Many Russian products continue to be imported into the EU, including many fish and seafood products, despite pressure on EU and member state governments to widen existing sanctions preventing such imports. Among fish products, only crustaceans, caviar, and caviar substitutes have been effectively banned since sanctions were applied in April 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Efforts to broaden the EU ban to cover all Russian seafood, however, face opposition in some Member States that have consumers and processors who rely on—or at least prefer—fish from Russia. Importers of fish that is available from non-Russian sources, such as Pacific cod and Alaska pollock from North America, continue to prefer Russian product mainly because of its lower price compared to other sources. There are no fish products imported from Russia that cannot be imported from elsewhere; the second largest source of EU imports of Alaska pollock, for example, is the United States.
Germany is the EU’s largest importer of Russian fish and seafood. Reports state that as much as 85% of Alaska pollock imported by fast food chains in Germany comes from Russia. German industry representatives claim that there is no short-term alternative to these products from Russia. However, there are several other countries that harvest and process this North Pacific resource. Over many years, Alaska pollock and Pacific cod have replaced Atlantic cod in the fast food trade because of a substantial price differential: Atlantic cod is traded on a price-per-pound/kg basis and the Pacific alternatives are so inexpensive that they are priced on a per-tonne basis. It is not that there is “no alternative“ to Russian fish products; it is that there is no inexpensive alternative to Russian fish products. Another complicating factor is that Russian fish enters the EU either directly or through third countries including China, Norway, and the Faeroe Islands. If sufficiently processed in these countries, the products’ country of origin legally changes from Russia to the processing country. Widening the ban would help prevent EU imports of all Russian fish, regardless of its multi-country route. But feasible solutions to such complications—such as further defining an imported frozen block of fillets to include the raw material’s original source—require changes in trade law that must be approved unanimously by the European Parliament.
Germany’s initial reluctance to block Russian fossil fuels because of its economic dependence on those imports was more significant than any proposed action on Russian fish, but fish provides a similar example of instances where Parliamentary action requires unanimous support by all countries, despite differing economic costs paid by different countries to undertake the Parliamentary action. Parliament has not yet officially received the proposal but background discussions are underway.