Report on the Implementation of the derogation to ... - Trade Websites

Final <strong>Report</strong>
RoO Derogation under the PACP-IEPA
Table 6.15 Share of EU Import Market by Selected Third Country Suppliers of Tuna Loins, 2001-10
(all in %)
Pre-derogation
Post-derogation
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ecuador Volume 37.5 43.2 46.7 33.3 28.8 38.5 33.0 40.5 39.2 35.6
Value 36.1 41.4 43.0 31.1 27.0 36.2 31.1 37.6 35.9 34.3
Mauritius Volume 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 9.6 9.8 12.2 10.5 12.0
Value 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.0 9.0 10.5 14.0 10.5 12.8
Thailand Volume 1.8 4.7 8.1 5.0 6.2 5.5 10.2 8.2 15.1 11.6
Value 1.6 4.6 6.9 4.2 4.8 5.5 8.6 6.7 16.7 9.2
Guatemala Volume 0.0 0.2 0.2 6.0 8.1 2.8 0.0 1.7 5.1 8.3
Value 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.5 7.5 2.8 0.0 1.8 4.8 8.8
El Salvador Volume 0.0 0.0 0.7 12.6 16.3 12.9 17.3 13.9 11.7 7.3
Value 0.0 0.0 0.7 12.2 17.3 13.8 18.6 15.1 13.0 8.5
Top 5 volume share 39.3 48.3 55.8 56.9 61.3 69.3 70.3 76.4 81.5 74.6
Top 5 value share 37.7 46.5 50.8 52.9 58.5 67.3 68.8 75.1 80.9 73.7
PNG Volume 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.2 0.7 1.6 2.4
Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.7 2.3
Source: DG Trade from Eurostat (5 August 2011) using two HS codes for tuna ‘loins’ (1604 1416; 1931).
A speculative indirect impact of the derogation is that industry might be limiting new investment in
third countries due to concerns over the possible medium-term effects of the derogation on PNG’s
penetration of the EU market. However, this has not been recorded in industry media or reported to
the consultants by EU industry. An extensive study on the global tuna industry by Hamilton et al.
(2011) found that there were no future plans by Spanish industry to invest in new locations of
production outside of attempts to penetrate the Latin American market through the purchase of
brands and processing facilities based within the region (e.g. Calvo in Brazil). Moreover, as already
noted in Section 6.5, it is widely recognised that there is overcapacity in canned tuna processing on a
global scale. This situation is positive for supermarket and branded-firm procurement of canned
tuna from contract processors as it generates sharp competition on price among the latter. It is
however, a less profitable environment for investing in new processing capacity due to this sharp
price competition unless the investment is connected to access to tuna resources, as in the case of
PNG.
Impacts on third countries and their EU canned tuna markets in the medium term (to 2016)
Two potential impacts in the medium term on third country suppliers to the EU have been identified:
a) Raw material diversion of tuna catch in the WCPO, especially (but not exclusively) in the PNG
EEZ, from those third country processors that rely on this supply to PNG-based processors.
b) Trade diversion of finished product, where increased PNG exports of duty free canned tuna
and tuna loins to the EU market will displace market share of existing exporters.
Despite requests, the consultants were unable to obtain any supporting quantitative data or other
forms of hard evidence from EU industry to support their stated concerns. As such the following uses
what data and other information was available to the consultants from alternative sources.
Linpico s.a.r.l. Page 160