Dionisia Tabureguci
A somewhat late reaction from Fiji has seen it announce the setting up of a special food unit to specifically look after food and fish export industries. 

The move came shortly after Fiji lost its status as a fish exporter into the European Union, a decision officially gazetted in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU) on May 21. 

This was after a visit to Fiji last year of a two-member team from the EU’s Food and Veterinary Office under its Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General (DG-SANCO).

The team found deficiencies in Fiji’s quality inspection authority. 

Its report led to the delisting of Fiji from the EU’s List 2, the second of two lists of third countries (non EU countries) allowed by EU to export fishery products into the EU.

A Fiji government statement last month said the plan to set up the special food unit followed a submission from its health ministry, which is responsible for the inspection of fishery products exported to the EU.  

“The unit shall as a matter of priority, ensure that Fiji gets back into the EU listing for fish exporting countries in the shortest time possible or by the latest July 2009,” said Fiji’s health minister Dr Jiko Luveni. 

List 2, she said, was an interim arrangement that had allowed trade to continue while the Competent Authority (CA)—Fiji Central Board of Health—tried to meet EU requirements and move up to List 1.

“The unit will ensure Fiji’s yearly favourable status and recognition as a fish exporting country under List 1. It will facilitate fish export inspection, certification of fish and fisheries products, verification and also custodian of the EU and other importing countries legislative requirements. The unit will carry out water, ice, fish, swab and other samplings to verify the company’s compliance with EU legislation,” Luveni said.

Late manoeuvre

But it’s a development that is being seen by the struggling local fishing industry as coming a little too late, as their inability now to export fish to the EU has already cost them dearly.  

“We appreciate what the government has done but, you know, they’ve done that after the horse has bolted,” said Graham Southwick, managing director of Fiji Fish Ltd, Fiji’s biggest exporter to the EU. “Although they think they have done something about it, it’s not the cure for the situation for us. Fiji is not going to get back in 12 months’ time.

“By the time we do get back, we would have lost our market because others would have taken up the opportunity to supply it.  It took us four years to establish ourselves in that market and we lost it just like that because of bureaucratic bungling. This mess came about because our Competent Authority (it inspects fish exports to the EU) was deemed incompetent.  Fiji dropped the ball and the industry got penalised for it.”

Southwick said Fiji needed to take a much stronger control of the situation in order that the impact is minimised as quickly as possible. 

Fiji, he said, should send a high-powered ministerial delegation to the EU to negotiate for an option where Fiji exporters could continue to export to the EU while the competent authority pulled up its socks under the supervision of EU personnel.

Similar action was taken by other countries that also got axed from the EU list of third country fish exporters, Southwick added.  

But Fiji’s Foreign Affairs ministry had earlier told this magazine that the decision by the EU could not be reversed or stalled and Fiji’s only hope was to shape up and try to get back on the Europeans’ list. 

The aim now by Fiji to get on to List 1 is going to be a tougher ride, however.

That list, according to a publication titled: “How to Export Fish to the European Union”, prepared in 2006 by the United States Mission to the EU, is said to comprise countries whose “legislation requirements are at least equivalent to those governing EU domestic production, and that an EU inspection has audited the competent authority, which satisfied the EU requirements.”

As such, List 1 countries are said to be already “harmonised” with EU’s stringent trade and sanitary measures, as opposed to List 2 countries who had only given written guarantees to do so but had yet to be inspected.

Ensuring compliance to get on List 1, said another local fishing operator, is going to cost money the industry presently doesn’t have. 

“It’s good to see the government has done something that it wants to get to List 1 but there are no talks about the funds.  Going up to List 1 means we have to get our boats up to standards and that is going to cost us money,” said David Lucas, managing director of Suva-based Solander Fishing Co. Ltd.

“Getting all our boats up to standard to comply with List 1 requirements, according to our calculations, would cost us F$750,000. We have 12 vessels in our fleet—and that’s money  that we have don’t have.

“We are already struggling with the high cost of fuel, we are competing with foreign vessels for wharf and cargo space, they are getting fuel subsidies from their governments, our costs are going up and the fish prices are not going up, so we just don’t have the money.

“It has to come from somewhere else and maybe the EU can help us with that. It has done it in other countries and should also do it for Fiji—make money available to the private sector to help us with compliance,” said Lucas.

In the months leading up to the delisting, Fiji’s fishing operators had been expressing concerns in the local media about their struggle to contain rising cost, due to high oil prices.

Now with the EU market out, many of them are waiting to see if the delisting will affect them in the way it had affected Pakistan when it was delisted last year.

Pakistani press reported that the country’s seafood export suffered price shocks a week after the delisting as other international buyers took advantage of the EU ban and either cancelled their orders or demanded lower prices for Pakistani seafood products.