The impact of Non-Tariff Measures on the Seafood Industry and Potential Implications

for the Sustainable Development Goals: Case of the European Union Import Ban on the Sri Lankan Seafood Industry

K.P.G. Lahiru Sandaruwan & Senal WeerasooriyaUniversity of Peradeniya

Sri Lanka

Seafood industry in Sri Lanka

• Marine fisheries in Sri Lanka have two major components i.e. coastal and deep sea fishing

• Seafood represents 2.5% of Sri Lankan total exports

• The European Union (EU) is the largest export partner

– 41% of Sri Lankan fish export to EU in 2014

Some background about the EU fish ban

• EU uses Non Tariff Measures (NTM) as a tool to encourage fish supplying country to eliminate Illegal Unreported Unregulated (IUU) fishing

• Require a catch certificate

• Noncompliant supplier's are– Advice through yellow card

– Ban fish export until showing significant improvement

– Continues dialog and show significant effort to mitigate IUU fishing

– Lifting of the ban

Timeline of the EU ban for Sri Lanka

• Started in 2010

• Yellow card warning issued in November 2012

• The ban was implemented in January 2015

• The band was lifted in April 2016

Potential issues with the ban

• When a policy is changed (e.g. NTM), the equilibrium changes and social, economic and environment structures shift towards a new equilibrium.

• Such policy change may have positive or negative impacts on the – Fish exports

– Stakeholders (Fisherman)

– Sustainable Development

Methodology

Analysis

Impact on SDGs

Data collection120 fishermen

interviews

Performance in fish exports

UN COMTRADEUNCTAD TRAINS

Statistic book of Ministry of FisheriesIOTC reports

Producer level response

Impact on fish exports

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

(%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

US$

mill

ion

Export value and market share

Value of exports to the EU

% of market share to the EU

Market performance

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

HH

ind

ex

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

RC

A

Comparative Advantage

Market concentration

Top 10 export destination of Sri Lanka

Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

EU 1 1 2 2 2 1

USA 3 2 1 1 1 2

Japan 2 3 3 3 3 3

Hong Kong, China 4 5 6 6 6 6

Taipei, Chinese 6 4 5 5 5 7

Canada 5 6 4 4 4 4Viet Nam 9 7 8 7 7 5Saudi Arabia 8 8Israel 8 9 10 9 9United Arab Emirates 9 8 10 10Singapore 7 8 7 9Thailand 10 10 10

Producer level response for the ban

What has happen to the fishing trip?

• Number of days per trip has reduced

• Number of trips per year has increased

• Total distance travelled has reduced

• Number of crew members has reduced

• Cost per trip has reduced

Adjustment of target fish categories and fishing gears

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Longline Gill net withlarge mesh size

Gill net withsmall mesh size

Purse seining

Ban

After

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Yellow fin tuna Other tunaspecies

Billfish Minor exportfish species

Small fishspecies

Ban

After

Impact on SDGs

SDG 14

• Increased usage of environmentally friendly fishing gears

• Decrease in Sri Lankan fishermen invading in to foreign seas

• Vessel inspection has reduced usage of destructive fishing techniques

SDG 1 and SDG 2

• Decrease job opportunities in the fisheries sector

– 89% of fishers experience income reduction during the ban period

– 52% mortgaged their properties, 31% took loans from informal money lenders

– 23% still struggling to pay off debt

• Cut down on food expenditure

SDG 12 and SDG 2

• Per capita fish consumption of the local consumer increased

– Take away catch (free of charge fish for crew members) is increased and it increased fish consumption in the fishing community

• Consumer has opportunity to know the origin of their fish products and producers were more responsible in their production

Impact of the EU ban on SDG

-0.24

0.23

-0.12

0.89

0.420.24

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

No Poverty Zero hunger ofthe local

community

Economicgrowth

Responsibleproduction

Life belowwater

Overall SDG

• NTMs can generate both positive and negative impactson trade partners.

• Some NTMs, such as Catch Certificate can positivelycontribute for the environment protection andnegatively impact on fishermen's welfare becauseincrease production cost.

• Eliminate disadvantage of increased costs

• Fisheries industry requires a long time period to adoptnew technologies and attitude for compliance withNTMs

Conclusion and policy implications

Thank You