An article the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP) published on the morning of September 25, 2026, reported that, triggered by US tariff measures, countries are piling up bilateral and regional trade agreements, and that tariff preferences for seafood are becoming finely divided by agreement. The pillar figure it places is "384."
The originating article accurately writes "384 regional trade agreements in force," but since it is easy to misread when read in Japanese, let us pin it down first. This is neither the number of FTAs Vietnam has concluded nor the cumulative total of agreements signed worldwide. Tracing the source, it was the number of regional trade agreements (RTAs) the World Trade Organization (WTO) counted as "in force" as of June 30, 2026. What takes effect for Japanese managers buying seafood raw materials from Vietnam is not the number but the point that, even bringing in the same fish from the same factory, which agreement you declare under changes the Japanese-side import tariff rate and required documents. regional trade agreements (RTAs) What is the figure of 384 regional trade agreements in force counting?
The number "in force" that the WTO counted as of June 30, 2026
The WTO's regional-trade-agreements page states that "384 RTAs are in force as of June 30, 2026." The following sentence notes that these 384 correspond to
634 notifications from WTO members, counting goods, services, and accessions to existing agreements separately. The 384 is the number bundling an agreement as one; counted by number of notifications it swells to 634, a little over 1.6 times. One more condition is attached. The 384 is the number of
agreements notified to the WTO . The WTO Secretariat explains on the same page that, separately from these, it confirmed with the parties at least 79 un-notified in-force RTAs as of June (document WT/REG/W/198). Simply added together it is 463, but numbers with a different confirmation route from the 384 notified ones are mixed in. The classification of RTA does not correspond one-to-one with FTA
The WTO defines an RTA as "an agreement in which two or more parties grant each other preferences." What is called an FTA or EPA in Japanese fits here, but customs unions, agreements in the services field, and new accessions to existing agreements are also treated in the same frame. It is broader than when you say "how many FTAs" in negotiations.
In the half-yearly tally the WTO Secretariat puts out, newly notified RTAs in January-June 2026 were 5, those examined were 10, and notifications of changes to implementation content were 4. One of the five new notifications is the agreement between Israel and Vietnam. In the "main RTA-using countries" column of the same material, Japan has 18 notified RTAs in force, the EU 47, and the UK 39.
The agreements countries are moving in response to US tariffs
The EU is advancing or expanding trade relations with Indonesia, India, Mexico, and Mercosur
The VASEP article writes that, as a move to diversify markets and reduce US dependence, the EU is advancing or expanding trade relations with Indonesia, India, Mexico, and Mercosur. India, following the agreement with the UK signed in July, is advancing relations with Chile, Oman, and others, it says. Vietnam too is seeking to widen its European framework, and
the course by which the agreement with the EFTA states reached a broad agreement is easier to place when set within this flow. The same article also records, as a WTO figure via Undercurrent News, that the share of world trade moving on MFN (most-favored-nation) rates alone fell from about 80% to 72%. However, the starting period for the comparison is not shown in the article, so there is latitude in how to read the decline.
New Zealand's parliament passed implementing legislation for its FTA with India
The article reports that on September 16, New Zealand's parliament passed implementing legislation for its FTA with India. As for the agreement's content, roughly 95% of New Zealand's exports to India become subject to tariff elimination or significant reduction, and Indian products enter the New Zealand market at 0%. It is a story at the stage where domestic implementing legislation passed, and rephrasing this as "in force" throws the premise of the procurement plan off by a year.
Four agreements can be used to bring Vietnamese seafood into Japan
Columns for AJCEP, the Japan-Vietnam EPA, CPTPP, and RCEP line up on the tariff table
This can also be confirmed in Japanese primary sources. In the Ministry of Finance / Customs tariff schedule (applied from April 1, 2026), the EPA-rate columns are divided by agreement. The ones relevant to Vietnamese products are the Japan-ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP), the Japan-Vietnam Economic Partnership Agreement (Japan-Vietnam EPA), CPTPP, and RCEP. RCEP is further divided into "for ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand," "for China," and "for Korea," and for Vietnamese products you look at the first column.
For a single item, there are at least four columns to judge whether it is duty-free. The article's expression "finely divided" is visible, in Japan's tariff schedule, as this lineup of columns.
Between frozen and fresh/chilled, the advantageous agreement swaps
Checking with pangasius (catfish) fillets, just by a change of state the advantageous agreement swaps. The table below is figures reconciled with the tariff schedule and each agreement's concession schedule (August 2026 edition, the column applied from April 1, 2026), with the HS drawn at 6 digits and the rate at the 9-digit statistical subdivision.
Item (HS 6-digit / statistical subdivision)
| WTO rate | Japan-Vietnam EPA | AJCEP | RCEP (ASEAN, Australia, NZ) | CPTPP | Pangasius fillet, fresh/chilled (0304.32 / 030432000) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not subject to concession | 3.5% | 3.5% | Duty-free | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | 2.2% |
| Shrimp, frozen, other (0306.17 / 030617000) | 3.5% | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | 1.6% |
| For frozen fillets it is duty-free under any of AJCEP, the Japan-Vietnam EPA, or CPTPP, with only RCEP leaving 1.6%. But move to fresh/chilled fillets and AJCEP's rate is the same 3.5% as the WTO rate, losing the meaning of a preference, while the Japan-Vietnam EPA has no concession. The Japan-Vietnam EPA, AJCEP, and RCEP concession schedules carry the note "a blank means not subject to concession under that EPA," and blanks are read that way. CPTPP's concession schedule makes the staging explicit in a column, a different way of annotating. The one that can pass duty-free is only CPTPP, with RCEP lining up at 2.2%. | 1% | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | Pangasius fillet, frozen (0304.62 / 030462000) | 0.6% |
The situation in which pangasius inquiries are moving amid a global shortage of white fish If you consider a trial import of fresh/chilled goods, this one step rides onto the estimate. RCEP's figures are not held fixed. Tracing the annual columns of the same concession schedule, frozen fillets fall in stages from 1.6% on April 1, 2026 to duty-free on April 1, 2031; chilled fillets from 2.2% to duty-free on April 1, 2036; and frozen shrimp from 0.6% to duty-free on April 1, 2036. While shrimp has 0.6% set for ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand, the columns for China and Korea are blank and not subject to concession. Even within a single agreement, the handling differs by counterpart.
Proof of origin changes documents by agreement (AJCEP, Japan-Vietnam EPA, CPTPP)
The Japan-Vietnam EPA and AJCEP are third-party certification; CPTPP is self-declaration
Once you choose an agreement by rate, next the form of proof changes. Customs' proof-of-origin procedures page lists AJCEP and the Japan-Vietnam EPA as agreements applying the "third-party certification system," which uses a certificate of origin issued by the exporting country's competent authority, and lists CPTPP as an agreement applying the "self-declaration system," which declares with documents prepared by the importer, exporter, or producer themselves.
Once you choose an agreement by rate, next the form of proof changes. The Customs proof-of-origin procedures page lists AJCEP and the Japan-Vietnam EPA as agreements applying the "third-party certification system," which uses a certificate of origin issued by the exporting country's competent authority, and lists CPTPP as an agreement applying the "self-declaration system," which declares with documents prepared by the importer, exporter, or producer themselves.
Even buying the same fish from the same factory, if you pass it under the Japan-Vietnam EPA the arrangement is to have the Vietnamese issuing authority obtain the certificate, and if you pass it under CPTPP, who the preparer is must be decided and the documents you keep yourself change. The same page states that the responsibility for confirming that preference-seeking cargo is an originating product lies with the importer, and cites confirming with the exporter, making use of advance rulings, and preparing materials in case of post-clearance inquiries. When the rate difference is at the level of 0.6% or 1.6%, the gain or loss only emerges once you line this labor and internal cost up against it.
For seafood, tracking of the catch and explanations of environment and labor are also demanded
The article writes that the scope demanded of seafood is widening from the raw material's country of origin to catch tracking, environment, labor, residual substances, protection of marine animals, and proof of the supply chain. It is the framing that the cost of obtaining a low rate has come to be tied to a company's management capacity and tracking systems. the move in which a Ca Mau shrimp-farming cooperative obtained ASC certification This, while on a separate lineage from the tariff documents, faces the same direction as this selection of "whether a supply source can get its proofs in order."
What to pull up for your own item before ordering
Line up all four rates at the 9-digit statistical subdivision
The talk of numbers becomes a small task once you bring it down to your own item. The order of confirmation is as in the following table.
| What to confirm | Material to look at | Points easy to stumble on |
|---|---|---|
| Fix your item's statistical subdivision (9 digits) | The relevant chapter of the tariff schedule | The number changes between chilled and frozen, and between fillet and cut |
| Line up the four columns of AJCEP, Japan-Vietnam EPA, CPTPP, and RCEP side by side | The EPA-rate column of the tariff schedule | A blank is not "duty-free" but not subject to concession |
| Confirm the annual reduction margin | Each agreement's concession schedule (annual column) | RCEP's rate moves by year |
| Decide the form of proof and the preparer | Customs' proof-of-origin procedures | The arrangement differs between third-party certification and self-declaration |
Fill in these four rows for one item and, when told in negotiations "the tariff is duty-free, right?", you can pin down under which agreement it is duty-free. For chilled goods it can even happen that there is only one agreement under which it becomes duty-free.
Match the reduction's annual schedule with the contract period
The point of looking at the annual column relates to the length of the contract. For an item like RCEP's frozen pangasius, which reaches duty-free in five years, the premise changes in the middle of a multi-year contract. Of the items whose rate remains until 2036, fresh/chilled fillets have no concession under the Japan-Vietnam EPA, so CPTPP, while frozen shrimp becomes duty-free under either CPTPP or the Japan-Vietnam EPA. It is more effective to divide the usable agreement by item and get the declaration system in place first.
A concrete next move is to pick one seafood item you imported recently and line up the rates for all four agreements on a single sheet at the 9-digit statistical subdivision. If you mark the agreements where a blank appears and the ones where the figure moves by year, you can decide what documents to ask the supply source for in your next estimate request. The world total of 384 does not become material for an internal decision until you bring it down that far.
Materials referenced
- VASEP (September 25, 2026)
- WTO regional-trade-agreements page
- WTO RTA half-yearly tally (January-June 2026)
- Ministry of Finance Customs, tariff schedule, Chapter 3
- Ministry of Finance Customs, Japan-Vietnam EPA concession schedule
- Ministry of Finance Customs, AJCEP concession schedule
- Ministry of Finance Customs, CPTPP concession schedule
- Ministry of Finance Customs, RCEP concession schedule
- Ministry of Finance Customs, proof-of-origin procedures
