The European Union is failing to keep illicit seafood products from entering its borders, despite having some of the strongest illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing restrictions on paper, according to the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF).
The NGO – along with Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Nature Conservancy, and WWF EU, all of which comprise the E.U.’s IUU Fishing Coalition – has warned in a new report – “Beyond CATCH: Why E.U. import controls still fail to keep illegal seafood out of the market” – that this flow of IUU products into the bloc is creating “dangerous loopholes” that threaten consumer trust, fair competition, and global efforts to combat fisheries crime.
The report found several major E.U. importers have consistently failed to verify even a small fraction of seafood entering the bloc. It highlights that in 2022 and 2023, Italy verified just one catch certificate per year, while Portugal verified five annually between 2020 and 2023, refusing only two shipments over the four-year period.
EJF CEO and Founder Steve Trent attributed low levels of import control to varying political will, capacity gaps, and a lack of systemic incentives, telling SeafoodSource that instead of rigorous import controls, some member nations may prioritize trade facilitation and port competitiveness.
“Limited transparency, such as the redaction of reports and inconsistent publication of implementation data, further obscures underperformance and reduces external pressure,” Trent said.
Import control measures are also wildly inconsistent throughout the bloc, with the report finding Spain inspects more than 70 percent of direct landings from non-E.U. vessels, but countries like the Netherlands – which receives large volumes of seafood from flagged high-risk states such as Russia – still fail to meet the E.U.’s minimum 5 percent inspection requirement.
“Meaningful enforcement requires proactive measures by member states,” Trent said. “To strengthen compliance and close gaps that allow IUU-caught fish to enter the E.U., member nations should meet the minimum 5 percent inspection obligation for direct landings from non-E.U. vessels, increase capacity and resources to ensure effective import controls, and apply standardized, thorough verification and inspection procedures for higher-risk catch certificates and consignments.”
He also insisted that consignments containing illegally caught products must be refused entry to the E.U. market and comprehensive data should be reported to the European Commission.
Though the issue continues to loom large in the E.U., Trent said that the bloc’s officials have taken some helpful steps to bolster enforcement efforts.
This includes the European Commission’s decision, taken back in June, to launch an infringement procedure against Portugal for failing to meet its obligations under E.U. regulations to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing.
“This must serve as a clear signal to all member states and an encouragement for them to strengthen their checks and verification procedures and for the European Commission to take prompt action in cases of non-compliance,” Trent said. “For these reasons, we are hopeful that the infringement action against Portugal will serve as a game-changing signal, compelling all member states to tackle systemic weaknesses and significantly strengthen compliance.”
Additionally, The E.U.’s IUU Coalition has pointed toward the digitization of the bloc’s CATCH Certification Scheme, starting in January 2026, as a promising step forward to enhance enforcement, stating that it should make verification more efficient, transparent, and accurate.
“CATCH is a long-awaited and welcome step forward,” Trent said. “By digitizing data exchange and improving risk screening, it has the potential to modernize the E.U. fisheries system for the 21st century. When fully deployed and used, CATCH can transform enforcement, strengthen compliance, and prevent illegally caught fish from entering the E.U. market. It cannot, however, fix systemic implementation failures on its own, which is why fundamental behavior and capacity changes at the member state level remain essential. Its full impact will be unlocked as, and if, member states actively use it to take action, verifying, inspecting, and refusing illicit consignments.”
Calls for the E.U. to step up import control enforcement come just a few months after the EJF highlighted a similar problem occurring in the U.K. in its report “Criminal Catches.”
The September report found that post-Brexit import checks have left the country comparably open to illicit seafood, with checks on catch certificates from high-risk countries like China and Russia particularly low, leaving consumers likely exposed to seafood caught with illegal practices and tied to human rights abuses.
“Urgent action is necessary across both the U.K. and the E.U. member states to strengthen their import controls and harness the proven tools in their arsenal to protect their market from illegally caught fish, uphold human rights at sea, and safeguard marine ecosystems long into the future,” Trent said.
The difference between the two situations, according to Trent, is that the U.K. needs to improve legislation – such as by implementing an E.U.-style carding system as an incentive to stimulate measures against IUU fishing – and allocate capacity to enforce it, whereas in the E.U., it is solely enforcement that is needed, he explained.
“Where we see connections between the E.U. and the U.K. is less a case of operators targeting the U.K. to move seafood into Europe and more the E.U. being used to re-export fish to the U.K. through ‘control shopping’ for weaker states, exploiting the easiest entry points to enter the E.U. market without sufficient scrutiny.”
