trade limitations, etc. As a result, imported aquatic products
have gained increased market access when exported to Malaysia.
4.1.3. The Philippines
The Philippines upholds uniform tariff rates for all parties according to tariff reduction
commitments. The Philippines follows the tariff reduction schedule in a 3-to-4-year cycle.
During each cycle, the tariffs will be maintained at a certain level with a slight decrease
in tariffs compared to the previous cycle. After the completion of the reduction schedule,
the average tariff rates will be around 0.13%, and the proportion of duty-free products will
reach 98.48%.
Overall, the tariff rates under the RCEP commitment are expected to remain temporar-
ily higher than those stipulated in other FTAs. The RCEP tariff rates are projected to be
similar with those under the Japan-Philippines FTA (PJEPA), ASEAN+1, and AANZFTA.
Therefore, the tariff reduction effects under RCEP on promoting the export of aquatic
products to the Philippines are relatively limited.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 12 of 19
The Philippines witnessed an increase in trade value of 21.32%, with import value
increased by 30.12% and export value increasing by 6%, separately.
Imports dominate the Philippine trade structure in aquatic products, accounting for
60% to 70% of the total trade volume annually. Although the RCEP’s tariff reduction effect
is limited, its entry into force has greatly promoted interregional trade in aquatic products
for the Philippines. This is due to improved market access conditions and circulation,
particularly in the rules of origin and trade facilitation provisions. As a result, the country’s
import trade volume has increased, which explains why the Philippine aquatic product
trade structure is dominated by imports. The RCEP has led to a significant increase in
import trade volume. Specifically, trade between China and South Korea has resulted in
the Philippines importing a record number of fish and fishery products from both countries
over the past five years.
Table 7shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs be-
tween the Philippines and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.
Table 7. FTA tariff of the Philippines.
Contracting
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
Japan PJEPA 0.00% 7.91% 100.00% 0.00%
10+1 0.00% 7.91% 100.00% 0.00%
China 10+1 0% Not available 100% 0%
Australia AANZFTA 0.06% 7.85% 98.74% 0.06%
New Zealand AANZFTA 0.06% 7.85% 98.74% 0.06%
The Republic of
Korea 10+1 0.13% 7.78% 97.48% 0.13%
All RCEP Parties RCEP 1.30% 8.75% 98.48% 0.13%
Regarding intra-ASEAN trade, there has been a significant increase in trade in 2022
compared to the previous two years and pre-pandemic levels. For instance, the Philippines’
imports of fish from ASEAN increased by 23.5% compared to the previous year, while
exports increased by 10%. After the RCEP came into effect, the Philippines experienced a
significant increase in trade volume with intra-ASEAN members, while trade with non-
ASEAN RCEP members grew by 14.33% for imports and 1.55% for exports. It is important
to note the redundancies in the growth of trade volume with intra-ASEAN members. In
the short term, the RCEP tariff agreement may not provide as many advantages as other
FTAs. However, compared to the original FTA, RCEP provides greater freedom in non-tariff
measures for aquatic products’ market access, simplifies the trade process, and promotes
the integration of the aquatic product industry chain through rules of origin. This will
promote commodity trade within ASEAN member countries through non-tariff aspects,
particularly for geographically proximate ASEAN RCEP members.
4.1.4. Vietnam
Vietnam’s trade flow of aquatic products to the RCEP is dominated by exports, which
account for 80% of the total trade. Of these exports, 80% are destined for non-ASEAN
RCEP countries. The data shows that the export value to non-ASEAN RCEP countries
increased by USD 10,286,683,662, or 39.91%, compared to the previous year. Meanwhile, the
trade value exported to ASEAN countries increased by 27.02% compared to the previous
year. It is worth noting that imports from ASEAN grew very rapidly, by 82.75% over the
previous year.
Table 8shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between Vietnam and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 13 of 19
Table 8. FTA tariff of Vietnam.
Contracting
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
Japan VJEPA 1.92% 20.35% 97.47% 0.53%
10+1 0.63% 23.57% 97.48% 0.63%
CPTPP 0% 12.35% 100% 0%
RCEP 6.12% 11.96% 97.12% 0.48%
The Republic of
Korea VKFTA 0% 12.4% 100.00% 0%
10+1 0.00% 12.26% 100.00% 0.00%
RCEP 5.47% 11.96% 97.12% 0.48%
China 10+1 0% Not available 100% 0%
RCEP 6.10% 12.36% 97.12% 0.08%
Australia ANNZFTA 0.61% 11.26% 87.88% 0.61%
CPTPP 0.00% 12.35% 100.00% 0.00%
RCEP 6.35% 12.58% 100.00% 0.00%
New Zealand RCEP 6.00% 12.44% 100.00% 0.00%
ANNZFTA 0.61% 11.26% 87.88% 0.61%
CPTPP 0.00% 12.35% 100.00% 0.00%
Currently, aquatic product tariffs for China, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, range
from 6.0% to 6.35%, while for the Republic of Korea, the tariff rate is 5.47%. Vietnam’s
commitment to tariff concessions for aquatic products under RCEP varies among different
parties. Specifically, by the end of the 15-year reduction schedule, aquatic products from
Australia and New Zealand will be fully duty-free. However, tariffs will still apply to some
aquatic products imported from China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea due to the minor
annual tariff concessions compared to Australia and New Zealand. After the concession
cycle, aquatic products from China will be subject to a tariff of 0.08%, while products from
Japan and Republic of Korea will have a tariff of 0.48%.
However, Vietnam’s aquatic product trade has experienced rapid growth, with a
remarkable 35.92% increase compared to 2021, the year before RCEP took effect. The import
value increased by 27.76%, while the export value surged even more significantly, recording
a growth of 37.73%. Among Vietnam’s major trading partners in the aquatic product sector,
the export figures have reached a new high in nearly five years. Notably, in comparison to
the year before the RCEP took effect in 2021, Vietnam’s exports to China skyrocketed by
62.34%, to Japan by 31.97%, and to the Republic of Korea by 15.1%.
For Japan and Korea, part of the growth can be attributed to the increased duty-free
product rates from Japan and Korea to ASEAN. As for China, being one of Vietnam’s largest
aquatic product trade partners, the implementation of RCEP has strategically positioned
Vietnam, a major player in aquatic product processing, in an advantageous position within
the supply chain. This has resulted in a surge in both imports and exports through Vietnam,
benefiting from more favorable tariff rates. Therefore, this factor stands out as one of the
primary drivers behind the substantial increase in Vietnam’s aquatic product trade.
4.2. China
In 2022, China’s trade in aquatic products reached a five-year high after two years
of consecutive decline due to the impact of the epidemic. Exports grew by 5.84%, while
imports increased by 38%. The growth of imports continued to decline, with imports
from non-ASEAN countries increasing by 12.53% compared to 2021, while imports from
ASEAN countries increased by 52.54%. In recent years, China’s aquatic imports from
ASEAN countries have surpassed those from other non-ASEAN RCEP countries. In recent
years, the trade volume has been relatively stable for both ASEAN and non-ASEAN RCEP
countries, from an export perspective.
Table 9shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between China and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 14 of 19
Table 9. FTA tariff of China.
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
Japan N/A 7.02% No concessional
arrangements 9.34% No concessional
arrangements
RCEP 8.94% 9.76% 94.55% 0.95%
The Republic of
Korea CKFTA 1.57% 9.29% 99.61% 0.06%
RCEP 8.05% 10.33% 98.83% 0.14%
Australia ChAFTA 0.06% 8.25% 99.61% 0.06%
RCEP 1.84% 10.47% 100% 0%
New Zealand NZCFTA 0% 8.34% 100% 0%
RCEP 2.03% 10.47% 100% 0%
ASEAN 10+1 0% Not available 100% 0%
RCEP 1.82% 10.47% 100% 0%
China’s baseline tariff rate for other parties is 10.47% within the RCEP tariff com-
mitment. According to the schedule of tariff commitment, 10.5% of aquatic products are
exempted from duty since the RCEP entered into force. For the remaining 89.5% of dutiable
aquatic products, ASEAN, New Zealand, and Australia will undergo a tariff reduction
schedule over the next 20 years, with an average reduction rate of 0.11% per year un-
til zero tariffs are achieved. For Japan and the Republic of Korea, 5.45% and 1.17% of
aquatic products will face tariffs at the conclusion of the 20-year tariff reduction cycle,
respectively. On the whole, the average level of China’s tariff reductions for each party is
approximately 11.65%.
Under the NZCFTA, China has waived tariffs on all of New Zealand’s imported
aquatic products. In contrast, RCEP presently imposes an average tariff rate of 2.03%
on New Zealand’s imported aquatic products. Additionally, the FTA has cumulatively
reduced tariffs by an average of 8.34% since its inception in 2008, surpassing the RCEP’s
average level of tariff concessions. Similar to New Zealand’s situation, China’s current
average tariff in Australia is 0.06% under the ChAFTA. On the other hand, the average
tariff under the RCEP is at 2.03%, with cumulative tariff cuts reaching 8.25% since the
agreement’s implementation in 2015. Tariff concessions under ChAFTA have surpassed the
RCEP’s 2.28% level of tariff concessions. From current tariffs on imported aquatic products
to the Republic of Korea, the average tariff under the RCEP agreement is 7.44% higher than
the tariffs established by the China-Republic of Korea FTA. However, the two agreements
have a more consistent tariff reduction schedule. In contrast, prior to the implementation
of RCEP, China applied the MFN tariff rate on aquatic products from Japan, resulting in a
higher average tariff of 7.02%.
Calculations show that under the RCEP agreement, the concession in tariffs for aquatic
products from Japan and the Republic of Korea is more evident, with tariff cuts ranging
between 8.81% and 8.87%, separately. However, due to the China-Korea FTA being im-
plemented seven years before the RCEP, tariffs have already been substantially decreased.
Therefore, the short-term tariff reduction effect of RCEP for aquatic products from the
Republic of Korea may be limited. As for Japan, since there were no other FTAs between
China and Japan before, the implementation of the RCEP will lower the tariff threshold for
Japanese aquatic products exported to China and reduce market access restrictions to some
extent. Compared to 2021, the aquatic product trade value from Japan to China increased
by 13.83% in 2022, exceeding the growth rate of ASEAN at 5.29% and the Republic of Korea
at 3.22%.
4.3. Japan
Table 10 shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between Japan and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP agreement.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 15 of 19
Table 10. FTA tariff of Japan.
Contracting
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
China MFN 5.94% No concessional
arrangements 3.96% No concessional
arrangements
RCEP 6.76% 8.05% 63.10% 2.49%
The Republic of
Korea MFN 5.94% No concessional
arrangements 3.96% No concessional
arrangements
RCEP 6.76% 7.52% 48.57% 3.02%
Australia JAEPA 2.62% 0.15% 69.86% 2.61%
RCEP 5.24% 3.07% 64.29% 2.64%
CPTPP 1.18% 5.87% 100% 0.00%
New Zealand CPTPP 1.18% 5.87% 100% 0.00%
RCEP 5.24% 3.07% 64.29% 2.64%
ASEAN JAFTA 10+1 3.50% 1.46% 40.89% 3.50%
RCEP 5.24% 3.07% 64.29% 2.64%
Since negotiations for the China-Japan-Korea FTA are still underway and Japan can-
celed the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) tariff measure for China in previous
years, the current tariff for Chinese and Republic of Korea aquatic products is based on the
MFN principle, with an average rate of 5.94%.
Under the RCEP agreement, Japan applies identical tariff reduction provisions to
Australia, New Zealand, and ASEAN. Currently, the average tariff imposed by Japan on
imported products from the aforementioned three parties stands at 5.24%. The proportion
of commodities that become duty-free subsequent to the concession arrangement amounts
to 64.29%. Compared with the duty-free proportion of 40.89% according to the 10+1
agreement, the RCEP increased the zero-tariff product rate by 23.4%. Therefore, from
a tariff perspective, the implementation of RCEP will benefit ASEAN’s aquatic product
exports to Japan. Looking at the data, ASEAN’s aquatic product exports to Japan increased
by 20.52% in 2022 compared to before the implementation of RCEP.
In the case of China and the Republic of Korea, as there was no existing Free Trade
Agreement between their countries, the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) tariff was applied.
The implementation of RCEP represents the first trade agreement between Japan, China,
and the Republic of Korea. Japan has granted a cumulative tariff reduction of 7.52% for
imported aquatic products from the Republic of Korea and 8.05% for China, surpassing the
reduction extent for ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand under the RCEP agreement. In
the year following its implementation, China’s aquatic product trade volume exported to
Japan increased by 6.26%, but the Republic of Korea’s exports have not shown a significant
increase yet.
In summary, for Australia and New Zealand, tariffs under the RCEP agreement does
not provide any advantages compared to the CPTPP due to the lower tariff rates and
broader scope of duty-free goods. For ASEAN, tariffs under the RCEP are expected to
be lower than those of the “10+1” FTA in the medium to long term, and the coverage of
duty-free goods under RCEP is broader, making the long-term advantages of RCEP more
evident. For China and the Republic of Korea, the RCEP, as the first FTA between these
three countries, significantly reduces the tariff barriers for aquatic product imports, which
will undoubtedly benefit the export of aquatic products from China and the Republic of
Korea to Japan.
4.4. The Republic of Korea
Table 11 shows the tariffs and tariff reductions on aquatic products under the FTAs
between the Republic of Korea and RCEP member countries, as well as under the RCEP
agreement.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 16 of 19
Table 11. FTA tariff of the Republic of Korea.
Contracting
Parties Agreement Current Average
Tariffs
Concessions
Amplitude
Proportion of
Duty-Free Goods
Average Tariffs
After Concessions
Japan MFN 16.49% No concessional
arrangements 1.58% No concessional
arrangements
RCEP 14.86% 7.24% 44.34% 9.54%
China CKFTA 7.98% 12.74% 84.38% 2.36%
RCEP 14.19% 12.33% 70.44% 4.55%
Australia KAFTA 0.51% 11.40% 98.28% 0.21%
RCEP 13.25% 14.29% 84.30% 2.40%
New Zealand NZKFTA 0.80% 12.69% 98.63% 0.21%
RCEP 13.25% 14.39% 84.30% 2.40%
ASEAN 10+1 3.47% 1.44% 67.65% 3.47%
RCEP 13.03% 14.39% 84.30% 2.26%
Due to concerns regarding domestic industry protection, the Republic of Korea has
traditionally maintained elevated tariff levels on imported aquatic products. At the initial
implementation of the RCEP, only 1.62% of imported aquatic products destined for the
Republic of Korea will be granted tariff exemption. The Republic of Korea’s tariff reduction
commitments towards ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand exhibit substantial similarity.
Over the duration of the 20-year reduction period, 84.3% of aquatic products from these
three contracting parties are projected to ultimately benefit from zero-tariff treatment.
However, the remaining products that continue to be subject to tariffs will encounter
persistently high tariff rates. Specifically, the average tariff rate for ASEAN aquatic products
stands at 17.33%, whereas it reaches 31.5% for products originating from Australia and
New Zealand.
The Republic of Korea’s tariff concessions for aquatic products from China and Japan
are comparatively less generous than those extended to the aforementioned parties. The
RCEP agreement stipulates a reduction period of merely 15 years for China and Japan.
Consequently, although China experiences an average annual reduction rate of 0.76%,
surpassing the 0.63% for ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand, the limited duration of
the reduction period constrains the long-term benefits. Therefore, nearly 30% of Chinese
aquatic products will continue to be subject to an average tariff rate of 30%. In the case
of Japan, the average annual reduction rate amounts to 0.42%, resulting in an aggregate
reduction rate of 7.24%, which is approximately half of the reduction extent observed for
other RCEP parties. However, due to the impact of both countries’ protection policies
for domestic agriculture, the average tariff for Japanese aquatic products is expected to
remain at 9.54% after the reduction commitment schedule, which is still higher than the
current MFN tariff level. Prior to RCEP, the Republic of Korea and Japan had not signed a
bilateral FTA agreement. However, the implementation of RCEP will expand the scope of
duty-free goods for certain aquatic products. As a result, the implementation of the RCEP
may stimulate part of the exportation of Japanese aquatic products. We can also tell from
the data that Japanese aquatic product exports to the Republic of Korea increased by 13.15%
compared to 2021, which also aligned with the conclusion above.
Similar to China, the Republic of Korea has not previously entered into a free trade
agreement with Japan. By comparing the current tariff levels and concession efforts under
the RCEP agreement with various FTAs, it becomes evident that the tariffs levied under
the RCEP are significantly higher than those under the FTAs. Furthermore, the tariff
levels for China, Australia, and New Zealand under RCEP remain higher than those under
the respective FTAs after the tariff reduction schedule, and the scope of duty-free goods
under RCEP is lower compared to the other FTAs. Conversely, the situation is different
for ASEAN. The future tariff levels under the FTA will be higher than those under the
RCEP agreement, and the scope of duty-free goods under RCEP exceeds that of the FTAs
by 16.65%. Therefore, RCEP will benefit ASEAN’s aquatic product export to the Korean

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 17 of 19
market. The data reveals that in 2022, ASEAN’s aquatic product exports to South Korea
increased by 9.91% compared to the previous year.
4.5. Australia
Australia enjoys a high degree of trade liberalization and maintains close trade con-
nections with various countries in the Asia-Pacific.
Considering number of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that Australia has
signed, Australia maintains a high degree of market access for imported aquatic products.
Virtually all free trade agreements eliminate tariffs on imported aquatic products. Under the
RCEP agreement, Australia has committed to non-discriminatory tariff policies, exempting
all RCEP members’ aquatic products from tariffs.
In summary, both the RCEP agreement and the various FTAs concluded with con-
tracting parties grant full duty-free access to Australia. Therefore, the tariff concession
commitments under RCEP have minimal impact on the importation of aquatic products to
Australia. Instead, the focus should be on the non-tariff implications.
4.6. New Zealand
Similar to Australia, New Zealand also enjoys a relatively high level of trade liberal-
ization, and its relevant free trade agreements overlap significantly with those of Australia.
Most of the aquatic product tariffs specified in these FTAs with RCEP contracting parties
are set at zero.
However, concerning New Zealand’s tariff concession commitments under RCEP, not
all aquatic products are exempt from tariffs. Based on calculations, New Zealand will grant
tariff-free access to 93.83% of imported aquatic products under the RCEP agreement. The
remaining 6.17% of dutiable aquatic products will be subject to tariffs, with 5.29% of aquatic
products gradually reducing to zero tariffs throughout the reduction schedule, while the
remaining portion will maintain tariff imposition.
5. Conclusions
The implementation of the RCEP has significantly boosted trade in aquatic products
among member parties, particularly benefiting China, Japan, and South Korea, which
lacked prior bilateral FTAs. While the tariff reduction effects are limited due to pre-existing
FTAs, the combination of reduced tariffs and more relaxed rules of origin provides a distinct
advantage. This synergy has improved supply chain integration and reduced trade barriers,
laying a foundation for further growth. Additionally, RCEP’s contributions to streamlining
NTMs have lowered trade restrictiveness, enhancing the efficiency of regional trade.
However, RCEP still falls short when compared to higher-standard FTAs like the
CPTPP. Its tariff reduction coverage, while notable, remains below the CPTPP’s “triple zero”
standard of 99% zero tariffs, zero subsidies, and zero barriers. Labor and environmental
protection provisions under RCEP also lack robust enforcement and supervision mecha-
nisms, potentially leading to disparities in standards and unfair competition. Moreover,
stricter regulations and limited flexibility in areas such as cross-border data flows and
e-commerce further highlight areas for improvement. To fully realize its potential, RCEP
parties must address these gaps, harmonize standards, and create a more inclusive and
open trade environment.
This study, while providing valuable insights, is constrained by limited data avail-
ability, such as incomplete NTMs data for Australia and tariff concession data for China.
The reliance on qualitative analysis also limits its scope. Future research should adopt
quantitative methods, such as gravity models or computable general equilibrium (CGE)
models, to provide precise assessments of RCEP’s impact on seafood trade and its spillover
effects on the aquatic products value chain. Additionally, the diverse and complex nature of
NTMs calls for innovative analytical approaches to better quantify their impacts. Strength-
ened collaboration between IGOs and governments is essential to build comprehensive
databases that enhance data sharing and support deeper analysis.

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 18 of 19
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.C. and F.X.; methodology, T.C. and F.X.; formal analysis,
F.X.; investigation, F.X.; resources, F.X. and M.X.; writing—original draft preparation, F.X. and M.X.;
writing—review and editing, T.C., F.X., and M.X.; visualization, F.X. and M.X.; supervision, T.C.;
project administration, T.C.; funding acquisition, T.C. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 72173084.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data are collected from Global Trade Traker, UNCTAD, UNC-
TAD Trains Online, Asia Pacific Trade and Investment Database, WTO Tariffs Analysis Online,
WITS database.
Conflicts of Interest: The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses,
or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Webb, M.; Strutt, A.; Gibson, J.; Walmsley, T. Modelling the impact of non-tariff measures on supply chains in ASEAN. World
Econ. 2020,43, 2172–2198. [CrossRef]
2.
Solís, M.; Wilson, J.D. From APEC to mega-regionals: The evolution of the Asia-Pacific trade architecture. Pac. Rev. 2017,
30, 923–937. [CrossRef]
3.
Das, S.B.; Kawai, M. Trade Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific: Developments and Future Challenges; Iseas-Yusof Ishak Institute: Singapore, 2016.
4.
MacIsaac, S.; Duclos, B.C. Trade and conflict: Trends in economic nationalism, unilateralism and protectionism. Can. Foreign
Policy J. 2020,26, 1–7. [CrossRef]
5. Chow, D.C.K. United States Unilateralism and the World Trade Organization. Boston Univ. Int. Law J. 2019,37, 1. [CrossRef]
6. Kerr, W.A. “Aggressive Unilateralism”—The New Focus of US Trade Policy. Estey J. Int. Law Trade Policy 2020,21, 1–17.
7.
Chang, K.I.; Hayakawa, K. Border barriers in agricultural trade and the impact of their elimination: Evidence from East Asia. Dev.
Econ. 2010,48, 232–246. [CrossRef]
8.
Miao, M.; Liu, H.; Chen, J. Factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports to Japan, the USA, South Korea,
Southeast Asia, and the EU. Aquac. Int. 2021,29, 2507–2533. [CrossRef]
9. Crivelli, P. A Preliminary Assessment of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; ADB: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2022.
10.
UNCTAD. Non-Tariff Measures in Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Findings; UNCTAD:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
11.
Minh, D.N. Assessing the impacts of non-tariff measures on the export of Vietnam’s main agricultural and seafood products. Int.
J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud. 2023,6, 72–79.
12.
Asche, F.; Yang, B.; Gephart, J.A.; Smith, M.D.; Anderson, J.L.; Camp, E.V.; Garlock, T.M.; Love, D.C.; Oglend, A.; Straume, H.M.
China’s seafood imports—Not for domestic consumption? Science 2022,375, 386–388. [CrossRef]
13. Thammachote, P.; Trochim, J.I. Thailand Seafood Trade Flow and Its Challenges; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
14.
Seung, C.K. Spatial distribution of the value added from seafood exports: A domestic value chain analysis for Korea. Fish. Res.
2022,247, 106181. [CrossRef]
15.
Ordinario, J.A.H.; Anticamara, J.A. The Status, Trends, and Limitations of Philippine Mollusk Production and Trade Based on
Available Databases and Publications. J. Trop. Biodivers. Biotechnol. 2023,8, 73325. [CrossRef]
16.
Nijman, V.; Stein, F.M. Meta-analyses of molecular seafood studies identify the global distribution of legal and illegal trade in
CITES-regulated European eels. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022,5, 191–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Dong, C.V.; Truong, H.Q. Determinants and potential of seafood trade: Evidence from a transitional economy. Foreign Trade Rev.
2023,58, 428–454. [CrossRef]
18.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. International Classification of Non-Tariff Measures; United Nations: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2019.
19.
De Melo, J.; Nicita, A. Non-Tariff Measures: Scope and Overview. In Non-tariff Measures; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; p. 1.
20.
Ghodsi, M.; Grübler, J.; Reiter, O.; Stehrer, R. The Evolution of Non-Tariff Measures and Their Diverse Effects on Trade; Wiiw Research
Report; The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw): Vienna, Austria, 2017.
21. Gourdon, J.; Stone, S.; van Tongeren, F. Non-Tariff Measures in Agriculture; OECD: Paris, France, 2020.
22.
Santeramo, F.G.; Lamonaca, E. The effects of non-tariff measures on agri-food trade: A review and meta-analysis of empirical
evidence. J. Agric. Econ. 2019,70, 595–617. [CrossRef]
23.
Jin, S.; Ma, B.; Zheng, Y.; Jin, X.; Wu, W. Short-term impact of food safety standards on agri-product exports: Evidence from
Japan’s positive list system on Chinese vegetable exports. J. Agric. Econ. 2023,75, 362–381. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2024,16, 10620 19 of 19
24.
Castle, M. Embedding regional actors in social and historical context: Australia-New Zealand integration and Asian-Pacific
regionalism. Rev. Int. Stud. 2018,44, 151–173. [CrossRef]
25. Head, K.; Ries, J. Rationalization effects of tariff reductions. J. Int. Econ. 1999,47, 295–320. [CrossRef]
26. Park, I. Regional trade agreements in East Asia: Past and future. Dev. Policy Rev. 2020,38, 206–225. [CrossRef]
27.
Thangavelu, S.M.; Narjoko, D.; Urata, S. Impact of FTA on trade in ASEAN and Australia using customs level data. J. Econ. Integr.
2021,36, 437–461. [CrossRef]
28.
Lewis, M.K. Mega-FTAs and Plurilateral Trade Agreements: Implications for the Asia-Pacific. In Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law
Rule-Making: TPP as a New Model for Trade Agreements? Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 47, pp. 419–433.
29.
Dinh, D.K. Rules of origin in RCEP agreement: Advancement and convergence. Glob. Trade Customs J. 2021,16, 248–255.
[CrossRef]
30.
Hasegawa, J. Evolution of RCEP rules of origin (comparison with ASEAN plus FTAs and recent mega-FTAs/EPAs). J. Econ.
Admin. Sci. 2022,40, 111–129. [CrossRef]
31.
Zainuddin, M.R.K.V.; Sarmidi, T.; Khalid, N. Sustainable production, non-tariff measures, and trade performance in RCEP
countries. Sustainability 2020,12, 9969. [CrossRef]
32.
Shimizu, K. The ASEAN Economic Community and the RCEP in the world economy. J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 2021,10, 1–23.
[CrossRef]
33.
Ratna, R.S.; Huang, J. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) FTA: Reducing trade cost through removal of
non-tariff measures. Korea World Econ. 2016,17, 213–242.
34.
Ajibo, C.C.; Nwatu, S.I.; Ukwueze, F.O.; Adibe, E.; Lloyd, C.; Richards, N.U. RCEP, CPTPP and the changing dynamics in
international trade standard-setting. Manch. J. Int. Econ. Law 2019,16, 425.
35.
Li, C.; Li, D. When regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement (RCEP) meets comprehensive and progressive
trans-Pacific partnership agreement (CPTPP): Considering the “Spaghetti Bowl” effect. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2022,58,
1988–2003. [CrossRef]
36.
Murali, K. Market Access and Issues of Data Gaps and Transparency and Information Asymmetry: A Case of RCEP Negotiations.
Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3555910 (accessed on 4 October 2024).
37. Cadot, O.; Ing, L.Y. East Asian Integration; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 171–204.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.