COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products
Date: 2019-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, aquaculture, common organisation of markets, fishery product, fresh product, marketing standard, preserved product, product quality, refrigerated product, supply chain

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.12.2019  SWD(2019) 453 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION   Marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products {SWD(2019) 455 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EVALUATION 

Marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products 

Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................................ 1 

Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................................... 2 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ....................................................................... 2 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ....................................................................... 2 

Baseline and points of comparison .............................................................................................. 1 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................ 3 

Description of the current situation ............................................................................................. 3 

Evolution in the standards applicable to fishery and aquaculture products ................................ 4 

Evolution in the share of products covered by EU marketing standards ..................................... 6 

Technological evolutions ............................................................................................................ 7 

4.  METHOD ................................................................................................................................ 8 

Short description of methodology ............................................................................................... 8 

Limitations and robustness of findings ....................................................................................... 9 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS............................. 11 

Relevance .................................................................................................................................. 11 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 14 

Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 30 

Coherence .................................................................................................................................. 36 

EU added-value ......................................................................................................................... 40 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 44 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 47 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 49 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................................ 57 

ANNEX 4: EXTERNAL EVALUATION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 73 

ANNEX 5: LIST OF NATIONAL STANDARDS ........................................................................ 74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AAC 

AFNOR 

ASC 

BRC 

B2B 

CFP 

CMO 

COMEXT 

DCF 

EFCA 

EU 

EUMOFA 

Aquaculture Advisory Council 

French Standardisation Association (in French :   
Association Française de Normalisation) 

Aquaculture Stewardship Council 

British Retail Consortium  

Business-to-Business 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Common Markets Organisation 

EUROSTAT's reference database for detailed statistics 
on international trade in goods 

Data Collection Framework 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Union 

European Market Observatory for fisheries and 
aquaculture products 

EUROSTAT 

Statistical Office of the European Union 

FAO 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations 

FAO FISHSTAT 

FAO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture statistics 

FAPs 

FEAP 

FIC 

FTE 

GI 

ICES 

IFS 

Fishery and Aquaculture Products 

Federation of European Aquaculture Producers 

Food Information to Consumers 

Full-time equivalent 

Geographical Indication 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

International Food Standard 

 
 
 
ISO 

MAC 

MCRS 

MSC 

MMS 

MS 

QIM 

PEFA 

PDO 

PGI 

RASFF 

SWWAC 

TAC 

WTO 

International Organization for Standardization 

Market Advisory Council 

Minimum Conservation Reference Size 

Marine Stewardship Council 

Minimum Marketing Size 

Member State 

Quality Index Method 

Pan European Fish Auctions  

Protected Designation of Origin 

Protected Geographical Indication 

Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed 

South Western Waters Advisory Council 

Total Allowable Catch 

  World Trade Organisation 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Three  regulations  define  today  the  EU  marketing  standards  framework  for  fishery  and 
aquaculture  products.  They  cover  fresh  and  chilled  fishery  products,1  canned  tuna  and 
bonito2 and preserved sardine and sardine-type products.3 The overarching objectives of 
EU  marketing  standards  are  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  1379/2013  on  the  common 
organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (the ‘CMO’ Regulation). 
The goals of the standards are (i) to enable the EU market to be supplied with sustainable 
products,  (ii)  to  allow  realising  the  full  potential  of  the  internal  market  in  fishery  and 
aquaculture  products,  (iii)  to  help  to  improve  the  profitability  of  production  by 
facilitating marketing activities based on fair competition and (iv) to ensure that imported 
products meet the same requirement and marketing standards as Union producers.4 

In  2011,  the  proposal  to  revise  the  CMO  Regulation  drew  a  number  of  conclusions 
regarding the performance of marketing standards. While the standards were relevant in 
that they established a set of "minimum common rules" and played an important role in 
standardising  product  quality,  hence  facilitating  marketing  activities,  they  were  also 
found too rigid and outdated.5 

Existing  legislation  setting  out  marketing  standards  was  confirmed  under  the  revised 
CMO  Regulation  in  2013,  while  providing  for  the  possibility  to  define  new  marketing 
standards.6 After more than two decades of implementation, it was however necessary to 
assess, in the context of the regular evaluation of the EU acquis, the performance of the 
legislation  defining  the  marketing  standards  framework  for  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products. For this purpose, an evaluation was launched in 2018.7 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This Staff Working Document presents the results of a comprehensive evaluation, which 
asessed  whether  the  framework  defined  by  the  existing  marketing  standards  for  fishery 
and  aquaculture  products  is  still  fit  for  purpose  and  whether  it  allows  achieving  the 
objectives of the CMO Regulation. 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying down common marketing standards 
for certain fishery products, OJ L 334, 23.12.1996, p. 1–15. 
2  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1536/92  of  9  June  1992  laying  down  common  marketing  standards  for 
preserved tuna and bonito, OJ L 163, 17.6.1992, p. 1–4. 
3 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,  OJ  L  212, 
22.7.1989, p. 79–81. 
4 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, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1–21, recitals (18) and (19). 
5 SEC(2011)883 - Impact assessment accompanying the document Regulation of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  common  organisation  of  the  markets  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products, 
available at https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/impact_assessments. 
6 Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, Article 33. 
7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-594424_en  

1 

 
 
                                                           
Given  that  the  regulations  defining  the  marketing  standards  framework  have  been  in 
place  for  more  than  two  decades  and  were  never  subject  to  a  thorough  check  to  assess 
whether they are still fit for purpose, the evaluation aimed to verify whether, in the new 
policy landscape brought about by the reform of CMO in 2013, the standards were still 
adequate to achieve their objectives.  

The  evaluation  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  framework  defined  by  the  marketing 
standards continues to deliver on its objectives in a manner that is effective and efficient, 
implying  the  minimum  costs  for  the  desired  objectives  for  operators,  consumers  and 
control authorities. It also assesses whether the existing rules are coherent with other EU 
legislation  and  policies  and  relevant  to  stakeholder  needs,  considering  recent  market 
developments,  and  whether  action  at  EU  level  continues  to  have  added  value.  The 
assessment was informed by an external evaluation study8. 

The evaluation provides evidence and conclusions that will form the basis for a possible 
future revision of the marketing standards framework so that it can achieve its objectives 
and produce the desired results. 

Scope of the evaluation  

The  evaluation  covers  all  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  as  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the 
CMO  Regulation  and  all  EU28  Member  States.  It  focuses  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 covers the three regulations defining marketing standards for fishery and 
aquaculture  products,  as  well  as  Chapter  III  of  the  CMO  Regulation  on  Common 
Marketing  Standards,  and  the  processes  involved  in  their  implementation  and 
enforcement.  The  evaluation  assesses  the  performance  of  the  marketing  standards 
framework according to five criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and 
EU added value.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Marketing  standards  define  harmonised  characteristics  for  canned  tuna  and  bonito  and 
preserved sardine and sardine-type products, and a harmonised grading system to make 
the quality of fresh and chilled fishery products transparent when placed on the market, 
based on freshness and size grades, including minimum freshness and size requirements. 
These  standards  apply  to  both  EU  and  imported  products.  The  standards  do  not  cover 
other prepared/preserved products, or any frozen, filleted product, nor products subject to 

8 Study: Evaluation of the marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products 

2 

 
 
                                                           
processing techniques such as smoking, salting, drying and brining. The grading system 
applicable  to  fresh  products  is  limited  to  47  species  (or  genera).  Other  fresh  fishery 
products,  not  listed  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  2406/96,  are  not  covered  by  marketing 
standards, and neither are products derived from aquaculture. 

The  standards  apply  alongside  other  legislation  regarding  the  hygiene  of  foodstuff, 
conservation measures under the CFP and consumer information rules. 

The  standards  are  mandatory.  This  means  that  canned  tuna  and  bonito  and  preserved 
sardine and sardine-type products might be placed on the market only in accordance with 
the  rules  laid  down  in  the  relevant  regulations.  This  however  does  not  prevent  other 
products to be developed, provided they are not marketed as canned tuna and bonito or 
preserved  sardine  and  sardine-type  products.  Similarly,  the  fresh  and  chilled  products 
listed  in  the  relevant  marketing  standard  can  be  sold  for  human  consumption  only 
following  the  requirements  of  the  standard.  This  however  has  not  prevented  operators 
from setting higher minimum requirements to achieve better market returns. 

The marketing standards framework defined by the CMO rules has  remained relatively 
stable  since  the  adoption  of  the  first  CMO  Regulation  in  1970.9  Over  time,  however, 
standards  have  been  introduced  or  amended.  In  2013,  the  objectives  of  the  marketing 
standards  were  reviewed  and  aligned  with  CFP  goals.  Building  on  the  content  of  the 
successive versions of the CMO Regulation and of the standards, an intervention logic is 
presented  below  (see  Figure  1).  It  shows  the  logical  sequence  and  causal  relationships 
between the drivers behind the adoption of the standards, based on identified needs, the 
inputs provided and activities undertaken and the intended outputs and results expected 
from the intervention with a view to achieving certain operational and general objectives. 

9  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2142/70  of  the  Council  of  20  October  1970  on  the  common  organisation  of  the 
market in fishery products, OJ L 236, 27.10.1970, p. 5–20. 

3 

 
                                                           
Figure 1: Intervention logic for the marketing standards framework 

1 

 
 
Baseline and points of comparison  

Marketing  standards  have  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  market  policy  for  fishery  and 
aquaculture products rules since the first CMO Regulation. Then, the standards set out to 
provide  market  stability  and  guarantee  a  fair  income  for  producers.  While  the  CMO 
Regulation  underwent  several  revisions  due  to  changes  in  production  (e.g.  over-
exploitation of resources, development of aquaculture) and trade (e.g. reduction of trade 
barriers), its articles on marketing standards remained unchanged until 2013. 

Changes to the specific regulations laying down the marketing standards have occurred 
over time, but have not substantially reviewed the content of the standards: 

-  The marketing standards for fresh and chilled fishery products were revised five 
times since their adoption in 1996, each time to add one or more species. On top 
of this, the lowest freshness grade (“C”) was abolished in 1976, the principle that 
minimum  conservation  reference  sizes  should  prevail  was  included  in  1996  and 
specific  provisions  on  how  to  apply  the  standards  to  crustaceans  and  molluscs 
were added. 

-  The  marketing  standards  for  preserved  sardines  were  established  in  1989  and 
have been reviewed twice since. In 2003, following a WTO dispute, the labelling 
provisions of the standard had to include 10 species of sardine-type products. In 
2005, a further species was added to the list of sardine-type products. 

-  The  marketing  standards  for  preserved  tuna  and  bonito,  adopted  in  1992,  were 

never modified.  

The current CMO Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013) forms an integral part of 
the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  and  aims  to  contribute  to  its  overall  objectives  of 
economic, social and environmental sustainability. This led to a thorough revision of the 
rules  governing  the  marketing  standards  framework  laid  down  in  the  CMO  Regulation 
(Chapter III of the CMO Regulation). In particular, the CMO Regulation: 

- 

-  Abolished  the  withdrawal  price  system,  which  supported  fishermen  through  a 
storage mechanism based on the marketing standards grades for fresh and chilled 
products; 
Introduced the notion of direct human consumption and the requirement that non-
compliant  products  be  only  destined  for  uses  other  than  direct  human 
consumption,  in  line  with  the  rules  on  the  use  of  fish  below  the  minimum 
conservation reference sizes (MCRS) landed under the landing obligation. 

The  impact  assessment10  leading  to  the  revised  CMO  Regulation,  which  confirmed  the 
existing marketing standards, identified both benefits and weaknesses of the standards.  

The impact  assessment  found that the marketing  standards provided  wide flexibility by 
allowing member states and operators to go beyond them when they consider it relevant 
and  necessary  for  the  regulation  of  their  specific  markets,  and  that  the  minimum 

10 SEC(2011) 883 

1 

 
                                                           
marketing sizes played an indirect role in preventing the marketing of juveniles of certain 
species without minimum biological sizes.  

While  common  marketing  standards  had  no  direct  effect  on  product  quality,  they  had 
played  an  important  role  in  the  grading  of  freshness  according  to  harmonised  quality 
standards.  Other  external  factors  were  found  to  have  had  a  more  direct  effect  on  the 
improvement of quality, notably market constraints, fleet modernisation, EU funding and 
private initiatives. 

The impact assessment also found some shortcomings, and particularly that the standards 
were preventing operators from exploiting the full potential of the internal market as they 
were  too  rigid,  limiting  the  development  of  distance  selling  and  e-commerce  due  to 
difficulties in obtaining homogenous and precise information on product characteristics.  

The  impact  assessment  also  reported  that  stakeholders  considered  the  current  set  of 
marketing standards useful in achieving a standardised supply facilitating the functioning 
of  the  internal  market  for  these  products.  They  noted  some  inconsistencies  between 
minimum  conservation  and  marketing  sizes,  and  called  for  future  standards  to  be  more 
consistent with the conservation policy. Stakeholders also expressed the wish that future 
standards  be  clear,  simple  to  follow,  flexible  and  that  they  allow  the  industry  to  self-
regulate. 

In 2015, to cater for the introduction of the landing obligation, the Omnibus Regulation11 
aligned  minimum  marketing  sizes  to  minimum  conservation  reference  sizes,  wherever 
the  latter  are  defined.  This  alignment  further  stressed  the  close  link  between  the 
conservation and market objectives of the CFP and responded to stakeholder demands for 
more consistency between the conservation and market policy. 

The  starting  point  of  the  evaluation  is  set  at  January  2014,  when  the  revised  CMO 
Regulation  entered  into  force,  with  the  exception  of  the  provisions  aligning  minimum 
conservation reference sizes  and minimum marketing sizes, which entered into force in 
June  2015  following  adoption  of  the  Omnibus  Regulation.  For  control-related  aspects, 
the  evaluation  covers  a  longer  time  span,  i.e.  since  2010,  year  of  entry  into  force  of 
Regulation (EC) No 1224/200912 establishing a control system to ensure compliance with 
CFP  rules  (the  ‘CFP  Control’  Regulation).  When  needed  to  draw  conclusions  on 
production and trade data, a longer timeframe was used. 

11  Regulation  (EU)  2015/812 of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2015  amending 
Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) 
No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) 
No  1380/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  as  regards  the  landing  obligation,  and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98, OJ L 133, 29.5.2015, p. 1–20. 
12 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system 
for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy,  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No 
847/96,  (EC)  No  2371/2002,  (EC)  No  811/2004,  (EC)  No  768/2005,  (EC)  No  2115/2005,  (EC)  No 
2166/2005,  (EC)  No  388/2006,  (EC)  No  509/2007,  (EC)  No  676/2007,  (EC)  No  1098/2007,  (EC)  No 
1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) 
No 1966/2006, OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1–50. 

2 

 
                                                           
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation  

The regulations defining the marketing standards framework have been in place for much 
longer than the period cover by the evaluation. Data on the implementation of the three 
regulations  defining  product-specific  marketing  standards  are  not  available  as  the 
regulations  did  not  provide  for  any  reporting  by  the  Commission  on  their  functioning. 
Control data can however provide some insight on their implementation. 

Marketing standards are controlled by Member States under the CFP Control Regulation 
as well as under the EU official control rules13 along the agri-food chain. The evaluation 
study commissioned by the European Commission on the CFP Control Regulation noted 
an  increase  in  the  number  of  infringements  of  marketing  standards  between  2010  and 
2014 (+21%), despite the fact that standards remained unchanged during the period14. 

Figure 2: Infringements detected concerning common marketing standards. (Table based 
on data from 18 Member States) 

The  survey  of  the  competent  national  authorities  carried  out  as  part  of  the  evaluation 
study  has  shown  however  that  inspections  often  combine  control  obligations  stemming 
from different regulations and that the different control activities can hardly be isolated 
from  one  another.  While  this  generates  efficiency  gains  and  synergies,  it  also  makes 
difficult to identify the exact nature of the non-compliance in the infringements reported.  

No quantitative evidence exists  to illustrate quality improvements in  terms  of freshness 
and food safety brought about by the standard for fresh and chilled fishery products. With 
regard to  prepared and preserved products,  data  reported through the EU’s Rapid  Alert 
System for Food and Feed (RASFF) shows that products covered by marketing standards 

13  Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on 
official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health 
and animal welfare rules, OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1–141. 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/625  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2017  on  official 
controls  and  other  official  activities  performed  to  ensure  the  application  of  food  and  feed  law,  rules  on 
animal  health  and  welfare,  plant  health  and  plant  protection  products,  amending  Regulations  (EC)  No 
999/2001,  (EC)  No  396/2005,  (EC)  No  1069/2009,  (EC)  No  1107/2009,  (EU)  No  1151/2012,  (EU)  No 
652/2014,  (EU)  2016/429  and  (EU)  2016/2031  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  Council 
Regulations  (EC)  No  1/2005  and  (EC)  No  1099/2009  and  Council  Directives  98/58/EC,  1999/74/EC, 
2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 
882/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  Council  Directives  89/608/EEC,  89/662/EEC, 
90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official 
Controls Regulation) Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1–142. 
14 Evaluation of the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 "establishing 
a  Community  control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  rules  of  the  common  fisheries  policy”  - 
Synthesis report of the first five years report of Member States according to Art 118, p. 16. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
were involved in only three out of 127 adulteration/fraud notifications relating to seafood 
products, and in three out of 70 notifications of incomplete, incorrect or absent labelling. 

As control of marketing standards for fresh products is frequently combined with control 
of other CFP requirements e.g. under the CFP Control Regulation, the focus may often 
be on compliance with  minimum sizes rather than ensuring the correct size and quality 
grading.  The  subjective  nature  of  freshness  grading  also  makes  it  more  challenging  to 
control  effectively  in  the  absence  of  laboratory  tests.  This  leads  to  different 
implementations of the marketing standards for fresh and chilled products, and associated 
controls.  The  infringements  reported  illustrate  this  heterogeneity,  as  non-compliance 
mostly  relates  to  respect  of  minimum  sizes  or  minimum  freshness  requirements  rather 
than grading. 

The standard for fresh and chilled fishery products require that each Member State name 
experts  to  ensure  that  products  are  graded  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  standard. 
Member States must check that such procedures are in place. There is no evidence that 
these experts were appointed or notified to the Commission and other Member States. 

Evolution in the standards applicable to fishery and aquaculture products  

Alongside the marketing standards established at EU level, a number of other standards 
and norms have developed in the fishery and aquaculture sector.  

International standards  

The FAO Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally agreed food standards and 
related texts. Of the 27 Codex standards that relate to fishery and aquaculture products, 
two overlap with EU marketing standards: 

-  The Codex STAN 94-1981, for canned sardines and sardine type products; 
-  The Codex STAN 70-1981, for canned tuna and bonito.  

The specifications contained in the Codex standards are similar to those laid down in EU 
standards. The differences are analysed in section 5 under the coherence criterion. While 
Codex standards are advisory in nature, they are a reference in trade dispute before the 
WTO given their nature of internationally agreed documents. 

National Laws and codes of practices 

The  evaluation  found  national  laws  or  mandatory  codes  of  practices  providing  specific 
requirements in terms of product description or content which go beyond EU regulations 
in five Member States: 

–  Austria: definitions for various products, including frozen fish fingers, marinated 

herring, canned tuna and surimi packs; 

–  Germany:  definitions  for  various  products,  including  frozen  fish  fingers,  frozen 

fish fillets and sauces used with fishery products; 

–  Latvia: marketing sizes for salmon caught in the Baltic Sea; 

4 

 
–  Spain:,  definitions  for  the  terms  “fresh”,  “frozen”,  “salted”,  etc.  and  quality 
standards  for  cooked  and  frozen  mussels,  cockles  and  clams  and  for  canned 
mussels, clams and scallops. While not listed by the evaluation study, Spain also 
defined a mandatory list of designations for prepared/preserved products. 

–  France: mandatory standards or codes of practices for oysters, soups, tarama and 
derived  products,  chilled  shrimps  and  salted  anchovy,  canned  crustaceans  and 
molluscs, semi-preserved products (except anchovy) and traditional fish soup. 

Private standards in use in the fishery and aquaculture sector 

Private marketing standards for fishery and aquaculture products are rare and were only 
identified  in  France,  where  several  AFNOR15  standards  exist,  mainly  for  processed 
products and some aquaculture products. While these standards are voluntary, feedback 
received during the fieldwork for the evaluation study indicates that they might serve as 
reference  in  case  of  controls,  especially  for  products  for  which  there  is  no  regulation. 
Large retailers can also use them as a basis to set their own purchasing requirements.  

Other  private  standards  used  in  the  market  mainly  cover  environmental  aspects.  These 
standards complement marketing standards and are gaining market relevance. Ecolabels 
are  particularly  important  in  Northern  EU  countries,  where  retailers  increasingly  use 
them as condition in their supply contracts. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the 
world leading ecolabel, may include among its requirements minimum sizes, potentially 
interfering with EU conservation and marketing standards provisions.  

Other instruments setting quality requirements 

As  of  end  2018,  there  were  45  registered  Geographical  Indications  (GIs,  e.g.  Protected 
Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)) covering FAPs, 
and 14  applications  awaiting registrations. While FAPs  account for less than 5% of  GI 
sales,16 the number of registered GIs covering FAPs has grown exponentially (only 4 GIs 
were  registered  in  2000).  For  a  few  aquaculture  products,  the  quality  signs  cover  a 
significant  share  of  the  market  (e.g.  Mejillón  de  Galicia,  Scottish  Farmed  Salmon  or 
Huîtres Marenne d’Oléron).  

Collective  brands  guaranteeing  product  origin  and  minimum  quality  and  sustainability 
requirements have also emerged in the last few years (e.g. “Pavillon France” or “Crianza 
de Nuestros Mares”), as well as other initiatives such as certification systems for auctions 
(e.g. PescadeRías in Galicia) or grading systems for vessels (e.g. Urk, Netherlands). 

Other tools, such as the French ecolabel “Pêche durable” were not assessed given their 
recent introduction and ensuing lack of information on their market role. 

15 French Standardisation Association (AFNOR - Association Française de Normalisation) 
16 Study: “Value of production of agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines, aromatised wines and spirits 
protected by a geographical indication (GI)”  

5 

 
                                                           
Evolution in the share of products covered by EU marketing standards 

EU production 

Products covered by the standard for fresh products represented 62% to 74% of landings 
of fresh  fish for human  consumption and 35% to  45% of total  EU landings since 2002 
(2016: 73% of fresh landings for human consumption and 40% of total landings). 

As regards prepared and preserved products, total EU production has expanded from 3.7 
million  tonnes  in  1989,  when  the  marketing  standards  for  preserved  sardines  was 
established, to 5 million tonnes in 2015 (+36%). Over the same period, the production of 
prepared  or  preserved  fish  more  than  doubled  from  0.8  million  tonnes  to  1.7  million 
tonnes.  The  production  of  canned  tunas  and  sardines  represents  about  25%  of  those 
preparations and 10% of all processed fish products throughout the period and has almost 
doubled in volume (from 271 thousand tonnes in 1989 to 525 thousand tonnes in 2015). 

Extra-EU Imports 

Between  2000  and  2016,  products  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards  accounted  on 
average for 13% of EU imports of FAPs (in volume – 11% in 2016). 

COMEXT17 trade data show that, between 2000 and 2016, fresh products accounted for 
9-12% of import volumes (7-14% of value) of FAPs, excluding imports of prepared and 
preserved  products.  Fresh  or  chilled  fishery  products  covered  by  marketing  standards 
represented only 1-3% of the total volume of these imports, and between 1-2% of their 
value.  While  the  share  of  fresh  products  out  of  total  imports  increased  over  time,  the 
share of products covered by marketing standards has shown a slight decrease.  

Figure  3:  Imports  of  total  fresh  products  and  fresh  products  covered  by  marketing 
standards over total imports from third countries - 2000 to 2016 

16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% imports covered by Mk Standards (Vol)

% imports of fresh products (Vol)

% imports covered by Mk Standards (Val)

% imports of fresh products (Val)

Source: evaluation study, based on COMEXT data 

17 COMEXT is EUROSTAT's reference database for detailed statistics on international trade in goods. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
Denmark,  Sweden,  Spain  and  the  UK  are  the  main  EU  importers  of  fresh  products.  In 
some cases, these imports take the form of landings into EU ports. In this case, products 
go through auctions  and follow the same process as products  landed by  EU vessels.  In 
other  cases,  products  from  third  countries  could  enter  the  Union  market  by  cargos  or 
trucks. In these cases, controls are performed on samples.  

Concerning  canned  products,  available  data  does  not  allow  isolating  canned  products 
from other preparations, but up to 50% of imports of processed (e.g. prepared/preserved, 
smoked,  dried)  products  might  be  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards.  However,  this 
ratio tends to decrease since 2000, as global imports of processed products grew by 43% 
over  the  period,  while  imports  of  prepared  and  preserved  tunas,  bonitos  and  sardines 
increased at a lower rate (37%). 

Figure 4: Imports of processed and preserved products covered by marketing standards 
over total imports from third countries between 2000 and 2017 

1.000.000
900.000
800.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
400.000
300.000

s
e
n
n
o
t

,

d
e
t
r
o
p
m

i

e
m
u
o
v

l

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Total imports of processed products

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
S
k
M
y
b
d
e
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
a
h
s

Share of imported preserved and processed products covered by Mkt Standards (Vol)

Source: evaluation study, based on COMEXT data 

The  data  above  shows  that  during  the  period  of  application  of  the  intervention,  fresh 
whole  products  decreased  in  importance  for  the  EU  market.  In  parallel,  imports  have 
increased significantly, in part because of imports of fillets  and  frozen fish, but  mainly 
thanks  to  imports  of  prepared  and  preserved  products.  Within  this  latter  category,  the 
share  of  imports  of  canned  tuna  and  bonito  and  preserved  sardine  as  sardine-type 
products has slightly decreased, as imports of other processed products increased. 

Technological evolutions 

Marketing  standards  are  of  particular  importance  for  distance  selling.  Accurate 
communication  on  product  quality  allows  operators  to  buy  products  from  different 
auctions without being physically present.   

The  Pan  European  Fish  Auctions  (PEFA)  was  created  ten  years  ago  and  constitutes  an 
auction system for remote purchase in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy. This 
system  involves  the  main  Dutch  fish  auctions  and  over  400  vessels  in  the  EU.  Buyers 
have to be accredited, but do not need to be physically present at the auction site. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
According to desk research and interviews, the development of electronic auctions varies 
across Member States, but remains marginal in most cases.  

Among the countries where the evaluation study ran case studies,18 France is the only one 
where  distant  selling  is  becoming  predominant  in  some  areas.  In  these  cases,  operators 
showed concerns for the non-uniform application of marketing standards across auctions. 
Despite  the  freshness  grading  defined  by  the  standards,  its  application  varies  across 
auctions  due  to  subjective  appreciation  and  use  of  other  cues  (e.g.  vessel's  reputation, 
gear type, time elapsed since the catch). The Brittany Region has undertaken a project to 
remedy the lack of harmonised application of the standards.19 

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

The  evaluation  follows  the  approach  set  out  in  the  roadmap  published  in  January  2018 
and relied on an external evaluation study, carried out on behalf of the Commission from 
March  2018  to  July  2019.20  An  inter-service  group  consisting  of  representatives  of  all 
relevant Commission services guided the evaluation. 

The  evaluation  built  on  11  questions.21  The  analytical  framework  defined  how  the 
implementation  of  marketing  standards  should  have  worked  in  theory  (through  the 
analysis  of  the  intervention  logic)  and  assessed  what  happened  in  practice  through 
standard  and  proven  analytical  tools,  including  triangulation  and  a  mix  of  quantitative 
and qualitative analysis (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis, stakeholder analysis, etc.). 

The  evaluation’s  findings  are  based  on  a  research  and  analysis  programme,  which 
included: 

–  A  review  of  relevant  documentation,  including  the  regulatory  framework, 
international, national and private standards, interpretation questions submitted to 
the Commission and reports from other studies; 

–  Analysis of relevant databases, which included trade data and sectoral production 
data  (COMEXT,  FAO  FISHSTAT22,  EUMOFA23,  Eurostat),  alerts  on  food 
(RASFF),  fisheries  control  data  (EFCA  -  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency) 
and auction data; 

–  An  online  public  consultation  of  12  weeks  designed  to  gather  the  views  of  a 
broader  range  of  stakeholders  on  the  evaluation  questions  in  a  reasonably  high-
level manner, receiving 155 responses; 

18 Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain 
19 https://www.bretagne.bzh/jcms/prod_431540/fr/au-coeur-du-tri-des-produits-de-la-peche-hauturiere  
20 Study: Evaluation of the marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products 
21 See Annex 3 
22  FAO  FISHSTAT  is  the  United  Nations’  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization’s  (FAO’s)  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture statistics 
23  EUMOFA  (European  Market  Observatory  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products)  is  a  market 
intelligence tool developed by the European Commission. 

8 

 
                                                           
–  A  series  of  targeted  consultation  surveys  addressing  the  evaluation  questions  in 
more  depth,  and  with  more  focus  in  certain  areas,  depending  on  the  interests, 
expertise and perspective of the group concerned. These included: 

o  Targeted  consultation  performed in  6 Member States:  Croatia, Denmark, 
France,  Italy,  Netherlands  and  Spain.  The  questionnaires  used  for  these 
targeted  consultations  were  also  disseminated  through  the  Commission’s 
Expert Group, leading to 10 additional answers (Austria (1), Belgium (1), 
Italy (2), Portugal (5) and Sweden (1));  

o  Additional  targeted  stakeholder  interviews:  France  (2),  Poland  (2)  and 

Latvia (1);  

•  An EU-wide survey of competent national authorities (i.e. ministries and 
control  authorities)  to  collect  information  on  enforcement,  related  costs 
and benefits; 

o  Participation in one meeting of the European Commission’s Expert Group 
for  Market  and  Trade  in  Fishery  and  Aquaculture  Products  and  one 
meeting of the Market Advisory Council (MAC);  

o  A  stakeholder  consultation  to  test  preliminary  recommendations  with  a 
selection of operators who had already  contributed to  the data  collection 
phase. 

In total, 259 stakeholders, covering all the supply chain stages and sub-sectors, as well as 
public authorities from 25 Member States, contributed to the evaluation study. 

Figure 5: Number of contributions by Member State 

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

ES IT FR NL DE DK PT BE HR AT PL SI EE BG EL LV SE CZ FI HU RO UK CY IE LT LU SK

The  Commission  services  complemented  the  evaluation  study  with  further  research  on 
aspects related to the demand for sustainable products in the EU market for fishery and 
aquaculture products  and on the  effects  of other standards, based on review of existing 
studies  and  inputs  from  stakeholders,  including  the  Market  Advisory  Council  (MAC). 
(See  for  more  detailed  presentation  of  the  consultation  activities  in  Annex  2  as  well  as 
more insight about the used methods and analytical models in Annex 3.)  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

As  already  mentioned,  the  regulations  defining  the  marketing  standards  framework  for 
fishery and aquaculture products have been in place for decades, and never subject to a 
thorough  evaluation.  Consequently,  it  was  not  possible  to  carry  out  a  comparative 

9 

 
 
 
analysis  before  and  after  their  implementation  and  thus  to  assess  their  impact  on  the 
market of the fishery sector.  

Statistics  do  not  cover  the  period  before  the  establishment  of  the  regulations,  and  the 
absence of intermediary evaluations has not made it possible to analyse the impact of the 
standards on a shorter timeframe, which would have allowed detecting potential impacts. 

To  make  up  for  this  limitation,  the  supporting  evaluation  study  based  its  analysis  on 
triangulation  of  sources  (desk  research,  statistics)  and  information  collected  during  the 
consultation  phase.  Whenever  possible  and  relevant,  comparisons  between  products 
covered and products not covered by marketing standards are provided. 

The scope of the marketing standards framework is wide. The evaluation study assessed 
the performance of the existing regulations in their relevant field of application, but also 
with  regard  to  the  overall  goals  defined  in  the  CMO  Regulation.  This  implied  some 
limitations in terms of input to the data collection, which often focused on the content of 
the  existing  marketing  standards  and  failed  to  address  their  objectives  under  the  CMO 
Regulation,  which would have  required operators to look  at  aspects  beyond the current 
scope of the standards. To cater for this, a second round of consultations was organised at 
the recommendations stage. 

The evaluation was expected to use quantitative evidence in order to answer many of the 
evaluation questions. However, the availability of such data turned out to be limited. 

For  example,  as  authorities  often  combine  controls  of  marketing  standards  with  other 
controls under the EU’s CFP and food rules, the number of infringements detected was 
not  always  strictly  limited  to  marketing  standards.  Similarly,  the  nature  of  the 
infringements  was  unclear,  given  the  lack  of  data  on  infringement  of  freshness/size 
grading or the lack of detail on the infringements detected on canned tuna or preserved 
sardine products. The absence of available data by freshness and size grades at first sale 
raises similar problems.  

As  a  mitigating  measure,  evidence  was  extrapolated  from  a  sample  of  reliable  and 
comparable  data,  and  was  analysed  as  qualitative  rather  than  quantitative  information. 
Moreover,  the  consultations  activities  addressed  issues  of  implementation  and  involved 
collection of primary data from auctions. 

The level of responses received through the different consultations exceeded expectations 
for  the  evaluation  study  and  provided  good  input  for  the  analysis.  While  the  greatest 
number  of  contributions  is  concentrated  in  a  few  Member  States,  these  are  also  the 
countries  with  the  biggest  sector  and  where  operators  are  mostly  concerned  by  the 
marketing standards.  

The  number  of  responses  did  not  make  it  possible  to  single  out  the  view  of  specific 
groups (e.g. SMEs) whilst ensuring statistical representativeness. However, many of the 
industry associations consulted represent businesses of all sizes.  

10 

 
The risk of a self-selection bias is always present in the case of public consultations: the 
answers represent opinions of those who decided to participate. Finally, the robustness of 
the consultations targeting operators subject to the standards is possibly influenced by the 
fact  that  economic  operators  generally  favour  the  status  quo  as  changes  in  legislation 
generally lead to additional costs for industry. 

Notwithstanding the specific limitations mentioned above, which were at least  partially 
compensated by the several consultation activities, the overall availability and reliability 
of data and the approach taken to the evaluation are considered satisfactory. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Relevance 

Question 1: To what extent are the existing marketing standards still relevant? 

Relevance of marketing standards for fresh and chilled products 

Since  intervention  mechanisms  have  been  phased  out  by  the  current  CMO  Regulation, 
the minimum marketing sizes set in the standard for fresh and chilled products are only 
relevant to the extent that they prevent the creation of a market for undersized fish.  

This is not the case for species covered by MCRS, as the MCRS already prevails over the 
minimum marketing size. In the case of species not covered by MCRS, the relevance of 
minimum marketing sizes as opposed to other conservation measures is questionable. For 
species  already  subject  to  total  allowable  catches  (TACs),  minimum  marketing  sizes 
create  an  additional  condition  as  specimen  below  the  minimum  marketing  size,  which 
must be landed, cannot be sold for direct human consumption. Minimum marketing sizes 
remain relevant for imports of fresh and chilled products caught in areas where no MCRS 
has  been  set.  This,  however,  only  accounts  for  5%  of  the  volumes  of  non-EU  landings 
and imports of fresh fishery products for human consumption. 

The  evaluation  study  found  that,  despite  some  deviations  in  implementation  across 
countries,  size  grades  provide  a  common  basis  on  which  most  first  sale  systems  are 
based.  Some  auctions  might  build  a  more  detailed  system,  while  others  (e.g.  in  the 
Mediterranean) might have simpler grading systems that only define “small”, “medium” 
and “large” sizes, with no link to the EU marketing standards.  

Freshness  grades  are  also  generally  used,  although  not  very  rigidly.  As  the  quality  of 
landed fish improved due to technological developments, less fresh products (“B” grade) 
are  seldom  available.  The  “E”  (extra)  grade  is  reserved  for  shorter  trips  (coastal  fleet), 
type of gear (line) or based on the time elapsed between catch and landing (last hauls). 

The organoleptic assessment on which freshness grading is based implies a certain level 
of  subjectivity,  so  that  grading  may  vary  across  auctions.  Vessel  reputation  is  also  a 
common  proxy  to  assess  product  quality.  Often,  including  in  the  case  of  remote 
purchases,  buyers resort  to  physical  checks, when needed through  agents present  at  the 

11 

 
auction.  Beyond  first  sale,  freshness  and  size  grading  lose  their  relevance:  buyer 
requirements prevail and freshness is replaced by shelf-life. 

The  evaluation  study  identified  some  specific  issues  in  terms  of  relevance  of  the 
standards applied to crustaceans, and notably that a large share of the catch is sold peeled 
(standards refer to shells), that grading takes place by number of tails and not individuals 
and that shrimps should not stick to one another. Also, marketing standards do not allow 
selling  detached  crab  claws  (while  they  can  be  kept  on  board  and  landed  under  EU 
conservation rules). 

EU  marketing  standards  constitute  the  only  harmonised  definition  of  product  quality. 
Private standards are commonly used in addition to the EU marketing standards, but they 
cover sustainability issues (e.g. MSC, Friends of the Sea) or processes (e.g. ISO, BRC, 
IFS).  

The evaluation  investigated the relationship  between first sale prices  and  freshness/size 
grades. Prices are primarily determined by supply and demand, depending on a number 
of external factors (e.g. on the one hand seasons, weather and on, the other hand, stocks 
held by trading and processing companies). Given the multiplicity of endogenous factors, 
the  price-setting  process  is  relatively  volatile,  and  it  can  happen  that  fresher/larger 
products can fall temporarily below the price of less fresh/smaller products. In principle, 
however, larger size and better freshness should lead to higher prices. 

Price statistics submitted by auctions during the consultation phase show that landed fish 
is of a relatively homogenous – high – freshness (“A” and “E”) and that this responds to 
a  demand  from  the  supply  chain  for  a  maximum  shelf-life.  Data  confirm  that  as  a  rule 
bigger fish gets higher price. While this might be linked to the process of grading rather 
than the specific grading provided by the marketing standards, marketing standards have 
contributed to generalise grading practices. Conclusions on freshness are less clear.  

In  comparison,  a  very  small  number  of  public  standards  are  used  in  aquaculture,  and 
private standards used in business-to business (B2B) relations have a similar scope to the 
ones in use in fisheries (e.g. sustainability issues, processes). 

A major difference between aquaculture and fishery products is that farmers can manage 
size and quality to fit buyer requirements. While marketing standards have not been laid 
down  for  farmed  products,  common  practices  regarding  quality  requirements  have 
emerged over time (e.g. size grading for trout, seabass and seabream, colour for salmon). 

Concern  over  a  lack  of  a  level  playing  field  in  the  aquaculture  sector,  in  particular 
between EU and non-EU operators, has been raised over the years. Generally, this relates 
to issues not covered by the current marketing standards, and in particular to differences 
in  production  costs  due  to  stricter  environmental  constraints  and  higher  labour  costs. 
Other  issues  of  concern  relate  to  the  lack  of  standardisation  in  terms  used  to  convey 
information on product quality to consumers, e.g. the absence of a common definition for 
the term “superior”. 

12 

 
The canning industry processing tuna and bonito and sardines and sardine-type products 
generally considers EU marketing standards for preserved product as relevant to describe 
the products and aligned to market segmentations. Other operators and authorities raised 
issues of coherence in terms of product designations, but the criteria themselves and the 
product descriptions are not questioned. The need for a standardisation of the content of 
canned food was supported by 88% of respondents to the public consultation, and 79% 
considered that this standardisation should take place at EU level. 

More than half of respondents to the public consultation considered the criteria laid down 
in  the marketing standards for preserved products as rather or very useful,  and that the 
standards ensure harmonisation of trade description and product composition. 

While large-scale retailer might impose other criteria (e.g. organoleptic quality, histamine 
testing,  compliance  with  specific  schemes  (e.g.  MSC,  IFS),  limited  information  was 
collected  as  it  relates  to  B2B  negotiations.  Additional  quality  standards  were  found  in 
only two countries. In France, three private norms and one public ‘professional decision’ 
provide additional definitions and specifications on product weight.  In Austria, national 
law sets additional requirements for solid tuna pack fillets and canned tuna steaks.  

For other processed products, some standards have been established at national level. In 
France, the industry has developed a set of both public and private standards covering a 
fairly wide range of products. Spain has established public national standards for canned 
molluscs and for cooked and frozen mussels, Germany for frozen fish fingers, frozen fish 
fillets  and  some  sauces  used  with  fishery  products  and  Austria  for  frozen  fish  fingers, 
marinated  herring  and  surimi  packs.  Large-scale  retailers  may  also  define  their  own 
standards for processed products. 

The  evaluation  study  and  the  public  consultation  did  not  raise  any  particular  issue 
resulting from the absence of marketing standards for processed products comparable to 
those  currently  defined  for  canned  tuna  and  bonito  and  for  sardines  and  sardine-type 
products. The existence of national standards in the absence of harmonisation at EU level 
has however raised concerns in one case, widely reported in the international press in late 
2017 with regard to the issue of dual food quality, which the Commission committed to 
address.24 Fish fingers were one of the flagship products considered as an example of the 
dual  quality  of  food  products  in  the  EU,  since  the  fish  fingers  produced  by  some  fish 
processors in one EU country and exported to Central and Eastern EU countries, where 
the German standards did not apply, had a lower fish content than those sold in Germany. 
The recent Commission study25 comparing the characteristics of food products sold in the 
EU confirmed that the composition of some fish fingers sold in different groupings of EU 
countries differ. The brand owner responsible for placing these fish fingers on the market 
noted  that  the  need  to  respect  the  German  national  standard  (minimum  fish  content), 
leads to differences across certain countries. 

24 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm  
25 Study: “Results of an EU wide comparison of quality related characteristics of food products”  

13 

 
                                                           
Conclusions on relevance 

Size  and  freshness  criteria  are  considered  relevant  to  define  first  sale  prices  for  fresh 
whole fishery products. Size has the bigger impact, but higher freshness is also rewarded. 
Harmonisation of these criteria is considered beneficial, especially for distance selling. 

The implementation  of the standards remains heterogeneous,  with  auctions either using 
more detailed categories or not using the EU sizes at all. The subjective application of the 
freshness criterion leads to inconsistent implementation of the standards across auctions 
and Member States. In some cases, other proxies are used.  

The freshness/size grading provided in the standards does not necessarily correspond to 
market  segmentation  at  retail  stage.  In  general,  marketing  standards  criteria  become 
irrelevant after first sale. The definition of minimum marketing sizes is also less relevant 
since the CMO establishes MCRS as minimum marketing sizes, except for imports. 

Freshness  and  size  are  relevant  for  aquaculture  products,  but  they  can  be  controlled  to 
meet buyer demand. While the standards in place for fresh fishery products are generally 
not  considered  relevant  for  aquaculture  products,  comparable  shortcomings  have  been 
identified in the absence of standardised definitions for quality terms (e.g. “superior”). 

Criteria for canned sardine and tuna are considered relevant throughout the supply chain 
by stakeholders. Some issues of coherence with trade designations exist, but the criteria 
themselves and the product descriptions are not questioned. 

A few marketing standards were identified at national level (both public and private) for 
processed products not  covered by EU standards. Other standards used by operators go 
beyond the product characteristics covered by the current marketing standards to address 
production methods (e.g. sustainability) and processes rather than product characteristics.  

Effectiveness 

Question 2. To what extent have the current marketing standards met the objectives? 

Contribution of marketing standards to improve the quality of the products in the 
interest of producers, traders and consumers 

Data available on the proportion of size grades at first sale, although very partial, indicate 
a  trend  towards  greater  sizes.  Size  grading  ensures  consistency  and  facilitates  remote 
purchasing as it gives buyers confidence in the size of fish agreed at purchase. 

Unlike  size  grade  information,  data  on  freshness  grades  are  not  routinely  collected  by 
Eurostat or EUMOFA. Data collected from a few auctions do not  give an indication of 
increased  freshness,  but  the  prices  per  freshness  grade  show  that  better  freshness  is 
generally rewarded. Economic logic would suggest that, over time, quality will improve 
if the higher freshness grades are rewarded with higher prices.  

14 

 
The  use  of  other  informal  proxies  (e.g.  vessel  reputation)  and  physical  inspections  to 
assess product quality (through agents in the case of remote purchases) do not undermine 
the  grading  established  according  to  product  size  and  freshness,  which  supports  the 
rewarding of quality and facilitates distance selling. 

Factors hindering the marketing standards from further improving the quality of products 
include the ability to apply effective controls throughout the system. Stakeholders report 
a difference between the control of marketing standards for fresh and preserved products. 
The  canning  industry  reports  regular  (sanitary)  control  visits  and  the  requirement  to 
report regular batch testing results to control authorities. Implementation is aided by the 
canning  sector  being  characterised  by  a  small  number  of  large-scale  operators  and  the 
fact that the products retain the same quality criteria throughout the chain. 

By contrast, fresh products may change hands multiple times and may alter in terms of 
size and freshness along the chain. Control of marketing standards for fresh products is 
also  frequently  combined  with  other  control  requirements.  While  these  are  generally 
coherent with marketing standards, the focus may often be on compliance with minimum 
sizes  rather  than  ensuring  the  correct  product  grading.  This  is  reflected  in  the 
infringements reported by stakeholders, which mostly related to other regulations, and in 
the  feedback  from  control  authorities,  which  mostly  refers  to  infringements  related  to 
minimum sizes or freshness rather than grading. Despite the detailed criteria definition in 
the regulation, freshness grading is inevitably more subjective and it is more challenging 
to control it effectively in the absence of laboratory controls than size grading. 

Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 require that each MS name an expert 
to ensure that grading of size and quality is in line with the Regulation and that MS carry 
out controls to see these are in place. There is no evidence that these experts have been 
appointed, also in connection with limited staff resources in control authorities and a lack 
of  dedicated  staff.  This  might  have  played  a  role  in  the  lack  of  harmonised 
implementation of the marketing standards and associated controls across the EU. 

While  no  quantitative  evidence  is  available  to  illustrate  quality  improvements,  most 
Member States consider that marketing standards have contributed to improving seafood 
quality  (16  countries  completely  or  somewhat  agree,  4  disagree  and  1  is  neutral).  The 
public  consultation  also  showed  that  most  respondents  consider  fresh  seafood  to  be  of 
good quality in their country (72% - 6.5% disagree).  

Stakeholders  consider  that  the  quality  of  landed  fish  has  improved  for  a  variety  of 
technical and economic reasons (i.e. increased availability and use of ice, improved on-
board handling and storage, demand for better quality from buyers and higher prices for 
better quality). Although EU marketing standards are not implemented consistently, they 
are  among  the  criteria  used  to  assess  fish  quality  at  first  sale.  Since  better  quality  is 
rewarded  by  better  prices,  EU  marketing  standards  indirectly  contribute  to  encourage 
quality improvements and act as a basis of information for first-hand buyers, particularly 
in situations such as remote purchasing where direct inspection does not occur.  

15 

 
Product grading is rarely used further down the supply chain, and not used  at all at the 
level of the consumer. For preserved products, EU marketing standards remain important 
at consumer level as the requirements are carried forward to consumer product labelling. 

Contribution of marketing standards to enable the EU market to be  supplied with 
sustainable products 

Marketing standards have not been revised since the CMO Regulation (2013) introduced 
for them the objective of enabling the market  to  be supplied with  sustainable products. 
Moreover, the concept of sustainable products has not been further defined in the CMO 
Regulation.  That  said,  the  marketing  standards  for  fresh  products  impose  a  minimum 
product  size  to  support  the  sustainable  management  of  fish  stocks.  The  marketing 
standards for preserved products do not contain any sustainability requirement at all. 

For  fresh products,  imports account for two thirds of seafood  consumed in the EU  and 
only 1-3% of imports of non-processed imports are covered by the marketing standards 
that impose a minimum product size.  

Within the EU, the status of European fish stocks has improved overall in recent  years. 
For example, in the Northern Atlantic and adjacent areas pressure on fish stocks shows 
an overall downward trend. As a result, fish stocks continue to rebuild and the average 
biomass in these areas is now 36% higher than in 200326. The EU employs a variety of 
fisheries  management  tools,  including  conservation  measures  (e.g.  MCRS)  and  total 
allowable catch (TAC). Marketing standards reinforce the implementation of MCRS by 
ensuring that species below MCRS cannot be sold for human consumption.  

For species where minimum marketing sizes have been established, but not MCRS, the 
sustainability of these stocks is primarily ensured by other means (e.g. TACs, technical 
measures). While preventing the sale of small fish supports stock management measures, 
the impact of minimum sizes on sustainability can also be complex to determine.   

Operators and national authorities can set more stringent sizes than minimum marketing 
sizes. One example of this relates to the North Sea brown shrimp fishery, for which there 
is  no MCRS, but  there is  a marketing standard  with  two size grades (minimum 6.8mm 
carapace  length  for  size  1,  minimum  6.5mm  for  size  2).  In  its  scientific  advice  from 
2014,27  the  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES)  found  that 
‘shrimps are being harvested at a sub-optimal (too low) average size’. The management 
plan developed in  the context  of a private certification scheme by Danish, German and 
Dutch  shrimp  producers  in  2017  committed  to  only  landing  shrimp  size  1.  While  the 
larger  minimum  size  set  by  the  plan  could  be  considered  more  precautionary,  the 

26 Commission Communication on the State of Play of the CFP - COM(2019) 274 final 

27 
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/Special%20Requests/Germany_NL_Cr
angon_advice.pdf 

16 

 
                                                           
scientific advice does not provide a recommendation in this sense. Moreover, agreements 
within the industry that limit supply (e.g. minimum sizes) may only take place within the 
boundaries  of  competition  provisions  (including  CMO  rules).  The  setting  of  a  more 
stringent  minimum  size by the industry  for all vessels catching  crangon  shrimps in  the 
North  Sea  seeking  certification  under  a  private  scheme  may  raise  issues  from  a 
competition viewpoint in view of its potential restrictive effects on competition. 

A  counter  argument  is  that  in  helping  to  reward  larger  size  grades,  the  EU  marketing 
standards  create  a  greater  incentive  to  high-grade  (discard  smaller  sizes).  High  grading 
was prohibited in 2010 and discarding is being phased out through the landing obligation 
so  this  is  being  addressed  through  regulation.  However,  removing  only  the  largest  and 
most  mature  and  fecund  specimens  from  a  stock  can  still  negatively  impact  that  stock. 
One  example  is  Baltic  cod,  where  fewer  large  individuals  are  present  due  to  increased 
selectivity by trawls.28 

Overall, the role of EU marketing standards in  enabling the market to be supplied with 
sustainable products is currently marginal and their impact is limited as they establish no 
further criterion beyond the confirmation of minimum conservation sizes. 

Other market-driven initiatives, such as ecolabels, have been set up to inform the market 
and  consumers  about  product  sustainability.  Market  demand  for  sustainability 
information  is  confirmed  by  the  increasing  presence  of  voluntary  allegations  informing 
consumers on product sustainability over the past decade, as the figure below shows.29 

Figure 6: Evolution of voluntary allegations used on FAPs 

28  Svedäng  H.,  &  Hornborg  S.  (2014). Selective  fishing  induces  density‐ dependent  growth. Nature 
Communication, 5:4152   
29 Study on "Assessment of voluntary claims on fishery and aquaculture products (FAPS)"  

17 

 
                                                           
25,00%

20,00%

15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%

Health & nutrition claims

Taste, product quality claim

Environmental sustainability
claim

Other/unclassified claims

Free of preservatives,
colourings, flavourings, etc.
claim

Animal welfare and animal
health claim

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Other  studies  also  indicate  that  the  demand  for  ecolabels  is  often  retail  driven:  private 
certifications  are  primarily  used  as  an  assurance  mechanism  and  therefore  have  been 
incorporated into purchasing decisions and sourcing policies.30 That private certifications 
are  primarily  a  B2B  tool  is  also  confirmed  by  information  provided  by  the  retailers 
themselves,  whom  can  decide  to  procure  certified  products  but  not  display  the 
certification  logo  to  the  consumer  in  order  not  to  add  confusion  and  to  avoid  paying 
royalty fees.31 

Whether these private tools enable the market to be supplied with sustainable products is 
also  difficult  to  assess.  The MSC  global impacts report32  for instance shows that while 
certification might have an impact on biomass in other regions of the world, this was not 
the  case  in  Europe,  where  both  MSC-certified  and  non-MSC  certified  stocks  show  a 
positive trend, suggesting that other factors such as EU regulations are having a positive 
impact on the sustainability of fish stocks. 

Figure 7: Status of stock biomass for MSC and non-MSC certified stocks in the EU 2000 
and 2016 

30 "Feasibility report on options for an EU ecolabel scheme for fishery and aquaculture products"  
31 http://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/84590/Annex+2+-+Stakeholders+survey.pdf  
32 
reports/msc-global-impacts-report-2017-interactive.pdf?sfvrsn=e95dea5d_16 

https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/what-we-are-doing/global-impact-

18 

 
 
                                                           
Source: MSC 

Moreover,  given  the  voluntary  nature  of  these  private  tools,  a  call  on  product 
sustainability  can  only  be  made  on  the  products  that  have  been  subject  to  assessment. 
This is however only a relatively small share of worldwide production.33  

Finally,  submissions  by  members  of  the  Market  Advisory  Council  also  note  that  the 
variety of private certifications, each with its own requirements, creates confusions over 
what is actually sustainable. 

Results  of  the  survey  of  national  authorities  are  coherent  with  the  above  analysis:  17 
national authorities fully or partly agreed that EU marketing standards have contributed 
to  the  sustainability  of  the  fishery  products  marketed  in  the  EU.  Some  pointed  out 
however that other regulations, including the CFP regulation are more important.  

The  current  framework  for  marketing  standards  does  neither  define  the  concept  of 
sustainable products  nor the criteria for an  assessment  of product  sustainability.  It  only 
makes a marginal contribution to the objective of “enabling the market to be supplied by 
sustainable products” as their product coverage is very limited (imports account for two 
thirds of seafood in the EU market, but only a minority are subject to  minimum sizes). 
For EU production, in the few instances where there are minimum marketing standards 
for  products  without  MCRS,  although  some  sustainability  benefit  can  be  assumed,  the 
impact of marketing standards is very limited compared to other CFP measures. There is 
no tool to pass on information on environmental sustainability such as e.g. stock status, 
let alone any information on social sustainability, and there is no common definition of 
what  these  mean.  During  the  consultation  on  preliminary  recommendations,  83%  of 
respondents  declared  that  their  clients  included  products’  specifications  related  to 
sustainability, mostly through private certifications, such as MSC or ASC. 

33  About  14%  of  wild  catches  and  6%  of  farmed  products  worldwide  were  certified  in  2015, 
https://www.iisd.org/ssi/standards-and-the-blue-economy/  

19 

 
 
                                                           
Contribution  of  marketing  standards  to  release  the  full  potential  of  the  internal 
market based on fair competition  

In 2016, 31% of the products covered by EU marketing standards for fresh products were 
exchanged  cross-border  within  the  EU,  compared  to  27%  in  2002.  In  comparison,  this 
ratio increased from 29% to 37% for all fishery and aquaculture species, and from 47% 
to  52%  for  the  main  aquaculture  products  (salmon,  seabass  and  seabream).  Therefore, 
intra-EU exchanges increased for all products and not specifically for products covered 
by marketing standards. 

Figure 8: Share of non-processed products exchanged within the EU (volume) 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Species covered by Marketing Standards
All fishery and aquaculture species
Main aquaculture species (salmon, seabass, seabream)

Source: COMEXT and EUROSTAT  

The share of preserved tunas, bonitos and sardines and sardine-type products out of total 
supply of these products grew from 19% in 2001 to 23% in 2016. Over the same period, 
the  share  of  prepared  and  preserved  products  exchanged  within  the  EU  out  of  their 
supply grew from 21% to 34%. Intra-EU exchanges have increased more for all prepared 
and preserved products than for products covered by EU marketing standards. 

Figure 9: Share of prepared and preserved products exchanged within the EU (volume) 

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Prepared and preserved tuna and sardines

All prepared and preserved fish

Source: COMEXT and FISHSTAT  

20 

 
 
 
In theory, the EU legal framework ensures that products marketed in the EU follow the 
same rules, creating equal opportunities for operators to compete. 16 of the 19 national 
authorities  responding  to  the  question  fully  or  partly  agree  that  the  EU  marketing 
standards have contributed to fairness and transparency in the internal market. 

Stakeholders  also  agree  that  the  marketing  standards  safeguard  a  level  playing  field, 
facilitating  fair  competition,  both  across  Member  States  and  scales  of  enterprise  as  the 
standards  do  not  place  significant  additional  costs  on  operators.  However,  for  fresh 
products,  the  ability  of  marketing  standards  to  facilitate  market  activities  based  on  fair 
competition  is  clearly  limited  by  inconsistent  implementation  and  lack  of  enforcement, 
even though non-compliance does not give operators any competitive advantage.  

The  existence  of  different  MCRS  for  the  same  species  raises  issues  in  terms  of  level 
playing  field.  While  these  differences  may  have  biological  grounds,  they  work  against 
the harmonisation pursued by marketing standards. The risk is increased by the fact that 
Member States can introduce higher MCRSs. One example was specifically mentioned in 
reply  to  the  public  consultation.  In  2018,  Belgium  introduced  a  bigger  landing  size 
(25cm)  for  sole,  compared  to  the  MCRS  of  24cm.  The  respondent  to  the  public 
consultation noted that operators landing in the Netherlands can continue selling sole of 
24cm, while in Belgium both the national MCRS of 25cm and the minimum marketing 
size are imposed. This exemplifies how national measures can reduce the harmonisation 
across the internal market intended by the marketing standards. Such measures are also at 
risk of being incompatible with EU competition rules. 

EU  marketing  standards  for  preserved  products  are  enforced  more  consistently,  by  the 
very nature of the criteria defined in the standards. Nevertheless, feedback from national 
authorities  shows  that  control  procedures  differ  among  MS  and  that  some  provisions 
could lead to misinterpretation or discrepancies among operators or Member States (e.g. 
scope of the regulation for sardine-type products, application of commercial designations 
for canned tuna and bonito). One example of lack of harmonisation was raised by Cyprus 
and discussed within the European Commission’s expert  group  for market  and trade in 
fishery and aquaculture products:34 the EU standard for canned tuna and bonito does not, 
unlike the Codex standard, regulate the use of the term “white”, leaving Member States 
to do so. While the absence of a harmonised approach at EU level does not necessarily 
undermine  fair  competition  or  constitute  a  barrier  to  trade  within  the  EU,  it  requires 
strengthened controls to ensure that the regulatory framework is respected. 

Marketing  standards  are  generally  considered  to  contribute  to  market  transparency  as 
criteria are widely known and relevant for business activities, but they have no impact on 
cross-border  exchanges.  Inconsistent  implementation  and,  more  importantly,  the  co-

34 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=366&La
ng=EN  

21 

 
                                                           
existence of different MCRS, can have a negative impact on the level playing field within 
the EU, as can lack of harmonisation for preserved products. 

Contribution of marketing standards to the profitability of production 

The EU fleet’s economic performance has improved significantly in recent years with a 
substantial increase in gross value added. The 2018 Annual Economic Report identified 
in lower fuel prices, increased fishing opportunities and higher average prices the triggers 
for the overall economic improvement.35 Prices have overall increased between 2000 and 
2016 for all landings, except tuna and tuna-like species. Marketing standards are assessed 
to  have  indirectly  contributed  to  improved  returns  for  fresh  fish  by  providing  common 
criteria to define quality, although they are not implemented consistently across the EU.  

Overall, the economic performance of the processing sector has slightly deteriorated over 
the past decade, partly due to increase in prices of raw material.36 As raw material is to a 
large extent imported frozen from third countries, the increase in prices is unlikely to be 
related  to  EU  marketing  standards.  On  the  contrary,  marketing  standards  for  preserved 
products  may  have  helped  to  avoid  that  competition  takes  place  to  the  detriment  of 
product quality by ensuring uniform quality requirements for EU and imported products. 

Only a few national authorities agree that marketing standards improve profitability (10 
respondents  out  of  the  17  responding  to  this  question).  By  contrast,  feedback  gathered 
from operators suggests that the standards help to establish a clear link between quality 
and  price  and  this  encourages  vessel  owners  to  spend  more  time  on  handling  and 
presentation as it is rewarded with higher prices. For preserved goods, any impact of the 
marketing standards on profitability is difficult to disaggregate from other factors, such 
as variation in raw material costs. 

Contribution of marketing standards to ensure a level playing field between EU and 
non-EU products 

Imports  of  fresh  products  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards  only  represent  1-3%  of 
total  imports  of  non-processed  products  and  so  the  marketing  standards’  impact  on  the 
level playing field between EU and non-EU products can only be limited. For imports of 
fresh  products  not  sold  through  auctions,  specific  provisions  apply  but  no  evidence  of 
their impact is available.  

Imports of preserved products covered by marketing standards are estimated to represent 
about half of all EU imports of preserved and prepared products so the potential impact 
of marketing standards on the level playing field with non-EU products is significant, as 
far as product  quality is  concerned.  Indeed, by setting e.g. minimum  fish content rules, 
the  standards  have  avoided  that  competition  takes  place  to  the  detriment  of  product 

35 The 2018 Annual Economic Reports on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 18-07) 
36 The economic performance of the EU fish processing sector 2017 (STECF-17-16) 

22 

 
                                                           
quality.  However,  the  share  of  imported  processed  fish  products  not  covered  by 
marketing standards has increased over time. 

National  authorities  hold  divergent  views  over  whether  the  standards  contribute  to 
ensuring  a  level  playing  field  between  EU  and  non-EU  products.  This  reflects  the  fact 
that a large share of imports is not covered by EU marketing standards. 

The  Market  Advisory  Council  considers  that  more  should  be  done  to  ensure  a  level 
playing  field  between  EU  and  imported  products,  including  e.g.  from  a  social 
perspective. Control  and enforcement  are also  regarded  as an  essential tool  to  maintain 
the level playing field. The canning industry submitted a diverging view, considering the 
standards  in  their  current  form  fit  for  purpose.  However,  actions  launched  by  the  main 
canning operators reveal that the current situation does not help to ensure a level playing 
field  beyond  quality  for  them  either,37  unless  aspects  such  as  sustainability  and  social 
conditions are covered.  

The CMO regulation seeks to ensure a level playing field between EU and third country 
producers. In their current form and scope, the marketing standards have a very limited 
impact and are not sufficient to deliver a level playing field. 

Contribution of marketing standards to avoid fraudulent practices and misleading 
consumers in the trade description of preserved products 

Preserved products covered by marketing standards were involved in a negligible number 
of  adulteration/fraud  (3)  or  mislabelling  (3)  cases  notified  through  the  Rapid  Alert 
System  for  Food  and  Feed  (RASFF).  The  ability  to  enforce  trade  description 
requirements is essential and overall, Member States have the requisite control systems in 
place  to  ensure  generally  acceptable  levels  of  compliance.38  However,  control  of 
marketing  standards  is  not  consistent  and  standards  are  a  lower  priority  to  control 
agencies than e.g. catch legality and food safety.   

Although  actual  fraudulent  practices  seem  limited,  some  internal  inconsistencies  of  the 
standards on preserved products could be misleading for consumers.  

The standard for sardine and sardine-type products lists the species that can be used for 
sardine-type  products.  However,  it  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  the  provisions  of  the 
standard  apply  to  those  products.  It  could  be  misleading  for  consumers  if  certain 
minimum  weight  requirements  and  definitions  for  culinary  preparations  apply  to 
preserved sardines but not to canned brisling sardines for instance.  

37 
http://www.anfaco.es/es/categorias.php?var1=Noticias&var2=Noticias&var3=&nar1=718&nar2=718&nar
3=1140&vez=2&metatitle=Noticias+Presentaci%F3n+oficial+del+observatorio+de++trazabilidad&pagina
=1  
38 COM (2018) 627 final  - Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council On 
the  overall  operation  of  official  controls  performed  in  Member  States  (2014-2016)  to  ensure  the 
verification of compliance with food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules 

23 

 
                                                           
The trade descriptions used in the standard for canned tuna and bonito might also differ 
from  national  trade  designations  and  hence  risk  misleading  consumers.  For  instance, 
national rules on the designation of canned products (but also of non-prepared/preserved 
products)  define  that  Thunnus  alalunga  should  be  called  “bonito  del  norte”.  The  EU 
standard for canned tuna and bonito defines Thunnus alalunga as a tuna product, which 
cannot  be  called  “bonito”.  While  the  EU  standards  allows  some  exceptions  based  on 
established  trade  usage,  other  species  considered  of  lesser  quality  can  also  be  sold  as 
to  product 
risk  of  misleading 
canned  bonito,  with 
quality/characteristics. This issue also extends to other species that can be called bonito 
(e.g. Sarda sarda), and other countries. For example, in Poland the term “bonito” is used 
for a tuna species, while bonito species (Sarda spp) are named “pelamida.”  

consumers 

the 

as 

The  use  of  the  term  “white”  for  Thunnus  alalunga,  in  some  Member  States  but  not  in 
others also risks jeopardising consumer protection across the EU.  

These cases show a lack of harmonisation in the trade designations of products covered 
by  the  standards,  but  also  with  the  same  product,  sold  under  a  different  form,  that 
consumers  would  buy  in  the  same  country.  The  fact  that  the  same  fish  would  change 
name according to how it is presented could, in the absence of an established tradition, 
mislead EU consumers.  

A  further  risk  of  misleading  EU  consumers  comes  from  the  possibility  under  the  EU 
marketing standards to mix tuna or bonito with other fish species in certain products. The 
standard  includes  no  provision  on  informing  consumers  that  the  product  is  not  fully 
composed of tuna or bonito. 

24 

 
 
 
EQ3. To what extent has the implementation of marketing standards caused unexpected 
or unintended effects? 

Post-harvest loss & food waste 

The EU marketing standards have the potential for contrasting impacts on food waste: (a) 
by setting a minimum standard to enter the market, waste may increase; and (b) by better 
defining  and  rewarding  quality,  less  would  be  lost  through  spoilage.  Assessing  these 
potential impacts is limited by the fact that data on food loss is not routinely collated and 
there  is  a  variety  of  approaches  to  quantifying  food  waste  so  trends  cannot  be  readily 
identified. Overall the available data show no clear trend in relation to food waste and the 
information is generally not disaggregated by food sector.  

The  FAO  estimated  the  extent  of  food  losses  and  waste  in  2011.39  The  figure  below 
shows that the proportion of food loss and waste in the seafood sector in Europe is below 
other industrialised regions (North  America and  Industrialised Asia), mainly due to  the 
lower  waste  levels  at  the  fisheries,  post-catch  and  distribution  stages.  Marketing 
standards  may  have  contributed  to  this  as  if  the  market  defines  and  rewards  quality,  it 
pays operators to take care of the product at each supply chain stage.  

Figure 10: % of fish and seafood catches lost or wasted at each stage per region 

Source: FAO, 2011 

Under the  Landing  Obligation,  fish that does not  conform to  minimum  sizes cannot be 
sold  for  direct  human  consumption,  which  can  result  in  food  waste.  No  stakeholders 
suggested that marketing standards had resulted in more food waste and several national 
authorities indicated that products below minimum sizes are directed to animal feed, fish 
meal  and pet  food. This suggests that the marketing standards may  result in  some food 
being re-directed to non-food chains, which sits within the UN definition of food waste 
and  in  the  definition  used  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  in  its  special  report  on 
Combating Food Waste. 

39 http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf   

25 

 
 
                                                           
Studies performed in view of the application of the Landing Obligation show that these 
industrial  outlets  are  not  adequate  to  receive  the  level  of  landings  of  fish  under  the 
minimum  size  the  policy  intends  to  achieve  (i.e.  minimise  them),  as  industrial  uses 
require  large  volumes  of  regular,  standardised  supply.40  So,  while  the  standards  do 
incentivise  quality  improvements  to  avoid  raw  material  entering  these  lower-value  end 
markets, more could be done to ensure as much products enter the human consumption 
market as possible, in line with the EU’s Circular Economy Strategy. In its special report 
on  Combating  Food  Waste,41  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  recommended  that  the 
Commission should encourage further exploitation  of existing possibilities for donation 
and consider how to facilitate donation in other policy areas. Products that do not meet 
the minimum size requirements are a candidate area where donations could be facilitated, 
since they are fit for human consumption. 

Over  and  above  the  objectives  laid  down  in  the  CMO  Regulations,  national  authorities 
consider  the  existence  of  marketing  standards  improved  quality  and  traceability  to  the 
benefit of EU consumers, in turn potentially leading to increased fish consumption. 

Consumer perceptions of seafood (understanding and confidence in the information 
related to the marketing standards) 

A 2018 Eurobarometer report on consumer habits on seafood found that at an EU level, 
83%  of  seafood  consumers  express  trust  in  mandatory  information,  while  77%  trust 
voluntary  information  (provided  by  the  brand  or  the  seller).42  Mariani  et  al  (201543) 
undertook the largest seafood authenticity investigation conducted to date and noted that 
two  findings  indicated  that  the  control  and  traceability  systems  across  the  EU  were 
reducing  seafood  fraud:  (a)  overall  levels  had  declined  since  previous  studies  in 
2008/2010 and (b) mislabelling rates were low compared to rates reported in the US. The 
authors  concluded  that  as  these  findings  were  consistent  across  countries,  “a  common, 
transnational  set  of  factors  is  currently  at  play  in  regulating  the  European  market”  and 
“by  contrast  US  regulations  on  food  labelling  are  less  detailed,  often  non-binding,  and 
inconsistent.” This analysis highlights the importance of the EU’s regulatory framework 
for  food,  in  particular  food  labelling  and  traceability,  but  also  marketing  standards,  in 
contributing  to  harmonization  across  the  EU  and  to  a  culture  of  compliance  despite 
national differences and cultures. 

40 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/landing-obligation-in-practice_en  
41 European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 2016/34 “Combating Food Waste:  an opportunity for  the 
EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain”  
42 2018 Eurobarometer on “EU consumer habits regarding fishery and aquaculture products”  
43  Mariani  S  et  al.  (2015)  “Low  mislabeling  rates  indicate  marked  improvements  in  European  seafood 
market operations” Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 13:536–540. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Marketing standards as a technical barrier to trade 

The  EU  is  the  biggest  importer  of  seafood  globally.  The  EU  regulations  on  marketing 
standards operate at  the  product  level  and it is  at  this level  that a  de facto trade barrier 
could occur as a result of the regulations. The total imports of fresh fish have increased 
slightly  since  2002.  The  imports  showing  the  highest  growth  are  in  the  prepared  and 
preserved category, including imports of preserved products covered by the standards. 

There is no indication that trade barriers exist and, as imports of canned tuna and sardine 
as well as imports of fresh fish from the main third countries supplying products under 
the standards have grown, there is no indication that the EU market regulations create a 
de facto trade barrier. 

Unfair practices in the supply chain / antitrust policy 

The  consultation  phase  identified  only  one  example  of  possible  unfair  practice, 
mentioned by the South West Waters Advisory Council (SWWAC) and reiterated by the 
Market Advisory Council (MAC).  

Marketing species other than Thunnus alalunga (e.g. Auxis spp) as “bonito” might have 
negative  effects  on  consumers  due  to  risks  of  associating  them  with  the  more  valuable 
Thunnus alalunga (“bonito del norte”). The practice might also lead to unfair competition 
with producers of Thunnus alalunga as these products are sold at a much lower price.  

To  assess  what  impact  the  use  of  Auxis  species  for  canned  bonitos  might  have  on  fair 
competition,  the  evaluation  relied  on  the  findings  of  a  2008  study  on  the  tuna  supply 
chain44. Albacore (Thunnus alalunga), Yellowfin tuna and skipjack are the species most 
used  by  the  canning  industry,  while  Auxis  species  account  for  a  marginal  share  of 
landings of tuna and bonito species (2% worldwide) and are scarcely used by the canning 
industry. Prices are the consequence of global supply and demand. 

Looking  at  first  sale  prices  of  Thunnus  alalunga  in  the  EU  over  the  last  decade,  the 
evaluation confirms a clear correlation between volumes landed and prices and noted that 
while the term “bonito” might mislead consumers in Spain, the impact on prices and fair 
competition for EU producers is marginal. 

44  Study  "Etude  sectorielle  de  la  filière  thonière  européenne"  (Framework  Contract  FISH/2006/20  - 
Specific contract 16) 

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 11: Volume and prices of Thunnus alalunga between 2006 and 2017 (EU) 

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Volume (tonnes)

Price (Eur/tonne)

Source: EUROSTAT 

No antitrust issues linked to EU marketing standards were reported in the context of the 
evaluation.  Contrary  to  EU  marketing  standards,  which  are  publicly  set,  private 
alternatives involving agreements among operators on the volumes and characteristics of 
market supply might be at risk of raising competition issues. The risk might increase in 
cases  of  agreements  that  do  not  occur  within  individual  recognised  producer 
organisations, on which the EU Court of Justice concluded that they cannot be exempted 
from  the  application  of  competition  rules.45  The  development  of  private  instruments 
complementing  marketing  standards  might  increase  the  risk  of  unintended,  restrictive 
effects  on  competition.  The  case  of  the  minimum  size  for  crangon  shrimps  agreed 
between  operators  from  several  countries  in  the  framework  of  a  private  certification 
exemplifies this  risk, particularly in  the absence of an explicit scientific advice to set  a 
minimum size above the one defined by the EU marketing standards. 

Conclusions on effectiveness 

There is broad consensus that the quality of landed fish has improved due to a variety of 
technical  and  economic  reasons.  There  is  also  evidence  that  higher  freshness  and  size 
grades are rewarded with better prices. By making grading mandatory, the EU marketing 
standards  have  indirectly  contributed  to  improving  quality  at  first  sale.  However, 
inconsistent  and  partial  implementation  limits  their  potential  impact.  The  marketing 
standards do provide a minimum level of information to buyers, particularly in situations 
such as remote purchasing, but  buyers of fresh  product  still use direct  inspection along 
with other information such as vessel reputation. The lack of harmonised implementation 
obliges remote buyers to know the specific interpretation that a given auction makes of 
the  different  grades.  This  can  limit  the  extent  to  which  remote  purchase  will  develop 

45  Judgment  of  the  Court  (Grand  Chamber)  of  14  November  2017,  APVE  and  others,  Case  C-671/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:860 

28 

 
 
                                                           
across the internal market, in particular in the case of cross-border transactions, and the 
capacity of smaller operators or operators entering the market to purchase cross-border. 

Despite growing market demand, the current marketing standards cannot deliver on their 
objective  under  the  CMO  Regulation  of  “enabling  the  EU  market  to  be  supplied  with 
sustainable products” as (a) the concept of a sustainable product and underlying criteria 
are  not  defined  in  the  Regulation,  (b)  minimum  size  is  a  very  limited  part  of 
sustainability  and  (c)  minimum  sizes  only  apply  to  a  small  (decreasing)  share  of  the 
supply to the EU market. 

The contribution of the marketing standards for fresh products to a level playing field for 
producers  and  buyers  is  restricted  by  the  inconsistent  implementation  and  their 
application at first sale only. Co-existing different MCRS (across areas and countries) for 
the same product also reduce the harmonisation within the internal market, and hence the 
level  playing field.  As only 1-3% of imports of non-processed products  are covered by 
the  marketing  standards  for  fresh  products,  their  impact  on  the  level  playing  field  with 
non-EU products can only be limited.  

On  the  other  hand,  preserved  tuna  and  bonito  and  sardines  and  sardine-type  products 
represent  close  to  half  of  the  imports  of  processed  FAPs.  The  harmonisation  of  the 
quality criteria has therefore a positive impact on the level playing field between EU and 
imported products. Nonetheless, this level playing field is missing on other aspects such 
as sustainability and social aspects. 

The  impact  of  the  standards  on  profitability  is  indirect  and  not  quantifiable.  Promoting 
improved  quality  at  first  sale  for  fresh  fish  that  is  rewarded  with  higher  prices  should 
mean  increased  profitability  and  therefore  some  positive  contribution  can  be  assumed. 
For  preserved  products,  the  marketing  standards  help  to  reduce  unfair  competition  by 
lower-quality products. 

The results of the public consultation concur with these conclusions.  When asked about 
the impacts of EU marketing standards, respondents agreed most with ‘harmonisation of 
trade  description  and  composition  provision  for  preserved  products’  and  ‘protect 
consumers  against  the  marketing  of  products  unfit  for  consumption’.  Then  came 
‘improve  quality’,  ‘avoid  fraudulent  practices’  and  ‘fair  competition  in  the  EU’.  The 
opinion of respondents on sustainability of seafood products was more variable and the 
contributions that respondents agreed the least with were ‘level playing field between EU 
and non-EU products’ and ‘profitability of EU production.’ 

29 

 
 
 
Figure 12: Contributions of the marketing standards 

Source: Public consultation, N=155 

In relation to the objective of ‘releasing the full potential of the internal market’, intra-EU 
exchanges  increased  for  all  FAPs.  Therefore,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  marketing 
standards contributed to increased exchanges within the EU. 

There  is  little  evidence  of  unexpected  or  unintended  effects  of  the  standards.  Together 
with other EU rules, the standards have contributed to EU efforts to provide consumers 
with  safe food as well as better information,  although some provisions (analysed under 
the coherence criterion) might have the opposite effect of misleading consumers. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  EU  marketing  standards  have  increased  or  reduced  food 
waste. Marketing standards provide an incentive to maintain the highest possible quality. 
While products below the minimum size can be directed to non-food markets, this should 
be avoided as much as possible as per the EU circular economy strategy.  

Seafood  imports  have  risen  over  the  period  of  implementation  of  the  marketing 
standards, including for products under the marketing standards regulations. There is no 
indication that the EU marketing standards regulations create a de facto trade barrier. 

There is no evidence either that EU marketing standards have resulted in unfair practices 
or issues with antitrust policy. While the evaluation did not look into possible unintended 
effects of private standards, recent case law indicates that agreements on e.g. minimum 
sizes  outside  individual  producer  organisations  should  be  subject  to  competition  rules. 
This is particularly relevant in the case of private standards.  

30 

 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

Question  4:  To  what  extent  are  the  incurred  costs  justifiable  and  proportionate  to  the 
benefits achieved? 

Costs of controls 

Data collected through the survey of national authorities on full-time equivalents (FTEs) 
dedicated to control activities rarely allows to clearly isolate costs specifically related to 
marketing  standards.  Indeed,  those  controls  are  fairly  integrated  with  other  controls 
(CFP,  food  safety).  As  a  result,  many  authorities  did  not  provide  information  on  the 
amount of resources spent  on controlling marketing standards or provided a number of 
FTEs  that  clearly  encompasses  a  broader  perimeter  of  control  than  just  marketing 
standards. 

Figure 13: Combination of marketing standards controls with other types of controls 

Standards not controlled

Never combined

Sometimes combined

Always combined

No response

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nb of MS 

Source: NA survey, N=25 

The  median  duration  of  a  control  is  1  hour,  but  the  cost  of  control  appears  more 
dependent  on  the  organisational  set-up  (e.g.  number  of  authorities  involved,  combined 
controls  or  not)  than  the  actual  duration  of  on-the-spot  controls.  The  time  spent 
inspecting EU marketing can be considered marginal in comparison to other controls. 

While it is hard to isolate precise data on marketing standards, it is possible to estimate 
an order of magnitude of those costs, based on a small sample of MS. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  1:  Estimated  specific  time  costs  incurred  by  public  authorities  for  the  control  of 
EU marketing standards 

MS 1 and 2 
MS 3 
MS 4 
MS 5 
MS 6 
MS 7 

No of FTEs  Yearly FTE cost46  Estimated control costs / year 
0 
5 
2 
7 
8 
10 

0 € 
379 152 € 
142 833 € 
175 428 € 
285 043 € 
364 021 € 

- 
75 830 € 
71 416 € 
58 476 € 
47 507 € 
36 370 € 

Source: NA survey, Eurostat  

Based  on  the  data  collected  the  estimated  cost  per  year  for  the  control  of  marketing 
standards ranges from 0 to about 360.000 € per year, excluding costs on equipment (e.g. 
laptops, phones cameras, etc.), which are supposed common with other controls. Controls 
of preserved products subject to the standards might involve laboratory tests, otherwise 
little information on the controls performed is available. Feedback suggests that controls 
mainly focus on minimum requirements (minimum sizes/freshness) and labelling. 

Table  2:  Estimated  control  costs  per  value  and  volumes  of  products  covered  by  EU 
marketing standards 

MS 

Costs 
/  year 
(k€) 

of 
tunas 
sardines 
and 

Volumes 
canned 
and 
produced 
imported (t) 

Value of canned 
tunas 
and 
sardines 
produced 
imported (k€) 

and 

Landings 
covered 
marketing 
standards (t) 

by 

by 

Landings 
covered 
marketing 
standards 
(k€) 

of 
/ 
of 

Cost 
control 
value 
products 
covered  by 
MKTS (%) 

of 

of 

Cost 
control 
(€/kg 
product 
covered  by 
MKTS) 

MS1 & 2 

0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0% 

0 

MS3 

MS4 

MS5 

MS6 

MS7 

379 

23,804 

110,820 

11,853 

50,319 

0.24% 

0.011  

599 

7,186 

26,163 

43,616 

23,389 

1.21% 

0.012  

210 

4,146 

5,291 

59,804 

11,011 

1.29% 

0.003  

143 

10,916 

57,423 

0 

0 

0.25% 

0.013  

405 

45,730 

175,579 

55,344 

192,736 

0.11% 

0.004  

Source: Evaluation study, based on NA survey and Eurostat (PRODCOM47, COMEXT) 

The above table shows fairly consistent results among MS, with control costs below 1.3 
cents/kg in all cases and between 0% and 1.29% of the products value.  

46 Monthly hours worked and paid 2017 by MS adjusted to 2014 + non-wage labour costs + 25% overhead, 
applied to hours worked and paid, Technicians and associate professionals (ISCO 3). 
47 The term PRODCOM comes from the French "PRODuction COMmunautaire" (Community Production). 
The database provides statistics on the production of manufactured goods. 

32 

 
 
                                                           
Specific costs incurred by operators 

For fresh and chilled products, the main task incurred for operators is the grading by size 
and  freshness  at  first  sale.  This  is  generally  carried  out  onboard  and  then  checked  at 
auction. Fish is  sorted either by hand or by machine.  In  France, long-distance  fisheries 
estimated the cost of grading and sorting onboard between 0.15-0.25 €/kg, depending on 
the service provided (only sorting, grading or also landing of the product). Operators do 
not  consider  that  EU  marketing  standards  add  any  cost,  as  grading  would  take  place 
anyway.  Specific  costs  were  only  identified  in  the  Netherlands,  as  inspections  are 
outsourced to a private company and costs are borne by operators (0.17% of sales value). 

Feedback  from  the  canning  industry  in  France,  Italy,  Spain  and  Latvia  (countries  with 
significant  production  of  the  preserved  products  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards) 
also  indicates  that  EU  marketing  standards  for  preserved  products  do  not  result  in 
additional costs for operators as they are integrated in the production system. 

Benefits vs costs 

The costs of controls are the only specific costs resulting from EU marketing standards 
and  represent  a  very  small  share  of  the  total  value  of  products  covered  by  marketing 
standards (less than 1% in most MS). Even if not consistently applied, standards on fresh 
products  provide  common  definitions  and  minimum  information  for  first-hand  buyers 
and  contribute  to  some  extent  to  a  better  rewarding  of  quality.  Standards  on  preserved 
products provide minimum quality requirements and contribute to the level playing field. 
The  impact  on  profitability  is  not  measurable  but  likely  to  be  positive.  Member  States 
show a rather positive attitude towards the standards, in line with stakeholder feedback. 

There  is  consensus  among  stakeholders  that  the  benefits  of  the  marketing  standards 
exceed  the  costs.  While,  as  expected,  the  usefulness  for  consumers  of  marketing 
standards  on  fresh  and  chilled  products  is  limited  to  the  indirect  impact  on  product 
quality,  the  lack  of  costs  generated  by  the  standards  allows  assuming  that  no  costs  are 
passed onto consumers either. Marketing standards on preserved products are integrated 
in production chains and reach the final consumer without any additional cost transferred. 

EQ5. Could the use of other policy instruments or mechanisms have provided better cost-
effectiveness? 

Marketing  standards  and  MCRS  complement  each  other  and  do  not  entirely  overlap. 
MCRS apply to fresh and frozen products while marketing standards only apply to fresh 
products.  On  the  other  hand,  MCRSs  only  apply  to  EU  landings  and  to  specific  catch 
areas, while marketing standards apply to both EU and imported products. 

The  main  added  value  of  marketing  standards  compared  to  relying  solely  on  MCRS 
resides in the grading system. The evidence collected shows that the grading system has 
indirectly contributed to better rewarding of quality and improved market  transparency. 
These  benefits  would  be  lost  without  the  marketing  standards  for  fresh  products  or  if 
MCRS constituted the only marketing standards for those products. 

33 

 
Other  standards  used  by  stakeholders  dealing  with  fresh  and  chilled  products  are 
sustainability  and process standards. Compliance costs are important,  in  addition  to  the 
access  fees,  and  are  borne  disproportionately  by  the  operators  upstream  in  the  supply 
chain  rather  than  those  downstream  where  the  demands  for  certification  originate.  The 
other  standards  identified  also  do  not  cover  quality  aspects  and  cannot  therefore  be 
considered a more cost-effective alternative to EU marketing standards. Due to their cost-
effectiveness, compared to both national and private standards, EU standards reduce the 
risks of market foreclosure. 

The  analysis  of  other  norms  and  standards  for  preserved  products  shows  that  similar 
standards under the FAO Codex Alimentarius exist but they are not used within the EU 
market. National norms and standards (whether private or public) were identified only in 
a limited number of Member States, as their establishing (particularly for private ones) is 
a time-consuming and costly exercise (the average management cost of a private standard 
is  30.000  EUR).  Such  standards  could  however  only  results  in  voluntary  application 
(private standards) or imposition on national operators in light of the mutual recognition 
principle.  

In conclusion, while the removal of marketing standards would allow some cost saving 
for control authorities in the short term, existing alternatives would not provide the same 
benefits  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  would  be  more  cost-effective  overall.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  public  consultation.  Less  than  20%  of  respondents  would  agree  to 
replace EU marketing standards with private standards, and less than 40% would agree to 
replace them by codes of practices or national standards.  

EQ6. To what extent is there a potential for simplification of marketing standards? 

Less  than  half  of  the  national  authorities  consider  that  the  criteria  contained  in  the 
marketing standards should be simplified.  

Figure 15: National authorities’ feedback on the need for simplification of the marketing 
standards provisions without hindering the CMO achievements  

34 

 
 
Source: NA survey, N=25 

10  out  of  16  national  authorities  consider  that  freshness  criteria  could  be  simplified. 
Over a third of respondents to the public consultation concurred with this position. The 
relevance  and  effectiveness  analysis  shows  that  grading  is  not  consistently  applied 
through  auctions  and  Member  States,  also  due  to  the  subjective  assessment  of  some 
criteria,  and  that  other  criteria  and  practices  are  used  to  assess  fish  quality.  Several 
operators suggested to support harmonising the implementation of the freshness criteria 
or the establishment of more objective criteria. The Market Advisory Council considers 
that while the maximum level of harmonisation should be ensured, the development of a 
standardised system for remote buying should be left to the business operators. 

10 out of 16 national  authorities suggested that  size criteria could be simplified. Some 
respondents  suggested  that  the  minimum  marketing  sizes  could  be  removed  given  the 
role of MCRS and the coexistence of minimum marketing sizes and MCRS might create 
situations where operators have to comply with both. It is not clear that keeping MCRS 
only would be more cost-effective.  

Some stakeholders and over a third of respondents to the public consultation also deemed 
it possible to simplify size criteria without compromising their effectiveness. Suggestions 
included  having  only  three  categories  (small,  medium  and  large).  Nevertheless,  this 
appears in contradiction with practices identified in most countries, where operators tend 
to elaborate further categories based on the marketing standards.  

9 out of 12 national authorities deemed that provisions on imported products could be 
simplified.  However, imports of fresh products covered by EU marketing standards are 
concentrated  in  only  five  Member  States  (accounting  for  93%  of  imports  falling  under 
the  standard  for  fresh  and  chilled  products).  Of  those  five  Member  States,  only  one 
considered  that  provisions  could  be  simplified  to  some  extent,  and  suggested  applying 
the same conditions as for EU products, which may not be possible when imports are not 
landed in the EU.  

The  national  authority  survey  indicated  that  the  marketing  standards  for  preserved 
products could be simplified to some extent. The results are as follows:  

  8 out of 10 national authorities consider that trade description could be simplified;  
  7 out of 11 deem that species names could be simplified;  
  7 out of 11 think that presentation requirements could be simplified;  
  6 out of 10 indicated that minimum content requirements could be simplified. 

However,  respondents  did  not  always  provide  examples  of  possible  simplifications. 
Member  States  highlighted  some  problematic  areas,  including  minimum  content 
requirements  and  control  thereof  and  trade  descriptions.  On  the  side  of  operators,  the 
canning  industry  did  not  report  any  difficulty  to  implement  the  standards  and  opposed 
any change, without however providing arguments.  

35 

 
8 out of 13 national authorities consider that provisions on control procedures could be 
simplified.  Only  one  country  provided  suggestions  on  how  this  could  be  done,  and 
argued in favour of removing provisions on control of marketing standards and leave this 
to the market.  

Feedback  received  from  both  the  industry  and  the  national  authorities  suggest  that 
controls are enforced more systematically for marketing standards for preserved products 
than  for  fresh  products.  However,  more  detailed  feedback  from  national  authorities 
shows that procedures differ among Member States in both cases. As costs of controls are 
marginal,  possible  improvements  mainly  relate  to  clarifying  the  scope  of  checks  and 
harmonising procedures, rather than simplifying existing checks.  

Conclusions on efficiency 

Control costs for public authorities are low, between 0 and 1.3c/kg of product covered by 
marketing standards (0-1.29% of their value). Costs for operators are marginal or null as 
tasks required by the standards would be part of their regular business activity, likely as a 
result of the fact that the standards are fully integrated in their operations. 

The benefits identified, even if not always high and difficult to measure, are thus deemed 
to outweigh the costs, especially for the industry. This conclusion is supported by the fact 
that stakeholders generally express a rather positive opinion of the regulatory framework. 

There  are  no  equivalent  standards  for  fresh  products  and  the  existing  private  ones 
complement  EU  standards.  If  EU  standard  on  fresh  products  were  removed,  other 
existing  standards  would  not  deliver  similar  results.  Based  on  precedents  in  the 
aquaculture sector, some common practices might arise, but no formal standards. Costs 
of control would be slightly reduced, but it is possible that in the long term the reported 
benefits would be lost. 

For preserved products, similar standards to the EU marketing standards exist under the 
FAO Codex Alimentarius, but they only serve as reference for extra-EU trade. Were EU 
marketing  standards  to  be  removed,  operators  would  probably  continue  to  apply  them, 
but they would not apply to imports. Removing the standards might generate cost savings 
for control authorities, but the benefits in terms of level playing field might be lost. There 
is no evidence that private standards would be more cost-effective either. 

Stakeholder  feedback  confirms  the  efficiency  of  the  current  standards.  They  often 
recommend strengthening the system rather than simplifying it. There is no evidence that 
suggested areas of simplification would increase cost-effectiveness, and the main areas of 
improvement  concern  coherence  of  the  standards  with  other  regulatory  provisions  (e.g. 
MCRS, consumer information).  

36 

 
 
 
Coherence 

EQ7. To what extent are marketing standards and other norms having the same effect as 
marketing standards coherent with one another? 

Inconsistencies  between  minimum  marketing  sizes  and  MCRSs  have  mostly  been 
addressed through revisions to the regulations. However, some inconsistencies persist in 
implementation,  mainly  due  to  the  coexistence  of  both  MCRSs  (set  both  at  EU  and 
national  level)  and  minimum  marketing  sizes.  For  example,  sole  has  a  minimum 
marketing  size  of  120  grams  and  a  MCRS  of  24cm  in  the  North-East  Atlantic.  Under 
technical measures, some countries have raised this MCRS to 25cm. Operators reported 
during the consultation phase that they are required to comply with both minimum sizes 
(weight  and  length),  while  in  other  countries  compliance  with  MCRS  suffices.  The 
inconsistency  in  the  application  of  existing  provisions,  topped  with  the  imposition  of 
national MCRSs could create situations of unfair competition, particularly in the case of 
operators from neighbouring countries.  

New inconsistencies have emerged with the regional discard plans as different MCRS for 
the same species may be set depending on the catch area (e.g. Atlantic and Mediterranean 
hake). In the absence of strong traceability controls, these inconsistencies might increase 
the risk of mislabelling (false catch area) to allow undersized fish into the supply chain, 
limiting the ability of marketing standards to ensure a level playing field.  

Danish  operators  also  consider  that  the  failure  to  include  witch  (Glyptocephalus 
cynoglossus), an important product for the industry and subject to EU conservation rules, 
among the products covered by the standards on fresh and chilled products limits market 
transparency.  A  revision  of  the  standard  should  include  this  species  along  with  other 
important commercial species covered by conservation rules (e.g. turbot, halibut).  

EQ8.  To  what  extent  are  marketing  standards  coherent  with  other  EU  rules  (e.g.  EU 
rules on food safety, food information to consumers, conservation rules)? 

The fact that most control authorities undertake combined control procedures is evidence 
of coherence between the food safety and market standards systems. Stakeholder in the 
industry confirmed that it is not always possible to distinguish which regulation a control 
procedure is applying as an inspection may check compliance against several regulations. 

While  no  incoherence  was  detected,  some  parts  of  the  existing  regulations  might  be 
outdated  as  a  result  of  the  application  of  EU  rules  on  food  safety.  This  is  the  case  for 
example of the category defining products not admitted for sale for human consumption 
under the marketing standard for fresh and chilled products. 

The CFP Control Regulation is generally coherent with marketing standards, but gaps 
have been identified. Authorities tend to only check compliance with minimum standards 
(e.g. MCRS), not that the standards are met (i.e. correct grading). As sales notes do not 
convey  size  and  freshness  grade  information  beyond  first  sale,  controls  of  marketing 
standards for fresh and chilled products along the supply chain is more difficult.  

37 

 
Inspection targets laid down in Annex I to the CFP Control Regulation confirm that the 
emphasis is on compliance with provision on fishing activities. The ability to undertake 
combined  control  does  however  show  general  coherence  with  EU  marketing  standards. 
The proposed revision to the CFP Control Regulation48 is expected to facilitate controls 
along the supply chain.  

Rules  on  official  controls  in  the  agri-food  chain  ensure  the  same  procedures  for 
products under the marketing standards as with other products, demonstrating coherence 
between control provisions and marketing standards.  

Requirements  on  the  provision  of  food  information  to  consumers  under  Regulation 
(EU)  No  1169/2011  (the  ‘FIC’  regulation)  are  generally  complementary  to  the  EU 
marketing  standards  as  well  as  to  consumer  information  rules  under  the  CMO 
Regulation, in that they all seek to achieve a high level of consumer protection.  

However,  some  provisions  contained  in  the  marketing  standard  for  canned  tuna  and 
bonito might undermine achieving this objective.  

The standard allows marketing a product as canned tuna or bonito even when only 25% 
of the fish content is composed of tuna / bonito species, provided the muscular structure 
has disappeared. While it is unclear how this provision fits with the obligation under the 
FIC Regulation to mention all species in the ingredient, it does not seem in line with the 
goal of guaranteeing consumer right to information. 

As  regards  coherence  between  the  marketing  standards  and  consumer  information 
provisions  under  the  CMO  Regulation,  quality  criteria  defined  by  the  standards  for 
fresh  and  chilled  products  are  used  at  first  sale  and  are  not  reported  along  the  supply 
chain.  EU  rules  on  consumer  information  set  out  in  the  CMO  Regulation  present 
different information and are complementary to marketing standards. 

For preserved products, marketing standard requirements are available to end-consumers. 
However, the analyses showed specific inconsistencies with consumer information rules 
under the CMO regulation, mainly linked to the fact that these products are not subject to 
mandatory  labelling  requirements,  and  particularly  to  the  obligation  to  use  specific 
commercial  designations  for  given  species.  This  derogation  for  prepared/preserved 
products has the potential of misleading consumers, especially when marketing standard 
provisions on trade descriptions conflict with the commercial designations established by 
Member States under the CMO Regulation.  

Tuna labelling in Spain is an example where coherence of marketing standards with the 
CMO regulation was questioned by operators. The marketing standard defines  Thunnus 
alalunga as a tuna, which cannot be called bonito. However, under the CMO provisions 

48  COM(2018)  368  final  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, 
(EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council as regards fisheries control 

38 

 
                                                           
on  consumer  information,  Spain  has  adopted  ‘bonito  del  norte’  as  commercial 
designation  for  Thunnus  alalunga.  While  the  marketing  standards  accepts  some 
derogations  from  its  rules  on  trade  descriptions,  coherence  between  the  marketing 
standards and CMO provisions on consumer information remains wanting.  

Food hygiene rules help to ensure establishments are hygienic and provides safe food. 
They are coherent and complementary with EU standards, which help to define quality. 

EQ9. To what extent are EU marketing standards coherent with international standards 
(e.g. Codex)? 

EU  marketing  standards  on  preserved  products  are  generally  coherent  with,  but  more 
detailed  than,  FAO  Codex  standards.  However,  some  inconsistencies  are  a  source  of 
confusion and lead to different interpretations among operators. 

The EU standard for preserved sardines and sardine-type products was amended in 2003 
following a WTO dispute to allow the use of the term “sardine” for sardine-type species 
(e.g. sprat), in line with the Codex standard. The provisions covering trade descriptions 
and  minimum  weight  requirements  were  not  revised  and  only  cover  sardines. 
Interpretations differ as to whether these provisions apply or not to sardine-type products.  

Several provisions in the standard for canned tuna and bonito are not coherent with the 
relevant Codex standard. While the Codex standard regulates the use of descriptive terms 
such  as  ‘white’,  there  is  no  similar  provision  in  the  EU  standard.  Operators  in  some 
countries  use  the  designation  “white  tuna”  for  Thunnus  alalunga  as  they  interpret  the 
mention  of  this  designation  in  their  own  language  versions  of  the  standard  as  an 
indication of how the product  shall be named. However, the term  is  only mentioned in 
the annex listing the species covered by the standard, with no provision in the standard 
itself  establishing  that  such  designations  should  be  used.  In  other  countries,  the  term 
“white”  is  used  to  refer  to  the  tuna  colour,  not  the  species.  This  inconsistency  goes 
against  the  harmonisation  intended  by  the  marketing  standards  and  risks  misleading 
consumers.  

While the Codex standard does not differentiate between tuna and bonito species, the EU 
standard  does.  This  however  contrasts  some  long-established  national  practices.  For 
example, operators in  Spain  usually  call  Thunnus  alalunga  (a tuna species) “bonito del 
norte”. The species Auxis thazard and Auxis rochei are authorized for canned bonito in 
the EU regulation, but not in the Codex standard. Finally, the EU standard allows mixing 
tuna  and  bonito  with  other  fish  in  preparations  in  which  the  muscular  structure  has 
disappeared, as long as tuna or bonito species represent at least 25% of the net weight. 
No similar exception is allowed in the Codex standard.  

Several  private  initiatives  aim  to  standardise  quality  definitions,  such  as  the  Quality 
Index Method (QIM) and private quality labels such as Label Rouge (France), and Silver 
Sealedkwaliteit (Ijmuiden). These may differ from or go beyond marketing standards to 
address aspects of interest for their customer base. Private quality standards focusing on 

39 

 
process are also widespread (BRC, IFS) and are regarded by stakeholders as important to 
retain market access. They are considered complementary to the marketing standards. 

Sustainability standards are generally considered complementary to marketing standards. 
Only  one  example  of  overlapping  with  marketing  standards  was  detected  regarding 
brown  shrimps.  As  input  submitted  by  MAC  members  shows,  these  standards  are 
increasingly  important  to  retain  market  access,  particularly  in  certain  EU  countries  and 
for operators selling to large-scale retailers.  

Among  the  national/regional  standards  inventoried  by  the  evaluation  study,  some 
standards  for  preserved  products  include  specific  requirements  for  canned  sardines  and 
tuna. Operators did not identify any inconsistency between them and EU standards. 

Few  replies  to  the  public  consultation  addressed  the  issue  of  coherence.  Respondents 
either considered other standards complementary to  EU standards or did not  know. EU 
standards were generally considered as a minimum common reference. 

Figure 16: Coherence with other standards 

Control system for marketing standards established in
Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulation (EU)…

Consumer information rules

Hygiene rules for food of animal origin

International standards

5 - very coherent
2 - rather incoherent

0%
4 - rather coherent
1 - very incoherent

50%

100%
3 - neither coherent nor incoherent
Don't know

Source: Public consultation, N=155 

Conclusions on coherence 

EU  marketing  standards  aim  to  ensure  consistency  in  the  quality  definition  of  fishery 
products  sold  in  the  EU.  This  is  coherent  with  and  supported  by  control  regulations, 
although controls are firstly focused on the legality of catches and food safety.  

Consumer information rules and other international food standards and private standards 
are complementary to  EU marketing standards.  For preserved products,  both  marketing 
standards and consumer information provisions appear on consumer-facing labels and are 
important to reassure EU consumers about product quality. 

The standard for canned tuna and bonito is not fully coherent with consumer information 
rules, so that in some countries the same species can be marketed under different names 
depending on whether it is sold fresh or canned, with a risk of misleading consumers.   

40 

 
 
EU  marketing  standards  on  preserved  products  are  not  fully  coherent  with  the  relevant 
Codex standards, leading to confusion and different interpretations among operators. 

Some  operators  apply  all  requirements  of  the  standard  for  sardines  and  sardine-type 
products to sardine-type species, while only labelling requirements apply to them. 

Unlike  the  Codex  standard,  the  EU  standard  on  canned  tuna  and  bonito  imposes  a 
distinction between tuna and bonito species. This is problematic in some Member States, 
and so is  the inclusion in  the EU standard of  Auxis species,  which  are not  listed in  the 
Codex  standard.  Moreover,  the  Codex  standard  for  canned  tuna  and  bonito  contains 
provisions  on  the  use  of  descriptive  terms  for  product  colour.  The  absence  of  such 
provision  in  the  EU  standard  results  in  different  practices  across  the  EU  and  a  risk  of 
misleading consumers. 

Finally,  the  EU  standard  for  tuna  and  bonito  allows  marketing  products  that  are  mixed 
with  other  fish,  provided  that  they  contain  at  least  25%  of  tuna  or  bonito  and  the 
muscular structure has disappeared. This  is  not  allowed under the Codex standard. The 
lack  of  any  provision  on  informing  consumers  about  the  presence  of  other  fish  also 
questions the coherence of such provision with consumer right to information. 

Private  standards  are  complementary  to  EU  marketing  standards.  The  EU  market 
increasingly  seeks  assurance  on  sustainability  (including  labour  standards)  and  private 
standards are more and more part of large-scale retailers purchasing conditions. In their 
current  form,  the  EU  marketing  standards  do  not  provide  comparable  information, 
despite this being one of their objectives under the CMO Regulation. 

EU added-value 

EQ10. To what extent are EU marketing standards justifiable and provide added value? 
Would national/regional standards provide the same result? What is the added value of 
the EU marketing standards compared to private standards in place in the supply chain? 

National standards rarely overlap with EU marketing standards and mostly cover market 
niches  (except  in  the  case  of  fish  fingers),  processes  and  the  use  of  additives.  As  they 
stand,  none  of  the  national  standards  identified  would  provide  the  same  result  as  EU 
marketing standards. This is confirmed by the dual food quality issue that rose in 2017 
and which prominently featured fish fingers. 

The  highly  internationalised  trade  context  and  rising  consumer  awareness  about 
hazardous additives and sustainability issues lead to an emerging consensus on the need 
to standardise practices beyond national borders, which national standards cannot do. 

Only EU standards, as opposed to national ones, can improve the level playing field as 
they apply to all products entering the EU market. However, under the current framework 
the added-value of EU marketing standards in that regard is limited by their scope and by 
their focus on quality only.  

41 

 
Private  standards  currently  used  in  the  market,  whether  on  process,  sustainability  or 
specific products, are not more cost-effective than the EU standards overall and the cost 
of entry for operators is much higher.  

Marketing standards for fresh products provide a common set of criteria to define quality, 
even  if  only  as  a  basis  for  more  sophisticated  systems.  While  freshness  criteria  are 
applied with some subjectivity, the criteria themselves are objective and similar to what 
can be obtained through private systems such as the QIM, for a fairly high cost. Public 
and  freely  available  criteria  for  all  operators  across  the  EU  is  a  clear  added-value  of 
marketing standards in terms of level playing field. 

EQ11.  To  what  extent  would  EU  marketing  standards  have  been  useful  for  the 
sectors/products currently not covered? 

Compared to fisheries, aquaculture is an activity with a higher degree of management. 
Production volume, size and freshness can be controlled and predicted. In the aquaculture 
supply chain, trade is based on long-term contracts defining client requirements. Product 
quality  does  not  raise  specific  issues  as  products  are  directly  delivered  to  clients  after 
harvesting  and  freshness  is  defined  by  the  slaughter  date.  Product  sizes  are  established 
based  on  contractual  agreements.  Farmers  favour  keeping  this  flexibility  as  they  plan 
their breeding programme based on the size categories requested by clients. This process 
ensures a certain market stability compared to fisheries.  

Table 3: Comparison of some features of fisheries and aquaculture 

Characteristics 
Management  

Fisheries 
  External regulation of effort / limited 
in  situ  management  of  catching 
decisions.  

  Conservation measures.  

Aquaculture 

 

Internal  management 
production process.  

of 

the 

  External  regulation  of  resources 
access, management practices.  

Market  

Outputs  

  Volatile,  responding  to  a  wide  range 
factors:  supply  and  demand, 

of 
quality, etc.  

  Products  are  sold  through  auctions  / 

pressure to sell.  

  Producers may control outputs.  
  Long-term supply trends.  
  Long-term contracts.  

  Highly  variable  within  moderately 
year-class 
stock 

/ 

definable 
boundaries.  

  Originally  seasonal, 

increasingly 

controlled and extended.  

  Chosen species, quality and size.  

In the case of products involving significant cross-border exchanges within the EU (i.e. 
seabass,  seabream,  trout,  salmon  and  carp),  product  requirements  contained  in  supply 
agreements  consolidated  over  the  years.  In  some  countries,  these  have  been  formalised 
through standards. Alternatively, quality schemes detail freshness and/or size criteria and 
identify the premium segment (e.g. Label Rouge, GIs). 

Aquaculture  stakeholders  consider  that  they  can  better  meet  changes  in  demand  and 
client requirements in the absence of marketing standards, as these are too rigid. Beyond 

42 

 
 
quality  criteria,  the  Aquaculture  Stewardship  Council  (ASC)  certification  is  being 
implemented by several farms across the EU, hinting to a growing demand for assurance 
regarding sustainable practices in the aquaculture supply chain as well.  

In some countries, auction operators have developed freshness and size grading systems 
for fresh products not covered by marketing standards (mainly species caught by small-
scale fisheries). These standards are based on the market needs concerning sizes and on 
marketing standards already applicable to species covered by the marketing standard for 
fresh products concerning freshness.  

The characteristics of processed products are ‘demand-driven’ and may differ according 
to  clients  and  between  countries.  Few  examples  of  processed  products  were  identified 
where  national  /  private  standards  had  been  developed.  These  do  not  appear  to  have 
impacted  cross-border  exchanges.  Nevertheless,  in  the  case  of  standardised  products, 
they have raised concerns in terms of consumer perception as the dual food quality issue 
highlighted. 

To answer the evaluation question, two aspects have been investigated: on the one hand, 
the  usefulness  of  the  existing  EU  marketing  standards  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
shortcomings in the supply chains of products not covered by EU marketing standards.   

Assessment of the usefulness of EU marketing standards 

Marketing standards on fresh products have indirectly contributed to improving product 
quality through the generalisation of a grading system and provided a common language 
between operators, thus  increasing market  transparency  and helping to  establish a level 
playing field among EU operators, despite their inconsistent implementation. As regards 
imported  products,  the  limited  share  of  products  covered  by  the  standards  (1-3%  of 
imports of non-processed FAPs) means that the impact on the level playing field between 
EU and non-EU products is only limited. 

While marketing standards can be assumed to have indirectly contributed to profitability 
by making available a system to  reward fresher and larger fish with higher prices, such 
contribution is not quantifiable and probably marginal compared to other factors. Beyond 
the alignment between minimum marketing sizes and MCRSs, the standards provide no 
contribution  to  enabling  the  EU  market  to  be  supplied  with  sustainable  products.  The 
standards  for  fresh  products  lose  their  importance  after  first  sale,  but  they  provide  a 
reference for remote purchasing, despite the limited development of this system.  

For  preserved  products,  EU  marketing  standards  are  important  to  maintain  a  level 
playing  field  between  EU  and  non-EU  operators  in  terms  of  product  quality,  and  are 
relevant throughout the supply chain. They help to maintain profitability by avoiding that 
competition  takes place  to  the  detriment of product  quality. However, harmonisation  at 
EU  level  is  a  challenge  and  some  issues  remain,  despite  their  long  period  of 
implementation. Moreover, the standards contain no provision that would enable the EU 
market to be supplied with sustainable products. 

43 

 
Although  sustainability  aspects  are  barely  covered  by  EU  marketing  standards,  private 
certifications  focusing  on  sustainability  are  increasingly  sought  (83%  of  respondents  to 
the  consultation  on  recommendations  mention  that  clients  have  product  specifications 
related  to  sustainability).  This  confirms  a  clear  market  demand  for  this  information, 
which has given rise to a multiplicity of private solutions, each with its own definition of 
product sustainability. 

Shortcomings in supply chains not covered by EU marketing standards 

The shortcomings identified in  the aquaculture supply  chain  could  not  be addressed by 
the EU marketing standards in their current form, with the exception of defining criteria 
for the term “superior” used for some aquaculture products (mainly salmon). The study 
carried out for the European Commission to assess voluntary allegations on fishery and 
aquaculture products confirms that many allegations on product quality are not linked to 
private  schemes,  making  the  verification  of  their  true  nature  more  difficult.  In  the 
absence  of  clear  criteria  defining  when  a  product  is  of  “superior”  quality,  unfair 
competition can occur, including with operators from non-EU countries as in the case of 
salmon.  

The aquaculture sector is however very concerned by a lack of level playing field with 
non-EU  products  as  regards  e.g.  social  and  environmental  requirements.49  These  issues 
are  only  partially  addressed  through  horizontal  regulations  (e.g.  hygiene,  consumer 
information). Private certifications (especially ecolabels) and GIs (for some products) are 
used  in  differentiation  strategies  and,  increasingly,  in  response  to  buyer  requirements. 
The  possibility  to  use  marketing  standards  to  improve  market  transparency  through 
common definitions has not been considered so far. 

No shortcomings have been identified in the supply chain of fresh products not covered 
by  marketing  standards.  Similar  classification  systems  to  the  ones  defined  in  the 
marketing standards have been defined for species not covered. The only potential issue 
this raises is the lack of harmonisation in relation to remote sales. By large, respondents 
to the public consultation support standardisation of fresh and chilled products currently 
not covered by the standards. This likely reflects a general call for further transparency in 
the supply chain rather than a need to address specific shortcomings in the supply chain.  

The data collection identified no shortcomings in the supply chain of processed products 
that could be addressed by marketing standards in their current form either. The existence 
of  national  standards  for  standardised  products  marketed  throughout  the  EU  (e.g.  fish 
fingers) however reveals that shortcomings exist, as highlighted by the dual food quality 
issue  and  poses  the  question  of  whether  minimum  criteria  on  fish  content  for  such 
standardised products should not rather be set at EU level. 

49 https://www.aac-europe.org/images/AAC_Position_Paper_Level_Playing_Field.pdf 

44 

 
 
 
                                                           
Conclusion on EU added-value 

Comparable standards identified at national level cannot contribute to harmonisation and 
transparency at EU level, the creation of a level playing field with non-EU products, or to 
a  common  culture  of  compliance.  Compared  to  private  standards,  EU  marketing 
standards  provide  free  access  to  a  common  set  of  definitions  and  quality  criteria  and 
therefore ensure that all operators can access the same information.  

There is little evidence of shortcomings in the supply chains for products not covered by 
EU  marketing  standards  that  could  be  addressed  by  expanding  the  current  standards. 
However, the public consultation calls for increased market transparency and stakeholder 
feedback indicates that the issue of level playing field, including with regard to social and 
environmental requirements, is not fully addressed. This is reflected in the opinion of the 
Market  Advisory  Council,  in  which  the  majority  of  stakeholders  called  for  marketing 
standards to  play  a stronger role in  (a) ensuring  profitability of production through fair 
competition, (b) a level playing field, including on social aspects and (c) enabling the EU 
market to be supplied with sustainable products. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

While there is consensus that the marketing standards have overall had a positive impact 
on the EU market for fishery and aquaculture products, their capacity to deliver on their 
objectives as defined in the CMO Regulation is limited by their current scope and nature. 

The  existing  standards  are  still  relevant  for  the  products  covered.  Size  and  freshness 
criteria are the main criteria used to determine prices at first sale of fresh, whole fishery 
products,  including  imports,  and  standards  provide  a  reference  for  remote  sales. 
Expanding such criteria beyond first sale or to aquaculture products is not deemed useful, 
except  for  defining  criteria  for  the  use  of  some  quality  terms  such  as  “superior.” 
Standards  for  preserved  products  are  also  considered  relevant  and  by  their  nature  are 
maintained  throughout  the  supply  chain.  Only  a  few  national  standards  (public  and 
private) exist for processed products  not  covered by EU standards, so that the scope of 
current EU marketing standards is considered relevant, except in the case of standardised 
products such as fish fingers, for which the absence of EU minimum quality criteria has 
raised  issues,  and  potentially  for  some  fresh  products  based  on  industry  demand  (e.g. 
witch). 

With  regard  to  their  effectiveness,  the  evaluation  confirmed  the  findings  of  the  impact 
assessment  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the  current  CMO  Regulation  that  marketing 
standards have indirectly contributed to improvements in product quality by providing a 
grading  system  to  assess  and  reward  quality  with  better  prices.  While  the  current 
framework  ensures  that  standards  are  not  in  conflict  with  conservation  measures,  they 
hardly  provide  any  other  contribution  to  enable  the  market  to  be  supplied  with 
sustainable products.   

45 

 
While  the  standards  for  fresh  products  have  provided  a  minimum  common  set  of 
information for buyers and sellers and facilitate remote sales, their impact is limited by 
inconsistent  implementation  across  auctions  and  Member  States.  The  co-existence  of 
different  EU  and  national  minimum  conservation  reference  sizes  for  the  same  species 
alongside minimum marketing sizes also limits the level playing field within the internal 
market.  

As  only  1-3%  of  imports  of  non-processed  products  are  covered  by  the  marketing 
standards for fresh products, their impact on the level playing field between EU and non-
EU  products  can  only  be  limited.  In  the  case  of  preserved  products,  about  half  of  the 
imports of processed fishery and aquaculture products are composed of products covered 
by EU marketing standards. In this case, the standards have a significant impact on the 
level  playing  field  between  EU  and  imported  products  as  far  as  quality  aspects  are 
concerned.  

Some  positive  impacts  on  maintaining  profitability  can  be  assumed  as  the  standards 
allow preventing competition to the detriment of product quality.  

As regards unexpected and unintended effects of marketing standards, while there is no 
evidence that the standards have either increased or reduced food waste, more could be 
done to ensure that products that do not meet the minimum size requirements enter the 
food  chain,  for  example  to  be  destined  to  donations,  in  line  with  the  EU’s  Circular 
Economy Strategy and recommendations of the EU Court of Auditors.  

Achievements  against the objectives  defined in  the CMO Regulation are limited by the 
standards’ narrow scope in terms of products covered and by their focus on quality. As a 
consequence,  in  their  current  form,  the  standards  cannot  enable  the  EU  market  to  be 
supplied with  sustainable products. There is  no  evidence that standards  have facilitated 
exchanges  within  the  internal  market  compared  to  products  not  covered  by  them.  The 
standards are likely to have indirectly impacted profitability by facilitating rewarding of 
quality and preventing that  competition  takes place to  the detriment of  product  quality. 
While the impact on level playing field is tangible for canned products as far as quality 
aspects  are  concerned,  this  is  less  the  case  for  fresh  products  due  to  the  inconsistent 
implementation  within  the  EU  and  the  small  share  of  non-EU  products  covered. 
Moreover, the standards  do not  contribute  to a level  playing field  as regards e.g. social 
and  environmental  aspects  for  any  of  the  products  covered.  This  is  a  concern  for 
operators  in  all  supply  chains  for  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  including  those 
products currently not covered by the standards. 

As  regards  efficiency,  the  evaluation  showed  that  the  enforcement  costs  for  public 
authorities  are  marginal,  and  implementation  costs  borne  by  operators  are  marginal  or 
null.  No  equivalent  standards  exist  for  fresh  products  and,  the  existing  ones  either 
complement  or  are  built  on  the  EU  standards.  There  is  no  evident  improvement  or 
simplification  that  would  reduce  costs  without  losing  the  benefits  of  the  current 
standards. 

46 

 
Similar standards to the marketing standards for preserved products are contained in the 
FAO  Codex  Alimentarius,  but  are  only  used  as  a  reference  for  trade  with  non-EU 
countries. If the EU standards were removed, the level playing field may be lost. Overall 
the benefits outweigh the costs and there is no evidence that alternatives, such as private 
standards, would be more cost-effective.  

Overall,  there  is  little  room  for  further  simplification  without  risking  the  loss  of  the 
benefits  obtained,  and  with  very  little  cost-saving.  However,  the  evaluation  detected  a 
lack of clear rules or guidance about what types of control should be carried out and at 
which stages of the supply chain. 

EU  marketing  standards  are  generally  coherent  with  both  CFP  and  sanitary  control 
regulations,  even  though  controls  are  more  focused  on  the  legality  of  catch  and  food 
safety.  Consumer  information  rules,  other  international  and  private  standards  provide 
additional information and so act in  a complementary fashion. The standard for canned 
tuna  and  bonito  is  not  fully  coherent  with  consumer  information  rules,  and  some  of  its 
provisions risk misleading consumers instead of protecting them.  

While the standards on preserved products  are  generally coherent  with  the FAO Codex 
Alimentarius standards, some inconsistencies were detected, which lead to confusion in 
the sector and diverging interpretations or risk misleading consumers. 

EU  added  value  is  evident  as  other  standards  cannot  contribute  to  harmonisation  and 
transparency at an EU level, ensure a level playing field with non-EU products, or create 
a  common  culture  of  compliance.  Compared  to  private  standards,  EU  marketing 
standards also provide free access to a common set of definitions and quality criteria and 
therefore ensure that all operators have access to the same information.  

The overall conclusion is that the standards are generally relevant, efficient and coherent 
and have EU added value. As regards their effectiveness, however, consultation activities 
showed  significant  shortcomings.  The  public  consultation  called  for  increased  market 
transparency  and  feedback  gathered  from  the  sector  indicates  that  the  issue  of  level 
playing  field,  including  on  social  and  environmental  aspects  are  not  fully  addressed  by 
the  current  framework,  while  this  issue  is  transversal  to  all  product  groups.  Similarly, 
to  a 
while  market  demand  for  sustainability  assurance 
multiplication  of  private  initiatives,  each  with  its  own  sustainability  criteria,  the 
marketing standards have not  been equipped to  deliver on this objective, introduced by 
the reform of the CMO Regulation in 2013. 

increasing, 

leading 

is 

The results of this evaluation will feed into a reflection on how to address the challenges 
and  shortcomings  identified  and  how  to  improve  the  overall  performance  of  the 
marketing standards framework for fishery and aquaculture products. 

47 

 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE); Unit A4: 
Economic Analysis, Markets and Impact Assessment 

Decide Planning reference: PLAN/2017/2168 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The inter-service group (ISG) consisted of the Secretariat-General (SG), the Directorate-
General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG  GROW),  the 
Directorate-General for (DG SANTE), the Directorate-General for Trade (DG TRADE) 
and  other  units  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (DG 
MARE),  dealing  with  CFP  coordination,  Fisheries  control  and  inspection,  Fisheries 
policy in the different sea basins, aquaculture, trade, IUU and scientific advice.  

The group met 5 times during the evaluation process. The first meeting took place on 15 
March 2018. A second meeting was held on 3rd May 2018, a third one on 5 September 
2018,  a  fourth  one  on  13  December  2018  and  a  fifth  one  on  7  March  2019.  As  work 
progressed  and  the  evaluation  showed  interactions  with  additional  policy  areas,  the 
Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and the Directorate-General for Justice 
and  Consumers  (DG  JUST)  were  also  invited  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  ISG.  ISG 
members  received  all  documents  related  to  the  consultation  strategy  and  evaluation 
roadmap,  as  well  as  draft  versions  of  the  study  carried  out  by  the  consultant,  for  their 
comments and review.  

The ISG held a further meeting in September 2018 prior to the launch of the inter-service 
consultation, also involving the Legal Service. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

Not applicable 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

Not applicable 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

An evaluation study, outsourced to an external consultant, supported this evaluation.  

Literature, open on-line sources and publicly available reports have been used. The main 
source  of  information  was  the  stakeholder  consultations  and  the  Expert  Group  for 
markets  and  trade  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  as  well  as  Advisory  Councils 
(SWWAC,  MAC,  AAC).  During  the  consultation  phase,  the  information  was  collected 

48 

 
 
via  interviews  (national  authorities  in  charge  of  implementation  and  control),  targeted 
consultations  (operators  at  all  stages  of  the  supply  chains  for  fishery  and  aquaculture 
products),  an  online  public  consultation  to  reaching  out  to  a  wider  audience  including 
SMEs and consumers and a consultation on recommendations.  

General market information was collected through existing statistical databases but also 
during the consultation phase. Cost-related information was collected during the targeted 
consultation of operators and via the survey of national authorities.  

As regards the robustness of the consultations:  

•  During the preparatory phase, the external consultant used existing studies 
and documents to prepare the next steps of the study. The work resulted in 
questionnaires  for the survey of national  authorities and the targeted and 
public consultations.  

•  An ISG composed of representatives of several Commission departments 
(see above) monitored the work of the consultant. The steering group paid 
particular attention to the independence of the evaluation team considering 
that information sources were limited and replies were potentially driven 
by commercial interests of the economic operators.  

•  The  public  consultation  was  widely  publicised  via  indirect  channels 
(Market Advisory Council, Expert Group for markets and trade in fishery 
and aquaculture products) to stimulate stakeholder participation.  

•  Contributions by industry appear to be coherent and representative of the 
sector.  Through  targeted  interviews  of  national  authorities  information 
could be collected from almost all Member States. The public consultation 
resulted in 155 replies and confirmed identified shortcomings.  

•  By  triangulating  data  from  consultations  and  submissions  and  publicly 
available  information,  it  has  been  possible  to  verify  the  extent  of  some 
alleged impacts of the standards.  

As the number of replies and the level of coherence are high, the qualitative assessment 
can be considered reliable. However, information related to compliance costs need to be 
interpreted with care and should be seen as indications of an order of magnitude rather 
than  as  precise  estimates.  Also,  costs  for  operators  might  be  limited  due  to  the  long 
period  of  application  of  the  standards,  which  means  that  they  have  been  integrated  in 
their business practices. The actual implementation costs could have only been assessed 
if data had been available for the period when the standards became applicable, which is 
not the case. 

49 

 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Outline of the consultation strategy  

The objective of this evaluation was to examine the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value of the current marketing standards framework for fishery 
and aquaculture products  (FAPs), in  accordance  with  the Better Regulation Guidelines. 
The evaluation covers EU marketing standards rules laid down in the CMO Regulation, 
as well as the three following regulations: 

–  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2136/89:  preserved  sardines  and  sardine-type 

products; 

–  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92: preserved tuna and bonito products, and 
–  Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96: fresh and chilled fishery products. 

In the context of the evaluation, the consultation strategy aimed to: (1) obtain information 
on the effects of the marketing standards and their contribution to a fair and sustainable 
market for FAPs, (2) gather feedback on the relevance of these standards in comparison 
to  private/international  standards,  (3)  identify  benefits  and  burdens  generated,  and  (4) 
detect issues in their implementation and enforcement. 

The consultation strategy mapped the following as relevant stakeholder groups:  

–  Representative organisations/ associations at national and EU levels;  
–  Operators involved in supply chains covered by marketing standards;  
–  Operators involved in supply chains not covered by marketing standards; 
–  Standards setting bodies, whether private or public; 
–  National  authorities  in  charge  of  controls  as  well  as  customs  officials  and  any 

other relevant authority; 

–  Citizens as consumers, even though not directly affected by these standards. 

To reach stakeholder groups, the following consultations were conducted: 

–  Public consultation of 4 weeks by the Commission prior to the evaluation to give 
stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation roadmap;50 
–  Public consultation of 12 weeks by the  Commission to allow all stakeholders to 

express their views on the EU marketing standards framework;51  
–  Written consultation of Member States' authorities by the evaluators; 
–  Targeted consultations by the evaluators of stakeholders in several supply chains 
in six Member States, complemented by phone interviews in other Member States 
and submissions in five Member States based on the evaluation questionnaires.52 

50https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-594424_en  
51 
aquaculture-products_en#about-this-consultation  
52 See Evaluation study for the detailed methodology and full list of interviews and written contributions. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-eu-marketing-standards-fishery-and-

50 

 
 
                                                           
The Market Advisory Council (MAC) and the South Western Waters Advisory Council 
(SWWAC) issued opinions on the topic. 

The several consultations activities had the following objectives and design:   

  Public  Consultation:  The  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for 
Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  ran  a  Public  Consultation  from  16  July  to  9 
October  2018.  It  aimed  to  gather  opinions  on  the  EU  marketing  standards  from 
the  broadest  possible  range  of  stakeholders  –  both  expert  and  non-expert.  The 
public consultation received 155 contributions. 

  Survey of national authorities: it ran from June to September 2018 and targeted 
the 28 Member States  through  an online survey in  four languages  (EN, FR, DE 
and ES). All EU countries, except Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia, replied. The 
survey  provides  information  on  how  controls  of  marketing  standards  are 
organised, the resources allocated, the level of compliance, information on other 
norms  in  place  at  national  level  and  the  main  impacts  of  the  standards  as 
perceived by the national authorities. 

  Targeted  consultations:  Six  case  studies  were  carried  out:  Croatia,  Denmark, 
France,  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and  Spain.  These  countries  include  a  large 
proportion of EU production and trade of FAPs and reflect the diversity of supply 
chains  within  the  EU.  The  consultations  addressed  operators  and  representative 
organisations through individual interviews and focus  groups, following tailored 
interview  guides.  To  cater  for  the  diversity  of  operators  in  France,  Spain  and 
Italy,  a  larger  number  of  interviews  took  place  in  these  countries.  Fresh  and 
chilled  fishery  products  were  covered  in  all  case  studies.  In  addition,  the  case 
studies  addressed  the  following  themes:  shellfish  farming  in  France,  shellfish 
farming and canning industry in Spain, fish farming and canning industry in Italy, 
extra-EU trade in  the Netherlands, processing in  Denmark and  fish farming and 
processing  in  Croatia.  The  case  studies  provide  an  understanding  of  how 
marketing  standards  are  implemented  and  how  operators  deal  with  products  not 
covered by them. In total, 63 private companies and representative organisations 
took  part.  The  distribution  of  the  tailored  questionnaires  to  all  Member  States 
through the Commission’s expert group for markets and trade in FAPs led to 10 
additional  written  contributions  from  Austria,  Belgium,  Italy,  Portugal  and 
Sweden. Five additional interviews took place to complete the data collection on 
specific topics (aquaculture in Greece, canned sardine-type products in Latvia and 
aquaculture  and  intra-EU  exchanges  in  Poland,  Federation  of  European 
Aquaculture Producers - FEAP). 

  Consultation on recommendations: in the final stage of the study, stakeholders 
interviewed during the data collection phase and who had expressed interest to be 
further involved were consulted on a set of recommendations. The questionnaire 
was available in the 6 languages of the case studies. When the questionnaire was 
sent  in  English,  respondents  were  offered  the  possibility  to  answer  in  their 
language. Out of the 119 operators and organisations contacted, 31 replied. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Profile of stakeholder groups  

In  total,  259  stakeholders  contributed  to  the  evaluation.  The  figures  below  show  the 
contributions by country and stakeholder group. 

Figure 1: Distribution of contributions by Member States  

Other 
24% 

Spain  
19% 

Denmark  
4% 
Belgium  
5% 
Netherlands  
5% 

Portugal  
6% 

Germany  
6% 

Italy  
16% 

France  
15% 

Figure 2: Distribution of contributions by stakeholder group  

Individual 
responses 
34% 

Other  
2% 

Research  
3% 

Public 
authorities 
12% 

Fishing  
11% 

Aquaculture 
8% 

Processing 
5% 

Trade and 
marketing 
11% 

Industry - 
various 
stages  
14% 

All sub-sectors and supply chain stages contributed to the targeted consultations53. 

Figure 3: Contribution of the different subsectors for the targeted consultations 

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

53 As each stakeholder can operate in more than one sub-sector, some overlap might occur. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
Short description of the methodology and tools used to process the data  

Data  gathered  through  the  consultations  were  mainly  qualitative  and  were  processed 
using qualitative methods. The only quantitative data collected from stakeholders were: 

  National  authority  survey:  the  number  of  FTEs  allocated  to  controls  of 
marketing standards, number of controls, volumes of products controlled and 
number  of  infringements.  The  few  reliable  and  comparable  answers  were 
processed as qualitative answers rather than through statistical analysis. 

  Auctions price statistics: some auctions provided price series. The data did 

not allow carrying out statistical analysis but serve as examples. 

Statistical techniques such as bivariate and multivariate analysis allowed identifying both 
overall patterns and differences between respondent groups. Qualitative data highlighted 
the reasons behind certain patterns or main variations. 

Description of the results of the consultation phase  

The consultation activities were complementary to one another. They provide a realistic 
and coherent picture of the implementation of the marketing standards framework. Views 
on its future evolution are more heterogeneous.  

National Authority survey 

Questions to national authorities focused on controls and on whether, in their view, the 
EU marketing standards had achieved the objectives of the CMO Regulation. 

In  general,  between  one  and  five  entities  are  involved  in  implementation  and  control 
activities. The most common set-up involves both the Department of Agriculture and/or 
Fishery  and  the  Veterinary  Services.  Market  control  services  can  also  be  involved.  All 
these entities also carry out other types of controls. 

In  20  out  of  the  23  countries  that  reported  on  the  organisation  of  controls,  these  are 
combined  with  other  inspections  (e.g.  hygiene,  traceability,  laboratory  sample  checks, 
storage conditions and labelling). When controls are not combined, this is either because 
standards are not checked at all (2) or because the legal framework does not allow so (1).  

Only 13 countries provided information on the resources allocated to controls, and only 
six  answers  could  feed  the  analysis.  As  controls  of  marketing  standards  are  often 
combined with other controls, it is difficult to precisely assess the resources dedicated to 
their  control.  Reliable  answers,  confirmed  by  information  collected  through  the  case 
studies, suggest that 0 to 9 FTEs/year are allocated to the control of marketing standards. 
Similarly, it was not always clear whether answers regarding the number of inspections 
and  reported  anomalies  referred  to  marketing  standards  only  or  if  they  covered  other 
provisions. In general, Member States indicated a good level of compliance, noting that 
stringent buyer requirements reduce infringements. The most frequent irregularities relate 
to size issues, while anomalies regarding preserved products are the least frequent. 

53 

 
The  vast  majority  of  national  authorities  consider  EU  marketing  standards  as  having 
positive  effects  on  quality,  sustainability,  transparency  of  the  market  and  fairness  of 
trade.  They  also  generally  consider  the  standards  coherent  with  other  national  and  EU 
rules. Calls for simplification are limited. Simplification of freshness and size criteria has 
the highest support, with about a third of authorities without opinion, a quarter opposing 
simplification and about 40% favouring it, arguing in particular that MCRSs suffice.   

Targeted consultation of stakeholders  

The case studies, additional interviews and contributions provide an understanding of the 
level of implementation, benefits and costs of the marketing standards.  

With the exception of the catching sector in Croatia, stakeholders involved in fresh fish 
supply  chain  are in  general  aware of the marketing standards. Operators  in  the canning 
industry are all very well acquainted with the marketing standards. 

On the relevance of the criteria defined by marketing standards for fresh fish, operators in 
the supply chain indicate that first sale price statistics are kept by size categories, which 
illustrates  the  importance  of  this  criterion.  Freshness  grading  is  also  applied,  but  other 
criteria  might  be  used  to  assess  the  product's  quality  (e.g.  the  vessel’s  reputation,  time 
elapsed  since  the  catch,  fishing  gear).  Consequently,  the  quality  assessment  may  differ 
somewhat  between  auctions  and  countries.  The  inconsistent  application  of  marketing 
standards  on  fresh  products  does  not  compromise  the  benefits  of  having  one  basic 
common  denominator  to  grading  the  most  landed  species.  The  specific  context  of  the 
small polyvalent fisheries in the Mediterranean region (high number of species landed in 
small volumes) makes the standards difficult to implement in the area. 

The  consultation  phase  confirmed  that  marketing  standards  for  fresh  products  are  only 
relevant  at  first  sale,  as  expected.  As  the  products  travel  through  the  supply  chain,  the 
standards  lose  relevance.  Concerning  canned  products,  the  criteria  defined  in  the  two 
regulations are considered highly relevant through the chain.  

Operators  consider  that  compliance  with  the  standards  has  increased,  because  of  both 
controls and the need to maintain trust in B2B relations. Operators indicate that controls 
on fresh fish occur at different frequencies across auctions and countries, and separating 
controls  of marketing standards from  other controls  (e.g.  conservation, hygiene, etc.) is 
not always possible, but detection of non-compliance is rare. 

The  consultation  did  not  find  any  equivalent  to  marketing  standards.  More  detailed 
grading in use in some countries is generally based on the EU system. Private standards 
and certification schemes have developed, but they focus on processes and sustainability, 
rather  than  quality.  They  can  however  have  a  significant  impact  when  they  become  de 
facto mandatory to enter certain markets (e.g. large-scale retailers in some countries).  

Some  operators  consider  that  standards  for  fresh  products  could  be  repealed,  but  the 
majority wishes to maintain them, as they meet the daily practice at first sale. Similarly, 

54 

 
operators  in  the  canning  supply  chain  consider  that  marketing  standards  for  canned 
products serve well their purpose and should not be removed or simplified.  

The  fieldwork  did  not  show  a  need  or  expectations  to  extend  the  existing  marketing 
standards to products currently not covered. 

Public consultation for the evaluation roadmap54 

AIPCE-CEP, representing EU fish processors and traders, and ANFACO-CECOPESCA, 
representing Spanish fish processors, provided feedback on the evaluation roadmap. The 
two contributions stress the usefulness of marketing standards for preserved products and 
defend that the rationale for the evaluation (e.g. reported lack of compliance and rigidity 
of the marketing standards) does not apply to these standards. 

Public consultation for the evaluation55 

The public consultation aimed to gather feedback on respondent purchasing choices, their 
assessment  of  seafood  quality  and  sustainability,  the  need  for  standardisation,  the 
usefulness and impact of the marketing standards and potential ways to improve them. 

Responses  (which  include  both  end  consumers  and  business  operators)  show  that 
appearance and origin clearly are the most important criteria when buying fresh seafood 
products. Size and, notably, price are less important. Respondents are the most satisfied 
with the quality of fresh seafood in their countries, but most have doubts about seafood 
sustainability and feel that information on seafood quality is not easily accessible. Public 
authorities are more trusted to ensure compliance than private certification bodies. 

Very few respondents regarded the various criteria set by standards as lacking usefulness, 
but the number of respondents who did not know or were neutral is significant.  

Among the standards’ impacts, the most supported ones were the ‘harmonisation of trade 
description  and  composition  provision  for  preserved  products’  and  ‘protect  consumers 
against the marketing of products unfit for consumption’. Then came ‘improve quality’, 
‘avoid fraudulent practices’ and ‘fair competition in the EU’. Answers were more mixed 
on the contribution that the existing standards provide to the sustainability of FAPs, and 
respondents agreed the least that standards provided for ‘level playing field between EU 
and non-EU products’ and ‘profitability of the EU producers’. 

The  reported  difficulties  are  often  related  to  other  aspects  (e.g.  labelling  requirements) 
and while differences in implementation are mentioned, it is not always clear whether it 
is related to marketing standards (e.g. use of the term “white tuna”) or other regulations 
(e.g. enforcement of the rules in third countries). Answers about possible improvements 
mainly relate new aspects such as consumer information, sustainability and conservation 
rather than the criteria included in the existing marketing standards. 

54 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-594424_en  
55 
framework-for-fishery-and-aquaculture-products_en.pdf   

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/summary-results-consultation-on-marketing-standard-

55 

 
                                                           
Views on simplification are mixed. Over a third of the respondents consider it possible to 
simplify  criteria  without  compromising  their  effectiveness  or  to  improve  it.  20-25%  of 
respondents does not know whether simplification is possible, and 20% believe it is not. 

On the issue of coherence, EU standards are generally regarded as a minimum common 
reference. Of all alternatives (private standards, codes of practice or national standards), 
codes  of  practice  were  the  likely  candidate  to  replace  EU  marketing  standards,  but  no 
option received more than 40% of support. 

Respondents  supported  expanding  marketing  standards  to  other  products  (especially 
farmed products). However, they do not request expanding the current standards. Instead, 
general  rules  should  be  defined  for  all  products  to  guarantee  minimum  quality  for  EU 
consumers,  protect  EU  producers  from  unfair  competition,  increase  transparency, 
contribute to better products creating value-added and to increase sustainability. 

Consultation on recommendations  

The  consultation  aimed  to  collect  operators’  views  on  recommendations  resulting  from 
the  evaluation  on  both  the  current  criteria  and  the  general  marketing  standards 
framework. The 31 answers confirmed the findings of the first phase of consultations.  

Stakeholders  in  the  fresh  fish  supply  chain  held  heterogeneous  views,  showing  two 
contradictory  situations.  Some  operators,  generally  from  countries  where  standards  are 
well  known  and  implemented,  call  for  maintaining,  or  even  expanding  (e.g.  more  size 
grades,  new  species)  them,  in  view  of  the  market  transparency  they  provide.  Other 
operators,  generally  from  countries  where  marketing  standards  are  less  known  or 
inconsistently  applied,  call  for  their  simplification  (e.g.  removing  minimum  marketing 
sizes or simpler grading systems), or for repealing the regulation.  

On  the  regulations  laying  down  marketing  standards  for  preserved  products,  operators 
held different views. The canning industry considers that these standards should remain 
unchanged.  On  the  other  hand,  the  tuna-fishing  sector  calls  for  some  revisions  (e.g. 
reconsidering the inclusion of Auxis species, changes in the trade description).  

Looking  at  all  FAPs,  the  consultations  showed  that  expanding  current  marketing 
standards to other sectors would not address business needs. Most operators indicate that 
buyers include sustainability-related specifications. Views on the possibility to harmonise 
sustainability information at EU level were mixed.  

Ad hoc contributions 

On 24 December 2018, the SWWAC issued an opinion56 recommending a revision of the 
species covered by the  marketing standard  for canned tuna and their trade designations 
on the grounds that they could mislead consumers and result in unfair competition.   

56 http://cc-sud.eu/images/img-ccs/avis/Avis-2018-2019/126-ConservesThons/Avis126-conserves-EN.pdf 

56 

 
                                                           
On  28  March  2019,  the  MAC  issued  an  opinion  on  the  marketing  standards  for  fresh 
products57, noting that freshness categories were no longer useful, but size criteria are. It 
also recommended to increase the flexibility of marketing standards and to facilitate their 
harmonised implementation. A second advice, adopted on 12 July 2019, complemented 
this position and suggested consolidating all standards into a single legislative instrument 
to increase market transparency and a level playing field, including on social standards.  

The  MAC  supports  the  development  of  standards  to  ensure  supply  of  sustainable 
products to the EU market, the application of uniform and transparent criteria throughout 
the single market, fair competition between operators and an improved profitability of the 
EU production. In parallel, controls should be strengthened, including on related areas. 

The advice calls for a revision of the annex to the standard on canned tuna and bonito to 
avoid  practices  that  might  lead  to  unfair  competition  or  even  consumer  fraud.  The  EU 
canning  industry  covered  by  the  standards  holds  a  dissenting  opinion,  notably  that  the 
standards on preserved products are fit for purpose in their current shape. 

Conclusion 

Feedback  received  from  the  different  consultation  activities  is  generally  coherent 
regarding implementation, control and usefulness of the existing marketing standards.  

The feedback received from the Public Consultation, calling for increased transparency, 
especially  as  regards  sustainability,  confirms  feedback  from  the  industry  that  these 
requirements are included in purchase contracts.  

Explanation  on  how  the  information  gathered  has  been  taken  into  account  in  the 
evaluation work 

Information  received  through  the  consultations  on  the  implementation  and  control  of 
marketing  standards  was  analysed  and  fed  the  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions. 
Stakeholders’  opinions  on  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU 
added-value  of  the  marketing  standards  were  also  used  as  indicators,  among  others,  to 
answer the evaluation questions. 

The  SWWAC  opinion  fed  the  evaluation  questions,  triangulating  its  content  with 
available data (e.g. tuna prices and production data, analysis of the relevant provisions).  
MAC  opinions  could  not  inform  the  evaluation  study  as  their  adoption  came  after 
completion of the evaluators’ work. They feed the Staff Working Document as additional 
material. 

57 
28.03.2019.pdf 

https://marketac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/MAC-Advice-Marketing-Standards-FRESH-

57 

 
                                                           
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The  analytical  framework  of  the  evaluation  of  the  marketing  standards  framework  was 
developed based on the intervention logic presented on page 3 and evaluation questions. 
The evaluation questions were further broken down into sub-questions. The table below 
lists them, alongside the judgement criteria applied to answer the questions and the main 
sources used in the assessment. 

58 

 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EQ1. To what extent are 
the existing marketing 
standards still relevant? 

To what extent 
marketing standards 
are relevant for 
stakeholders involved 
in the supply chain? 

For crustaceans and 
molluscs, to what 
extent the marketing 
standards are relevant 
with the characteristics 
of the products?  

Relevance 
used 

  Quality 

criteria 

by 
stakeholders  are  based  on  the 
marketing standards 

  Comparison 

criteria 
standards 

of 

quality 
and  marketing 

  No  additional  standards  are 
necessary  for  stakeholders  or 
additional standards rest on EU 
marketing standards 

  Use of additional standards 

by stakeholders 

  Content 

additional 
of 
standards  compared  to  EU 
marketing standards 

  Key 

used 

criteria 

by 
stakeholders for the description 
of  the  products  are  defined  in 
the marketing standards 

  Comparison  of  key  criteria 
and marketing standards 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
(fishermen, 
stakeholders 
importer, 
wholesaler, 
processor, 
retailer,  Market 
Advisory  Council)  and  UE 
and 
(Market 
staff 
Conservation) 

  Desk  research  on  criteria  used 
by  other  relevant  marketing 
standards 

  Desk  research:  criteria  defined 
in  the  marketing  standard  and 
other private standard 

  Desk 

research  on  market 
penetration  of  other  existing 
marketing standards 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
stakeholders 
(fishermen, 
wholesaler,  processor,  retailer) 
and UE staff (Market) 

  Desk  research:  criteria  defined 

in the marketing standard  

  Desk research on certifications 
and 

crustaceans 

for 

used 
molluscs 

To what extent the 
marketing standards 
are relevant for the 
sales to the final 
consumer (size, 

  Coherence  between  marketing 
standards 
market 
and 
segmentation  at  retail  stage 
(freshness and size) 

59 

  Comparison  of  marketing 
and  market 
final 

standards 
segmentation 
consumers 

for 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
retailers  and  UE  staff  (Market 
  Health)  and  Public 
and 
Consultation 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

Relevance 

freshness)?  

the 
To  what  extent 
sizes  and 
freshness 
defined  in  marketing 
standard  are  used  for 
pricing  of  EU  and 
imported products? 

To what extent the size 
defined  in  marketing 
standards  are  coherent 
conservation 
with 
issues  for  species  not 
covered by MCRS 

To what extent 
marketing standards 
allows a good trade 
description and 
composition provision 
for processed products 
covered by EU 
marketing standards 
compared to processed 
products not covered 

  Stakeholder  opinion  on 

the 

criteria for pricing of product 

  Ranking  of  the  criteria  for 

pricing 

  Qualitative 

stakeholders 
wholesalers, 
retailers) 

interviews  with 
(Fishermen, 
importers, 

  Existence of evidence showing 
differences 
for 
in 
different  freshness  and  size 
categories 

prices 

  Size  from  marketing  standards 
are  coherent  with  conservation 
issues 

   Comparison  of  prices  by 
category based on available 
data  from  specific  auctions 
the 
or  other  stages  of 
supply chain 

  Relevance  of  minimum 
sizes  defined  in  marketing 
standards  for  products  not 
covered 
by  minimum 
conservation reference size 

  For  canned  tunas  and  sardines 
trade  description  and 
provision 
are 
on  EU  marketing 

only: 
composition 
based 
standards  

of 
standards 

EU 
  Comparison 
marketing 
for 
canned  tunas  and  sardines 
with  trade  descriptions  and 
provisions  on  composition 
used by stakeholders 

  National/regional  sources  on 
size  and 

for  each 

prices 
freshness state 

  Desk 

research  by  country 

expert+ Data from sales notes 

   

  Answer  from  other  EQ  on 
effectiveness and coherence 

  Qualitative interviews 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
(wholesalers, 

stakeholders 
processors and retailers)  

  For  canned  tunas  and  sardines 
only:  no  additional  standards 
are needed for stakeholders for 
and 
description 
trade 

  Feedback 

from 
stakeholders  on  the  use  of 
other  standards  for  canned 
tunas  and  sardines,  and 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
stakeholders  (operators  in  the 
trade  and  processing  sector) 
and EU staff (Market)  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

by marketing 
standards.  

Relevance 

composition provision  

comparison  with 
description 
trade 
provisions on composition 

actual 
and 

What are the 
consequences of the 
absence of EU 
marketing standards in 
the aquaculture supply 
chain? To what extent 
shortcoming in quality 
description are 
identified? 

  For 

other 

canned 

and 
processed  products  only:  some 
trade 
shortcomings 
description  and  composition 
provisions are identified in  the 
supply  chains  not  covered  by 
marketing standards. 

in 

  Feedback 

from 
stakeholders  on  standards 
used  for  trade  descriptions 
the  absence  of 
or  on 
some 
standards 
products 
the 
consequences  for  Intra  and 
extra-EU trade. 

for 
and 

  What  are 
quality 
in 
aquaculture supply chain? 

the  methods  for 
the 

assessment 

  Method 

quality 
for 
description  by  stakeholders 
(standard, etc.) 

  Do  stakeholders  use  standards 
for  quality  description  (private 
/ public)? 

  Identification 

description  of 
used by stakeholders 

and 
standards 

  Are 

there 

shortcoming 
identified in quality description 
between stakeholders? 

  Identification 
shortcoming 
description 

of 
in  product 

61 

  Qualitative 

interviews  with 
stakeholders  (operators  in  the 
trade  and  processing  sector) 
and EU staff (Market) 

  Qualitative 

interviews 
(Operators  in  the  aquaculture 
sector  and  trade)  and  EU  staff 
(Market) 

  Qualitative 

interviews 
(Operators  in  the  aquaculture 
sector  and  trade)  and  EU  staff 
(Market) 

  Desk  research  on  the  content 

of standards 

  Qualitative 

interviews 
(Operators  in  the  aquaculture 
sector  and  trade)  and  EU  staff 
(Market) 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

EQ2. To what extent 
have the current 
marketing standards met 
the objectives? 

To what extent have 
the marketing 
standards contributed 
to improve the quality 
of the products in the 
interest of producers, 
traders and 
consumers? 

Effectiveness 
  Extent to which the marketing 
standards have improved the 
quality of products 

Change in quality grades of 
products placed on the 
market. 

  Factors helping or hindering 
improved quality of products 
(including technical 
innovations). 

  Stakeholder Consultation 

Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with operators, designated 
experts and trade organisations 
and EU staff (market and 
conservation) and Public 
Consultation  

  Possibly sales notes data 

  Stakeholder Consultation 

Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with operators, designated 
experts and trade organisations 
and Public Consultation 

To what extent do the 
marketing standards 
ensure that the EU 
market is supplied 
with sustainable 
products? 

  Extent to which the marketing 
standards have ensured the 
sustainability of seafood 
products in the EU market. 
  Factors helping or hindering 

ensuring the supply of 
sustainable products 

  Performance of the supply 

  Data analysis Sources: DCF 

chain in relation to 
marketing standard 
requirements (level of 
infringements, sanctions). 

  Trend in share of EU 

landed/traded products 
covered by marketing 
standards. 

  Change in % of seafood 
products certified as 
sustainable. 

data on discard levels, 
sustainable seafood availability 
in EU markets. 

  Stakeholder Consultation 

(interviews with operators of 
trade and processing sector, 
scientists, environmental 
NGOs and trade organisations) 
and an Public Consultation  

  Public Consultation  

62 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

Effectiveness 
  Extent to which the marketing 
standards have facilitated fair 
competition. 

  Change in extent of 

seafood trade disputes 
within the EU. 

To what extent do the 
marketing standards 
facilitate market 
activities based on fair 
competition and 
improve the 
profitability of 
production? 

  Extent to which the marketing 

standards have facilitated 
profitability. 

  Change in profitability 
within seafood chains. 

  Factors helping or hindering  

  Change in perceptions of 

operators regarding 
fairness/transparency and 
profitability. 

  Review 

of 

trade 

dispute 

instances. 

  Stakeholder Consultation 
Sources: interviews with 
operators of trade and 
processing sector, UE Staff on 
conservation and trade and 
trade organisations 
  Public Consultation 
  Stakeholder Consultation 
Sources: interviews with 
operators of trade and 
processing sector, UE Staff on 
conservation and trade    
  Data analysis Sources: DCF 

data on production and 
processing economics 
  Stakeholder Consultation 
Sources: interviews with 
operators of trade and 
processing sector, UE Staff on 
conservation and trade  and 
trade organisations 
  Public Consultation 

63 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

Effectiveness 
  Extent to which EU and non-
EU products face the same 
regulatory requirements. 

To what extent do the 
marketing standards 
ensure a level playing 
field between EU and 
non-EU products? 

  Performance of the supply 

chain in relation to 
marketing standard 
requirements involving 
imports (level of 
infringements, sanctions). 
  Trend in share of imported 

products covered by 
marketing standards 

  Factors helping or hindering 

achieving a level playing field. 

  Extent to which marketing 
standards help to avoid 
fraudulent practices. 

  Level of compliance with 
marketing standards for 
preserved seafood products. 

  Change in the amount of 
fraudulent practices in 
preserved products. 

  Consumer perception of 

seafood products. 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
effective in helping to 
avoid fraudulent 
practices and 
misleading consumers 
in the trade 
description of 
preserved products?  

  Desk review Sources: WTO, 

DG Trade, Competition 
information and Review of 
trade dispute instances. 

  Data sources: COMEXT, FAO 

FISHSTAT (imports) 
  Stakeholder Consultation 
Sources: interviews with 
operators of trade and 
processing and trade 
organisations, UE Staff on 
conservation and trade  

  Public Consultation  

  Public Consultation  

  Desk review Sources: Control 
& compliance reports at all 
stages in the supply chain. 
Consumer perceptions of 
seafood.  

  Stakeholder Consultation 

Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with operators, designated 
experts and trade organisations 
and UE staff on Market, 
Health and Conservation  

  Public Consultation  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

Effectiveness 

  Factors  helping  or  hindering 
and 

fraudulent 
practices 
misleading consumers. 

EQ3. To what extent has 
the implementation of 
marketing standards 
caused unexpected or 
unintended effects? 

No sub-question 

What unexpected or unintended 
effects were caused by the 
marketing standards? 

  Changes in levels of loss & 

waste throughout the 
seafood supply chain. 
  Consumer perceptions of 

seafood (understanding and 
confidence in the 
information related to the 
marketing standards). 

  Stakeholder Consultation 

Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with operators, designated 
experts and trade organisations 

  Public Consultation 

  Desk review 
Sources: DG ENV reports on 
food waste, consumer 
perceptions. 
  Stakeholder Consultation 
Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with operators, designated 
experts and trade organisations 
and UE staff on Conservation, 
Health and Market   

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 
Efficiency 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

EQ4. To what extent are 

the incurred costs 
justifiable and 
proportionate to the 
benefits achieved? 

No sub-question 

  Extent to which the benefits 

  FTEs dedicated to control 

of having marketing 
standards in place outweigh 
the costs of implementation 
and control 

of MKTS and costs 
identified – examples from 
specific MS   

  Costs compared to the 

benefits of EU marketing 

Sources: EU-wide survey to 
control authorities, interviews 
with processors, traders, and 
trade organization 
Answers from EQ 2 and 3, 
Eurostat (labour costs)  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
  
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 
Efficiency 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

EQ5. Could the use of 
other policy 
instruments or 
mechanisms have 
provided better cost-
effectiveness? 

Could the same 
objectives be achieved 
without marketing 
standards regulations 
(i.e. without the related 
costs)? 

Standards (Questions on 
effectiveness) 

  Perception of stakeholders 
about costs vs benefits. 

  Extent to which minimum 

  % of landings covered (in 

conservation reference sizes 
alone would allow to 
achieve the same objectives 

  Extent to which other 
applicable norms and 
standards alone would 
achieve similar results 

volumes and value) 
  Relevance of minimum 

reference sizes compared to 
other quality criteria 
  Objectives that could be 
achieved by minimum 
conservation reference 
sizes  

  Objectives that would not 

be achieved 

  Relevance of those norms 

and standards for the 
different types of products 
and for the operators at the 
different stages of the 
supply chain 

  Objectives that could be 
achieved by minimum 
conservation reference 
sizes  

  Objectives that would not 

be achieved 

Landings data : EUROSTAT 
EU-wide survey to public 
authorities, interviews with 
processors, traders, control 
agencies, designated experts and 
trade organization.  Answers 
from EQ 1 to 4 

EU-wide survey to public 
authorities, interviews with 
processors, traders, control 
agencies, designated experts and 
trade organization.  Answers 
from EQ 1 to 4 
Public Consultation  

To what extent do MS 
implementation choices 

  Extent to which the cost-

effectiveness of marketing 

  Evidences of significant 
differences in terms of 

Cross-analysis based on 
previous questions and answers 

66 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

impact the cost-
effectiveness of 
marketing standards? 

EQ6. To what extent is 
there a potential for 
simplification of 
marketing standards? 

To what extent is there a 
potential for 
simplification of 
freshness/size criteria? 

To what extent is there a 
potential for 
simplification of the 
provisions on imported 
fresh/chilled products? 

Judgement criteria 
Efficiency 
standards depend on MS 
implementation choices 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

cost-effectiveness among 
MS 

to Q4 + check opinion of NA 
and EU staff 

  Identification of cost 
drivers related to MS 
implementation choices 

  Evidence of unnecessary or 

disproportionate costs 

  Evidence of unnecessary or 

disproportionate costs 

Analyses will build on Questions 
4 and 5 and Interviews operators 
and public authorities, in 
particular control authorities, 
processors, trader, control 
services in airports  

Extent to which the 
implementation of 
freshness/size criteria leads to 
unnecessary/ disproportionate 
costs 

Extent to which the 
implementation of the 
provisions on imported 
fresh/chilled products leads to 
unnecessary/ disproportionate 
costs 

To what extent is there a 
potential for 
simplification of 
presentation 
requirements for 
preserved products? 

Extent to which the 
implementation presentation 
requirements for preserved 
products leads to 
unnecessary/ disproportionate 
costs 

  Evidence of unnecessary or 

disproportionate costs 

To what extent is there a 
potential for 
simplification of control 
procedures? 

Extent to which control 
procedures lead to 
unnecessary/ disproportionate 
costs 

  Evidence of unnecessary or 

disproportionate costs 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

EQ7 To what extent are 
marketing standards and 
other norms having the 
same effect as marketing 
standards coherent with 
one another? 

EQ8. To what extent are 
marketing standards 
coherent with other EU 
rules (e.g. EU rules on 
food safety, food 
information to consumers, 
conservation rules)? 

No sub-question 

Coherence  
 Extent to which conflicts 
have been identified with 
other norms and rules 
acting as marketing 
standards  

  Identification and 

description of possible 
conflicts  

  Volumes/value of products 
falling under conflictual 
rules (depending on 
previous indicator) 

  Desk review  
  Stakeholders’ consultation: 
Control authorities, traders, 
processors, designated experts 
and EU staff in market and 
conservation  

  Detailed interviews in several 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with other EU 
rules on food safety? 

  Extent to which the 

marketing standards are 
coherent with other EU 
rules on food safety. 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 

perceived external 
coherence (or lack thereof) 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with the control 
system for marketing 
standards established in 
Regulation (EC) No 
1224/2009 and 
Regulation (EU) 

  Extent to which the 

marketing standards are 
coherent with regulation 
1224/2009 and 2017/625 

  Evidence of intra-policy 

coherence 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 
perceived complementarity 
and/or synergies between 
the policies (or lack 
thereof) 

68 

MS  

  Landings data: Eurostat 

  Desk review  
  Stakeholders’ consultation:  
Management authorities, 
control authorities, traders, 
processors, designated experts 
and EU staff in market and 
Health  

  Public Consultation  
  Detailed interviews in several 

MS 

  Desk review 
  Stakeholders’ consultation: 
Management authorities, 
national fisheries control and 
food safety agencies and EU 
staff in market  

  Detailed interviews in several 

MS 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

Coherence  

2017/625. 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with Consumer 
information rules 
(Regulation (EU) No 
1169/2011 and Chapter 
IV of the CMO 
Regulation)? 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with Hygiene 
rules for food of animal 
origin (Regulation 
853/2004)?  

  Extent to which the 

  Evidence of intra-policy 

marketing standards are 
coherent with EU rules on 
consumer information. 

coherence 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 
perceived complementarity 
and/or synergies between 
the policies (or lack 
thereof) 

  Extent to which the 

  Evidence of intra-policy 

marketing standards are 
coherent with EU hygiene 
rules 

coherence 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 
perceived complementarity 
and/or synergies between 
the policies (or lack 
thereof) 

  Desk review 
  Stakeholders’ consultation: 
Management authorities, 
retailers, food safety agencies 
and EU staff in market and 
Health 

  Detailed interviews in several 

MS 

  Public Consultation  

  Desk review  
  Stakeholders’ consultation: 
Management authorities, 
retailers, food safety agencies 
and EU staff in market and 
Health  

  Detailed interviews in several 

MS 

  Public Consultation  

EQ9. To what extent are 
EU marketing standards 
coherent with 
international standards? 

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with 
international standards 
(e.g. Codex and Global 

  Extent to which the 

marketing standards are 
coherent with Codex and 
FGSI 

  Evidence of intra-policy 

  Literature review of Codex, 

coherence 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 
perceived complementarity 
and/or synergies between 
the policies (or lack 

Global Food Safety Initiative 
and other recognised 
standards/codes. 

  Stakeholders’ consultation: 

management authority, traders, 
processors, control agencies 

69 

 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods and sources 

Food Safety Initiative) 

thereof) 

Coherence  

To what extent are the 
marketing standards 
coherent with private 
standards? 

  Extent to which the 

marketing standards are 
coherent with private 
marketing standards. 

  Stakeholder’s feedback on 
perceived complementarity 
and/or synergies between 
the policies (or lack 
thereof) 

and designated experts and EU 
staff on market  

  Detailed interviews in several 

MS 

  Consultation with FAO Codex 

team. 

  Desk review of private 
marketing standards. 

  Stakeholders’ consultation: 

management authority, traders, 
processors and designated 
experts and EU staff on market  

  Detailed interviews in several 

MS. 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EQ10. To what extent are 
EU marketing standards 
justifiable and provide 
added value in addition to 
international marketing 
standards (e.g. Codex)? 
Would national/regional 
standards provide the same 
result? What is the added 
value of the EU marketing 
standards compared to 

European Added Value 

Would 
national/regional 
standards provide the 
same result? 

  National / regional 

organisation would not be 
able or interested to 
develop marketing 
standards 

  Interest and ability of 
national / regional 
organisations to 
implement marketing 
standards 

  Qualitative interviews to 
management authorities, 
designated experts, national and 
regional organisations dealing 
with certification   

  COMEXT statistics on trade 
  Desk analysis on national and EU 

marketing standards 

  Fishery markets are 

international   

  Level of 

internationalisation of the 

  Qualitative interviews to 
management authorities, 

70 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

private standards in place in 
the supply chain? 

European Added Value 

fishery market (intra-EU 
trade, level of imports) 

designated experts, national and 
regional organisations dealing 
with certification   

  COMEXT statistics on trade 
  Desk analysis on national and EU 

marketing standards 

  What is the level of 

  Comparison of the content 

  Qualitative interviews to 

coherence of the different 
national standards the ones 
with the others and with 
EU marketing standards? 

of national and EU 
marketing standards 

management authorities, traders, 
processors, control agencies, 
designated experts, national and 
regional organisations dealing 
with certification and EU staff on 
market 

  COMEXT statistics on trade 
  Desk analysis on national and EU 

marketing standards 

  In case of high coherence 

  Comparison of the content 

  Qualitative interviews to 

between the national 
standards: to what extent 
mutual recognitions could 
be developed between 
these national standards? 

of national standards.  

Opinion of stakeholders 
on recognitions between 
national standards.  

management authorities, traders, 
processors, control agencies, 
designated experts, national and 
regional organisations dealing 
with certification and EU staff on 
market COMEXT statistics on 
trade 

  Desk analysis on national and EU 

marketing standards 

71 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

European Added Value 

  In case of low coherence 

  Comparison of the content 

  Qualitative interviews to 

between national 
standards, to what extent 
does it affect the 
functioning of the internal 
market? 

of national standards. 

Opinion of stakeholders 
on the impact of national 
standards on internal 
market.  

What is the added 
value of the EU 
marketing standards 
compared to private 
standards in place in 
the supply chain? 

  Content and geographical 
scope of EU marketing 
standards are more 
relevant than existing 
private standards  

  Comparison of relevance 

of the content and 
geographical scope of EU 
marketing standards and 
existing private standards 

  Applicability across 

  Comparison of the 

supply chains is higher for 
EU marketing standards 
than for existing private 
standards. 

applicability across supply 
chains of EU marketing 
standards and existing 
private standards 

management authorities, traders, 
processors, control agencies, 
designated experts, national and 
regional organisations dealing 
with certification   

  COMEXT statistics on trade 
  Desk analysis on national and EU 

marketing standards 

Qualitative interviews: Catching 
sector, traders, processors, control 
agencies and designated experts 

Qualitative interviews: Catching 
sector, traders, processors, control 
agencies and designated experts 

  Specific features of the 
fishery sectors would 
lower the impact of private 
standards (in particular the 
low concentration of the 
sector) 

  Identification of features 
for the fishery sector 
which would lower the 
impact of private scheme  

Qualitative interviews: Catching 
sector, traders, processors, control 
agencies and designated experts 
and EU staff on market  

72 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

European Added Value 

EQ11. To what extent 
would EU marketing 
standards have been useful 
for the sectors/products 
currently not covered? 

  No sub-question 

  Shortcomings are 

identified in the supply 
chains not covered by EU 
marketing standards 

  Marketing standards in the 
fishery sector are assessed 
to be useful 

  Specific features of supply 
chains covered and not 
covered by marketing 
standards which would 
impact the implementation 
of marketing standards.  

  Shortcoming identified in 

the aquaculture and 
processed products supply 
chains related to the 
absence of EU marketing 
standards 

  EU marketing standards 
and their implementation 
in the fishery sector are 
assessed to be relevant, 
effective, coherent and 
efficient 

  Specific features of supply 

chains 

  Interviews with operators: 
Catching sector, traders, 
processors, control agencies and 
designated experts and EU staff 
on market  

  Interviews with operators: 
Catching sector, traders, 
processors, control agencies and 
designated experts 

Interviews with operators: 
Catching sector, traders, 
processors, control agencies and 
designated experts 

73 

 
ANNEX 4: EXTERNAL EVALUATION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The full report and annexes of the external evaluation study can be found here: 

Final report:  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9480757a-100c-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1 

Annexes:  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f4aeff70-100d-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1 

Literature consulted for the evaluation: 

-  European Commission (2009) “Etude sectorielle de la filière thonière européenne”  
-  European  Commission  (2012)  “Value  of  production  of  agricultural  products  and 
foodstuffs,  wines,  aromatised  wines  and  spirits  protected  by  a  geographical 
indication (GI)” 

-  European  Commission  (2015)  “Feasibility  report  on  options  for  an  EU  ecolabel 

scheme for fishery and aquaculture products” 

-  European  Commission,  EUMOFA  (2016)  “EU  consumer  habits  regarding  fishery 

and aquaculture products, Annex 2 – Stakeholder survey” 

-  European Commission (2018) “Eurobarometer 475 - EU consumer habits regarding 

fishery and aquaculture products” 

-  European  Commission  (2019)  “Assessment  of  voluntary  claims  on  fishery  and 

aquaculture products (FAPs)” 

-  European Commission (2019) “Results of an EU wide comparison of quality related 

characteristics of food products” 

-  European  Court  of  Auditors’  Special  Report  2016/34  “Combating  Food  Waste:  an 
opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain”  
-  Mariani  S  et  al.  (2015)  “Low  mislabeling  rates  indicate  marked  improvements  in 
European  seafood  market  operations”  Frontiers  in  Ecology  and  Environment 
13:536–540. 

-  STECF (2017) “The economic performance of the EU fish processing sector 2017” 
-  STECF (2018) “The 2018 Annual Economic Reports on the EU Fishing Fleet” 
-  Svedäng  H.,  &  Hornborg  S.  (2014).  Selective  fishing  induces  density‐ dependent 

growth. Nature Communication, 5:4152. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: LIST OF NATIONAL STANDARDS 

MS 

Type 
standards 

of 

Concerned products 

Austria   National law  

Germany   National law  

Spain  

National law  

France  

AFNOR 
voluntary use 

Professional 
decision 

Code 
conducts 

of 

The  national  law  provides  definitions  for  various  products, 
including frozen fish fingers, marinated herring and surimi 
packs 
The  national  law  provides  definitions  for  few  products, 
including  frozen  fish  fingers  (similar  requirements  as  in 
Austria),  frozen  fish  fillets  and  sauces  used  with  fishery 
products.  
National  laws  provide  some  general  definitions  on  the  terms 
“fresh”, “frozen”, “salted”, etc. and there are two specific laws 
that establish quality standards for cooked and frozen mussels, 
cockles  and  clams  and  for  canned  mussels,  clams  and 
scallops, an important segment of the fish processing industry 
in Spain. 
NF  V45-069  Canned  product  with  topping  (2013)  –  Canned 
tuna and sardine  
NF V45-071 Canned sardine « Traditional preparation » (2015) 
– Canned sardine 
NF V45-070 Level of fulfilment of cans for canned tuna (1997) 
– Canned tuna  
NF V45-065 Saumon fumé (décembre 2012) – Smoked salmon  
NF  V45-064  Conserves  appertisées  de  maquereaux  (août 
2013) – Canned mackrel 
NF  V45-073  Rillettes, 
aquatiques (septembre 2013) – Spreadable / pâtés  
NF  V45-066  Anchois  salés  et  préparations  à  base  d’anchois 
salés (septembre 2014) – Salted Anchovy  
NF  V45-068  Surimi  et  spécialités  à  base  de  surimi  (février 
2016) – Surimi  
NF  V45-067  Filets  de  hareng  fumé  (septembre  1996)  – 
Smoked herring flet 
NF V45-074 Portions de filet de poisson surgelé (avril 1999) - 
Frozen pieces of fish (filled, back..) 
N°39 – Conserves de crustacés et de mollusques - 18/01/1955 - 
Canned crustaceans and molluscs 
N°61  –  Fabrication  des  semi-conserves  –  sauf  «  Anchois  »  - 
Semi-preserved products (except anchovy) 
N°64  –  Article  3  « Bouillabaisses » 
- 
Bouillabaisse  (traditional  meal  from  Southern  part  of 
France) 
Soupes de poissons, bisques de crustacés et potages à base de 
poisson - Soup 
Tarama et produits dérivés - Tarama and derived products 
Crevettes vendues réfrigérées - Shrimps sold chilled 
Anchois salés et préparations à bases d’anchois salés - Salted 
anchovy 

terrines  et  mousses  d’animaux 

-  16/10/2017 

75