Scope:

The evaluation covered all fishery and aquaculture products as listed in Annex I of the CMO Regulation and all EU Member States. It focused on the performance of the standards against their new objectives laid down in 2014 (i.e. the entry into force of the latest CMO Regulation), seeking to capture new demands in the market for fishery and aquaculture products wherever possible. 

The evaluation covered the three regulations defining marketing standards for fishery and aquaculture products¹, as well as Chapter III of the CMO Regulation on Common Marketing Standards², and the processes involved in their implementation and enforcement.

Evaluation findings:

The evaluation concluded that the marketing standards have had an overall positive impact on the EU market for fishery and aquaculture products. The existing standards are still relevant but, nevertheless, their capacity to deliver on the objectives above is limited by their current scope and nature.

Moreover, the marketing standards indirectly contributed to improvements in product quality by establishing a grading system awarding better quality products with better prices.

On the other hand, they hardly provide any other contribution enabling market supply of sustainable products.

Beyond that, the evaluation found that both enforcement costs and implementation costs are marginal or null and that there is little room for further simplification without risking loss of benefits already obtained.

The marketing standards are furthermore generally coherent with both CFP and sanitary control regulations. Nevertheless, the standard for canned tuna and bonito is not entirely coherent with consumer information rules which bear the risk of misinformation towards the public.

While market demand for sustainability assurance increases, the marketing standards have not been equipped to deliver on this objective.

Estimated savings and benefits

The three regulations for marketing standards have been kept almost unchanged since their implementation 30 years ago and thus, it was not possible to compare with the original situation before the implementation of marketing standards. The evaluation was carried out for the regulations that are currently in place and only few elements were collected about potential savings and benefits compared to the situation without the standards.

Administrative and control costs to authorities are marginal as controls of the marketing standards are usually combined with other regulatory controls. Costs for operators are marginal or null, as the required tasks would be done anyway. There are no data available to show that the standards for fresh products impact profitability, but it is assumed that by obtaining higher prices for better quality, there could be some positive impact. For preserved goods, the marketing standards help to prevent inferior products entering the market that would unfairly undercut prices.

¹ Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 laying down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bonito, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines and trade descriptions for preserved sardines and sardine-type products

² Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000