EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 COM(2026) 701 final

ANNEXES 1 to 2

ANNEXES

to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{SWD(2026) 750 final} - {SWD(2026) 751 final} - {SWD(2026) 752 final} - {SWD(2026) 753 final}

1

ANNEX I

EU strategy for fisheries external action

1. Promoting the sustainable management of global fisheries and upholding the rules-

based multilateral maritime order

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the global fight against

illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and regional cooperation through Regional

Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) must continue to be the cornerstones of

international cooperation on fisheries.

Integrity of the Law of the Sea and its comprehensive fisheries frameworks

• The European Union (EU) will promote the ratification and full implementation of the

UNCLOS and its implementing agreements, in particular the UN Fish Stocks

Agreement (UNFSA) and the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement

(BBNJ), as well as the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) and the WTO

Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, relevant instruments of the International Labour

Organisation (ILO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

• The EU will continue to advance these objectives through its bilateral and multilateral

dialogues and relevant international fora.

EU international leadership with a zero-tolerance approach to IUU fishing

• The Commission will ensure that Member States fully apply the IUU Regulation,

alongside tighter customs and port controls overall. The full implementation of the

digital catch certificate (CATCH) is a gamechanger and will ensure the protection of

the EU single market from IUU fishing products.

• To support Member States in the implementation of the IUU Regulation, the

Commission will inform their custom authorities of those non-compliance findings of

RFMOs that could be relevant in identifying the risks of invalid catch certificates.

• The EU will continue to engage in structured dialogues with third countries based on

active engagement and capacity building. If such efforts do not lead to significant

improvements in a given country supplying the EU, the EU will not hesitate to close its

market to those fish imports.

2

• The EU will promote broader international effort among like-minded countries to

ensure that major markets can effectively eliminate IUU fisheries products.

RFMOs fit for tackling old and new challenges

The EU will seek to strengthen RFMOs as fundamental pillars of international fisheries

management in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Priorities will be to:

• Sustain the EU’s presence in different parts of the ocean and actively defend the

legitimate fishing rights of its fleet and promote the operational standards of its fleet in

environmental, social, and economic terms.

• Complete the global coverage of RFMOs where fish stocks or fisheries activities in

ABNJ are not currently covered by a competent RFMO.

• Strengthen the governance of RFMOs. This includes promotion of unbiased scientific

evidence for management decisions and smooth and transparent decision-making. In

doing so, the EU will keep promoting selectivity and sustainability of fishing gears as

well as coherence with multilateral environmental agreements protecting endangered

species (CITES, CMS) and ecosystems.

• Integrate fishery-related climate change considerations more systematically in RFMOs

by incorporating climate change considerations systematically in the scientific work

and models of RFMOs.

• Strengthen compliance and transparency as essential pillars for ensuring sustainability

and a level playing field, through the full and effective implementation of conservation

and management measures, the streamlining and harmonisation of RFMO compliance

processes, the fulfilment of reporting obligations, and the adoption within in RFMOs

of complete and detailed compliance reports.

• Promote synergies between RFMOs and the bodies and institutions of the BBNJ

Agreement. The EU should work to ensure that the RFMOs internal frameworks are

‘fit for purpose’, be it to engage in preliminary discussions to shape BBNJ processes,

to engage in exchanges with other RFMOs to coordinate positions and input, or to

respond to consultations from BBNJ bodies in the future. At the same time, the EU

should promote consultation mechanisms within the BBNJ context that enable

meaningful and effective involvement of RFMOs.

• Ensure that RFMO management measures are effectively turned into EU rules.

3

2. Tackling global overcapacity and unfair competition

Eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies at the global level

• The EU will continue to implement the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, which

entered into force on 15 September 2025. The Agreement addresses subsidies

contributing to overfishing, fishing on the unregulated high seas, and IUU fishing.

• The EU will continue to engage with the WTO membership to eliminate certain types

of harmful fisheries subsidies such as subsidies contributing to overcapacity and

overfishing and deliver on UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6.

Promoting strong monitoring, control and surveillance

• To ensure implementation of the UNFSA and the PSMA related to the responsibilities

of flag, coastal and port States, the EU will aim to achieve transparency on which vessel

is authorised to fish what, where and when and to promote responsibilities of flag States

and coastal States across the multilateral, regional and bilateral levels of action.

• The focus will be on ensuring the existence of an accurate fleet register in all countries;

ensuring the equipment of all vessels with vessels monitoring systems (VMS) and

electronic logbooks; enhancing the set of monitoring and control means; encouraging a

wider and more systematic use of electronic tools for automated communications of

control data, based on international standards (UN/FLUX); proper enforcement of

multilateral agreements, RFMOs conservation and management measures and SFPAs

provisions, including the streamlining of compliance procedures across RFMOs and

adequate sanctions; and working on the forums where the shortcomings are most

evident and EU has the most possibility to influence.

Transparency as a core pillar of any effective strategy against IUU fishing

All pillars on which global fisheries governance rests (core international agreements, RFMOs

conservation and management measures, fight against IUU fishing) are fundamentally

weakened by gaps allowing some countries and operators to bypass the responsibilities of flag,

port and coastal States, namely regarding transshipments at sea, flags of convenience and

ultimate beneficial ownership. All can ultimately facilitate illicit activities and IUU fishing and

find their source in weak flag State controls.

• The EU will support the progressive development of a global exchange of information

on vessels, through the Global Record of Fishing Vessels, Refrigerated Transport

Vessels, for vessel registration and identification, and the PSMA Global Information

Exchange System, for inspection reports and port denials. The EU will promote the

transmission of data collected through more efficient MCS to these global information

systems, their regular updating, as well as improvements to these systems. To that end,

the EU will continue to promote the development and use of electronic tools, and the

4

transmission and sharing of these data, using international standards (UN/FLUX) and

support the modernisation of data exchange in RFMOs and developing countries.

• The EU will advocate for strengthened requirements on authorisation, monitoring and

reporting of transshipment activities on the high seas, standardised reporting and

information-sharing on transshipment events, and the use of ports for transshipment

controls.

• The Commission will follow up on its recent study on flag State responsibilities and

open registers for vessel registration by advancing concrete measures to address risks

of open registers acting as flags of convenience.

• The Commission will work with Member States to boost cooperation between fisheries,

customs, port and tax authorities to streamline risk-based import controls, further

integrate digital systems and improve exchange of information on fisheries and

aquaculture products. Particular attention should be paid to products originating from

high-risk jurisdictions by making better use of relevant information available across EU

frameworks, including customs, IUU fishing, anti-money laundering and tax non-

cooperation.

• The EU will actively promote responsible flag State practices and accountability and

transparency on beneficial ownership at a global level. This includes actively

contributing to the work in relevant international organisations, such as FAO and OECD

as well as within RFMOs, strengthening exchanges with like-minded partners,

strengthening compliance by flag States in line with applicable international

instruments on vessel registration and ownership and control structures relevant to the

fight against IUU fishing.

3. Strengthening social responsibility

Violations of international labour standards remain pervasive in international fisheries,

whether concerning forced labour, decent working conditions, occupational health and

safety and freedom of association and collective bargaining.

• The EU will continue to promote universal ratification and effective implementation of

ILO international labour standards1. In this context, the EU will emphasise the

importance of enforcement mechanisms and dispute resolution procedures, and social

1 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No 87), the Right to

Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No 98), the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No 29)

(and its 2014 Protocol), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No 105), the Minimum Age

Convention, 1973 (No 138), the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No 182), the Work in

Fishing Convention, 2007 (No 188) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Maritime Labour

Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006).

5

dialogue and collective bargaining as a way of achieving balanced solutions by peaceful

means.

• In fisheries management frameworks, the EU will continue to promote ILO conventions

and a clear set of social provisions with SFPA partners, and within RFMOs, the EU will

support work on improving social standards.

4. Engaging at the regional level

Northeast Atlantic

The Northeast Atlantic provides most EU catches and is undergoing structural shifts. The EU’s

relations in the regional setting have been strained due to disagreements over quota allocation,

while Brexit and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine contributed to reshaping

fisheries relations in the Northeast Atlantic. It is crucial to overcome the lack of cooperation

within NEAFC and the coastal States’ framework and to support stock recovery and socio-

economic resilience to environmental and climate change. The EU must also make use of the

broader Atlantic policy context and regional platforms to promote broader cooperation on the

joint management of quota and non-quota stocks, science and scientific advice and the

sustainable use of the maritime space. The full implementation and compliance with the 1920

Treaty of Paris on the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, in all maritime zones of that archipelago,

remains a key priority for the EU.

• The EU will aim to achieve stable, predictable and legally robust fisheries arrangements

that safeguard its quota and market interests and are based on the best available

scientific advice, contribute to prevent overfishing and support stock recovery through

stable and predictable long-term management strategies.

• The EU will promote increased cooperation and technological developments to

decrease overfishing, ensure climate resilience, reduce unwanted catches and promote

the rapid recovery of stocks in poor condition.

• The EU should strengthen cooperation with the UK and other coastal States towards

the development of a broader joint agenda on fisheries management, for both quota and

non-quota stocks, built on stronger scientific coordination and strengthened scientific

advice systems capable of adapting to environmental and climate change.

• The EU will continue to pursue similar principles and control standards for non-EU

operators as those of the EU.

• The EU should pursue a more integrated and structured approach to its cooperation with

Northeast Atlantic neighbouring countries across all cooperation frameworks. Building

on the experience from the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), the EU

should pursue a structured approach that links sustainable management of shared stocks

6

with stable market access and EU interests. Such cooperation should be anchored within

the broader EU Atlantic policy agenda, particularly as increasing competition for

maritime space calls for increased cross-sectoral coordination with coastal States

through regional platforms, such as the Greater North Sea Basin initiative and the

Atlantic strategy.

Mediterranean and Black Seas

The Mediterranean holds a prominent position on the EU’s political agenda, highlighted by the

Pact for the Mediterranean. The Pact provides a framework for coordinated regional

cooperation with Mediterranean countries and a strategic opportunity to support shared

sustainability goals. Continuing to strengthen fisheries bilateral relations and collaboration

within the two RFMOs governing fisheries in the area, GFCM and ICCAT, is key to ensuring

a level playing field and requires the full engagement of relevant sectors and local communities.

• The EU will make fisheries cooperation part of its broader strategic engagement in the

Mediterranean, be it under the Pact for the Mediterranean, in RFMOs or in the Union

for the Mediterranean. Fisheries will also be a key aspect in relations with non-EU

countries.

• In the Black Sea, the EU will place particular emphasis on strengthening regional

cooperation within the GFCM and as part of the EU’s enlargement policy.

• The EU will seek full enforcement of RFMO decisions, focusing on compliance.

Monitoring, control and surveillance measures, additional joint inspection schemes,

appropriate follow-up of infringements, compliance and enforcement, and fight against

IUU fishing, will continue to be top priorities for the EU’s work under the GFCM and

ICCAT.

• The EU’s main focus within the GFCM will be to strengthen the regional governance

framework. For the new MedFish4ever Ministerial Declaration, to be adopted in 2027,

and the future Declaration for the Black Sea, the EU will build on past successes while

addressing gaps, including persistent overfishing, IUU fishing activities, and the

accelerating impacts of climate change, in particular on the spread of non-indigenous

species. To turn commitments into action, the EU will champion binding sustainability

commitments, ensuring non-EU countries uphold core international standards for

sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, combat IUU fishing, engage proactively in

RFMOs, and embrace a cooperative agenda. The EU will seek linking accountability

with solidarity through targeted technical and financial support.

A new generation of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs)

In West Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific region, the EU’s SFPAs have long served as a

pillar of the EU’s external fisheries policy. These agreements go beyond access to waters. They

7

are partnerships that promote the sustainable management of stocks, reflect the EU’s presence

in all parts of the ocean also through its outermost regions, contribute to global ocean

governance goals and provide a stable long-term framework for the activities of the EU long-

distance fleet. As the world faces growing pressures from climate change, overfishing, and

geopolitical competition, SFPAs must evolve to meet these challenges while delivering greater

fairness, transparency and effectiveness. The new generation of SFPAsaims at improving

policy coherence across the EU's external action, strengthening sustainability and science,

enhancing the regional approach, delivering better value for money, reinforcing transparency,

improving the level playing field, addressing misinformation and improving communication,

and strengthening the implementation and impact of sectoral support. Concretely, it will:

• Ensure that the SFPAs are fully integrated into the EU’s broader external policies. Joint

Committee meetings – the decision-making bodies of SFPAs – will systematically

address cross-cutting issues. This includes combating IUU fishing and advancing the

BBNJ Agreement. The Commission will also seek greater synergies with broader EU

partnerships, including Global Gateway, trade policy, and environmental diplomacy.

• Assess the opening of negotiations with new partner countries, subject to sufficient

budgetary resources, on the basis of criteria such as alignment with EU priorities and

policies, respect for democracy and human rights, support to ocean governance and

sustainability, cooperation in/with RFMOs as well in UN/FAO and other relevant

international organisations, fight against IUU fishing and sustainable management of

the stocks, as well as current and future fishing opportunities.

• Further strengthen sustainability and continue to make science the backbone of the

agreements. The Commission will further promote data collection and management

decisions based on the best available scientific advice. Compliance with the applicable

RFMO provisions and the provisions of the relevant SFPA will continue to be strictly

monitored

• Better embed SFPAs in a regional approach to address shared fisheries and ocean

governance challenges and provide better opportunities for both the EU fleet, including

in outermost regions, and partner countries. The Commission will work to harmonise

access conditions across SFPAs in the same region, reducing regulatory fragmentation

and unfair competition. It will explore facilitating regional dialogues among SFPAs

partners or potential partners on sustainable fisheries management, also in the context

of relevant RFMOs.

• Prioritise the use of sectoral support to align with EU objectives and international

commitments, including on implementation of the PSMA, ratification and compliance

with the WTO Agreement and ILO conventions, compliance with RFMOs measures,

the fight against IUU fishing and the implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and

focusing on scientific support, observer programs and monitoring, control and

surveillance. The sectoral support can fund actions to support the sustainable fisheries

8

sector as well as sustainable aquaculture, the wider blue economy and decarbonisation,

and ocean observation.

• Enhance the coherence of sectoral support with other EU funds, and where possible,

associate it to wider bilateral or regional programmes on the blue economy or fisheries

financed under the Global Europe instrument, including Global Gateway projects.

• In line with European Court of Auditors’ recommendations, the Commission will

explore how to better align the SFPA financial contribution to actual fishing activity

and ensure better value for taxpayer money of the EU contribution paid for access.

• Seek to ensure stricter enforcement of non-discrimination and transparency clauses so

that EU and other international operators compete on even level playing field. The

Commission will also address the issue of dormant agreements and find the right

balance between promoting ocean governance through SFPAs and giving the EU fleet

the opportunity to compete with third countries’ fleets under fair conditions.

• Put greater transparency and accountability at the core of SFPAs. The Commission will

seek to expand beneficial ownership transparency, supporting partner countries in this

endeavour. The Commission will also seek to step up its communication on Joint

Committee meetings, and on the results of the sectoral support it provides to SFPA

partners.

• Better engage local stakeholders, including fishing communities, civil society, and

media. Awareness campaigns will be considered to help counter false narratives and

position the EU’s sustainable fisheries model as a global benchmark.

• Address misinformation and improve communication, proactively highlighting the

tangible benefits of SFPAs, such as job creation, infrastructure investments, scientific

cooperation, and revenue generation for partner countries.

5. Building more sustainable supply chains through rules

Strengthening implementation of existing trade tools and measures

• The EU will use the institutional frameworks under the Trade and Sustainable

Development (TSD) chapters of free trade agreements (FTAs) to ensure effective

implementation of sustainability commitments of its trade partners.

• The EU will engage in the WTO Committee on Fisheries Subsidies to ensure the full

implementation of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies by other WTO Members

that have accepted the Agreement.

9

• The EU will effectively implement the amended IUU Regulation (in particular CATCH)

and the Forced Labour Regulation as a priority.

• The EU will continue assessing any measures by third countries against the Regulation

on non-sustainable practices by third countries (Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012).

Gradually strengthening existing trade tools and measures

• The EU will use opportunities offered by any potential upcoming modernisation of

existing FTAs to propose upgrading, where appropriate, provisions related to fisheries

and aquaculture sustainability, aiming to ensure a coherent and up-to-date level of

commitments with all EU’s privileged commercial partners.

• The EU will introduce ambitious social and environmental sustainability requirements

in the Autonomous Tariff Quota (ATQ) regime for fisheries products, building on the

ongoing back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment.

• The EU will continue to engage with the WTO Membership to conclude negotiations

on additional ambitious provisions of the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies on

overcapacity and overfishing.

• The Commission will ensure that the guidelines and risk database of forced labour risks

under the Forced Labour Regulation is effectively implemented in the fisheries sector.

• The EU should incorporate the impacts of feed for aquaculture in its overall approach

to trade measures.

6. Using ocean diplomacy for sustainable fisheries worldwide

Further strengthening the coherence and impact of its external fisheries action

• The EU will ensure that its participation in RFMOs, the conclusion of SFPAs and its

fight against IUU fishing are mutually reinforcing and leveraged to foster the full

implementation of key international agreements, through targeted diplomatic

engagement and using the EU’s IUU framework to incentivise compliance with

international obligations, including in respect of labour standards.

Further integrating sustainable fisheries and aquaculture into relevant areas of external

relations

• The EU and its Member States will make more systematic use of existing bilateral

frameworks to boost coherence and effectiveness across fisheries external policy and

10

development, trade, political dialogue, and cooperation on environment, climate, social

issues and research.

Strengthening partnerships, cooperation and alliances

• The EU will support relevant plurilateral initiatives and further develop partnerships

with third countries and alliances with like-minded countries. This includes building on

existing efforts such as the 2026 G7 statement on IUU fishing, and aims to promote

sustainable fisheries management and strengthen cooperation on fisheries governance

in a changing geopolitical context.

Supporting capacity building and investment in developing countries

• The EU and its Member States should make a targeted use of Global Gateway, the

Global Europe instrument and the SFPA’s sectoral support for the mobilisation of the

private sector and cooperation with relevant international financial institutions in

support of sustainable fisheries management in developing countries.

• To improve fisheries governance systems, the Commission will focus on scientific

advice, monitoring, control and surveillance, combating IUU fishing and strengthening

labour rights. The Commission will also take into account partner countries’ track

record in implementing commitments, international agreements and contractual

relations with the EU, where relevant.

Supporting climate adaptation and resilience

• The EU will further support efforts by partner countries to integrate fisheries

considerations into their climate adaptation plans, boost the resilience of coastal

communities, and encourage regional cooperation on climate-related fisheries

management and stock monitoring.

Promoting inclusive governance

• The EU and its Member States will support cooperation between EU experts and their

counterparts in partner countries through the exchange of best practices and peer

learning, and by facilitating dialogue with relevant stakeholders. This includes the

outermost regions, the fisheries sector, civil society and the scientific community in

order to improve fisheries management and foster a shared understanding of challenges

and solutions.

11

Boosting communication and outreach

• The EU will boost communication and outreach in the international domain, including

towards partner countries and in relevant international fora. The aim is to improve

awareness and promote its actions in support of sustainable fisheries and ocean

governance.

7. Strengthening cost efficiency, transparency and sustainability of rules applying to the

EU fleet operating in external waters

• Following the evaluation of the regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine

ecosystems in the high seas2 and the ongoing evaluation of the Sustainable Management

of External Fishing Fleets Regulation3, the Commission will assess how to reduce

overlaps and address gaps in sustainability indicators and ultimate beneficial ownership

in the authorisation process. The Commission will aim to improve the availability of

beneficial ownership information in relevant European and national registers and

databases.

• The Commission will support Member States in systematically identifying and

addressing ownership links between EU nationals and foreign-flagged vessels, in

particular where such practices are associated with IUU fishing risks. In addition, the

Commission will consider the application of transparency and IUU fishing prevention

rules also to joint ventures partly owned by EU companies or nationals in third

countries.

2 Evaluation of Council Regulation No 734/2008 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the

high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears, SWD(2025) 5 final. 3 Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the

sustainable management of external fishing fleets, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008.

12

ANNEX II

The energy transition roadmap for fisheries and aquaculture

The roadmap sets out a pathway for the energy transition in the fisheries and aquaculture

sectors. It serves as an integral pillar of the Vision for fisheries and aquaculture for 2040, aiming

to support strengthening the sectors’ competitiveness, resilience and sustainability. To guide

stakeholder action, the roadmap sets a clear direction, structured around a set of strategic

implementation actions.

The roadmap focuses on specific near-term actions grounded in the best available knowledge,

while remaining flexible and requiring updating as the transition progresses and new

information and technologies emerge. The detailed analytical underpinning and considerations

for the energy transition roadmap are provided in the accompanying staff working documents

on the energy transition in fisheries (SWD(2026) 752) and in aquaculture (SWD(2026) 753).

Figure 1 1 Schematic overview of energy transition roadmap for fisheries and aquaculture

Phase I: stepping up energy efficiency and preparing for the transition

(2027-2030)

Strengthening energy and resource efficiency is the most direct way to improve the economic

resilience and competitiveness of EU fisheries and aquaculture in the short term, while also

making progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From 2027 to 2030, priority should be

given to encouraging the uptake of currently available efficiency measures, while at the same

time laying the foundations in terms of governance, enabling framework, and technology

development for the energy transition in the long run.

Funding and financing

The implementation of the strategic actions proposed in the roadmap will need to be supported

by both private investments and public funding. On EU funding, the recent Commission

proposal amending the EMFAF Regulation is aimed at simplifying the applicable requirements

Phase I (2026-2030)

I. Stepping up energy efficiency and preparing for the transition •SA1: Delivering quick wins on energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction through technology,

alternative clean fuels and skills •SA2: Stepping up research, innovation and demonstration projects. •SA3: Enabling regulatory framework. •SA4: Developing governance and financing of the energy transition. •SA5: Initiating action on alternative fuelling infrastructure and industrial capacity. •SA6: Making the energy transition in synergy with the growth of the sustainable aquaculture.

Phase II (2031-2040

II. Scaling up •SA7: Developing market and financial conditions for the transition. •SA8: Scaling up fuelling infrastructure and industrial capacity. •SA9: Scaling-up skills development along with the transition.

13

to facilitate funding for the energy transition in the short term4. This is particularly the case for

pilot projects in real conditions. Importantly, the next EU budget (multiannual financial

framework) for 2028-2034 will allow Member States and regions to make comprehensive plans

for investment of shared-management arrangements. The roadmap can support Member States’

preparation of their national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs). The European

Competitiveness Fund may equally offer opportunities to support the transition.

In line with the Vision, the roadmap considers that future public funding should focus on de-

risking mechanisms, particularly for pilot initiatives, innovative or higher-risk projects. The

Commission, Member States, the financial institutions, including the European Investment

Bank (EIB) and national promotional banks will work together to mobilise financing solutions

tailored to the specificities of fisheries and aquaculture. This includes venture capital, equity

and guarantee instruments, which will be an important enabler of the energy transition.

Strategic action 1: delivering quick wins on energy efficiency and GHG emissions

reduction through technology, alternative clean fuels and skills

The high vulnerability of parts of the EU fishing fleet and some segments of the aquaculture

sector to sudden changes in fuel prices calls for a swift adoption of measures to strengthen the

sector’s resilience. Energy-efficiency measures such as low-drag gears, lighter trawl doors,

alternative approaches to steaming and routing, fuel monitoring, engine revisions and smaller

hull design optimisation are already available on the market (and being adopted by the sector).

Similarly in aquaculture, existing measures, such as in energy management, insulation and

electrification can already reduce energy costs and emissions. They provide the most viable

solutions for short-term progress on energy efficiency and can be supported under current

funding schemes. Furthermore, to facilitate investments and awareness, energy audits can

support fishers and aquaculture operators in identifying most suitable solutions for stepping up

energy efficiency. Acknowledging that certain segments of the fishing fleet are hard-to-abate

for several reasons, including technological, economic or fleet age, vessel owners on those

segments should also consider currently available (drop in) alternative clean fuels or

technologies such as in the area of energy efficiency as solutions to rapidly reduce GHG

emissions. Furthermore, demand for clean fuels could be stimulated by financial incentives,

for example resulting in a reduction or a reversal of the price differential between conventional

and alternative clean fuels.

Training and knowledge transfer is crucial to equip fishers, aquaculture producers and other

stakeholders with the skills and competencies needed to assess and adopt energy efficient

practices and effectively use new technologies. Skills developments are crucial along the whole

period of the transition. In this phase of the transition, this requires focusing on understanding

needs and currently available training, while scaling up skills development as new technologies

are adopted more widely in the sectors. The Commission’s blue generational renewal strategy,

to be developed in 2027, will address persisting training and skills gaps to attract trainers, senior

4 A call for evidence was launched in June 2026 to gather stakeholder feedback on the possible amendment.

14

and young professionals to blue economy careers and support long-term sustainability and

innovation, including in the fisheries, aquaculture and adjacent sectors.

The Commission will:

• with the ETP, launch a survey to support the identification of skills and training needed

to support actions under the ETP Ambassador programme and support Member States

in tailoring support to fishers.

Member States are invited to:

• Use the EU funds and the opportunities offered, including the recent EMFAF

Commission amendment proposal, in particular for pilot projects, to support fisheries

and aquaculture operators in reducing energy costs and emissions. This can be done

through energy audits for fishing vessels and aquaculture service vessels and production

facilities, and through the adoption and the uptake of fuel monitoring and reporting

tools to improve energy efficiency.

Strategic action 2: stepping up research, innovation and demonstration projects

Many technologies needed for a complete transition away from fossil fuels are not yet fully

economically and/or technically viable5. There is a need to further step up research and

innovation. Thisincludes innovative energy-efficient, low-impact gears, low-carbon

propulsion methods, vessel designs, infrastructure and energy-efficient operations, energy-

efficient production methods, low-carbon feeds for aquaculture, digitalisation, such as the use

of AI.

Action needs to be taken to ensure market uptake and to turn research and innovation into

tangible benefits. Pilot projects and demonstrators in real conditions, at local and regional level

and through strong collaboration between end users, gear producers, researchers and

authorities, are critical to bridge the gap between research and market deployment. These

efforts can benefit from developments in innovation ecosystems in the wider maritime sector,

including through the future EU Industrial Maritime Value Chains Alliance (EMA), but also

the Zero-Emission Waterborne Transport Partnership (ZEWT), Horizon Europe initiatives,

including EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and Waters6.

The EMFAF can support the development, testing, auditing, and dissemination of

energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the

Commission’s upcoming proposal for an amendment will reinforce these opportunities. As of

2028, the European Competitiveness Fund may provide new opportunities for support. The

Energy Transition Partnership (ETP) will be the main tool to support knowledge sharing and

dissemination on research and innovation at EU level for fisheries. For aquaculture, the

Commission, with the support of the EU Aquaculture Assistance Mechanism,39 will continue

5 Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector, Publications

Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2926/425550 6 Mission Ocean – the Commission has awarded in 2026 four new projects to support the energy transition in

the sectors.

15

supporting knowledge sharing and dissemination of innovation and good practices, based on

the staff working document on energy transition and the work of the ETP.

The Commission will:

• build on the guide on financing7, to provide up-to-date information on available current

and future funding and financing opportunities under the multiannual financial

framework to support Member States and stakeholders in finding opportunities to

launch projects that support market uptake and scaling up of innovative solutions for

the energy transition.

Stakeholders are invited to:

• make use of the possibilities offered by the future European Competitiveness Fund in

clean transition and industrial decarbonisation and under the Horizon Europe

framework programme, to support the energy transition in the fisheries and aquaculture

sector.

Strategic action 3: enabling regulatory framework

A fit for purpose regulatory framework is important to facilitate the energy transition in the

fisheries and aquaculture sector. The Commission has recently conducted an evaluation of the

Common Fisheries Policy Regulation8, which serves as the basis for future policy orientations.

The Commission will:

• reflect the needs for the energy transition within the implementation and future policy

development of the common fisheries policy (CFP), in line with the CFP evaluation,

and in particular:

 consider if further clarification or adaptation is needed to the rules for the

transition towards alternative fuels and low-carbon practices in the long run,

while continuing to ensure progress on balancing effective fishing capacity with

the available fishing opportunities;

 enable innovation and piloting in real conditions of clean and efficient

technologies for the energy transition in fisheries and aquaculture, including

propulsion.

Member States are invited to:

• promote the energy transition in the fisheries sector by providing incentives to operators

who fish in the least environment and climate damaging way, including energy-t and

low and zero-carbon practices, when allocating fishing opportunities in line with

Article 17 of the CFP Regulation, and following the guidance in the 2025 vade mecum9;

7 Guide on financing the green energy transition of fisheries and aquaculture – Supporting the energy transition

in fisheries and aquaculture through EU funding opportunities under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial

framework, NextGenerationEU and beyond, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/377801 8 SWD(2026) 120 final. 9 C(2025) 7655 final ANNEX.

16

• make use of the available inactive fleet capacity below national capacity ceiling for

enabling the energy transition without increasing fishing pressure;

• ;

• promote the energy transition in the aquaculture sector by providing incentives to

aquaculture producers to adopt low-carbon production practices, technology and

innovation.

Strategic action 4: governance of the energy transition

Delivering on the energy transition requires that action is taken across sectors and at all levels

of governance, in a coordinated way. Without it, there is a risk of misalignment of investments,

fragmentation of policies and unequal social and economic outcomes of the transition. Due to

the high diversity of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors across the EU, a tailored approach is

needed at national, regional and local level. The EU will continue playing a role in enabling

exchanges between Member States and stakeholders on the energy transition at EU level.

The Energy Transition Partnership will continue to be the platform for capacity building and

information exchange for the energy transition for the fisheries sector. It will aim at facilitating

the implementation of the roadmap by sharing knowledge, monitoring and raising awareness

on economically viable energy transition solutions and innovations in line with the Vision 2040

objectives.

For aquaculture, the Commission, with the support of the EU Aquaculture Assistance

Mechanism, will facilitate the implementation of the roadmap and continue supporting

knowledge sharing and dissemination of innovation and good practices. The Commission will

also support Member States and the industry on the energy transition in the context of the

technical seminars with Member States experts as well as work with the Aquaculture Advisory

Council.

Moreover, the EU Sustainable Aquaculture Initiative announced in the European Ocean Pact

will facilitate collaboration among different actors playing a role in the energy transition of this

sector. To improve monitoring of progress on the transition at EU level, such as on fuel types

and emissions, the commission will explore opportunities with Member States under existing

data collection frameworks.

The Commission will:

• set up a network with Member States authorities, as a continuation of the ETP Pilot

ambassador programme, under the Energy Transition Partnership to facilitate

knowledge sharing, best practices and lessons learnt on the energy transition in fisheries

across EU regions and stakeholders;

• update the compendium of projects and best practices, to provide a single-entry point

for EU projects on the energy transition in the fisheries sector and aquaculture, on the

ETP website and the Aquaculture Assistance Mechanism respectively, including the

input from stakeholders;

• work with Member States to define and test the future data needs to monitor the

transition towards alternative fuels (including fuel mix, engine types and related

17

indicators), building on the existing EU data collection framework and on the

recommendations of the regional coordination groups for data collection;

• organise an annual flagship event, building on the ETP Champions initiative, as a

showcase that brings together the sector and solution providers, disseminates progress,

and promotes deployment of solutions supporting the energy transition in EU fisheries.

Member States are invited to:

• join the ETP Ambassador network to share knowledge and best practices, and benefit

from the ETP resources to provide support to fishers achieve their energy transition.

Strategic action 5: initiating action on port infrastructure and industrial capacity

Substantial investment in ports, alternative fuels, electricity grids and industrial capacity will

be needed to facilitate the fisheries and aquaculture sectors’ long-term energy transition. This

must align with EU’s and national initiatives on alternative fuel infrastructure and industrial

maritime growth to create the right conditions for change, in line with the EU port strategy, the

EU industrial maritime strategy, as well as the European grids package10.

In particular, the sustainable transport investment plan (STIP) creates demand and supply

conditions to ensure the maritime sector’s access and availability to low carbon and alternative

fuels are more widespread11, benefiting the supply as well to the fisheries sector.

The EU industrial maritime strategy will contribute to promoting the conditions necessary for

the decarbonisation of the sector. It will mobilise different tools to support investment,

innovation, research and development in maritime manufacturing facilities in Europe and

improve the global level playing field while ensuring the availability of a skilled workforce.

The EU ports will support the electrification of ports, including through the deployment of

onshore power supply (OPS) through better monitoring, pricing transparency and demand

forecasting. It also includes dedicated initiatives12 to smaller and medium ports that often serve

the fishing and aquaculture sector.

The upcoming revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) will consider

measures to further accelerate the deployment of alternative fuels for maritime sectors.

The Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuels Value Chains Alliance (RLCF) will, by the end of

2026, assess infrastructure capacity and future needs for the supply of renewable and low-

carbon fuels in and to ports, to support investment planning.

10 COM/2025/1005 European grids package. 11 The main actions specifically dedicated to securing a production and market of sustainable maritime fuels are

designed to reduce the price gap between eligible fuels and fossil alternatives, connecting fuel producers and

buyers to de-risk investments including through double-sided auctions for sustainable maritime fuels, and

secure that sufficient fuel is delivered to the maritime sector through the revision of the Energy Union

package. 12 Actions include funding and financial capacity building and project preparation by the EIB advisory hub,

Promoting of electrification of industrial sites and clusters with the upcoming electrification action plan, and

pilot projects on integration of alternative energy sources.

18

The EU Industrial Maritime Value Chain Alliance will bring together shipyards, equipment

manufacturers, research actors and operators in relevant market segments to shorten lead times

from demonstration to commercial roll out, map needs and best practices, de-risk investments

and strengthen the case for fleet renewal.

The Commission will:

• encourage participation of stakeholders from the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the

future EU Industrial Maritime Value Chains Alliance;

• ensure that the needs of fisheries and aquaculture regarding access to clean energy and

alternative fuels in ports are taken into account in the implementation of the EU Ports

Strategy, particularly in small and medium-sized ports, including through the

deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure under alternative fuels infrastructure

(AFIR) and related pilot projects supporting the energy transition.

Member States are invited to:

• support enabling infrastructure, including non-discriminatory grid access and suitable

land-based and port-side connections, in those areas where this is relevant for

aquaculture operations, in line with the EU sectoral legislation, such as the European

grids package.

Strategic action 6: supporting the energy transition alongside the growth of sustainable

aquaculture

Aquaculture is highly diverse in terms of production methods, species and operations, which

lead to different needs, emission sources, challenges and opportunities. There are several

specific challenges for aquaculture in that regard, which require action to progress on the

energy transition.

First, emission sources are more diverse than in fisheries, and the relative share of energy costs

in total production costs differs widely.

Second, the indirect emissions for feed are relatively important in the total footprint of fed-

aquaculture, requiring specific solutions to increase efficiencies and develop feasible low-

carbon alternatives.

The accompanying staff working document on aquaculture provides the detailed analysis and

considerations underpinning the roadmap for aquaculture.

Member States are invited to:

• review and streamline permitting and licensing procedures, where necessary, to avoid

unnecessary barriers to the uptake of renewable energy in aquaculture.

• integrate aquaculture energy needs into relevant planning processes, including maritime

spatial planning (MSP) where applicable, and facilitate multi-use integrated systems

with renewable energy;

19

• develop, with relevant actors, national measures for the energy transition of the

aquaculture sector as part of their multiannual strategic planning for aquaculture.

Phase II: scaling up (2031-2040)

In the second phase of the transition, efforts should step up on fostering the gradual deployment

of proven low- and zero-emission technologies throughout the fishing fleet and aquaculture

sector, building on the increased availability in energy-efficient and low-carbon solutions.

Substantial effort will be needed in this phase of the transition to further develop the framework

conditions for making the transition. Efforts should focus on creating appropriate financing

conditions, scaling up infrastructure and industrial capacity and developing workforce skills.

For fisheries in particular, fleet modernisation through a strengthened business model as set out

in the Vision for 2040, will be a critical enabler for private investment in this phase of the

transition.

Strategic action 7: establishing enabling market and financial conditions for the transition

Establishing the right market and financial conditions for the transition will be one of the key

considerations in this phase of the transition. This includes finding innovative financing

solutions for the transition, such as risk sharing measures, to be developed hand in hand with

progress on the transition towards a stronger business model for the fisheries and aquaculture

sector. The bridging of remaining price gaps between conventional and clean technologies is

crucial in this part of the transition.

Strategic action 8: scaling up infrastructure and strengthening industrial capacity in the supply

chain

Infrastructure development and increasingly available alternative fuels will enable the gradual

introduction of vessels and aquaculture operations running on alternative fuels or clean

electricity. For the international fleet, the availability of energy supply and related services will

also depend on infrastructure development in ports located in third countries. Strengthening

international cooperation and dialogue with partner countries will therefore be important to

facilitate access to alternative fuels, onshore power supply, maintenance services, and

compatible technical standards along key fishing routes and operational areas. For aquaculture,

both infrastructure and access to sufficient grid capacity are crucial to support the increasing

needs during the expected growth of the sector.

Strategic action 9: scaling-up skills development along with the transition

New technologies and ways of operating the fleet and aquaculture infrastructure which will be

gradually adopted in this phase of the transition, require an adaptation of the way of working

for all people working in and around the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. This includes fishers,

aquaculture operators, port and bunkering operators, shipbuilders and mechanics. To advance

skill development, Member States (their national, regional and coastal community-level

competent authorities) in collaboration with educational and training institutes, can assess

whether their current educational and vocational training programmes and curricula are fit for

20

purpose in preparing the next generation for the sustainable energy transition in the sector. The

EU competence framework for the Blue Economy BlueComp can support Member States in

this process. The EU Pact for Skills provides an opportunity for stakeholders to join forces for

the up and reskilling of workers in all industrial sectors while the forthcoming EU Strategy on

Vocational Education and Training will aim to make vocational education and training (VET)

more attractive, inclusive and responsive to labour market needs.

Completing the transition after 2040

As set out in the Vision, the fisheries and aquaculture sectors will have made substantial

progress on the energy transition by 2040. However, to complete the energy transition, action

will continue also after 2040, with the goal of completing the transition by 2050. Although

uncertainties are high for this last phase of the transition, the sharpest acceleration of

decarbonisation in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors is expected in the last decade of the

transition, when technologies become more affordable and widely available and infrastructure

is mature to support the transition13.

Progress made until 2040 should be such that technological readiness supports wide-scale

transition of the fleet and the aquaculture production to zero-emission and highly energy-

efficient operations. In fisheries, this means that clean propulsion systems are becoming

industry standards, and fossil fuels are phased out supported by mature infrastructure, supply

chains and common technical standards. In the aquaculture sector, clean and adapted

productions methods and feed, together with access to grid, become the norm. EU ports provide

widespread, standardised access to renewable and low-carbon energy while policy focus shifts

to the remaining hard-to-abate segments and securing a global level playing field.

13 Study on greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction costs, scenarios and pathways for EU fisheries to achieve

net zero by 2050, Publications Office of the European Union, 2026,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/3293497

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 SWD(2026) 751 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EU Fisheries External Action: Achievements and Challenges

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT,THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{COM(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 750 final} - {SWD(2026) 752 final} - {SWD(2026) 753 final}

1

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Objectives and scope of the EU’s fisheries external action ......................................... 7

1.2 The EU fisheries external action toolkit ....................................................................... 8

1.3 Fisheries external action and the EU’s international ocean governance agenda ......... 9

2 EU EXTERNAL CATCHES, FLEET AND TRADE ............................................................ 10

2.1 EU external catches .................................................................................................... 10

2.2 The EU external fleet ................................................................................................. 14

2.3 Economic performance of the EU distant-water fleet (DWF)  .................................. 18

2.4 EU external trade  ....................................................................................................... 21

3 EU POLICY ACHIEVEMENTS – CONTRIBUTING TO LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

WORLDWIDE ............................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Upholding and strengthening fisheries governance at global level ........................... 25

3.2 Transforming our dialogues into working partnerships ............................................. 25

3.3 Putting an end to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing ......................... 26

3.4 Contributing to a more effective functioning of regional fisheries management

organisations (RFMOs) .............................................................................................. 27

3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 27

3.4.2 Achievements .............................................................................................................. 27

3.5 Towards sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) ............................... 29

3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29

3.5.2 Achievements .............................................................................................................. 30

3.6 Bilateral and multilateral agreements on stocks of common interest shared with

adjacent non-EU countries in the Northeast Atlantic ................................................. 33

3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 33

3.6.2 Achievements .............................................................................................................. 34

3.7 Authorisation, control, monitoring and enforcement on the EU external fleet .......... 36

3.7.1 Authorisations of vessels fishing in external waters .................................................. 36

3.7.2 EU fisheries control and monitoring rules in non-EU waters ................................... 37

3.8 Coherence with other policies .................................................................................... 38

4 CHANGES AND CHALLENGES SINCE 2011 .................................................................... 44

4.1 A more complex and challenged multilateral system ................................................ 44

4.2 Changes in the EU neighbourhood’s geopolitical context ......................................... 45

4.2.1 Changes in the Northeast Atlantic post-Brexit........................................................... 45

4.2.2 Mediterranean and Black seas ................................................................................... 46

4.2.3 Other regions ............................................................................................................. 47

2

4.3 The urgent need to act to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ....... 47

4.4 The impacts of climate change on fisheries ............................................................... 48

4.5 IUU fishing is now part of the global agenda but still a major concern .................... 49

4.6 Level playing field: overcapacity and transparency ................................................... 50

4.7 RFMOs are challenged by new power struggles and stronger expectations to

integrate environmental concerns .............................................................................. 51

4.8 SFPAs: providing fishing opportunities to the EU within a predictable framework

and supporting partners in sustainable fisheries management ................................... 53

4.9 Renewed challenge to articulate EU policies in support of sustainable global fisheries

.................................................................................................................................... 53

4.10 Combining energy transition, environmental constraints and the competitiveness of

the EU’s external fleet ................................................................................................ 56

5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 57

ANNEX I - INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES LEGISLATION AND STATE OF GLOBAL FISHERIES ..... 59

ANNEX II - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT .......................................... 64

3

Glossary

Term or

acronym Meaning or definition

AER Annual economic report

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific states

AIS Automatic information system

ATQ Autonomous tariff quota

BBNJ Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction

CAOFA Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic

Ocean, also known as the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries Agreement

CBD UN Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CMA Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea

CMO Common organisation of the market of fishery and aquaculture products

CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

DCF EU data collection framework

DWF Distant-water fleet

EEZ Exclusive economic zone

EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency

EP European Parliament

EU European Union

EUMOFA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products

FPA Fisheries partnership agreement

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FAP Fishery and aquaculture product

FTA Free trade agreement

FTE Full-time equivalent

GBF Global Biodiversity Framework

GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

GSP General system of preferences

GVA Gross value added

4

Term or

acronym Meaning or definition

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

ILO International Labour Organization

IMO International Maritime Organisation

IOG International ocean governance

IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

LSF Large-scale fleet

LWE Live weight equivalent

MCS Monitoring, control and surveillance

MEA Multilateral environmental agreement

MFN Most favoured nation

MPA Marine protected area

MoU Memorandum of understanding

MSE Management strategy evaluation

NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

NPFC North Pacific Fisheries Commission

OACPS Organisation of ACP States

PSMA Port State Measures Agreement

RFB Regional fisheries body

RFMO Regional fisheries management organisation

RSC Regional sea convention

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

SFPA Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement

SIOFA Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement

SMEFF

Regulation

Regulation on the sustainable management of the EU’s external fishing fleets

SPRFMO South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

SSCF Small-scale coastal fleet

5

Term or

acronym Meaning or definition

STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries

TAC Total allowable catches

TCA EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

UBO Ultimate beneficial ownership

UK United Kingdom

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

VME Vulnerable marine ecosystem

VMS Vessel monitoring system

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WTO World Trade Organisation

6

1 INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the European Commission issued the Green Paper on the reform of the Common

Fisheries Policy (CFP)1, highlighting the need to strengthen the external dimension of the CFP.

In 2011, the Commission issued the Communication on the External Dimension of the Common

Fisheries Policy2, alongside the proposals on the reform of the CFP. The primary aim was to

update the policy framework for the external action of the CFP and, for the first time, to

integrate its key principles into the CFP Regulation3. The 2011 Communication resulted in a

chapter of the CFP Regulation  dedicated to external action that outlines the principle of

parallelism between internal and external action.

The headlines of the 2011 Commission Communication

Contributing to long-term sustainability worldwide

• transforming our dialogues into working partnerships;

• putting an end to illegal fishing;

• overcapacity – a global issue;

• upholding and strengthening the global architecture for fisheries governance;

• contributing towards a more effective functioning of RFMOs.

Towards sustainable fisheries agreements

• better promotion of long-term resource conservation and sustainability;

• reinforcing the governance of bilateral fisheries agreements;

• more effective support for sustainable fisheries in partner countries.

Coherence with other EU policies

• coordination of fisheries and development policies;

• in the context of the European Union’s external action, support fisheries-related

strategies and programmes;

• the EU’s trade policy can contribute to ensure sustainable fishing worldwide;

• coherence of environmental and fisheries objectives.

The time has now come to take stock of what has been achieved, the impact of emerging

challenges, how the international landscape and the EU priorities and strategies have evolved

and what remains to be done. This comes against the backdrop of efforts to implement the

United Nations 2030 Agenda and its fisheries-related targets4 as well as the recognition that

progress has been uneven globally and that the broader policy and geopolitical context has

evolved considerably since the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed. This

assessment builds and expands on the 2023 Commission Communication on the

Implementation of the CFP5 and the findings of the evaluation of the CFP Regulation6. The

evaluation encompasses the 11 years from 2014 to 2025 that started with the entry into force of

the 2013 CFP Regulation (1 January 2014). It includes the external dimension of the CFP.

This staff working document recalls the objectives and scope of the EU’s fisheries external

action; presents the characteristics of the EU fleets operating in non-EU waters; and reports on

the achievements and remaining challenges. It thus provides the supporting analysis for the EU

1 COM(2009) 163 final 2  COM(2011) 424 final. 3  Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on

the Common Fisheries Policy. 4  KnowSDGs. 5  The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards (COM(2023)

103 final). 6  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final).

7

strategy for fisheries external action set out in the Commission Communication on Vision 2040

for fisheries and aquaculture7.

1.1 Objectives and scope of the EU’s fisheries external action

The core of the CFP was established in 1983. It comprised the conservation and management

of fish stocks, through the setting of input and output controls such as catch (total allowable

catches (TACs) and quotas) and effort limits, as well as the introduction of technical measures

for specific gears and species. This initial development took place against a backdrop of rapidly

diminishing free access to fisheries resources following the entry into force of the UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)8. Many countries declared their exclusive

economic zones (EEZs), bringing around 90% of the world’s fisheries resources under the

control of coastal states. This meant that EU Member States’ fleets no longer had free access to

certain waters in which they had previously fished. Similarly, third-country vessels could no

longer fish freely in EU waters.

The then European Community negotiated fisheries agreements to allow Member States’ fleets

to continue fishing in third-country waters where they had traditionally fished. This was the de

facto beginning of an ‘external’ fisheries policy, with agreements with third countries in the

Northeast Atlantic (notably the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway) that provided for mutual

access to waters and the exchange of fishing quotas. When new Member States later joined the

Community, some of their bilateral agreements were replaced by EU fisheries agreements. This

was particularly the case with the accession of Spain and Portugal, which had their own network

of fisheries agreements. In addition, fishery activities in many marine areas beyond national

jurisdiction or involving highly migratory species came under the regulation of regional

fisheries management organisations and bodies (RFMOs and RFBs). The EU promoted their

establishment and became a member of these organisations.

It was only with the 2013 reform that the principles of the EU’s external fisheries policy were

enshrined in the CFP Regulation. The impact assessment accompanying the Commission

proposal9 identified overfishing (defined as fishing at levels that exceed the maximum

sustainable yield fishing rate – FMSY) as the central problem in EU and international fisheries.

At the international level, fisheries partnership agreements (FPAs) did not seem to be

sufficiently linked with sustainable fishing in third countries, whereas in RFMOs overcapacity

and overexploitation were considered key challenges. The assessment stressed that all other

problems were closely tied to this lack of environmental sustainability. Moreover, RFMOs were

considered as underperforming on governance due to a lack of robust governance, a lack of

reliable and timely data and insufficient monitoring and enforcement of rules, while FPAs

lacked relevant rules on funding and key governance principles.

The 2013 CFP reform established that EU’s fishing activities outside EU waters are based on

the same principles and objectives as within the EU with a view to contribute to sustainable

fishing activities. This includes active support to international efforts to eradicate Illegal,

Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and advancing scientific knowledge in RFMOs and

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs). Internationally, while seeking access

to non-EU waters for the EU fleet, the Regulation also aims at strengthening governance,

scientific base, performance and compliance in RFMOs and in arrangements on fish stocks

shared with non-EU countries, as well as increasing the capacity of third countries to manage

and monitor their fisheries resources sustainably, in particular in the context of SFPAs. The

7 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

(COM(2026) 701). 8  See Annex I for details. 9  SEC(2011) 891 final.

8

EU’s external fisheries policy should also enhance the economic viability of EU fleets and

promote employment within the EU.

The background was that almost 85% of the world’s fish stocks for which information was

available was reported as being either fully exploited or overexploited. The EU is one of the

very few players with a fisheries presence in all parts of the ocean. It was also an important

market for fishery and aquaculture products (at the time of the CFP reform, it accounted for 7%

of global consumption of aquatic food and 16% of global imports in volume). All this meant

that the EU had an interest to further engage in conservation and sustainable management of

fish stocks globally.

The CFP Regulation (Part VI) sets out general objectives (Article 28) and specific provisions

on international fisheries organisations (Articles 29 and 30), SFPAs (Articles 31 and 32) and

stocks of common interest (or ‘shared stocks’ with adjacent countries – Article 33). Concretely,

this is implemented as follows.

• Multilateral cooperation primarily in the framework of RFMOs10. RFMOs take

binding fisheries conservation and management measures which apply to their area of

competence. The Commission represents the EU in these forums. Once agreed, RFMO

measures must be enacted into EU law (insofar as they are not already covered by EU

legislation), so that they apply to all fishing vessels flying the flag of an EU Member

State. The European Parliament and Council adopt the necessary transposition

legislation.

• SFPAs. The EU concludes SFPAs with third countries so that its fleets can have access

to an appropriate share of the surplus in these countries’ EEZs. The EU provides a

financial contribution to that end. The agreements and/or their implementing protocol

are renewed regularly. The Commission negotiates them on behalf of the EU and, once

the negotiations are concluded, tables a proposal. The Council then decides on

concluding the SFPA (and/or its protocol), with the European Parliament’s consent.

• Reciprocal agreements with third countries in the Northeast Atlantic on stocks of

common interest. The EU must engage with third countries on stocks of common

interest to ensure that those stocks are managed sustainably. Each year, the Commission

engages in these negotiations on behalf of the EU. Once concluded, the agreements are

published as ‘agreed records’. They do not require the formal conclusion or consent of

the European Parliament and the Council but are reflected in the Council regulations

setting annual EU fishing opportunities.

1.2 The EU fisheries external action toolkit

The external action of the EU in relation to fisheries goes beyond the external management of

fisheries as set out in the CFP Regulation. Several other important pieces of legislation regulate

the EU fleet and its activities beyond EU waters:

• revised EU fisheries control rules and their external application;

• the Regulation on the sustainable management of the EU’s external fishing fleets

(SMEFF Regulation);

• the Regulation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas (sea

areas that lie beyond areas of national jurisdiction).

10  See Annex I for details.

9

The EU is a major market for aquatic trade, so its trade and market measures play an

important role in setting high standards on domestic and imported products. This is the case for:

• sanitary and phytosanitary standards;

• rules on the common market in fishery and aquaculture ;

• traceability obligations under the revised control rules

• the Regulation to fight IUU fishing;

• the Regulation prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market;

• autonomous tariff quotas to ensure that the EU’s fish processing industry can source

raw materials from non-EU countries at reduced rates of duty or duty-free;

• fisheries-specific provisions on imports under EU free trade agreements;

• the Regulation on measures regarding countries allowing non-sustainable fishing.

1.3 Fisheries external action and the EU’s international ocean governance agenda

The 2009 Green Paper and the 2011 Commission proposal on the CFP Regulation highlighted

the importance of the EU continuing to actively participate in international forums such as the

UN General Assembly and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In 2016, the EU was the first leading economy to launch an International Ocean Governance

Agenda (IOG) Agenda11 and commit to a safe, secure, clean, healthy and sustainably managed

ocean – based on international rules and obligations, the CFP principles and objectives, and EU

policy coherence. The Agenda was updated in 202212. Reconfirming the EU’s commitment to

strengthen implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda and its SDG 14 on Life Below Water, it

aims to strengthen the ocean governance framework at global, regional and bilateral levels

– including by promoting sustainable fisheries beyond the EU’s jurisdiction in international

forums and bodies and through bilateral relations, as well as by combating and eradicating IUU

fishing worldwide. The key priorities included halting and reversing the loss of marine

biodiversity and degradation of marine ecosystems; ensuring sustainable fisheries and

aquaculture through specific actions; ensuring compliance with international standards and

rules (particularly zero tolerance for IUU fishing); ending subsidies contributing to overfishing;

and reducing marine pollution.

The European Ocean Pact adopted in June 202513 reaffirmed these commitments and called

for a strengthened EU ocean diplomacy. In particular, the Commission will step up its fight

against IUU fishing through the mandatory implementation of electronic catch certification

(CATCH) and design a renewed strategic approach to EU fisheries external action. It is also

committed to advancing the effective implementation of the Biodiversity Beyond National

Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement; progress towards an ambitious Plastics Treaty; and pursuing

efforts to advance the designation of three vast marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean.

11 JOIN(2016) 49 final. 12  JOIN(2022) 28 final.13  COM(2025) 281 final.

10

2 EU EXTERNAL CATCHES, FLEET AND TRADE

This section focuses on the economic aspects of the external dimension of EU fisheries: where

and what the EU’s fleets catch; the vessels concerned and their economic situation; and the

EU’s economic relation with the rest of the world as regards trade in fisheries and aquaculture

products.

It is important to note that the analysis faces some methodological challenges linked to the

definition of ‘external fleet’, due to different fleet categorisations across different reporting

frameworks. The annual economic report (AER) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic

Committee for Fisheries (STECF) uses data collected under the EU data collection framework

(DCF)14 fleet segmentation. This defines the distant-water fleet (DWF) as the fishing vessels

above 24 metres that fly the flag of an EU Member State and fish predominantly in non-EU

waters. It defines the large-scale fleet (LSF) as vessels over 12 metres that use static gears as

well as all vessels that use towed gears and operate predominantly in EU waters. The SMEFF

regulation applies to vessels above 24 metres for authorisations for fishing in international

waters. However, Brexit has changed the composition of the EU’s external fleet, which now

contains many vessels of all sizes that operate in UK waters. This has increased the number of

vessels operating in non-EU waters, but which are not regarded as DWF for the purposes of

economic statistics. This makes it impossible to isolate this part of the external fleet from the

LSF operating in EU waters in terms of the socio-economic data.

Sections 2.1 and 2.2 therefore follow a catch-all approach and include all vessels operating in

non-EU waters – irrespective of their length – in order to provide a complete picture of the EU’s

external fleet in terms of catches and vessel authorisations (including smaller vessels which

would be underrepresented if the analysis were conducted according to the standard STECF

categorisation). Section 2.3 on socio-economic analysis is limited to the DWF in its strictest

sense (according to the standard STECF categorisation) and provides only a snapshot of the EU

fleet operating in non-EU waters.

2.1 EU external catches

Overall, between 2014 and 2024, the share of catches from non-EU waters in the total volume

of EU catches rose from 29.5% (1.3 million tonnes, EUR 2.1 billion) to 46% (1.5 million

tonnes, EUR 2.9 billion)15.

Geographic distribution

The FAO divides the global ocean into 19 major fishing areas that are known as FAO areas.

EU fisheries operate in most of these areas, but EU’s catches are taken principally in nine key

areas (Figure 1). Most EU catches are taken in FAO Area 27 (North-east Atlantic), which

includes the EU EEZ in the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea. This area accounted for an

annual average of 71% of the EU fleet’s total catches in 2014-2024 (29% of this came from

non-EU waters). FAO Areas 37 (the Mediterranean and Black Sea, which also includes a large

part of EU waters), 34 and 51 were the next most significant contributors (9%, 7% and 6%

respectively). Other areas contributed less than 6%.

14  Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2021/1167 of 27 April 2021 establishing the multiannual Union

programme for the collection and management of biological, environmental, technical and socioeconomic

data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors from 2022. 15  Sources: EC Effort and Catch Reporting (ECR) and Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI).

11

Figure 1 – Percentage of EU fisheries catches by major fishing area in terms of weight (2024). Source: EC Effort and Catch

Reporting (ECR). Note that only areas with values greater than 1% are displayed.

In 2014-2024, the distribution of EU fishing volume across major FAO areas remained

structurally stable (Figure 2). The Northeast Atlantic (FAO Area 27) was consistently the

predominant fishing ground, accounting for between 68% and 74% of total annual EU fishing

catches in volume throughout the period. Apart from this overall stability, several minor trends

emerged. The Eastern Central Atlantic (FAO Area 34) recorded a marked and sustained decline

in its relative share, falling from 12% in 2014 to 5% by 2024. Conversely, the Mediterranean

and Black Sea (FAO Area 37) demonstrated a gradual upward trend, rising from 6% in 2014 to

a peak of 10% in both 2020 and 2024, before falling back to 6% in 2025. The Western Indian

Ocean (FAO Area 51) maintained a comparatively stable contribution, fluctuating between 4%

and 7%. A moderate increase was observed in the South-west Atlantic (FAO Area 41), where

the share progressively grew from 3% to 5%. Regarding Pacific fishing grounds, both the

Eastern Central Pacific (FAO Area 77) and the South-east Pacific (FAO Area 87) represented

marginal but non-negligible components of overall EU catches activity, each recording a share

of approximately 1% for most of the reference period. It is nonetheless noteworthy that the

relative contribution of these areas fell below that threshold in certain years.

Figure 2 - Yearly catches distribution per major fishing area for EU fisheries. Source: EC Effort and Catch Reporting (ECR).

Note that only areas with values greater than 1% are displayed.

12

Distribution by management type

Regarding the respective share of the various types of external fisheries management16, a

marked increase in the number and share of stocks from adjacent non-EU countries was

observed from 2020 onwards. The vast majority of stocks in the Northeast Atlantic are now,

post-Brexit, being managed together with third countries. It is estimated that the United

Kingdom (UK) EEZ alone provides the equivalent of 29% of the EU’s catches in the North-

east Atlantic17. Following Brexit, more than 120 TACs have been negotiated with third

countries in the region (an increase from 23% to 77%18). 102 TACs and a range of non-quota

stocks are now jointly managed with the UK. 29% of catches from regulated stocks in this area

come from non-EU waters (27% from third-country waters covered by bilateral, trilateral or

multilateral agreements and 2% from international waters). In terms of economic value,

however, this proportion is lower. In 2024, Northeast Atlantic catches represented 69% of the

volume of all catches by the EU fleet globally and nearly 56% in terms of value (respectively

2.3 million tonnes and EUR 3.4 billion)19.

As regards distant waters (Figure 3), the Western Indian Ocean (FAO Area 51) accounts for the

largest share at 26%, followed by the South-west Atlantic (FAO Area 41) and the Atlantic

Eastern Central (FAO Area 34), which each contribute 21% (Figure 3). These three areas

together represent more than two thirds of EU distant-water catches.

Figure 3– Percentage of EU fisheries catches (weight) in non-EU-Norway-UK waters per FAO area (2024). Source: EC Effort

and Catch Reporting (ECR). Note that only areas with values greater than 1% are displayed.

The EU compared with third countries

When comparing the EU with third countries,the EU’s relative presence varies considerably

across regions (Figure 4). The Northeast Atlantic (Area 27) stands out as the only area where

the EU holds the largest share, at 27.8% – narrowly ahead of Norway (26.1%). The EU’s share

16  EU external catches are presented by FAO fishing areas due to important methodological limitations that

constrain analysis by stock or management framework. This is due to a partial geographical overlap

between SFPAs and RFMOs, as well as difficulties in linking fishing authorisations to actual fishing

activity and reported catches. Vessels’ position data may in some cases support such analysis, but data

gaps and inconsistencies may affect the reliability and comparability of the results, particularly over time. 17  Landings by the EU Member States from the UK EEZ and by the United Kingdom from the EU-27 and

the UK EEZs: 2015-2018, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2021. 18  Facts and figures on the common fisheries policy – Publications Office of the EU, June 2025. 19  Estimate based on EC Effort and Catch Reporting (ECR) and Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI).

13

is modest across all other distant-water areas, ranging from 1.2% in the South-east Pacific to

6.6% in the South-west Atlantic.

Figure 4 – EU catches share per FAO major fishing area and the top three leading countries per area for 2023. Source: FAO

global production data. Note that only areas with values greater than 1% are displayed. 

Landings

The landing pattern of EU distant-water catches (Figure 5) shows that in 2024, half of these

catches (50%) were landed in EU ports, 6% in Norwegian and UK ports, and 44% in other ports

around the world. It is noteworthy that the share landed in EU ports has increased substantially

over the preceding decade, rising from just 20% in 2014 to around 50% in recent years – while

landings in third-country ports declined correspondingly from 77% to 44%.

Figure 5 – Place of landing for EU fisheries for catches outside EU waters in 2014-2024. Source: EC Effort and Catch Reporting

(ECR).

Figure 6 further disaggregates the 50% of EU landings outside EU waters. The Seychelles

emerges as the dominant landing destination outside the EU, accounting for 28% of these

landings. Uruguay follows at 20% due to EU fleet operations in the Southwest Atlantic.

14

Mauritania and Norway account for 12%. Smaller shares are recorded in Kiribati (8%), Côte

d’Ivoire (7%), the Faroe Islands (5%), Chile (3%), Senegal (3%) and Peru (2%).

Figure 6 – Top 10 landing places for EU fisheries catches taken outside EU waters. Source: EC Effort and Catch Reporting

(ECR) 2024.

2.2 The EU external fleet

This section reviews the main characteristics of the EU fleet operating in non-EU waters.

Authorisations to fish in external waters – overview

The EU fleet authorised to operate beyond EU waters20 totalled 2 061 vessels in 2025. These benefited from 5 336 fishing authorisations for 2024 and represented 3.7% of the total number of EU vessels21. In 2014-2024, the overall trend (Figure 7) was marked by a spike in 2021. The number of authorised EU vessels declined from 2014 to 2020. After Brexit, their share increased from 3.9% (2020) to 6.9% (2021) due to the need for authorisations to fish in UK waters. The trend has shown a decline since then, reaching 3.7% by 2024.

Figure 7– Percentage of authorised EU vessels to fish in non-EU waters in 2014-2024. Source: EC Fleet Register and EC

Licence.

20  ICCAT and GFCM are not covered. 21  There was a total of 68 457 vessels in the EU fishing fleet register on 25 November 2025 (source:

European Commission, Fleet Register).

15

Authorisations to fish in external waters by main management types

The most common type of authorisations for non-EU waters (60%) are covered by the

EU’s reciprocal agreements with Norway and the UK. In 2024,there were 3 230 Norwegian and UK authorisations for EU vessels. Conversely, there are 1 572 EU authorisations for Norwegian and UK vessels. Two elements characterise the EU fleets operating in non-EU waters in the Northeast Atlantic. First, they include both small-scale coastal-fleet fishing in British and Norwegian waters, as well as LSF and DWF fishing both in those two jurisdictions and in international waters under the auspices of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). In total, 69% of the EU’s fleet authorised to operate in UK and Norwegian waters is made up of vessels under 12 metres (2494 authorisations), and 31% is above 12 metres (1114 authorisations). Second, following Brexit, the EU vessels operating in the UK’s EEZ constitutes 40% of the fleet in the area: in 2026, 1 312 EU vessels held an authorisation to fish in the UK’s EEZ (including 154 within UK territorial waters and 198 under the ‘voisinage’ agreement between Ireland and the UK). 11 Member States currently fish in UK and British Crown Dependency waters.

The second most common type of authorisations for non-EU waters (31%) concerns the

more distant external waters. There are 1 889 authorisations for 523 EU vessels (i.e. less than 1% (0.76%) of the EU fishing fleet)22. Not all vessels are actually active. In 2014-2023, an average of about 8% of the DWF vessels (i.e. above 24 metres) were inactive. The share was lowest in 2016 (1.5%) and highest in 2021 (12.2%).

Moreover, the existence of an authorisation does not imply that the vessel concerned takes most of its catches in external waters. It may not even use the authorisation. It is therefore useful to examine whether a vessel was active in the area described in the licence.

Table 1 shows the presence of authorised vessels above 12 metres fishing in non-EU waters in 2022-2024, on the basis of the areas described in the fishing authorisations and the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) positions23. For all the years in question, over 63% of the vessels recorded as present in the authorised area were above 24 metres. Most authorisations (79% in 2022, 81% in 2023 and 2024) originated in reciprocal agreements with Norway and the UK24. 41% of these were vessels between 12 and 24 metres in 2022, and 42% in 2023 and 2024.

22  The authorisations of two RFMOs are not currently included in the fishing authorisations database but

can be consulted on their respective websites. These are the International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

(GFCM). Both have thousands of authorisations for small-scale coastal fishing vessels in the

Mediterranean, but most of these vessels are not active in external waters. Adding these authorisations

would therefore distort the picture regarding activities in external waters. 23 This analysis begins in 2022, because VMS data completeness before 2022 was insufficient and could

lead to inaccurate results. It also excludes vessels with LOA below 12 metres because they are not obliged

to transmit VMS data. ICAAT and GFCM are also not included (see footnote 22). The total number of

authorisations for each management type was lower than the sum of ‘present’ and ‘not present’ vessels

because some authorisations covered two periods within the same year and the vessel did not fish in the

area in one of those two periods. 24  Reciprocal agreements include authorisations with the British Crown Dependencies Guernsey and Jersey.

16

Management type

2022 2023 2024

No presence Presence No of

Vessels No presence Presence No of

Vessels No presence Presence No of

Vessels

Length >=12m <24m

SFPA 26 10 32 19 13 27 12 10 17 RFMO 75 5 80 61 24 85 41 25 66 Reciprocal (UK+NO)

405 390 665 445 358 699 370 375 643

Length >=24m

SFPA 77 103 133 67 119 132 56 108 118 RFMO 287 157 348 302 148 374 297 162 385 Reciprocal (UK+NO)

332 464 630 334 443 633 288 451 606

Other 14 38 52 18 43 61 20 44 63 Direct 29 47 63 11 52 55 20 40 47

Total 1 052 1 119 1 629 1 091 1 074 1 645 950 1 089 1 535

Table 1 – Presence of vessels above 12 metres in non-EU waters based on VMS with speed <= 6 knots. Sources: VMS data

and EC licences.

Evolution and main characteristics of the EU external fleet

The overall EU fleet (both external and internal) has decreased between 2014 and 202325. Most

of the decrease was borne by the LSF and DWF vessels. However, while the average age of EU

active fishing vessels progressively increased from 26 years in 2014 to 33.5 years, the average

age of the DWF was significantly lower (24 years in 2023).

The EU fleet operating in non-EU waters is highly specialised (Table 2) and consists mainly of the following:

• the tuna fleet: most of its catches are taken by large purse seiners (PS) flagged by Spain

and France (and, to a lesser extent, Italy) that catch tropical tuna species around the

world (in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans);

• longliners: these are flagged mainly by Spain and Portugal (representing 61.3% of that

fleet) and mainly target swordfish and blue shark in the central and south Atlantic and

the Indian and Pacific Oceans. They are equipped with drifting longlines (LLD), hand

lines and pole lines (LHP), set longlines (LLS) and hand lines and pole lines (LHM)

that are designed for catching pelagic fish. In total, there are 474 vessels (including 223

from Spain and 68 from Portugal);

• bottom trawlers: these operate in the North and Central Atlantic Ocean. They are

mainly demersal trawlers from Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Italy and Portugal

(targeting species such as halibut, redfish, cod, hake and shrimp). These vessels are

equipped with bottom pair trawls (PTB), single boat bottom otter trawls (OTB), bottom

trawls (TB), beam trawls (TBB), bottom trawls and nephrops trawls (TBN) and bottom

trawls and shrimp trawls (TBS). In total, there are 1 233 vessels, with 1 066 using OTB.

The largest portion comes from Italy, followed by France and Spain;

• pelagic trawlers: these are from Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands

and Poland targeting species such as mackerel, herring, whiting, sardines. 112 of the

127 vessels are equipped with single boat midwater otter trawls (OTM).

25  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD2026 120 final), pp. 33-34.

17

Purse Seiners

PS

Longliners Bottom Trawlers Pelagic Trawlers TOTAL % LHM LHP LLD LLS Total OT OTB OTT PT TB TBB TBN TBS PTB Total OTM PTM TM Total

IT 77 53 53 488 488 618 30.52 ES 66 13 141 69 223 111 4 115 404 19.95 FR 22 2 20 15 37 1 164 23 1 6 3 1 199 7 13 1 21 279 13.78 IE 3 2 2 58 9 67 48 1 49 121 5.98 EL 15 20 8 28 69 69 112 5.53 PT 4 24 31 13 68 17 17 89 4.40 NL 13 5 54 72 8 8 80 3.95 DK 1 1 60 1 62 8 8 71 3.51 SE 32 4 1 37 12 12 49 2.42 BE 3 43 46 46 2.27 MT 1 18 16 34 10 10 45 2.22 CY 2 25 1 26 5 5 33 1.63 DE 2 2 17 8 25 27 1.33 PL 1 1 11 1 12 10 10 23 1.14 BG 14 14 14 0.69 LT 1 1 2 4 4 6 0.30 EE 4 4 4 0.20 LV 2 2 2 2 4 0.20 HR 1 2 2 3 0.15

Total 191 2 39 256 177 474 2 1 066 28 1 6 118 4 2 6 1 233 112 14 1 127 2 025 100

Table 2 - EU fleet operating in non-EU waters in 2024 (verified activity with VMS in non-EU EEZs); vessels with LOA >=12m.

Sources: EC Fleet Register and VMS data.

Reflagging

In 2014-2024, there was significant reflagging of vessels registered in EU Member States to

non-EU countries: a total of 311 vessels were reflagged from 15 Member States to 56 different

non-EU countries. On average, 28 vessels per year were reflagged. The peak years were 2022

(34) and 2019 (41), but no temporal pattern stands out (Figure 8). By contrast, the origin of the

vessels is very concentrated on six EU Member States (Denmark, Spain, France, Latvia,

Portugal and Sweden) which together account for 90% of reflagged vessels in average. Spain

alone represents 38% (117 vessels) and the five other Member States represent between 7% and

18% (21 to 57 vessels) each. The other Member States concerned are Belgium, Germany,

Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Finland.

Figure 8 - Evolution of the number of EU vessels reflagged to third countries in 2014-2024. Source: EC Fleet Register.

The destination countries were also quite concentrated (

Figure 9). Nine countries received 10 or more reflagged vessels each, representing 50% of the

total number of EU reflagged vessels (156). They were, in descending order: Mauritania,

Russia, Morocco, Namibia, Suriname, Belize, Senegal, Dominica and Angola.

18

Figure 9 - Number of vessels reflagging from EU Member States to third countries, 2014-2024 – Source: EC Fleet Register.

2.3 Economic performance of the EU distant-water fleet (DWF)26

Due to the data limitations presented in the introduction to this chapter, this section focuses on

the fleet above 24 metres that operates predominantly outside EU waters (i.e. the DWF, as

defined by the STECF). The DWF consisted of 239 vessels in 2023.

Profitability

The impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for the 2013 CFP reform

expected the EU fleet’s economic performance to improve overall. The weakest improvements

would be obtained by the 24-40 metres segment. The performance of the 12-24 metre segment

would correspond to the average, whereas the performance of the segment above 40 metres

would exceed the average but remain below the small-scale coastal fleet (SSCF).

Overall, the DWF has remained profitable since 2014, except in 2019 and 202027. However,

profits and profit margins declined substantially. Indeed, gross value added (GVA) fell from

EUR 530 million in 2014 to EUR 353 million in 2023.

26  Unless stated otherwise, the source for this section is the 2025 annual economic report on the EU fishing

fleet (STECF 25-03 & 25-07). The latest available data reported are from 2023. 27 The 2025 annual economic report on the EU fishing fleet (STECF 25-03 & 25-07) - EU Blue Economy

Observatory

19

Figure 10 - Economic performance of the DW - Source: own elaboration based on STECF 25-07.

Profitability followed a similar decreasing trend: gross profit more than halved between 2014

and 2023 to EUR 151 million. Net profit margins declined from 22% in 2014 to 2% in 2023

(Figure 11). The situation has worsened significantly in recent years, mainly due to fuel price

volatility and a decrease in landing income. Now-cast projections based on 2023 data show that

profitability is expected to have moderately recovered in 2025.

Figure 11 – Trends in key economic indicators for the DWF. Source: own elaboration based on STECF 25-07.

Employment and wages

In 2023, the DWF employed 5 790 people, equalling 6 387 full-time equivalents (FTEs). This

represented 8.6% of the total number of FTEs in the EU fishing fleet. Employment in the DWF

is mostly on a full-time basis. The total number of people employed and the number of FTEs in

the DWF both declined in 2014-2023 by about 11% and 13% respectively.

However, the average wage per employee and the average wage per FTE have both increased

moderately across the entire EU fleet over the same period. There are significant variations per

fleet and Member State28. The highest wages occur in the LSF and DWF, with wages in the

DWF having been the highest until 2021. For these fleets, half of the coastal Member States

register an average wage higher than the national average.

Changes in fleet composition

Between 2014 and 2023, the number of vessels operating in the DWF decreased by 20%. This

is similar to the decrease in total tonnage (from 286 000 GT to 243 000 GT, i.e. -15%). The

total engine power decreased less (from 378 000 kW to 327 000 kW, i.e. -13%). The value of

28  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), Annex VI, Figures 34 and 35.

20

physical capital per vessel increased accordingly from EUR 2.1 million in 2014 to

EUR 2.6 million in 2023. For comparison, values of physical capital per vessel for the LSF and

SSCF were on average EUR 0.4 million and EUR 0.02 million respectively.

DWF vessels are on average younger than vessels in the SSCF and LSF (Figure 12). In 2023,

the average age in the DWF was 25 years old, as compared with around 34 years for the rest of

the EU fishing fleet. The DWF is nevertheless following the same ageing trend as the SSCF

and LSF.

Figure 12 – Trends in mean age of vessels by fishing activity. Source: own elaboration from STECF 24-07.

Drivers of economic performance

Fuel intensity (i.e. fuel consumption per volume of landed product) has declined moderately

since 2013. The fleet remains vulnerable to increases in energy prices. Indeed, the peak in

energy prices in 2022 reduced the fleet’s profitability, despite a slight increase in the gross value

of landings.

Energy costs account for a larger share of total operating costs in the DWF than in the LSF and

SSCF (32% compared with 27% and 15%, respectively), making the DWF more exposed to

energy price volatility than other fleet segments. The share of energy costs in total operating

costs varies due to fluctuating energy prices. This share increased from 29% in 2014 to about

32% in 2024, but the average between 2016 and 2021 was about 20% – a sharp increase that

reflected high fuel prices.

Direct emissions from the DWF decreased by about 16% between 2014 and 2023. The DWF

accounted for 21% of total energy consumption and direct greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions

in 2023 while accounting for 0.5% of the vessels in the EU fleet (239 vessels), 21.5% of total

gross tonnage (GT) and 8% of total engine power.

Labour productivity (measured as GVA per FTE) declined from EUR 85.000 in 2014 to

EUR 55.000 in 2023. This development was mainly driven by the decrease in GVA, because

the number of FTEs remained relatively stable in 2013-2023.Overall, productivity indicators

of the DWF either decreased or remained stable in 2013-2023.

Investment

Annual investment in the DWF amounted to EUR 44 million on average between 2014 and

2023, but with large fluctuations and reaching historically low levels of around EUR 10 million

in 2023. Overall, the DWF’s current economic performance may reflect limited investment in

fleet modernisation. This may hinder productivity and cost-efficiency improvements, while

weak economic returns in turn reduce the capacity and incentives to invest.

21

2.4 EU external trade29

This section examines the EU’s economic relation with the rest of the world as regards trade in

fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs). It does not distinguish the method of production (wild

caught or farmed) for substantive and technical reasons. Trade in aquatic products is global and

driven by overall industrial and final demand, which can be met by either fished or farmed

products. Trade statistics based on customs codes are not disaggregated according to the method

of production of any given good. Consequently, the trade regimes under which the EU trades

in aquatic products do not distinguish farmed from caught products.

Overall EU supply: a globalised value chain

Globally, the EU is a minor producer of FAPs, accounting for only 2% of world production.

There is a growing gap with major Asian producers, whose output is driven primarily by

aquaculture. By contrast, the EU is the fourth largest consumption market for FAPs (behind

China, India and Indonesia).

In terms of trade, the EU’s trade flows in FAPs are second only to China’s (Figure 13). The

EU is the largest importing region, representing 41% of the global import value in 2024; its

share has however been gradually declining since its peak in 200730. Asia accounted for 34%

of global imports and Northern America for 17%, while Latin America and the Caribbean,

Africa and Oceania each held relatively small shares (3%, 3% and 1%, respectively). Asia

occupies a pivotal position in the trade of global aquatic animal products. In 2024, it was the

main origin of imports (by value) in Oceania (69%), Northern America (40%) and Africa

(33%), with 47% reflecting Asia’s intraregional trade. Europe and Latin America and the

Caribbean relied more heavily on intraregional trade, but Asia was their largest supplier.

Figure 13 – Top 10 trade flows in value of fishery and aquaculture products in the world (2024, nominal values). Source:

EUMOFA 2025.

In 2023, the EU’s supply of FAPs for human consumption (including both domestic production

and imports) totalled 12.38 million tonnes in live weight equivalent (LWE). This represented

29  Unless otherwise stated, the source for this section is the EUMOFA report of 2025, in which the latest

data available are for 2024. 30 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, p 93.

22

the lowest level in 2014-2023. The supply had been declining since 2018, except for a brief

uptick between 2020 and 2021 that followed a sharp drop in 2020 due to the COVID crisis. As

a result, the EU’s estimated apparent consumption fell by 2%, reaching 10.25 million tonnes

LWE. This was the lowest level in 10 years and nearly 240 000 tonnes LWE less than in 2022.

Overall trends of EU trade in fishery and aquaculture products

Between 2015 and 2024, the value of EU trade in FAPs – the sum of its imports and exports

with third countries – grew by 18% in real terms and 2% in volume, with a compound annual

growth rate of 2% in real terms. In 2024, the EU’s trade in FAPs decreased by 3% in volume

and 4% in value, reaching 8.1 million tonnes with a total value of EUR 38.1 billion. This was

the lowest volume (it had averaged 8.5 million tonnes in the previous five years) and the third-

highest real and nominal value recorded in 2015-2024.

In the same period, the EU has constantly been a net importer31. In 2024, the EU’s trade deficit

reached EUR 21.6 billion,a 5% improvement on 2023. This was due to imports decreasing by

1% while exports increased by 1%.

Since the 1990s, the EU’s self-sufficiency32 in seafood products has been declining (Figure

14). EU production of aquatic food now covers only 38.1% of EU consumer demand. In 2014-

2025, the EU’s self-sufficiency in FAPs reached a high point of 46.1% in 2014, largely driven

by strong production (particularly in the fisheries sector). A clear downward trend has emerged

since 2018.

Figure 14 – Historical trend of EU production, imports, exports and apparent consumption (million tonnes) – Source: EUMOFA

2025.

31  It is important to note that import data do not identify the catch of the EU LDF that is landed in third

countries, where they are processed and from where they are then exported to the EU. The statistics count

these products as imports. This information will be more easily retrievable and analysable once the new IT

system CATCH is fully functional. CATCH will contain information about the origin of the fish, because

the catch certificates issued by the EU Member States will have to be input into the system in cases where

the fish is processed in third countries and then exported to the EU. 32  Self-sufficiency is defined as the capacity of EU Member States to meet demand through their own

production. It can be estimated by calculating the ratio of domestic production to apparent domestic

consumption.

23

Import dependency for the most consumed products

The EU’s structural reliance on imports is particularly pronounced for the five most

consumed species in the EU (tuna, salmon, cod, Alaska pollock and shrimps). An important

share of these species is imported by the EU processing industry and sold to final consumers in

processed forms – for example, as canned (tuna), cooked (shrimp), filleted and sometimes

breaded (Alaska pollock and cod) and smoked (salmon).

In 202333, the EU had an overall self-sufficiency of just 12% for these five species, which

together represented 44% of the EU’s total apparent consumption of FAPs:

• Tuna: despite being caught by EU vessels, tuna is not produced in sufficient quantity

to meet consumer demand. The 34% self-sufficiency rate is the highest among the five

most consumed species in the EU.

• Salmon: EU production is marginal, which explains the 1% self-sufficiency rate.

Norway supplies most of the salmon imported by the EU. The EU aquaculture sector is

not expected to drastically increase its production capabilities.

• Shrimp: with a self-sufficiency rate of 11%, consumption largely relies on imports,

particularly for warm-water species such as Penaeus monodon and Penaeus vannamei.

• Alaska pollock: EU production is non-existent, so the self-sufficiency rate is 0%. There

is limited scope for substitution by other EU-produced whitefish due to price and

availability constraints (only Russia and the USA currently harvest Alaska pollock in

their EEZs).

• Cod: the self-sufficiency rate is 5% and EU production is insufficient to meet EU

demand.

EU total aquatic food imports are moderately concentrated on some origin countries. The

top EU sources of imports (Norway, Morocco and China) represented, respectively, 29%, 6%

and 6%of EU total import value in 2023. Dependency on Norway is mostly driven by imports

of salmon. Among the most imported main commercial species, salmon from Norway, octopus

from Morocco and Alaska pollock from Russia (possibly reimported from China) were the

species with the most value exposed to import dependency risks in 2023.

EU total aquatic food exports are well diversified. The USA, the UK and Norway represent

15%, 13%, and 10% of EU total export value respectively. Only 8% of the value of fishery and

aquaculture exports is highly concentrated, mainly in exports of shrimp (cold water) to China,

halibut (Greenland) to China and tuna (bluefin) to Japan.

Trade and market aspects in the Northeast Atlantic

Brexit’s effects remain visible several years after it took place. While substantial volumes of

FAPs are still traded between the EU and UK, higher transaction costs, additional checks and

more complex logistics have become permanent features of the supply chain. These effects

differ across fleets, species groups and Member States, depending on their historical

dependence on access to UK waters or on imports of FAPs of UK origin.

EU imports of FAPs from the UK grew steadily before dropping in 2021: they fell from

around 450 000 tonnes in 2019 to about 322 000 tonnes in 2022 and have remained more than

14% below pre-Brexit levels. Import values followed the same pattern, decreasing from nearly

EUR 2 billion in 2019 to roughly EUR 1.6 billion in 2024, indicating a permanent loss of UK

market share rather than a temporary post-Brexit adjustment. In 2024, the overall value and

volume of imports from the UK represented 6% of all EU imports, while EU exports to the UK

represented 10% in volume and 13% in value of all EU exports, ranking them third and second

33  The self-sufficiency ratio is not yet available for 2024.

24

respectively. This is to be compared with Norway, which represents, in value, 29% of EU

imports and 12% of EU exports.

For the UK, the overall share of trade in FAPs with the EU fell sharply to 24% by volume

in 2024. The UK is increasingly reliant on non-EU suppliers, such as Norway, Iceland and the

Faroe Islands. Compared with 2020, UK imports from Norway in 2024 rose by 79% in volume

and by more than 300% in value. Imports from Iceland increased by 24% in volume and 28%

in value. The Faroe Islands expanded exports to the UK by 47% in volume and 34% in value.

EU import regimes

Nearly half of EU imports of fisheries and aquaculture products benefit from preferential

arrangements under free-trade agreements (FTAs) established between the EU and more

than 70 countries around the world (Table 3). The share of FTA imports is likely to grow in the

coming years with new trade agreements becoming effective (particularly with Mercosur

countries and India) and agreements being negotiated (e.g. South-east Asian countries). This

will be at the expense of the share of non-preferential imports (most favoured nation (MFN)

regime) that today represent 39% of EU imports.

A further 7% are imported under the EU’s autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs), which are

used to ensure appropriate and diversified supply for the EU’s processing industries. A similar

share of imports comes from the developing countries that benefit from the EU preferences

under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).

Trade regime Volume Share

FTAs 2 843 47% MFN 2 341 39% GSP 440 7% ATQs 421 7%

Total 6 045 100%

Table 3 – Structure of EU 2025 imports by trade regime (in 1 000 tonnes). Source: Eurostat.

Impact of imports on EU (first sales) prices

The impacts of imports on prices of FAPs differ according to the species, the production method

and the destination of the product. Market segmentation is a major factor when considering the

impact on a specific species.

Overall, imports from non-EU countries complement EU production by providing species

that are either not produced in the EU at all or not in sufficient quantities (see above). They

therefore play an important role in meeting processing sector demand and consumer demand.

They also help make aquatic food affordable. This is typically the case for white fish.

Nevertheless, for some farmed species (e.g. seabream and seabass from Türkiye), there is clear

competition with EU products, and this puts downward pressure on prices. However, in the

view of stakeholders and experts gathered by the European Market Observatory for Fisheries

and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA) and DG MARE, these imports also contribute to

developing the market by providing visibility and creating new demand for these species.

There are cases of substitution between imported species and EU products. For example,

imports of salmon impact demand for, and first-sale prices of, EU trout: when the price of

salmon is quite high (including when the Norwegian krone rises against the euro), consumers

tend to replace it with trout.

By contrast, for species that the EU exports in large quantities (e.g. herring and mackerel),

there is no substantial pressure on prices due to imports. Imports from Norway and Iceland for

the fresh market do create a certain degree of competition, but their prices and limited quantities

do not indicate that they have a very material impact.

25

3 EU POLICY ACHIEVEMENTS – CONTRIBUTING TO LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

WORLDWIDE

Significant progress has been made in achieving the objectives set out in the 2011 Commission

Communication. This chapter builds on and further develops the key findings of the evaluation

of the CFP Regulation34.

3.1 Upholding and strengthening fisheries governance at global level

At global level, the EU has promoted sustainable and effectively managed fisheries by engaging

with international frameworks and consistently promoting wider participation in, and effective

implementation of, international fisheries instruments35. Their objectives and key obligations

are reflected in the EU’s broader fisheries control, monitoring and enforcement framework,

including through the IUU Regulation. More generally, the EU promotes compliance with

applicable international fisheries instruments and standards in multilateral forums and bilateral

dialogues. This includes encouraging non-Parties (particularly major distant-water fishing

nations) to align themselves with internationally agreed obligations and practices.

The EU’s efforts under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) for managing straddling and

highly migratory fish stocks have been equally robust. The EU played a constructive role in the

2023 UNFSA Review Conference by calling for stronger compliance, science-based

management and greater transparency; addressing emerging challenges; strengthening RFMO

performance; and bridging gaps between the UNFSA and other international agreements. The

EU helped steer the conference towards practical recommendations that reinforce the UNFSA’s

effectiveness. The EU’s continuing financial, technical and diplomatic support has helped

ensure that UNFSA remains a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management.

The EU’s continuing collaboration with the FAO has been crucial in addressing emerging

challenges identified in the FAO Blue Transformation Roadmap 2022-2030, from climate

change to overfishing, while also ensuring that aquatic food systems remain sustainable,

equitable and resilient. The EU’s ability to build coalitions, fund innovation and campaign for

strong policies by combining financial support, policy leadership and technical expertise has

contributed to shaping global fisheries governance. Cooperation with the FAO has delivered

tangible results by strengthening global fisheries governance, combating IUU fishing and

promoting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. This includes support for the adoption and

effective implementation of international agreements such as the Port State Measures

Agreement (PSMA) (see below). It also includes the development and uptake of FAO guidance

on small-scale fisheries, transhipment, catch-documentation schemes and sustainable

aquaculture. In addition, cooperation with the FAO has played an important role in supporting

the integration of biodiversity objectives into fisheries management.

3.2 Transforming our dialogues into working partnerships

The EU’s bilateral dialogues on ocean and fisheries with Australia, Canada, Chile, China,

Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and the USA have provided important platforms for exchanging

information, discussing emerging issues and promoting mutual understanding on fisheries

management and broader ocean governance matters. They also facilitate the identification of

areas of common interest and cooperation in international forums (FAO, RFMOs and processes

related to the implementation of international fisheries instruments).

34  Particularly Section 3.3.7 (Evolution of the EU’s international presence and action) and Section 4.1.1

(Effectiveness) in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final). 35  See Annex I for a description of international fisheries legislation.

26

3.3 Putting an end to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing

The IUU Regulation36 has proved to be a transparent, effective and non-discriminatory

instrument that ensures that fishery products obtained from IUU fishing activities occurring

anywhere in the world do not reach the EU market. It is applicable to all countries and vessels

engaged in the commercial exploitation of fishery resources and to all EU nationals involved in

fishing activities under any flag.

IUU joint statements have been signed with Canada, Japan, Korea and the USA. IUU working

groups have been organised with China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the USA. The EU

also adheres to the objectives set out in the IUU Alliance Pledge37.

The EU has engaged in official bilateral dialogues with many countries38. The EU has

supported fundamental reforms that have led to revisions of national legislation in line with

international obligations; stronger administrative structures; and improved monitoring, control

and surveillance (MCS) systems.

The catch certification scheme established by the IUU Regulation has proven effective in

keeping IUU fish out of the EU market. Some 93 countries have notified the Commission with

details of their authorities that are authorised to validate the information required in the catch

certificates. On average, around 200 000 catch certificates and 25 000 processing statements

are submitted to the Member States’ competent authorities for imports every year.

The EU catch certification scheme has nevertheless been undermined by its uneven

implementation in the Member States and by constraints imposed by the paper-based system.

The EU has therefore moved to an electronic system: CATCH.The use of this EU-wide real-

time digital system became compulsory on 10 January 2026 for the management of all

procedures linked to the EU catch certification scheme, from the source of the product (the

exporting flag state) to the final destination (the market state). CATCH enables the Member

States’ competent authorities to more efficiently identify products that have been obtained from

IUU fishing, and to harmonise risk management and border controls. CATCH is a

gamechanger: it is the first-ever EU-wide real-time system for harmonised border controls

under the IUU Regulation. It has the potential to influence the policies of supplier countries and

to set a benchmark for key market states through interconnection as CATCH can be used

directly by non-EU countries. This promotes digitalisation globally, in line with the FAO

Voluntary Guidelines on Catch Documentation Schemes.

The EU’s action under the IUU Regulation has been praised internationally for driving

other countries towards compliance and strengthened fisheries governance. Worldwide

awareness of the importance of combating IUU fishing has increased significantly. G20 and G7

statements, as well as several regional or multilateral IUU fishing alliances and declarations,

show that increased attention is being paid to this phenomenon. They also underline the urgency

of further action by all relevant states.

Several countries have taken a more active stance on IUU fishing and have shown

willingness to take stronger actions. An increasing number of countries are interested in

adopting catch certification schemes and are looking to exchange best practices with the EU.

Many RFMOs are developing catch documentation schemes, thus demonstrating their

ownership of reforms that bring national fisheries control systems into conformity with

international standards.

36 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to

prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. 37  Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Action Alliance Pledge – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). 38  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 55.

27

Several international agreements represent a significant evolution over the last 15 years in

terms of mobilisation in fighting IUU fishing. Before the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

agreement on fisheries subsidies (see below), the PSMA was adopted in 2009 and entered into

force in June 2016. It was the first binding global instrument that aims at fighting IUU fishing,

focusing on strengthening and harmonising port controls to prevent illegally caught fish from

entering the global market. From the outset, the EU has supported the adoption of such

agreement and then has been at the forefront of promoting its ratification and effective

implementation, including by strengthening the capacities of developing countries through its

contribution to the FAO PSMA Global Capacity Development Programme; supporting the

participation of developing countries in the meetings held under the PSMA; and contributing

to the development and use of PSMA tools (e.g. the PSMA Global Information Exchange and

the FAO’s Global Record of Fishing Vessels).

3.4 Contributing to a more effective functioning of regional fisheries management

organisations (RFMOs)

3.4.1 Introduction

The EU is currently a member of 17 RFMOs (

Figure 15) and two regional fisheries advisory bodies: the Western Central Atlantic Fishery

Commission (WECAFC) and the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF).

5 of the 17 RFMOs are tuna RFMOs39. This participation makes the EU one of the most

prominent players in such organisations.

Figure 15 – RFMOs of which the EU is a member (left: tuna RFMOs; right: non-tuna RFMOs). Source: European Commission,

Facts and Figures on the common fisheries policy, 2022.

Through the 2013 CFP reform, the EU sought to lead the process of strengthening RFMOs’

performance in conserving and managing marine living resources under their purview. In

addition, the EU priority was to promote robust science to underpin decision-making as well as

a culture of compliance based on effective MCS tools. It was also to fight IUU fishing at

regional level. Increased funding of RFMOs for strengthening data collection and scientific

processes would help close gaps in knowledge, improve stock assessments and underpin

science-based decisions.

39  See details on RFMOs in Annex I.

28

3.4.2 Achievements

RFMOs have consolidated their role of promoting the long-term sustainability of the stocks

under their purview. Today, countries generally recognise the need to cooperate with and within

those organisations. At the 36th Session of FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2024,

Members reaffirmed the critical role of RFBs in achieving effective fisheries management,

implementing international instruments, addressing climate change impacts, and integrating

biodiversity concerns into the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic living resources40.

This recognition has brought the creation of new RFMOs (e.g. SPRFMO, SIOFA and NPFC)

and increased the number of members and cooperating non-members in existing RFMOs. FAO

Area 41 is currently the only high seas area where a RFMO does not cover fisheries resources

(other than highly migratory species).

The EU’s participation in RFMOs has been crucial41. Since 2014, the EU joined three new

RFMOs and obtained access to new fishing grounds and fishing opportunities, particularly in

the North Pacific Ocean. RFMOs have continued to contribute significantly to the EU’s supply

of a variety of species (including highly migratory species), but overall landings by the EU

DWF decreased in 2014-202442. The EU has promoted EU standards, the CFP objectives and

the implementation of international commitments. It has also steered the international agenda

towards achieving SDG 14.4 and has remained a key player in many RFMOs43.

In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the EU and its Member States are a driving force in the

work of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) to ensure the

sustainable management of shared stocks. At the EU’s initiative, the MedFish4Ever44 and Sofia

Ministerial45 declarations were adopted in 2017 and 2018 respectively. These created new

momentum to redress the governance of fisheries in the two sea basins and were the basis for

sector-specific strategies (i.e. the regional plan of action against IUU fishing, the regional plan

of action for small-scale fisheries and the aquaculture strategy). This governance process was

consolidated with the GFCM’s mid-term strategy (2017-2020) and its successor (2021-2030).

The current strategy brings together different sectors of the blue economy; promotes a

multidisciplinary approach; and builds on the overarching principle of solidarity, based on

technical cooperation, knowledge-sharing and partnerships. The two successive strategies

allowed modernising the GFCM and strengthening the role of its secretariat. Over the last five

years, the EU has successfully promoted the adoption of 75 conservation and control measures

under the GFCM (35 measures were adopted in 2021 alone) to address some of the key stocks

and environmental and ecosystem challenges. The latest GFCM report on the state of the

Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries46 recorded the first positive results of these efforts.

Similarly, in the Atlantic, the EU leadership has played a crucial role in achieving the

successful recovery and sustainable management of bluefin tuna; adopting a comprehensive

management plan for North Albacore; adopting a rebuilding plan for Mediterranean Albacore;

adopting management measures for blue shark and shortfin mako in the International

Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); and adopting measures for

Greenland sharks in NEAFC.

In the Pacific, the EU was behind the first measure ever adopted by an RFMO to regulate squid

fishing and jack-mackerel recovery plan in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management

Organisation (SPRFMO). It has also supported the work on the recovery of Pacific bluefin tuna

40 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, p128. 41  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 53 and 68-69. 42  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 62 and 68-69. 43  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD2026 120 final), Annex VI, Table 43. 44  Ministerial Conference on the sustainability of Mediterranean fisheries, Malta, 30 March 2017. 45  High-Level Conference on Black Sea Fisheries and Aquaculture, Sofia, 7 June 2018. 46  FAO, The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries 2020.

29

(IATTC and WCPFC) and southern bluefin tuna (CCSBT). In the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian

Ocean, the EU has pushed for stricter regulation, better monitoring and full biodegradability

and non-entangling designs for fish aggregating devices. It has also actively supported the

adoption of management procedures based on management strategy evaluation (MSE)

frameworks47, mitigation measures for bycatch, the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems

and the banning of shark finning. In many ways, several of the measures adopted following EU

leadership were a milestone in fisheries management. Other organisations have since adopted

similar measures.

Substantive progress has been made in scientific advice and science-based fisheries

management. This is largely due to the EU’s contribution. In 2014-2024, data collection in the

EU expanded in terms of scope and new requirements, and this has been essential in meeting

the needs of end users, including RFMOs and SFPAs. This also enabled a substantial increase

in the number of conclusive assessments for stocks in the International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and RFMO areas in 2014-2024 as well as using MSE and

management procedures in operational fisheries management48.

Several RFMOs have undertaken performance reviews,often at the EU’s suggestion and/or

with its financial support49.Performance reviews have become a regular and accepted process

in RFMOs.

The EU’s significant voluntary financial contributions (EUR 98 million) were crucial to

achieving these improvements. They funded the scientific and technical work of RFMOs’

subsidiary bodies and working groups that would not have been possible without that support50.

As a result of these efforts, significant progress has been made toward meeting

conservation and sustainability objectives. In tuna RFMOs, the share of the commercially

exploited tuna stocks not subject to overfishing increased from 43% in 2014 to 87% in 2024.

By contrast, the trends for stocks managed by non-tuna RFMOs have been more diverse – with

positive trends in, for instance, the North-West Atlantic and Southern Oceans but mixed trends

in West Africa51.

3.5 Towards sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs)

3.5.1 Introduction

The revisions of the CFP in 2002 and 2013 aimed to, successively, establish and improve the

legal framework applying to EU fishing vessels in the waters of third countries. The overall

objectives were to ensure that all these EU vessels are subject to supervisory and transparent

regulations, and that this benefits all parties and enhances fisheries governance.

In 2002, the bilateral agreements were reshaped into fisheries partnership agreements

(FPAs) and sought to strengthen partner countries’ capacity in fisheries, while access to fishing

opportunities would be set in the light of the best scientific advice available. The 2002 reform

thus signalled that the fisheries agreements are no longer exclusively commercial in nature.

With the 2013 reform, the agreements were renamed ‘sustainable fisheries partnership

agreements’ (SFPAs). Sharing the costs of access to third-country waters between public and

private actors while also increasing the EU’s financial contribution to sectoral support in partner

47  MSE is a tool that scientists and managers can use to simulate the workings of a fisheries system and test

whether potential harvest strategies can achieve the pre-agreed management objectives. Management

procedures are sets of procedures that guide the implementation of MSE. 48  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 51 and Annex VI

Tables 34-40 and 43. 49  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 69. 50  ibid. 51  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 26-27, 57 and

69 and in Annex I.

30

countries would allow EU funds to focus more on reinforcing the scientific base of fisheries

management, MCS, as well as on development policy goals. By decoupling SFPAs’ sectoral

support from payments for access rights, the reform would enable better alignment with other

EU development instruments and allow the EU to respond more promptly to weaknesses in

supporting implementation. EU payments to third countries under SFPAs therefore have three

components: a contribution from the EU budget to cover access rights to fishery resources in

third countries’ EEZs; a contribution from the EU budget to support third countries fisheries

sectors and fisheries policies (i.e. a development component); and a component paid by EU

shipowners (including fishing authorisation and environmental fees).

The agreements can target only the surplus of the allowable catch (as stated in UNCLOS).

SFPAs also include an exclusivity clause (i.e. if the EU has a fisheries agreement with a third

country, EU vessels cannot operate in that third country’s waters outside the framework of this

agreement) even when no protocol is in force.

Most SFPAs focus on tuna and other highly migratory species. These SFPAs are known as ‘tuna

SFPAs’. The other SFPAs are multispecies agreements that are referred to as ‘mixed’

agreements. All but one of these other SFPAs has a tuna component (the exception is the

agreement with Greenland, which is not located in tropical waters).

3.5.2 Achievements

Access to third-country waters

The number of SFPAs remained stable between 2014 and 2025, notably in the Atlantic

(Table 4). Historically, after the agreements with Senegal and Guinea-Bissau became active in

1981, the number of agreements increased steeply to 13 in 1987. Their number has since

oscillated between 11 and 18, with an average of 14 active agreements in 1987-2025. The drop

to 11 active agreements in 2013 was due to difficulties in approving an agreement

(e.g. Micronesia and Morocco) or reaching an agreement (e.g. Gabon) or was the result of

political instability in the countries concerned (e.g. Equatorial Guinea and Guinea-Bissau).

There are currently 10 dormant agreements52 (i.e. agreements with no active protocol in place

– meaning that EU vessels cannot fish in these waters).

Country 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Cape Verde 2011-2014 2011-2014 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2024-2029 Comoros 2014-2016 2014-2016 2014-2016 2014-2016

Cook Islands

2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2021 2021-2024 2021-2024 2021-2024 2025-2032 Equatorial Guinea

Gabon 2013-2016 2013-2016 2013-2016

2021-2026 2021-2026 2021-2026 2021-2026 Greenland 2013-2015 2013-2015 2013-2015 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2016-2020 2021-2024 2021-2025 2021-2025 2024-2030 Guinea-Bissau 2014-2017 2014-2017 2014-2017 2014-2017

2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2024-2029

Ivory Coast 2013-2018 2013-2018 2013-2018 2013-2018 2013-2018 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 2025-2029 Kiribati 2012-2015 2012-2015

2023-2028 2023-2028 2023-2028

Liberia

2015-2020 2015-2020 2015-2020 2015-2020 2015-2020 2015-2020

Madagascar 2013-2014 2013-2014 2015-2018 2015-2018 2015-2018

2023-2028 2023-2028 2023-2027 Mauritania 2012-2014 2012-2014 2012-2014 2015-2019 2015-2019 2015-2019 2015-2020 2015-2021 2021-2026 2021-2026 2021-2026 2021-2026 Mauritius 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2017 2014-2017 2017-2027 2017-2027 2017-2027 2017-2027 2022 2022-2026 2022-2026 2022-2026 Morocco 2013-2014 2013-2014 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018

2019-2023 2019-2023 2019-2023 2019-2023

Mozambique 2012-2015 2012-2015 2012-2015 2014-2018 2014-2018

Sao Tome Principe 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018 2014-2018 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2025-2029 Seychelles 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2020 2014-2020 2020-2026 2020-2026 2020-2026 2020-2026 2022-2026 Senegal 2014-2019 2014-2019 2014-2019 2014-2019 2014-2019 2014-2019

2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024 2019-2024

The Gambia

2019-2025 2019-2025 2019-2025 2019-2025 2019-2025 2021-2025

Total 15 16 16 15 13 10 12 12 13 15 14 13

Table 4 – Number of SFPAs between 2014 and 2025.

52  Gabon (ended in June 2026), Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Micronesia (ended 2010), Morocco,

Mozambique, Senegal, Seychelles (ended February 2026), Solomon Islands (ended 2012) and The

Gambia.

31

SFPAs have significantly contributed to the EU’s supply of a variety of species, but overall

landings by the EU DWF have been decreasing53. That is the case for tuna catches (Figure 16).

Catches may vary from year to year (including due to interruptions of agreements), but a period

of high catches (2016-2019: 429 000 tonnes per year on average) was followed by a period of

significantly lower catches (2022-2024: around 315 000 tonnes per year on average).

Figure 16 – Tuna catches covered by SFPAs, in tonnes (2014-2024).

Better promoting long-term resource conservation and sustainability

SFPAs have promoted conservation and management measures that are aligned with the

CFP, as well as with the international rules (for example those stemming from RFMOs)54.

SFPAs have targeted surplus resources that have been determined using the best scientific

advice available (or, for migratory species, following the relevant RFMO management

measures). In addition, the constructive dialogues built through SFPAs have benefited the

relationship in other forums (particularly RFMOs), thus further promoting the regional

sustainability of fisheries.

Consistency has been ensured between the fight against IUU fishing and the SFPAs.

SFPAs have supported the implementation of the IUU Regulation by building up the capacity

of partners’ authorities. They have also consistently reinforced the zero-tolerance approach by

refraining from negotiating SFPAs with countries that have not tackled their shortcomings

under the IUU pre-notification procedures55.

Reinforcing the governance of bilateral fisheries agreements

The CFP Regulation states that SFPAs must contain a provision on respect for democratic

principles and human rights. This is an essential element of such agreements and an essential

element governing the EU external relations overall. This provision is included in all protocols

to the fisheries agreements.

The social provision governs the employment conditions of third-country fishers onboard EU

vessels fishing in the framework of SFPAs. Originally, this clause mainly focused on the

obligation for EU vessels to employ third-country fishers. Step-by-step evolutions have been

visible down the years56.

Since 2015, almost all SFPAs have contained a transparency clause which, depending on the

SFPA, requires partner countries either to make public the agreements authorising non-EU

foreign fleets in their national waters or to inform the EU about them via the Joint Committee.

53  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 62. 54  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 70. 55  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 70. 56  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 54.

32

Efforts have been made to increase SFPAs’ efficiency57. These have consisted in adapting

fishing opportunities to the level of their use by the EU fleet and to conservation objectives.

The EU generally succeeded in making the access fees paid by shipowners reflecting the market

price and in achieving effective catches and profits. Since 2021, a relative increase of the share

of operators’ fees in the total contribution for access has been observable in the new protocols

that have been signed.

The two components of the EU’s public contribution – access fees and sectoral support – have

been clearly dissociated and specifically directed towards building better governance in

partner countries. The sectoral support contribution is paid on the basis of the results of

implementing agreed programmes for developing the sector in partner countries. Overall, the

EU contribution is generally aligned with the absorption capacity of partner countries and

measures have been taken to ensure the respect of time limits in sectoral support spending.

More effective support for sustainable fisheries in partner countries

In 2014-2025, the EU’s funding to SFPAs amounted to EUR 1 355 billion,averaging about

EUR 113 million per year.It constantly increased between 2014 and 2022 (from

EUR 69.3 million in 2014 to EUR 153.6 million in 2022) but then fell back significantly. Five

recipient countries (Mauritania, Morocco, Greenland, Guinea-Bissau and Seychelles) received

93.6% of the EU funding to SFPAs in 2014-2025 (Figure 17).

Figure 17 – Average annual contribution from the EU budget to active SFPAs, 2014-2025.

Sectoral support is now recognised as making a strong contribution to the reinforcement

of third countries’ capacities in fisheries management, MCS systems, scientific analysis,

support to small-scale fisheries and the development of a sustainable blue economy.

The EU’s financial contribution for the access component of the SFPAs had a positive cost-

benefit ratio that was generally higher for tuna than for multispecies SFPAs58.

Economic value added was generated by the fishing activities of the EU’s fishing vessels

(direct value added) and by their interactions with the upstream (e.g. supply of goods and

services to vessels) and downstream (e.g. processing and commercialisation of catches)

ancillary industries (indirect value added)59.

57  Evaluation and analysis of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements between the EU and third

countries including an in-depth analysis of the sectoral support component of the SFPAs, 2023; Evaluation

of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 74. 58  Evaluation and analysis of the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements between the EU and third

countries including an in-depth analysis of the sectoral support component of the SFPAs, 2023. 59  ibid.

33

It is estimated that SFPAs created direct employment for an annual average of almost 2 850

third-country nationals. It is also estimated that indirect employment has supported an

additional annual average of almost 15 000 jobs in third countries (mostly in industrial tuna

processing plants)60.

The partner countries lead the programming process and submit a proposal to joint

committees. This makes it possible to better align the multiannual programme with national

sectoral policies and strategies.

3.6 Bilateral and multilateral agreements on stocks of common interest shared with

adjacent non-EU countries in the Northeast Atlantic

3.6.1 Introduction

Fisheries cooperation in the Northeast Atlantic takes place bilaterally, trilaterally for shared

stocks in the greater North Sea, and multilaterally for widely distributed pelagic stocks, under

coastal state consultations and within RFMOs (NEAFC and ICCAT) for highly migratory

species (swordfish, blue fin tuna, tropical tuna and albacore).

Most bilateral agreements are longstanding. The 1980 Fisheries Agreement  is the backbone

of EU-Norway cooperation61. It incorporates elements linked to the EEA agreement62, which

excludes fisheries and agriculture. This agreement has allowed constructive and mutually

beneficial cooperation for over four decades. In July 2020, Norway announced its intention to

terminate the agreement. The EU and Norway agreed to replace it with a new agreement by

1 January 2023. However, that deadline has not been met and the 1980 agreement continues to

apply pending its renegotiation.

Besides the 1980 agreement, the EU and Norway concluded in 2014 an agreement on fishing

in the Skagerrak63. This guarantees reciprocal access to waters for vessels flying the flag of

Denmark, Norway or Sweden. The EU also consults Norway on behalf of Sweden to agree

fishing opportunities for Sweden in the Norwegian zone of the North Sea. This continues the

practice established by the 1976 fisheries agreement between Norway and Sweden that predated

Sweden’s accession to the EU.

Overall, the EU and Norway carry out three consultations annually (under the bilateral, the

Skagerrak and Kattegat, and the EU (Sweden)-Norway neighbouring agreements). These

bilateral agreements were the EU’s most important fisheries agreements with a third country

until Brexit.

The seas around Iceland have historically been an important fishing ground for EU fishers.

When Iceland declared its EEZ in 1976, it largely excluded foreign vessels. An EU-Iceland

fisheries agreement was concluded in 1993, allowing reciprocal access and quota exchanges

that were implemented through annual arrangements. The agreement was initially valid for

10 years and was then extended for a further 6 years (until 2009) before becoming dormant.

Discussions resumed in 2025 and are still ongoing. In parallel, the EU and Iceland signed, on

15 July 2025, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on enhancing cooperation on fisheries

and other ocean matters64. The MoU establishes a framework for deeper and broader

60  ibid. 61  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2214/80 of 27 June 1980 on the conclusion of the Agreement on fisheries

between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway. 62  Agreement on the European Economic Area – Final Act. 63  Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in

the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. 64  EU – Iceland Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on enhancing cooperation on fisheries and other

ocean matters.

34

cooperation between the EU and Iceland on sustainable fisheries, Arctic matters, scientific

research, the sustainable blue economy and marine conservation.

The Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are both part of the Kingdom of Denmark but not

the EU, have their own fisheries relations with the EU. An EU-Faroe Islands fisheries

agreement was concluded in 1980. However, there have been no new annual agreements since

2021 on access to waters or exchange of fishing quotas. The EU and the Faroe Islands signed

an MoU in April 2024 on enhanced cooperation on a wide range of policy matters, including

sustainable fisheries management65. The EU has an SPFA with Greenland that allows the EU

fleet and also, after quota exchanges, third-country fleets to fish in Greenlandic waters. This

agreement is one of the abovementioned SFPAs.

Since the UK withdrew from the EU, fisheries relations with the UK have been governed by

the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)66.

Trilateral fisheries relations with UK and Norway cover seven commercially important

stocks in the greater North Sea (cod, haddock, saithe, sprat, whiting, plaice and herring), for

which each party’s fleet can fish part of its quota in another party’s waters. There are 20 TACs

of high economic value, covering around one third of the total volume of fishing opportunities

in the Northeast Atlantic. The trilateral forum is closely integrated into the network of

established bilateral frameworks (EU-UK and EU-Norway) and ensures coherence between the

processes.

Coastal states consultations are informal meetings focusing on joint management of the most

important widely distributed Northeast Atlantic pelagic stocks (particularly mackerel, blue

whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring). They involve the EU, the Faroe Islands, Greenland,

Iceland, Norway, Russia and the UK (although with exceptions since Russia started its war of

aggression on Ukraine), and cover management and conservation measures.

NEAFC deals with demersal and widely distributed pelagic stocks in the Northeast Atlantic.

The Contracting Parties are Denmark (with respect to the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the

EU, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the UK. Unlike the coastal states’ consultations, the NEAFC

Convention establishes procedures to adopt legally binding recommendations for managing the

stocks under its jurisdiction. These recommendations are applicable to the jurisdictional waters

of a Party when it has endorsed them. ICES provides scientific advice to NEAFC. EU fisheries

in NEAFC high seas are limited and consist mainly of shrimp fisheries in the Barents Sea. The

Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and especially Russia have important catches of pelagic stocks.

Russia also fishes for pelagic redfish stocks in the Irminger Sea (despite the fishing ban on these

stocks, which Russia has objected to) and for snow crab in the Loophole.

3.6.2 Achievements

Brexit was successfully managed through the TCA,which entered into force on 1 May 2021.

This is an unprecedented international agreement that provides a comprehensive and ambitious

basis for the relationship between the EU and the UK across many policy areas. Its Heading V

establishes the framework for the EU-UK relationship in fisheries and commits both Parties to

upholding the CFP objectives and principles - particularly the long-term sustainability and

optimum utilisation of shared stocks on the basis of the best available scientific advice.

The TCA outlines the procedures for setting TACs and quotas and establishes cooperation on

fisheries management through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF). Since 2021, the

EU has concluded 6 annual consultations and 10 in-year consultations with the UK on the TACs

65  EU – Faroe Islands Memorandum of Understanding on Enhanced Cooperation. 66  EU – UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

35

listed under Annexes 35 and 36 of the TCA. By 10 December each year, the EU and the UK

need to agree on the TACs for the following year.

In the TCA, the EU and UK agreed the reciprocal EU-UK access arrangements until

30 June 2026. These consisted in gradually transferring 25% of the overall value of the existing

EU-27 quota in UK waters to the UK over a period of five and a half years, after which shares

would be fixed at 2025 levels. Before Brexit, reciprocal access to waters was estimated to

cumulatively amount to 959 137 tonnes in 2018, worth nearly EUR 761 million in total, for the

EU and the UK. The reduction of the EU quota attributable to the TCA was estimated at 73 697

tonnes in 2021 and 122 893 tonnes in 202567. It is estimated68 that until 2023, Ireland, France

and the Netherlands transferred the most in terms of the value of EU fishing quotas to the UK.

Most of the total reduction in EU fishing quota shares concerned a limited number of stocks,

impacting different Member States differently. 60% of the EU quota reduction took place in

2021. The cumulative reductions totalled 70% in 2022, 80% in 2023 and 92% in 2024. The

Brexit Adjustment Reserve Fund of EUR 5.4 billion was put in place to help Member States

address the negative consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Access to the waters of the British Crown Dependencies Guernsey and Jersey is governed by a

dedicated agreement that was formalised by an exchange of letters at ministerial level in January

2023. Access is limited to French vessels that have demonstrated activity in these waters during

the reference period 2017-2020, with provisions for replacement vessels. In 2026, 41 EU

vessels held an authorisation to fish in Guernsey and 130 in Jersey. Whelk-potting, lobster-

potting and scallop-dredging were the most important fisheries.

Predictable access to external waters for fishing is crucial for EU fishers. In June 2025, the EU

and the UK adopted Decision 1/2025 of the Partnership Council as well as Decision 1/2025 of

the SCF, granting full reciprocal fishing access to waters for an additional period of 12 years,

until 30 June 2038. This new agreement provides legal certainty and long-term stability for full

access to each other’s EEZs, covering both quota-managed and non-quota fish stocks.

The TCA requires both Parties to take due account of each other’s rights and interests when

adopting measures in their own waters. In this context, the EU and the UK liaise closely on

points ranging from fisheries management to the designation of marine protected areas.

Regulatory autonomy can increase divergence between the Parties, but the TCA provides a

structured framework for cooperation. Since its inception, the SCF has delivered on a wide

range of joint commitments (e.g. guidelines for notifications of unilateral measures), thus

helping to structure EU-UK relations on fisheries. Overall, the SCF provides a forum where the

EU and the UK cooperate throughout the year to address shared challenges and develop joint

management approaches. This has undoubtedly helped to reach conclusions on challenging and

politically sensitive issues.

The TCA also provides a structured framework for resolving disputes between the Parties, such

as the UK ban on fishing for sand eels in UK waters in the North Sea and in all Scottish waters.

This case clarified that management measures adopted by the Parties must comply with the

agreed conditions, respect the rights and obligations set out in the Agreement and take due

account of their impact on the other Party. It demonstrated that the dispute resolution

mechanism established under the TCA functions effectively. It also set an important precedent

for managing future disputes under the TCA.

Cooperation has delivered sustainable management of shared stocks in the Northeast

Atlantic since 2013, with a reduction in overall fishing mortality; faster progress in reducing

67  Landings by the EU Member States from the UK EEZ and by the United Kingdom from the EU-27 and

UK EEZs, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2021. 68  Brexit and the reduction in EU fishing quota shares, 2021-2023, European Parliament Research Service,

2022.

36

fishing pressure in EU waters than in non-EU waters; and a general increase in stock biomass

in both EU and non-EU waters in 2003-202369. In cases where TACs are not set in line with the

ICES advice, the EU collaborates closely with third countries. This includes exploring

alternative management approaches and technical measures aimed at rebuilding stocks, in line

with the principles of the CFP.

The EU also continuously enhances its evidence base through targeted research and close

collaboration with third countries and Member States’ research institutes. Additional expert

reports undertaken within the framework of the SCF support science-based management

decisions. The EU also maintains a strong working relationship with ICES, with close

involvement at annual meetings between ICES and advice-requesters. Under the SCF, the EU

works with the UK to develop ICES roadmaps to improve ICES’s stock assessments and to

submit joint requests to ICES for advice.

In the context of NEAFC and coastal states consultations, the EU has promoted the adoption of

measures to curb unsustainable fishing by Russia, such as control measures for Irminger redfish

pelagic stocks (in place since 2023) and mackerel in 2026 (aiming at avoiding another

Contracting Party providing logistic services for such unsustainable fishing). The EU has also

supported and led efforts on control measures for pelagic stocks, leading to the conclusion of a

set of measures endorsed in 2022 by all Parties except Russia.

3.7 Authorisation, control, monitoring and enforcement on the EU external fleet

The EU is committed to upholding its UNCLOS obligations regarding flag state responsibilities

and ensuring that its international commitments are transposed into EU law and implemented

by EU Member States and EU operators. To that end, several pieces of EU legislation apply to

the EU external fleet, together with the principles enshrined in the CFP Regulation. They have

represented important steps towards regulating the EU external fleet in accordance with EU and

international rules.

3.7.1 Authorisations of vessels fishing in external waters

In 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to protect vulnerable

marine ecosystems (VMEs) from bottom fishing in the high seas. The EU was one of the first

to follow this up in 2008 by adopting a regulation on the protection of VMEs in the high seas

from the adverse impacts of bottom-fishing gears70. Fishing vessels registered in an EU Member

State must obtain an authorisation to operate in a defined area prior to starting their fishing

activities. The use of bottom-fishing gears is prohibited in areas where no proper scientific

assessment has been carried out and made available. This applies to EU fishing vessels carrying

out fishing activities with bottom-fishing gears in the high seas outside areas covered by

RFMOs. The VME Regulation was a pioneering instrument because it established legally

binding rules for the protection of VMEs in the high seas and has inspired the development of

similar policies in other regional organisations.

The VME Regulation has to a certain extent achieved its objective of protecting VMEs by

regulating bottom-fishing practices and defining a common legal framework and set of

guidelines for Member States71. However, the restriction of its application to EU Member States

has limited the desired effects. Over the years, it has seemed to be relevant for only a small

number of Member States. The activity of non-EU fleets in the geographical area of the VME

Regulation calls its positive impacts into question. There is some overlap between the VME

69  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 25-29 and

Annex VI Table 9, Figures 14 and 15, Tables 9-13. 70  Council Regulation (EC) No 734/2008 of 15 July 2008 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems

in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears. 71  Evaluation of Council Regulation No 734/2008 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the

high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears, SWD(2025) 5 final.

37

Regulation and other EU legislation dealing with rules and processes for the management of

the external fishing fleets. In addition, the technical nature of the topic and the small and distant

geographical area concerned lead to difficulties in collecting sound information and engaging

with involved stakeholders.

The SMEFF Regulation72was an important step for four reasons. First, all external fishing

activities of EU vessels (whether under a bilateral agreement or an RFMO, or not) must be

authorised by the relevant EU flag Member State under predefined conditions. Second, all

vessels must be monitored constantly to check that they follow EU control rules and the

authorisation conditions continue to be met. Third, the Commission was required to set up a

database that makes public all authorisations granted for EU vessels fishing outside EU waters

and for non-EU vessels fishing in EU waters. This represents a major step toward more

transparency in the EU’s external action and under the CFP in general. Fourth, to prevent

abusive reflagging, there are strict conditions for EU vessels which leave the EU fishing fleet

and later return during the five years preceding the application for a fishing authorisation.

An evaluation of the implementation of the SMEFF Regulation is being carried out to assess

the extent to which its objectives have been achieved. The evaluation is examining the

implementation of sustainability requirements for the external fleet in the procedure for

authorisations of EU vessels and third-country vessels in EU waters. Outside the management

of an RFMO, the possibility of having at least one sustainability indicator remains a big

challenge73. The direct authorisations very often concern areas and stocks for which there is

chronically poor data (particularly in western and central Africa) or which are not managed at

all (FAO 41 area). The evaluation is also reviewing how transparency and governance have

improved. It is particularly assessing beneficial owner data collection and how it has been

carried out by the Member States and the Commission.

3.7.2 EU fisheries control and monitoring rules in non-EU waters

EU rules on control and monitoring of fishing vessels74 apply equally to EU vessels

operating within EU waters and beyond. Member States must control the activities outside

EU waters carried out by fishing vessels flying their flag and by their nationals. Member States

must also operate VMS for the effective monitoring of position and movement of fishing vessels

flying their flag, wherever those vessels may be. If an EU fishing vessel engages in fishing

activities in the waters of a third country or in waters where the fishing resources are managed

by an RFMO and if the agreement with that third country or the applicable rules of that

organisation so provide, VMS data must also be made available to that country or organisation.

The fisheries monitoring centre of each Member State must therefore monitor the fishing

vessels flying its flag in whichever waters they are operating and in whichever port they are.

The master of each EU catching vessel must keep an electronic fishing logbook that records

fishing activities and must submit it electronically to the competent authority of its flag Member

State, regardless of where the fishing activity takes place. Before the 15th day of each month,

each Member State must submit aggregated data on catches and fishing effort, including outside

EU waters, by electronic means to the Commission or to a body that it has designated.

The use of the UN/FLUX standard has been mandatory for the transmission of VMS and

electronic logbooks data in the EU since 2015. The United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation

72  Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the

sustainable management of external fishing fleets, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008. 73  Study on Scientific knowledge of the EU-fisheries in high seas, European Commission, 2025. 74  Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023.

38

and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) created this standard for exchanging fisheries data

between stakeholders in 2013 at the initiative of the Commission. It supports the real-time

sharing of electronic fisheries data to trace fish from catch to sale; improves data quality and

control; and makes data-sharing more cost-efficient by allowing countries’ fisheries monitoring

centres to use one single unified format for sharing fisheries data.

The Commission has promoted the use of the UN/FLUX standard at international level.

Since 2023, the UN/FLUX standard has been used for sharing VMS data between the EU and

Norway. Following Brexit, the EU and UK continue to use this standard for sharing VMS and

electronic logbook data; and the EU, Norway and the UK work trilaterally to agree on the

exchange of vessels, authorisations and fishing activities data in UN/FLUX format.

Competing international standards continue to exist (particularly in the Western and Central

Pacific), but the use of the UN/FLUX standard has been extended to RFMOs. The Contracting

Parties of NEAFC agreed in 2018 to move to the UN/FLUX standard for the exchange of vessel

position and electronic logbook data by January 2026. In 2024, the GFCM successfully

concluded a pilot project for the sharing of VMS and electronic logbook data. The IOTC

launched a pilot project for the sharing of VMS data in 2025. SIOFA is currently installing a

VMS system that will support exchanges in UN/FLUX format. The obligation for the EU fleet

to use the UN/FLUX format is now a standard provision proposed in all SFPAs’ protocols.

However, the SFPA partner countries’ lack of technical capacity and resources is hampering

progress in implementing UN/FLUX and data exchanges still rely on old standards.

3.8 Coherence with other policies

The 2011 Commission communication on the CFP’s external dimension paid particular

attention to enhancing the coherence with other EU policies. It stressed the relevance of

development, environment and trade policies for making further progress in sustainable and

responsible governance of fisheries worldwide. Over the years, not only have the interactions

of these policies with EU fisheries international action increased but other policy fields have

been contributing to this objective75.

The EU’s cooperation policy has increasingly supported the development of fisheries and

aquaculture. Indeed, the fisheries and aquaculture value chain is central to ensuring the

livelihoods of a substantial proportion of the world’s population76.

The EU’s cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states underwent

significant developments with the adoption of the Samoa Agreement, which the EU signed with

the Organisation of ACP States (OACPS) on 15 November 2023. This agreement promotes

dialogue and cooperation on all aspects of ocean governance (including fisheries). This is

replicated in the three regional protocols (Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific).

These developments have been reflected in the EU cooperation programmes. They give a much

stronger place than in the past to the sustainable blue economy, including fisheries and

aquaculture. Between 2014 and 2025, an estimated EUR 1.9 billion was contracted to

promoting better ocean governance, the sustainable development of the blue economy, and

marine conservation and restoration in partner countries. This included EUR 746.49 million in

the fisheries and aquaculture portfolio – of which EUR 555 million (74%) toward ACP and

North Africa countries - and was implemented through national, regional and global

75  This section builds on and expands Section 4.1.3 (Coherence) in the evaluation of Regulation (EU)

No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final). 76 According to the FAO, aquatic animal foods contributed 15% of animal protein availability globally and

provided at least 20 % of animal protein availability for over 40% of the world’s population in 2023.

Source: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, p. vi.

39

programmes around the world. These programmes covered marine and inland capture fisheries

and aquaculture.

During this same period, the EU funded 119 initiatives (80 in ACP and North African countries)

at national level for a total of EUR 499.7 million. Countries such as Cambodia, Liberia and

Somalia chose fisheries and/or aquaculture as focal sectors for bilateral cooperation. They

received support for the development of their national fisheries and aquaculture policies; fish

value chains and sustainable aquatic food systems; the fight against IUU fishing; upgrading of

fisheries monitoring and control capacities; as well as research, data collection and science-

based management. Special attention and support were provided to small island developing

states (SIDS), including for civil society, gender inclusion and awareness-raising.

Many issues linked to fisheries are transboundary, so a large proportion of EU programmes

were regional. Between 2014 and 2025, 38 regional programmes (all in ACP and North African

countries, but one) were launched to support countries and regional organisations in addressing

the ocean with an integrated approach. 8 of these programmes (3 for 2014-2020, 5 for 2021-

2024) aimed at improving the management of shared stocks through data collection, scientific

advice, capacity reinforcement in the fight against IUU fishing (including through technical

support from the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)), development of management

plans and support for regional fisheries bodies in West Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

They were launched during the 2014-2020 financial period. They were all renewed during the

2021-2027 period and recognise the importance of partnerships and the need to mobilise

additional and sustainable ocean finance, in line with the Global Gateway Strategy (the EU’s

external investment strategy).

Dedicated programmes have complemented and supported this by paying increasing attention

to ocean matters in EU-OACPS cooperation. Building on the achievements of FISH4ACP

(2020-2025, EUR 40 million), the New Aquatic Food Value Chains (NAVAC) programme

(launched in 2025, EUR 20 million) aims at improving access to nutritious aquatic foods and

boosting local economies through innovation and sustainable value chain development. It

includes a dedicated knowledge hub to identify scalable aquatic food value chains and help

unlock sustainable investments in the blue economy at country level.

Cooperation at global level was also supported (EUR 72.2 million), to enhance capacities and

involvement of developing countries in conservation and sustainable use of aquatic resources

and biodiversity, including in areas beyond national jurisdiction through the Global Ocean

Programme (EUR 40 million).

EU environment policy is mainstreamed into international fisheries action. The EU has, as

a key player in both RFMOs and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), been

promoting cooperation and synergies between these international bodies within the framework

of their respective mandates77. Synergies between RFMOs and regional seas conventions

(RSCs) have been promoted. The EU has supported commitments under the UN Convention

on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

(GBF), in particular the ‘30x30’ target (protecting 30% of marine areas by 2030) through the

adoption of measures for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in many RFMOs and

the continuing efforts to establish marine protected areas (MPAs). With the EU’s support in

many cases, RFMOs have progressed in implementing an ecosystem approach, based on the

scientific integration of ecosystem level information, albeit in different ways and at different

paces78.

Sharks illustrate this trend. Progress (especially in RFMOs) in species-specific data collection

and reporting has significantly improved scientific research, bycatch mitigation and stock

77  For more detail, see Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 78. 78  For more detail, see Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 58.

40

assessments for several shark species. The International Plan of Action for the Conservation

and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) developed by the FAO has fostered international

cooperation. The greatest advances have been observed in areas that lie outside national

jurisdiction in fisheries managed by RFMOs and nations with strong monitoring systems79. Through the Global Ocean Programme, the EU is providing support for filling in gaps in the

mapping of important areas for migratory marine species like sharks, rays, marine mammals,

turtles and marine birds.

MEAs such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals (CMS) aim at strengthening protection for endangered species, including aquatic

species. The proportion of aquatic species proposed under CITES has been rising sharply –

from 8% of all animal listings at CoP18 in 2019 to 14% at CoP19 in 2022 and over at CoP20

in 2025, where 78 of these species were added to the appendices (32 to Appendix I and 46 to

Appendix II). In particular, all sawfish (Pristidae) are listed in CITES Appendix I, while 119

shark species were protected under CITES as of 2025. In recent years, proposals have relied

more heavily on precautionary considerations and have included many species on the basis of

their similarity to other species of concern. Since becoming a Party to CITES in 2015, the EU

has played an active role in strengthening the international protection of aquatic species,

including by submitting and co-sponsoring proposals for the listing of commercially exploited

aquatic species, notably sharks, and by supporting their effective implementation and

enforcement.

Regarding marine pollution, reaching a global, legally binding agreement on plastics (including

in the marine environment) remains a high priority for the EU and its Member States. In line

with this commitment, the EU has actively supported the adoption of provisions to reduce

marine litter and plastics in several RFMOs, such as the IOTC, the WCPFC and the

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). In the

Mediterranean, the GFCM 2030 Strategy, for which the EU was the driving force, identifies as

one of its expected outcomes the minimisation and mitigation of any form of pollution caused

by the activities of the fishing sector (particularly abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing

gear). The Commission is also stepping up its commitment to reduce marine litter at

international level, including in the UN, G7, G20 and other international forums. To that end,

it is promoting cooperation with RSCs.

The EU is also advocating at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for underwater

noise-reduction measures (including from fishing vessels) and is, through its Horizon Europe

programme, funding significant research on underwater noise impacts (including on fish

behaviour).

The EU is actively promoting work to integrate climate change considerations into fisheries

scientific advice and management policies in RFMOs. In CCAMLR, the EU is proposing to

designate two new marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean (in East Antarctica and in the

Weddell Sea) that would increase marine resilience to climate change. Within the framework

of the GFCM 2030 Strategy, the EU expects that the work on climate change and non-

indigenous species will be consolidated, improving initial assessments of these threats and their

potential impacts on fisheries, reinforcing monitoring programmes and integrating adaptive

measures into management plans.

Synergies between the CFP and the EU trade policy have been strengthened. At the

multilateral level, the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was accepted by the EU and

entered into force on 15 September 2025. The Agreement prohibits harmful subsidies that

contribute to overfished stocks, IUU fishing and fishing in the unregulated high seas. It

79  Review of the state of world marine fishery resources – 2025, FAO, p. 33.

41

complements efforts to achieve the CFP’s objectives by strengthening multilateral trade rules

against global drivers of overexploitation.

Most bilateral FTAs between the EU and third countries that have been negotiated over the last

15 years include chapters on trade and sustainable development. They systematically cover

fisheries and, in the more recent FTAs, aquaculture – particularly commitments regarding

respect for international conventions related to fisheries, the fight against IUU fishing,

cooperation in the framework of the RMFOs and promotion of sustainable aquaculture.

The current EU GSP makes preferences conditional to the respect of 27 international UN and

ILO conventions related to human rights, labour rights, environment, and good governance.

The list of conventions has been extended to 32 conventions under the new GSP80 which will

apply as from January 2027 and will be applicable to all GSP beneficiaries across the three GSP

arrangements: standard GSP, GSP+ and Everything but Arms (EBA).

The Forced Labour Regulation81, which will start applying in December 2027, requires the

Commission and Member States to investigate products – including fishery products – that are

suspected of having been made with forced labour. Where evidence of forced labour is found,

the products concerned will be banned from the EU market. Tools developed by the

Commission (including guidelines82 and a database on forced labour risks in specific

geographic areas and products) will assist competent authorities and economic operators in

implementing the Regulation.

The compulsory use of CATCH will make risk-based import controls more effective and less

burdensome. Appropriate interoperability with IT systems for customs and sanitary checks is

planned and will better protect the EU market both from fishery products stemming from IUU

fishing and from possible fraud.

Regulation (EU) 1026/2012 empowers the Commission to adopt restrictive measures against

third countries that permit unsustainable fishing practices, thereby ensuring the long-term

conservation of fish stocks that are of common interest to the EU and third countries. Following

its revision in 202583, the framework now provides greater clarity on the conditions that trigger

EU measures (including trade measures), while simultaneously facilitating more constructive

engagement with third countries.

EU market rules apply also to imports. The common organisation of the market (CMO) in

FAPs84 aims to help achieve the CFP’s objectives by ensuring fair competition between all

products marketed in the EU. It also aims to promote more sustainable consumption habits by

providing consumer information that complements the general EU food labelling rules. The

Commission issued a report on the results of the implementation of the CMO Regulation on

21 February 202385. Rules on information to consumers are complemented and supported by

traceability rules established under the Control Regulation. The new digital traceability

obligations under the revised fisheries Control Regulation, which are due to be implemented in

the coming years, will apply equally to EU-produced and imported products.

80 Regulation (EU) 2026/1395 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2026 on applying

a generalised scheme of tariff preferences and repealing Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. 81  Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on

prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU)

2019/1937. 82 C(2026) 4386 final. 83  Regulation (EU) 2025/2077 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending

Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 on certain measures for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in

relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing. 84  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the

provision of food information to consumers. 85  COM(2023) 101 final.

42

Labour issues in distant-water fisheries have received increasing attention because of

concerns about unsafe working conditions, forced labour and other human rights abuses. The

EU has been working to address this on several levels, in addition to the above-mentioned

Forced Labour Regulation. Under the CFP, the EU uses the SFPAs to promote social standards

and decent work where appropriate (see above). RFMOs can also play a role in addressing these

issues, because they oversee fishing activities in vast international waters. The EU has therefore

supported the integration of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Work in Fishing

Convention No 188 into several RFMOs (e.g. ICCAT and the WCPFC) and has launched

concrete reflections on the subject in others (e.g. the IOTC).

More broadly, the EU promotes existing international standards for working conditions and

labour rights - specifically, the ratification and effective implementation of the ILO Work in

Fishing Convention No 188 and other relevant international standards. In particular, the 2012

Cape Town Agreement under the IMO aims to enhance the regulation of fishing vessel safety

through coordinated action by flag, port and coastal states. Its implementation is expected to

support efforts against IUU fishing and forced labour. The Agreement establishes minimum

global standards for the design, construction and equipment of fishing vessels of 24 metres or

longer (or equivalent in gross tonnage) and mandatory inspections to ensure compliance. Once

it is in force in February 2027, the Agreement will authorise port states to conduct safety

inspections of foreign vessels.

The Commission Communication on decent work worldwide86 reinforces the EU strategy on

promoting decent work at global level, identifying key instruments throughout EU policies. The

EU has played a pivotal role in reducing fatalities in the fishing sector and serious incidents

while simultaneously improving working and employment conditions across the sector. Key

achievements include: combating exploitation in recruitment to diminish instances of forced

labour and child labour globally; tackling self-employment abuses and ensuring fairer labour

contracts; banning placing on the EU market as well as exporting from the EU market the fish

products linked to forced labour ; ensuring that all EU-flagged vessels comply with decent

working and living conditions; safeguarding the well-being of fishers on board vessels; and

strengthening institutional capacity by supporting training programmes (including joint training

initiatives to ensure high-standard inspections and uphold fair working and living conditions

for fishers).

The EU’s research and innovation policy is increasingly supporting international

cooperation in marine science and knowledge, including fisheries, through its framework

programmes for research and innovation (currently Horizon Europe). The EU Global Approach

to Research and Innovation87, which was launched in 2021, facilitates global partnerships to

manage shared ocean resources, monitor ecosystems and share best practices, recognising that

marine ecosystems are connected by currents and migrating species.

Between 2014 and 2026, under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, 16 fisheries-relevant

projects that involve non-associated third countries were funded with a total EU contribution of

around EUR 80 million. Most counties with which the EU has SFPAs are also eligible for such

funding. For example, the FarFish project88 was fully dedicated to fisheries outside the EU and

included case studies in Cabo Verde, Mauritania, Senegal and the Seychelles as well as in high

seas in the South Atlantic Ocean. Several projects relate to the implementation of fisheries

MCS. If one adds fisheries-relevant projects that include associated countries (e.g. Iceland and

Norway), the total number of projects that include non-EU countries reaches 43 with a total EU

contribution of around EUR 207 million. Moreover, the All-Atlantic Ocean Research and

86  COM(2022) 66 final. 87  COM(2021) 252 final. 88  Responsive Results-Based Management and capacity-building for EU Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

Agreement and international waters.

43

Innovation Alliance (AAORIA)89, which was launched in 2022, unites countries along the

Atlantic Ocean to strengthen marine research, innovation and cooperation. One of its objectives

is to develop innovative, outcome-oriented science to support sustainable fisheries and

aquaculture.

Horizon Europe’s mission-based approach is a major innovation. This includes the EU Mission

to Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030. The Mission focuses on EU seas and waters, but it

has, through its Charter, brought together relevant actions from all continents, including from

coastal states in Africa and Asia90.

The EU Ocean Pact91 foresees a Research and Innovation Strategy that will include priorities

that are relevant for fisheries and has already led to the adoption of an ambitious agenda on

ocean observation, OceanEye92.

Regional strategies/approaches have emerged in the EU’s relations with some regions in

fisheries and beyond. Mediterranean regional cooperation in fisheries is crucial because most

fish stocks are shared with third countries and 20 states interact in the Mediterranean

environment. Moreover, some countries share common stocks in narrow sea areas (e.g. the

Strait of Sicily and the Alboran, Aegean and Levantine Seas) in a fragile and challenging

geopolitical context that also defines fisheries relations between countries. The Mediterranean

is now prominent following the adoption of the Pact for the Mediterranean93. This provides a

framework for regional cooperation with third countries, allowing the EU to enhance the added

value of its significant financial support via various EU instruments. Under its Blue

Mediterranean Health and Wealth objectives, the Pact foresees actions to enhance regional

fisheries governance, combat IUU fishing and support traditional fisheries by building on the

work of GFCM and ICCAT (the two RFMOs governing fisheries in the area). As the Pact also

announces, the EU and Southern Mediterranean countries are engaged in a process to renew

and enhance their commitment for sustainable fisheries. This should lead to the adoption of a

new ‘MedFish4ever’ ministerial declaration in 2027.

The EU’s strategic approach to the Black Sea region (the Black Sea Strategy) was adopted in

May 202594. It builds on the 2019 Common Maritime Agenda95 (CMA) for the Black Sea, and

particularly on its actions on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Thanks to the CMA, the blue

economy has made tangible progress in the region, particularly in marine pollution

management, entrepreneurship, coastal tourism, innovation and environmental protection 96.

Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture in the Black Sea will remain a key area of shared interest.

The EU updated its Arctic policy in 202197, focusing on a safe, stable and peaceful Arctic;

addressing the impacts of climate change; and promoting international cooperation and

sustainable and inclusive development. The Arctic policy places particular emphasis on the

Arctic regions of Denmark, Finland and Sweden, but the EU has also supported wider Arctic

cooperation and governance efforts notably through its engagement with the Arctic Council.

The highlight of the Arctic policy was the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas

Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (also known as the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries

89  All-Atlantic Ocean Research and Innovation Alliance. 90  Mission Actions – EU Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters. 91  COM(2025) 281 final. 92  COM(2026) 268 final. 93  JOIN(2025) 26 final. 94  JOIN(2025) 135 final. 95  Common Maritime Agenda for the Black Sea. 96  SWD(2024) 175 final. 97  JOIN(2021) 27 final.

44

Agreement – CAOFA), which entered into force on 25 June 2021. The 10 Parties98 have agreed

not to engage in commercial fishing activities in the high seas portion of the Central Arctic

Ocean for an initial period of 16 years (until 2037). In the meantime, the Agreement will

facilitate scientific cooperation and establish a joint programme of scientific research and

monitoring. This might ultimately result in a decision to commence negotiations to set up an

RFMO for the area. The EU and Canada have played an important role in co-leading the

working group on the development of this joint programme and have actively promoted

scientific work under the Agreement. EU scientists have taken part in two scientific research

expeditions to the Central Arctic Ocean that will provide essential data for better understanding

the Arctic ecosystem. The Agreement thus fills an important gap in the international ocean

governance framework and support for its proper implementation is a key action under the EU’s

Arctic policy and the EU’s IOG.

Since 2020, the EU’s renewed Strategy with Africa has spurred the development of continental

EU-Africa cooperation on the ocean and a sustainable blue economy, including fisheries and

aquaculture. It has been implemented through match-making events - BlueInvest Africa99 -

between investors and African entrepreneurs that showcase Africa’s innovation potential

(including in fisheries and aquaculture); and through the setting-up of an Africa-Europe Ocean

Strategic Group that identified priority actions in several areas, including the promotion of

fisheries transparency and equitable benefit-sharing100. At the seventh EU-AU summit101 in

November 2025, leaders from both continents restated their shared view that fisheries and

aquaculture as well as food security are fundamental common interests. They also reaffirmed

their commitment to promoting the sustainable management of natural resources, including

combating wildlife trafficking and IUU fishing.

The 2021 EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific102 identified ocean governance as a

key area for enhanced engagement with the region. The Strategy promotes a rules-based

approach to the management and sustainable use of marine resources that is grounded in

international law and particularly in UNCLOS. In this context, the EU aims to strengthen

cooperation with its Indo-Pacific partners on sustainable fisheries management; combating IUU

fishing; improving fisheries compliance and control systems; and supporting the conservation

and sustainable management of marine biological resources. The Strategy also emphasises the

importance of cooperation through regional and multilateral frameworks (including RFMOs)

for advancing sustainable ocean governance and the long-term sustainability of fisheries

resources.

4 CHANGES AND CHALLENGES SINCE 2011

This Chapter builds on and expands the findings of the evaluation of the CFP Regulation103,

also using additional assessments carried out by the Commission and the main outcomes of the

consultation process104.

98  The parties are Canada, China, Denmark (in respect of Greenland and the Faroe Islands), the EU, Iceland,

Japan, Norway, Russia, South Korea and the USA. 99  Home | BlueInvest Africa South Africa 2026. 100  Africa-Europe Ocean Strategic Group drives the partnership between two continents – Oceans and

fisheries. 101  Joint declaration of the seventh African Union – European Union summit 2025, 24-25 November 2025. 102  JOIN(2021) 24 final. 103  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), in particular Section 4.1.1

(Effectiveness). 104 See Annex II.

45

4.1 A more complex and challenged multilateral system

Ocean governance, including international fisheries management, has arrived at a

crossroads of multilateral fragmentation, geopolitical competition and security threats.

Challenges to multilateral frameworks are growing. Global players such as China, Russia and

the USA are increasing these challenges by prioritising national, ideological, security or

economic interests over collective solutions. One clear example is the USA stepping back from

UN ocean processes and taking unilateral actions such as advancing deep-sea mining outside

the International Seabed Authority. This is undermining UNCLOS, which is the legal

framework within which all activities in the ocean and seas must be carried out. It is also placing

strain on institutions such as the IMO, including on the delivery of net-zero ambitions.

Moreover, geopolitical rivalry is increasingly shaping the maritime domain through

competition over resources, shipping routes, territorial claims, the militarisation of maritime

zones and technological dominance. China has become a heavyweight in international

organisations linked to the ocean – with a strong focus on exploitation, challenging the Law of

the Sea and displaying its ambition to become a maritime power. China has gained considerable

influence in Africa, Latin America and the Indo-Pacific, where China’s DWF has considerably

expanded. Its approach is based on registering vessels under flags of convenience; concluding

(largely private) access agreements; developing fishmeal factories; building/controlling port

infrastructure; and weak compliance with international labour standards. This poses a direct

challenge to the EU’s policy on sustainable fishing and impacts the EU fleet economically.

Finally, maritime security is an inherent component of ocean governance. The expansion of

shadow fleets that operate outside regulatory oversight is undermining safety, sanctions

enforcement and environmental protection. The EU has sought to address the issue by

diplomatic means and with sanctions on individuals and entities that support Russia’s shadow

fleet and its value chain, with a view to curbing Russia’s revenue-generating capacity. This

includes fisheries operators. Furthermore, Russia’s withdrawal from fisheries cooperation has

disrupted decades of scientific collaboration and threatens food security.

Effective engagement in UN processes therefore requires not only the promotion of ambitious

policy objectives but also sustained efforts to defend and uphold the rules-based

international order, safeguard the integrity of theLaw of the Sea and ensure consistency

between related international processes, including the WTO, FAO, BBNJ agreement and CBD.

It also requires continuing engagement with partner countries (including through capacity-

building and technical cooperation) to support the implementation of international

commitments.

4.2 Changes in the EU neighbourhood’s geopolitical context

4.2.1 Changes in the Northeast Atlantic post-Brexit

Brexit has introduced a structural shift in Northeast Atlantic fisheries governance105. It

has not only opened a new chapter in EU-UK fisheries relations but has had multidimensional

effects.

Brexit has affected EU processes for managing stocks that were previously under exclusive EU

competence but are now shared resources. This has implications for regionalisation within the

EU and the functioning of the advisory councils. It has also impacted Member States’ access to

UK waters and resulted in most stocks now being subject to bilateral, trilateral or multilateral

management.

At the international level, the UK’s participation in negotiations as an independent coastal state

has changed the negotiation dynamics between the parties and has an impact on sharing

105  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 47, 86 and 91.

46

arrangements on three key pelagic stocks that are shared with other coastal states. The transition

to a trilateral EU-Norway-UK management context is a significant change because stocks that

were formerly managed bilaterally by the EU and Norway are now part of annual trilateral

consultations between the EU, Norway and the UK. The UK’s independent regulatory role

nevertheless requires bilateral coordination because the respective EU and UK shares in

trilateral TACs are enshrined in Annex 37 of the TCA.

At the multilateral level, the UK now participates independently in NEAFC and other coastal

state consultations, thus altering the voting geometry and regional balance. The UK’s active

pursuit of an internationally visible fisheries role is placing further pressure on regional

governance. Coordination in the multilateral forum remains critically important to prevent

overfishing of widely distributed pelagic stocks, safeguard sustainable yields and maintain a

level playing field for all parties. Brexit has increased the EU’s need for coordination with the

Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and, in some cases, Russia – particularly for widely distributed

pelagic stocks and high seas demersal fisheries.

The suspension of Russia from NEAFC subsidiary bodies as well as ICES, due to its full-scale

war of aggression against Ukraine has facilitated cooperation between like-minded NEAFC

Parties. The Northeast Atlantic partners have largely aligned themselves with several packages

of sanctions that the EU has adopted in response to Russia’s destabilising fishing activities.

These changes are reverberating at all levels of cooperation. Disagreements have resurfaced

over the years in the maritime zones of the archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard), which are

governed by the 1920 Treaty of Paris106, because Norway has taken measures to limit EU

fisheries. The November 2024 EU-Norway High-Level Dialogue reestablished the EU’s access

quota for Arctic cod in this area. This is a positive development to build upon in order to solve

pending controversies regarding EU fisheries in Svalbard waters.

In the coastal states’ forum, TACs have usually been agreed in line with scientific advice, but

Parties are increasingly seeking to reduce the EU’s current shares of pelagic stocks, which is

also impacting overall scientific and control cooperation. A lack of agreement on the sharing of

the TACs has resulted either in each coastal State setting its own quota unilaterally or in the

signature of partial arrangements. This has led to the sum of single quotas exceeding the total

set TAC – a major concern for the EU.

In NEAFC, the adoption of effective management measures is being challenged by parallel

coastal states’ informal bilateral or multilateral consultations. This results in very few stocks

having an agreed TAC and even fewer having a sharing arrangement. Russia’s use of

transhipments at sea to maintain its activities and avoid controls is by far the most important

control issue in NEAFC. In recent years, the EU has maintained a strong voice on the need to

ban transhipments at sea in NEAFC. The EU continues to work to enlist the support of like-

minded NEAFC Parties in order to adopt measures to tackle Russia’s unsustainable fishing

activities and to sustainably and effectively manage NEAFC stocks.

These recent developments have made it increasingly challenging to ensure stability and

predictability in access arrangements to third-country waters. The 2025 EU-UK agreement

was of major importance for ensuring predictability until 2038, but the EU-Norway

arrangements on reciprocal access to their respective waters have varied. Non-quota stocks, for

which policy at EU level remains less developed, are under increasing pressure and are a clear

example of the need for closer cooperation and joint management approaches.

The EU is also facing growing competition for maritime space in the Northeast Atlantic. The

expansion of offshore renewable energy, MPAs and other uses of the sea is increasing pressure

106  The Treaty of Paris requires Norway to ensure equal access and equal treatment to all Parties. The fishing

operations of EU Member States’ fleets in the waters of the archipelago of Spitsbergen go back for

centuries. 22 EU Member States are currently Parties. EU fleets catch cod, shrimp and other species.

47

on fishing activities. In this context, coordination on maritime spatial planning is becoming as

important as cooperation on fisheries quotas and management measures to ensure sustainable

fisheries, avoid conflicts and support the long-term viability of coastal communities.

Engagement with third countries within the contexts of regional strategies and through

dedicated forums such as the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative remain key.

4.2.2 Mediterranean and Black seas

A new dynamic has emerged in the Mediterranean, but there is still a lot at stake. Building

on the 2017 MedFish4Ever ministerial declaration and considering new challenges that have

emerged over the last 10 years (e.g. illegal fishing, fleet overcapacity and climate change), EU

and Mediterranean countries made a commitment in a high-level ministerial conference in May

2026 to continue their cooperation to rebuild Mediterranean fish stocks. They also agreed to

adopt a new MedFish4Ever declaration in 2027.

The EU’s role and responsibility in the Black Sea region is increasing. The region is a

critical connector between Europe, the Southern Caucasus, Central Asia and the Eastern

Mediterranean. Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine has impacted people,

economies, infrastructure and ecosystems – including the fisheries sector. The environmental

challenges of the Black Sea need stronger regional cooperation to protect marine ecosystems,

develop the blue economy and increase the climate resilience of coastal communities. A safe

and secure Black Sea is essential for freedom of navigation and for maritime safety and security,

and to enable concrete regional cooperation to address common environmental challenges. In

this context, the proposal made by the Commission and the High Representative107 to establish

a Black Sea Maritime Security Hub should contribute to strengthening maritime security and

protecting critical maritime infrastructure. It should also benefit the Black Sea’s ecosystems.

The EU enlargement process should also contribute to bringing the Black Sea region closer to

the EU and strengthening cooperation in fisheries management and blue economy. The GFCM

and the CMA for the Black Sea will be instrumental in this regard (Ukraine’s adhesion to the

GFCM in 2025 should bring its national fisheries policy closer to that of the Union).

4.2.3 Other regions

The Arctic is increasingly at the forefront of geopolitical developments. The Arctic and North

Atlantic are becoming critical for the EU’s security, including for early-warning systems, secure

maritime routes, critical raw materials and strategic infrastructure. Russia’s full-scale war of

aggression against Ukraine has profoundly affected Arctic governance and regional

cooperation. Indeed, the seven other Arctic states suspended their participation in activities that

were taking place under the auspices of the Arctic Council during Russia’s chairmanship. Since

the transfer of the chairmanship to Norway in May 2023, cooperation has gradually resumed in

a limited number of areas, primarily focusing on technical work.

Global political developments are increasingly shaping the Arctic. The European Arctic - the

Arctic regions of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – is increasingly important

for the EU’s strategic autonomy and economic security. In this context, the EU has updated108

its Arctic policy to reflect evolving geopolitical realities and to strengthen its approach on

security and defence, climate action and the sustainable governance of the ocean and fisheries.

The Indo-Pacific is a major fishing ground for the EU and is yet another region where, in the

current context of geopolitical and geoeconomic change, the EU is steadily stepping up its

strategic engagement through multiple partnerships. The EU’s agenda is still framed by the

2021 Strategy109, but is increasingly focused on defence and security, trade and economic

107  EU’s strategic approach to the Black Sea, JOIN(2025) 125 final. 108 JOIN(2026) 100. 109 Council conclusions on EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, 19 April 2021.

48

resilience, secure supply chains and green alliances to tackle climate change. One overarching

concern is the safeguard of the rules-based international order regarding maritime security,

ocean governance and regional stability. Defence and security as well as trade agreements

(including with Australia, India, Japan and South Korea) reflect the EU’s enhanced strategic

engagement in the Indo-Pacific.

4.3 The urgent need to act to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The 2030 Agenda provides an important international framework for linking the sustainable

use of marine resources, the protection of biodiversity and proper international ocean

governance. The EU’s international record is strong110. Its action within RFMOs and SFPAs,

zero-tolerance policy towards IUU fishing and leading role in the negotiation of the WTO

agreement on fisheries subsidies and the BBNJ agreement demonstrate the EU’s strong

commitment to SDG 14, effective multilateralism and open, rules-based and fair trade. The EU

has used its international partnerships to increase its financial support for the implementation

of SDG 14 (see above), thus pursuing the objectives of the European Ocean Pact at global level.

Despite these efforts, achieving the SDG 14 target of 100% of stocks within biologically

sustainable levels remains extremely challenging, particularly in regions characterized by

complex multispecies fisheries and limited assessment and management capacity111. The same

is true for the elimination of harmful subsidies and the elimination of marine pollution.

Moreover, SDG 14 remains the least funded SDG globally. This might be due to the generally

lower awareness of, and political priority given to marine issues, but it might also be due to the

cross-cutting nature of SDGs and insufficient recognition that success in reaching SDG 14

targets also depends on making progress on other SDGs (more sustainable food systems,

reducing water pollution and tackling the interconnections between freshwaters and oceans),

while progress on SDG 14 is a key contributor to the objective of halting biodiversity loss.

4.4 The impacts of climate change on fisheries

There is worldwide recognition of the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Stress is

caused not only by higher temperatures but also by higher acidity and lower oxygen levels,

which in turn affect the plankton on which fish feed. These changes will affect the distribution

of fish populations because some species move away from current fishing grounds or into

deeper water. The redistribution of biomass implies a redistribution of fishing opportunities:

countries in temperate areas may gain access to new or expanding stocks, while tropical

countries risk losing access to historically important species. This potential shift in fisheries

productivity between regions could create global inequalities in aquatic food supply and trade

and pose governance challenges for transboundary and migratory stocks112. Mobile, large-scale

fleets will adapt better than small-scale, community-based fleets. Communities at lower

latitudes will see their fish landings go down, while communities at higher latitudes will see

them go up. Poor communities in the tropical South will suffer losses while communities in the

North will experience higher fishing pressure.

Productivity of fish stocks in the mid-latitudes is expected to decrease113. The changes are

expected to more severe in partially enclosed seas such as the Black Sea, the Baltic and the

110  EU Voluntary Review on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 111 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, pp. 56-57. 112 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, pp. 170-171. 113  In the Northeast Atlantic, the productivity of colder-water fish (e.g. cod and herring) is already decreasing

(Greater North Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview, ICES Advice: Ecosystem Overviews, Report,

Section 9.1, 2021), while the productivity of warmer-water species (e.g. hake in the Mediterranean and

potentially invasive species such as lionfish and lizardfish) is increasing (Report of the Sub-Regional

Technical meeting on the Lessepsian migration and its impact on Eastern Mediterranean fishery, EastMed

Technical Documents, FAO, 2010).

49

Mediterranean114. This creates additional uncertainty both for EU operators and small-scale

fishing communities and for post-harvest value chains in the EU and its partner states. This in

turn has potential implications for the fairness and value of sharing arrangements in all types of

fisheries management systems (RFMOs, stocks of common interest and SFPAs).

The next decade is likely to see the challenge of concretely dealing with the climate-ocean

nexus. The future sustainability of fisheries result from a combination of changes in

productivity and management actions setting adequate exploitation levels that incorporate these

changes. Global models show that if fishing pressure is reduced and stocks are allowed to

rebuild, biomass losses under warming scenarios can be partially offset, particularly under low

emissions pathways115.

Climate change has penetrated the agenda of the RFMOs’ scientific committees, but

finding adequate resources to support their scientific work is a struggle. In 2019, the

WCPFC was the first RFMO to adopt a resolution on climate change in response to the concerns

of small island developing states. Several other RFMOs have since adopted resolutions on

climate change, and this topic has gradually become a standing agenda item. The next phase is

to put these resolutions into practice and to identify and plan for the various possible scenarios

in each specific context. It will be necessary to reflect on how best to approach the issue, taking

into account the specificities of each RFMO in terms of fish stocks, membership,

scientific/technical/financial capabilities/resources, forecasted climate change impacts under

different climate scenarios, etc.

Whether in RFMOs or under the SFPAs, assessing the impact of climate change on the EU’s

relations with third countries and its external fishing interests will be key, as will

envisaging appropriate responses and identifying socio-economic interests that are entangled

with other objectives.

4.5 IUU fishing is now part of the global agenda but still a major concern

According to the FAO, IUU fishing accounts for up to 26 million tonnes of fish caught

annually116. The EU is playing an active role in countering this, but experience shows that only

strong and persistent political will can achieve lasting results in the form of stable fisheries

compliance. Monitoring and assisting states’ compliance with international and regional

obligations is key.

More must be done not only by developing countries but also by important developed fishing

nations. The EU needs to strengthen the implementation of its control rules even further, but

other important fishing nations and markets must also join international instruments. Some

important partners seem to be moving slowly in this direction. It is becoming ever more urgent

to restore many fish stocks and level playing field, and therefore to accelerate reforms.

Monitoring and controlling of long-distance fleets that operate far from home ports across

all oceans remains a challenge in the context of growing demand for fish and competition

between fleets. It is crucial to continue engagements and dialogues on fighting IUU fishing with

third countries to improve not only flag state controls but also coastal, port and market state

controls in line with international obligations. For the EU, the possible non-compliance of its

external fleet and operators is a reputational risk. New technologies can be used to increase the

coverage and scale of fisheries documentation, monitoring, control and enforcement, and also

to reduce their cost.

114  IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, IPCC, 2019, p. 755; Climate

Change and European Fisheries and Aquaculture: ‘CERES’ Project Synthesis Report, 2020. 115 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, pp. 170-170. 116  Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (fao.org).

50

Data transparency, as well as more timely and ideally electronic reporting of fishing data,

(e.g. catch and effort of domestic or other foreign fleets) is insufficient on its own to ensure

both the effectivemonitoring of fishing operations and robust scientific assessments. Such an

approach would have to be more systematic and overarching, but this may be difficult for

partner countries to accept in the absence of development support targeted to the affected

populations.

Combating IUU fishing requires coordinated action. No country can achieve success by

acting alone. Experience has shown that combating IUU fishing is much more effective if there

are synergies at regional and international level. When a country strengthens its system of

controls on IUU fishing, there is a risk that operators who flout the rules may move to other

countries with less stringent laws and controls. Success therefore requires as many countries as

possible to be involved in a continuous, proactive and vigilant action against IUU fishing at

international level as well as at regional level.

4.6 Level playing field: overcapacity and transparency

Overcapacity remains a major concern at global level117. The EU has taken two main

initiatives to address this. First, it has worked within RFMOs where an imbalance between

fishing capacity and available resources has contributed to the overexploitation of many stocks.

Collective efforts have succeeded in capping capacity in some tuna RFMOs.

Second, in the WTO, the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement was a major step in establishing

multilateral rules on fisheries subsidies (see above), but there is still no agreement on the

prohibition of certain subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. These subsidies

raise the question of fair competition among countries. Special and differential treatment for

developing countries is an integral part of the negotiations. The WTO’s members are aiming to

complete the negotiations on additional rules by the 15th ministerial conference in 2028, or at

the latest before the expiration of the sunset clause in the Agreement on 15 September 2029.

This clause, according to which the Agreement should be terminated four years after its entry

into force if no further prohibitions are agreed, increases the need to reach an agreement on

subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.

The SMEFF Regulation has made fishing outside EU waters more transparent, but information

on reflagging and joint ventures is still not transparent, even though it is a significant

phenomenon. The EU has in the past given financial support for the setting-up of joint ventures

between EU fishing companies and local partners in third countries, through which EU fishing

vessels are transferred to that third country and gain fishing opportunities in its waters.

However, the impact of this type of agreement was judged to be limited and criticised because

it decreased EU accountability118. Joint ventures are nowadays often a legal condition for

accessing certain fishing rights in third countries119. Joint ventures may or may not be

accompanied with chartering (this is subject to some RFMOs’ provisions). The EU no longer

subsidises joint ventures, but they are still often criticised for lack of transparency regarding the

beneficial owners of vessels and for unfair competition with artisanal fisheries. Some

stakeholders argue for EU action to increase the transparency and sustainability of EU fisheries

joint ventures in third countries.

117  See Annex I, Review of the state of world marine fisheries resources 2025, FAO, and OECD Review of

Fisheries 2022. 118  Fishing outside the European Union – The external dimension of the common fisheries policy, European

Parliament Research Service, 2025, p. 33. 119  Host country legislation usually requires 51% ownership of a vessel by a national before it can be included

in the national register. See, for example, Article 32 of Angola’s Law of 12 October 2004, which limits

fishing rights to foreign individuals or collective persons in association with Angolan persons.

51

In that context, lack of transparency regarding the ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) of

vessels and fishing companies is a cause for widespread concern. Within the EU, some

stakeholders argue that UBO transparency is insufficient and making it difficult to ensure that

all EU regulations (including those on IUU fishing) are enforced. Non-EU-flagged vessels and

non-EU registered owning companies are often governed by weak national regulatory

frameworks on UBO and are associated with IUU fishing. In many cases, this is compounded

by vessels being registered under flags of convenience.

The use of open registers that act as flags of convenience has become a widespread practice120.

The countries that offer them tend not to comply with international obligations or to have low

enforcement capacity. Registering vessels under flags of convenience makes it easier to conceal

the identity of the UBO of fishing vessels, making it difficult to impose sanctions and to prevent

illegal practices. Moreover, these countries generally do not cooperate with other states that are

concerned by IUU fishing and they can undermine those states’ work. The FAO addresses the

issue of flags of convenience in the Compliance Agreement. However, participation in the

Compliance Agreement remains limited – despite its continuing relevance – and this in turn

raises the question of how to further promote and integrate its objectives into contemporary

fisheries governance. Furthermore, flags of convenience are often associated with ‘ports of

convenience’ (i.e. ports that apply weak controls and where it is easier to launder fish caught

during IUU fishing).

Transhipments at sea are common in all regions of the world and in various fisheries, in waters

under national jurisdiction and on the high seas. Transhipment can significantly improve the

efficiency of fishing activities by reducing operational and transport costs. However, it also

creates challenges for monitoring, control, enforcement and traceability, including by providing

opportunities for IUU catches to reach port and market destinations. The recent FAO Voluntary

Guidelines for Transhipment clearly and for the first time define concepts, processes and the

responsibilities of states in their different roles. However, this is only the first step. The

guidelines are a voluntary instrument and, for them to be effective, states must take action to

transpose them into regional and national regulations and ensure their effective implementation.

These widespread phenomena – lack of transparency regarding ownership, flags of

convenience, ports of convenience and concealed transhipments – originate in the insufficient

transparency of fleet operations globally. This is due to weak identification systems,

insufficient use of monitoring technologies and ineffective international information-sharing.

One key starting point would be to ensure that all industrial fishing vessels have a unique IMO

identifier (as required by the Cape Town Agreement). This makes it possible to track vessels

throughout their life – even if they change their name, ownership or flag. Global registries, such

as the FAO’s Global Record of Fishing Vessels, can, if regularly updated and completed, help

in compiling and publishing information on vessels and their activities. In parallel, satellite

tracking technologies (including VMS and the automatic information system - AIS) enable

authorities to monitor fishing activity throughout the world’s oceans and identify suspicious

practices such as IUU fishing or unauthorised transhipment.

Transparency also requires stronger reporting and information exchange. Digital tools such as

electronic logbooks, onboard monitoring systems and digital catch documentation improve the

reliability and traceability of fishery products from vessel to market. International cooperation

mechanisms further reinforce this system. The Global Information Exchange System

established under the PSMA aims to facilitate the exchange of information on inspection reports

and port denials, making it harder for vessels involved in IUU fishing to move between ports

120  Study on flag State responsibilities and ‘open registers’ for vessel registration, European Commission,

2026.

52

undetected. Public disclosure of fisheries data (licences, quotas and enforcement) strengthens

accountability across the fisheries sector.

4.7 RFMOs are challenged by new power struggles and stronger expectations to

integrate environmental concerns

RFMOs are increasingly instrumental in the implementation of new and emerging

international instruments addressing the climate crisis, IUU fishing, pollution, fisheries

subsidies, and conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. To address current and

future challenges, RFBs require strengthened mandates, enhanced coordination, and more

inclusive governance that actively engages key sectors and stakeholders. Building adaptability

into decision-making processes is essential as RFBs confront emerging issues such as shifting

species distribution, technological innovation, and greater coherence across fisheries,

biodiversity and climate agendas121.

It is not always possible to achieve the EU’s objectives in RFMOs. The need for consensus

often frustrates efforts to reform RFMOs’ decision-making processes. Other Parties do not

always support the EU’s proposals in full, despite the EU’s efforts to strengthen those

organisations and support scientific research and science-based management decisions.

Nevertheless, some newly created RFMOs (SPRFMO) incorporate efficient decision-making

processes, and in some cases (e.g. ICCAT), the revision of the convention has brought some

flexibility into the decision-making processes – despite consensus being the rule.

The membership of RFMOs is now genuinely global, but there are still significant

discrepancies in the capacities and aspirations of members. As in other multilateral forums,

power struggles stemming from geopolitical considerations exist and may override

conservation and management issues and undermine negotiation processes122. As a result,

progress in scientific research and advice has not necessarily translated into robust management

decisions. Despite substantial EU financial support, limitations in resources remain an

important challenge in most RFMOs123.

Some progress has been made in documenting and controlling fishing operations and

monitoring compliance, and most if not all RFMOs have adopted country-by-country

compliance processes. Gaps nevertheless persist in follow-up and appropriate remedial actions.

The EU has submitted proposals to address those gaps and has in some cases (ICCAT, IOTC,

IATTC) succeeded in making the compliance process more structured. The EU remains the

main driving force in all RFMOs and advocates for comprehensive transparency measures,

particularly in relation to combatting IUU fishing (including through transparency on beneficial

ownership). All the RFMOs have now adopted IUU vessel lists and cross-list vessels with other

RFMOs.

RFMOs are increasingly expected to ensure the consistency of their decisions with changes

in other international provisions dealing with biodiversity. This has given rise to calls for

better coordination between RFMOs and RSCs. There are some successful examples and good

practices of dialogues between those organisations. Steps have also been taken to improve

communication and mutual understanding between RFMOs and MEAs, but there is still

considerable room for improvement (particularly the recognition of RFMO scientific research

and advice by MEAs).

The implementation of the BBNJ agreement is both the most important challenge and the

most important opportunity. The EU is a global leader in the RFMOs and therefore has a key

role to play in ensuring that the BBNJ agreement and the RFMOs interact in an effective and

mutually reinforcing way. Against this background, the EU promoted in 2026 a specific process

121 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026, FAO, p. xxiii. 122  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 70. 123  More detail in Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 69-70.

53

of reflection in all the RFMOs of which it is member on how they contribute to, and interact

with, the BBNJ agreement, its bodies and processes.

The European Parliament is advocating for the establishment of new RFMOs. Its January

2024 resolution124 stated that an RFMO should cover every ocean area. It is important for the

EU for the CECAF area to be turned into a fully-fledged RFMO as well as for an RFMO to be

established for the South-west Atlantic (particularly to manage demersal stocks in this area).

4.8 SFPAs: providing fishing opportunities to the EU within a predictable framework

and supporting partners in sustainable fisheries management

SFPAs have evolved to do more than provide access to waters and sectoral support. They are

one of the tools that the EU can use to strengthen its partnership with a given country and

engage on a wide range of ocean and fisheries matters and maintaining a constant and open

dialogue on them. However, they are challenged by the evolving international geopolitical

context and broader positioning of partner countries vis-à-vis the EU. Global competition

on access to resources (and the presence of other fleets) and high expectations from partners

are the biggest challenges resulting from the geopolitical context.

SFPAs are an important tool in the EU’s external fisheries policy and can serve its wider

geopolitical and economic interests as well as partner countries’ coastal communities. There is

scope to enhance policy coherence by promoting the EU’s wider ocean and fisheries priorities:

cooperation in RFMOs, the development of a sustainable blue economy, combating IUU

fishing, and strengthening scientific knowledge to underpin sustainable fisheries management

and ecosystems protection.

SFPAs have helped provide fishing opportunities for the EU external fleet within a predictable

framework. However, the EU fleet has repeatedly voiced its concern that ‘dormant

agreements’ are constraining the agility of fleet operations and the level playing field, due to

the exclusivity clause. Moreover, most SFPAs target migratory species that straddle the EEZs

of several coastal states, but SFPAs are country specific. There is scope to improve consistency

and coherence between different SFPAs’ protocols and to promote cooperation within the

same region on shared priorities and challenges, thus making fisheries management more

sustainable.

Some stakeholders are increasingly criticising the use of the EU budget to help gain access

to waters of third countries. This criticism should be set against the fact that the EU fleet does

not use all the fishing opportunities agreed through SFPAs optimally.

The EU fleet is subject to ambitious standards in terms of the sustainable exploitation of

resources and labour conditions. Its competitors in other long-distance fleets from third

countries often have lower standards. In this regard, partner countries may benefit from further

sectoral support to improve their monitoring and control systems and to further develop their

scientific capacities.

Although all SFPAs contain a non-discrimination clause and a transparency clause, these

provisions are not being properly enforced.

SFPAs are unique access agreements that are different from other countries’ long-distance

fleets. The EU publishes its agreements and a considerable amount of relevant information on

each SFPA webpage. Stakeholders nevertheless feel insufficiently involved in the

negotiation and implementation of SFPAs and particularly in the definition and

implementation of sectoral support. This is a lost opportunity for the EU in general and SFPAs

124  Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and Future Perspectives.

54

in particular, which are rather negatively perceived in several third countries. These negative

perceptions are often fed by fake news and can be difficult to counter.

4.9 Renewed challenge to articulate EU policies in support of sustainable global fisheries

The EU’s policy frameworks have significantly changed. In June 2025, the Ocean Pact125

was introduced as a holistic framework for all ocean-related policies. The ongoing reshuffling

of global economic competition and geopolitical relations is at the same time leading the EU to

significantly reposition its strategic partnerships and economic value chains. To achieve its core

objectives of sustainability and improved IOG, EU external fisheries action needs to be better

articulated with other EU policies.

As stated in the Ocean Pact, the EU is committed to further promoting a rules-based IOG

anchored in environmental sustainability. The MEAs on the protection of endangered

species (CITES and CMS) increasingly cover marine species. This is in turn raising scientific,

technical and legal issues between these instruments and fisheries bodies. Conservation

measures are most effective when they are implemented in a manner that complements and is

mutually supportive of existing fisheries management systems. The implementation of the new

Global Biodiversity Framework and the BBNJ agreement is a priority for the EU. Fisheries

policy will have to contribute, either in its bilateral relations with partner countries (i.e. SFPAs

and development cooperation) or in RFMOs. The articulation of BBNJ objectives with existing

fisheries governance frameworks remains a work in progress.

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production sector globally. It now provides more than

half of aquatic animal products for human consumption and plays an increasing role in food

security. The FAO Guidelines for Sustainable Aquaculture126 provide a voluntary global

framework for sustainable development in the sector, but the worldwide development of

aquaculture can, if not properly managed, place pressure on wild fish stocks and ecosystems.

Aquaculture currently has a limited role in IOG (most production takes place in inland or

territorial waters), but its rapid expansion and emerging offshore technologies may increase its

international dimension in the future.

It is crucial in this context to apply scientific knowledge when taking fisheries management

decisions at the international level. Within RFMOs, ecosystem management needs to be applied

more concretely and systemically. Under SFPAs, the scientific assessment is either carried out

by the relevant RFMO (tuna species) or by a joint scientific committee of the SFPA (non-tuna

fisheries) where scientists share available data, assess stocks and formulate recommendations.

One cross-cutting issue is the need to increase understanding of the geographic and species-

specific impacts of climate change in RFMOs and third countries’ waters. Efforts on this point

should be complemented by the EU’s work to establish an international panel on ocean science

(IPOS) and a global ocean observation system (GOOS) as well as by a further contribution to

international cooperation under the EU’s research programmes.

Social responsibility requires that workers must enjoy decent and fair working conditions

globally. Stakeholders express strong concerns in this regard. Raising social standards – decent

work, occupational safety and health, migrant workers’ rights and non-discrimination – and

addressing forced labour are key elements that social partners have raised on many occasions.

Finding a credible and workable pathway is a major challenge because the issues relate to a

very diverse set of policies and instruments. Labour issues linked to migrant workers in the

DWF have received increasing attention, both in RFMOs and SFPAs. Trade unions still express

concerns about fair working conditions, pay and certification. Dealing with this will require a

125 COM (2025) 281 final. 126  Guidelines for Sustainable Aquaculture, FAO, 2025.

55

shift in mindset and habits, because RFMOs are historically dedicated to fisheries management

rather than social issues.

The key challenge at the international level remains the ratification of the ILO and IMO

conventions127 and their effective enforcement. Insufficient and ineffective inspections

(including labour inspections and sanctions) are a major problem. Further work is also needed

on the drafting of social responsibility guidelines in the FAO Committee on Fish Trade. Within

the EU, not all Member States have ratified all the ILO core fisheries conventions. The

Commission has announced an initiative to introduce harmonised standards on training and

certification of fisherswith the launch of an impact assessment as well as a call for evidence

and public consultation in 2026.

On the economic side, the EU’s dependence on imported aquatic products has significantly

increased. This trend is being driven by a combination of declining domestic landings and

stagnation in aquaculture in a context of declining apparent consumption. RFMOs and SFPAs

have continued to make a significant contribution to the EU’s supply of a range of species, but

overall landings by the EU’s DWF have been decreasing. The EU fish processing industry’s

strong reliance on imported raw materials increases its exposure to global market volatility and

external shocks. Stakeholders point out that the EU fleet is generally subject to stricter

environmental and social standards than other fleets.

Gaps remain in sustainability requirements for imports, traceability and information

throughout the supply chain. Under the EU’s trade policy, a series of autonomous measures

and FTAs have set sustainability requirements that apply to all products placed on the EU

market – including fisheries and aquaculture products. Coherence across all instruments needs

to be ensured. The Commission is therefore assessing how to introduce sustainability criteria

into the ATQ regime, where access is not currently conditional on such requirements. With

more than 20 partner countries, the FTAs provide an institutional framework (and, in the last

resort, related dispute settlement provisions) that can be used to promote fisheries and

aquaculture practices, and thereby a level playing field. However, not all FTAs in place contain

a similar level of sustainability commitments.

Stakeholders consider unfair competition / international competition as the top challenge,

because they are concerned that EU-produced aquatic food will be placed at a competitive

disadvantage to products coming from third countries that have less stringent environmental,

social and administrative regulations128. Stakeholders generally call for more consistency

between the CFP objectives and a sustainable and fair trade policy; a tightening of import

controls to ensure full implementation of the IUU Regulation and the Forced Labour

Regulation; and making access to the EU market, under all types of trade regimes, conditional

on the implementation of all key environmental, social and human rights international

agreements. Stakeholders also highlight the importance of phasing out harmful subsidies in

WTO negotiations and assessing the impacts of imports of feed for aquaculture on the

development of EU aquaculture.

Citizens’ ethical engagement is also increasing. This has been demonstrated by the European

Citizens’ Initiative on trade in shark fins, which was submitted to the Commission in 2023 and

requests the Commission to introduce a ban on the export and import of loose shark fins. The

127  These include the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948

(No 87); the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No 98); the Forced Labour

Convention, 1930 (No 29) (and its 2014 Protocol); the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957

(No 105); the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No 138); the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention,

1999 (No 182); the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No 188); the ILO Maritime Labour Convention,

2006, as amended (MLC, 2006); and the IMO 2012 Cape Town Agreement, which will enter into force

in February 2027. 128  See Annex II.

56

Commission’s response129 includes making the best use of existing policy tools that are relevant

to shark conservation and management; stepping up its international outreach to protect

endangered sharks; increasing the EU’s capacity to monitor trade in shark products at species

level; and assessing the environmental, social and economic consequences of measures

suggested by the ECI as well as alternative policy measures. The related Commission’s impact

assessment is expected by the end of 2026.

In a similar vein, EU market rules are considered a significant lever that can be improved

still further. In general, stakeholders call for labelling requirements to be tightened and their

enforcement to reduce fraud, increase transparency for imported products and reward

sustainable value chains. The CMO Regulation governs mandatory and voluntary consumer

information. In practice, transparency may be limited for fishery products, because some

elements (particularly catch area information and the way it is presented) can be technical,

difficult to interpret and occasionally ambiguous for consumers. In addition, the mandatory

consumer information requirements do not apply to prepared and preserved (i.e. processed)

products. This can limit the effectiveness of labelling in supporting informed purchasing

choices and fair competition130.

Overall, the EU is expected to deliver higher standards of import sustainability without

compromising open and transparent trade, thus striking the right balance between a diverse

set of interests. This will require careful assessment of feasibility; the impacts on costs for

operators and consumers; the risk of increasing the already high level of market volatility; the

need to ensure compatibility with WTO and other bilateral and multilateral commitments; and

the risk of reciprocal restrictions and/or trade diversions.

Relations with developing countries are strained overall and ocean issues are no exception.

Food security remains a challenge globally. However, while 40% of capture fisheries and 90%

of all employees in capture fisheries value chains are in small-scale fisheries131, awareness,

implementation capacities and/or political will are often too weak to strengthen fisheries

management and provide the required skills and financial capacities to the sector.

The EU has significantly rebalanced its agenda, diversifying away from traditional development

programmes and upgrading its relations through wide-ranging agreements. However, the

effective implementation of these initiatives is complex and renders bilateral relations in

fisheries even more complex and prone to inconsistency. Partner countries nevertheless

increasingly recognise the necessity and benefits of stepping up efforts on ocean protection, the

development of a regenerative and inclusive blue economy and sustainable fisheries

management when they cooperate with the EU.

Working on innovative financing for ocean governance is therefore a pressing issue.

Through its Global Gateway Strategy, the EU promotes high-quality, sustainable and

transparent investments in infrastructure and connectivity worldwide. These include flagships,

such as the Green Shipping Corridors project to promote the decarbonisation of maritime

transport and the upgrade and renovation of major ports – particularly in Africa.

Regional and bilateral approaches can help to reinforce thematic and global action where

EU interests are strongest. A coherent and strategic ocean and fisheries bilateral policy for a

selected number of areas would contribute to achieving the EU’s wider geopolitical goals by

deepening/revisiting its bilateral relations with strategically important partners.

129  C(2023) 4489 Final. 130  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 63. 131  Policy Support and Governance Gateway, FAO.

57

4.10 Combining energy transition, environmental constraints and the competitiveness of

the EU’s external fleet

Besides the above-mentioned structural risk of climate change for the availability of resources,

the EU DWF’s competitiveness needs to be factored in in the light of the energy transition and

increasing environmental constraints. However, the EU DWF’s net profit declined over the past

decade while it remains a high-impact fleet for decarbonisation efforts. The question of how to

change over to carbon-neutral energy sources is particularly challenging for this fleet due to the

long distances it covers; the limited experiments available for this type of vessel and the size of

the investments required; and the limited availability of alternative fuels in non-EU ports on

which the DWF relies.

As part of the Communication on the Vision for 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture, the

Commission has presented a long-term roadmap for the energy transition in the fisheries

sector132. This roadmap has been informed by the intensive work of the Energy Transition

Partnership for EU fisheries and aquaculture (including by the dedicated Working Group on the

DWF133). One key conclusion is that it is necessary to overcome the ‘first mover problem’

between stakeholders and authorities to make the energy transition.

This is especially important at the international level, both economically and politically. The

Commission134 recognised the industry’s concerns that the costs of investing in the energy

transition should not put EU operators at a short-term disadvantage to competitors that operate

under less demanding energy reduction policies and regulations. The Commission therefore

committed to intensify its work in key international organisations (the OECD, IMO and FAO).

Within the IMO, the EU advocated for greater ambition in the IMO strategy on reducing GHG

emissions and for a combination of a global GHG fuel standard with a market-based measure

for renewable, low and zero GHG-fuels. The recent adoption of the new targets for 2030, 2040

and 2050 could inject some new momentum into the decarbonisation of the fishing fleet in line

with these targets. However, a strategy for aligning actions under the Energy Transition

Partnership (the needs of the DWF) with the EU’s action in the IMO (setting new standards or

adapting existing ones) is necessary to gain a competitive technological advantage for the EU

in carbon-efficient and carbon-neutral fishing technologies and vessels.

5 CONCLUSION

The external dimension of the CFP that was set out in the 2011 Commission

Communication and embedded in the 2013 CFP Regulation has largely achieved its

objectives135. The EU is building strategic partnerships with key third countries through

RFMOs, SFPAs and other bilateral agreements. It has the most complete system in the world

for certifying imported fishery products are free from IUU fishing. The EU’s fleets have

maintained a continuous presence in many RFMOs and bilateral access agreements. The EU’s

external action is contributing to a level playing field for EU operators. The coherence of EU

policies has improved significantly.

Despite this progress, major changes at global level and within the EU are renewed

challenges. Shifts in global power balances, increased competition for natural resources

(including fisheries) and evolving trade relations have influenced access to fishing

132 SWD(2026) 752 final 133  Energy Transition Partnership – Maritime Forum – European Commission. 134  COM(2023) 100 final. 135  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), pp. 83, 86 and 89.

58

opportunities, markets and inputs. Regional instability and conflicts have disrupted supply

chains, affected fuel, energy and feed availability, and increased volatility in prices136.

Brexit has resulted in a large portion of the Northeast Atlantic ceasing to be EU waters and

becoming third-country waters. This shift has significantly changed practices in a context where

the Commission must negotiate joint management measures on behalf of the EU in annual

consultations and/or via the EU-UK SCF and where outcomes cannot be controlled in the same

way as when only EU waters are concerned137.

EU external fisheries retain access to non-EU waters, but this has not compensated for the

overall shortfall in supply due to the slow recovery of EU stocks. The EU is therefore

increasingly dependent on imports – especially the processing and fed aquaculture sectors that

rely on imported raw materials and feed (fish meal and fish oil). This increases strategic and

competitive vulnerabilities as well as level playing field concerns regarding imports from third

countries that may be applying less stringent standards138.

The CFP’s external action has therefore gained in strategic importance. However, this must be

carried out in a context of major sustainability concerns, where managing fisheries

internationally has become increasingly complex and managing them sustainably has become

even more challenging. Progress has been made, but IUU fishing remains one of the greatest

threats to the sustainable use of fishery resources and combating this is hindered by a lack of

transparency on key aspects (e.g. ultimate beneficial ownership and transhipments) as well as

by weak compliance with core international agreements and RFMOs’ management and

monitoring decisions. International fisheries management is increasingly influenced by non-

fisheries specialised forums. In the coming years, the international agenda will be marked by

the implementation and negotiation of major agreements, such as the BBNJ agreement, that

have a direct bearing on fisheries, and by the conclusion of strengthened partnerships between

the EU and some third countries or groups of third countries in which fisheries/IOG would need

to have a strong place.

The EU external fleet is facing significant challenges. Its profitability has substantially declined

over the last decade. It is also made up of larger, more powerful vessels, whose emissions have

increased and which remain highly vulnerable to increases in fuel prices. This is limiting the

capacity to mobilise resources for investment.

The accumulation of crises in recent years combined with the need to accelerate efforts in

marine protection and energy transition have together prompted all stakeholders to place

renewed emphasis on the link between internal and external action139. They are calling for

stronger action in regulating fisheries worldwide, the protection of the most vulnerable (local

communities and small-scale fishers), improved import controls, and the use of trade and

market measures to make EU imports more sustainable. They are also calling for strengthened

strategic partnerships with key regions and countries to promote the implementation of key

multilateral agreements, accompanied by adequate incentives and support. Difficult relations

with some third countries and/or their unsustainable fishing activities are also a cause for strong

concern. Stakeholders are explicitly or implicitly calling for country-specific, tailor-made and

comprehensive strategies for these third countries.

136  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 86. 137  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 86. 138  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (SWD(2026) 120 final), p. 88. 139  See Annex II.

59

ANNEX I

INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES LEGISLATION

AND STATE OF GLOBAL FISHERIES

1. INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES LEGISLATION

For a long time, access to fisheries resources outside the territorial boundaries of any country

was free, according to the ‘freedom of the sea’ principle. However, the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was adopted in 1982 and entered into

force in 1994,fundamentally changed this situation by setting out the basic international legal

framework for the conservation and management of marine living resources and defining the

rights and duties of states regarding the use of ocean space and resources.

UNCLOS restricts free access to ocean resources by authorising the formal declaration of

exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of up to 200 nautical miles from the coast. Coastal states

have sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources in their EEZs. UNCLOS also

recognises the principle of freedom of fishing in the high seas (sea areas that lie beyond areas

of national jurisdiction), accompanying it with an obligation to ensure the conservation of living

resources. UNCLOS further provides that, for stocks occurring within the EEZs of two or more

coastal states, those states must seek to agree on measures for managing such ‘common’ stocks.

UNCLOS only partially addressed one key issue: the management of straddling stocks (small

pelagics and demersal stocks spanning over adjacent high seas and EEZs) and highly migratory

fish stocks (tuna and tuna-like species that are found in several EEZs and international waters

because of their migratory behaviour). An implementing agreement under UNCLOS, the UN

Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), was therefore adopted in 1995 and entered into force in

2001. Under this agreement, the straddling and highly migratory stocks are to be managed by

regional fisheries bodies (RFBs), whose members are all the coastal states and other, distant,

fishing states that claim a ‘real interest’ in the relevant fish stocks.

RFBs are intergovernmental organisations that facilitate international cooperation on the

management, conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources within a given region or for

specific fish stocks. They can be divided into two main types:

• regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), which have the power to

adopt internationally legally binding conservation and management measures within

their area of competence;

• regional fisheries advisory bodies (RFABs), which, unlike RFMOs, have a purely

advisory role and no power to adopt legally binding measures.

RFMOs are the main vehicle for states with fishing interests to discharge their duty to cooperate

in ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological resources. This concerns

highly migratory stocks, straddling stocks and stocks located exclusively in the high seas.

UNFSA stipulates that only members of the relevant RFMO (and any other countries that agree

to apply the measures established by that RFMO) can access the fisheries resources in question.

Membership is open both to countries in the region (coastal states) and to more distant states

with an interest in the fisheries concerned (e.g. states that traditionally fished in these waters).

Two broad types of RFMOscan be distinguished: generic RFMOs (responsible for most of the

fish stocks in a certain area) and species-specific RFMOs (responsible for the conservation of

a particular stock or type of species) (Figure 18). Within the latter group, another distinction

can be drawn between: (i) tuna RFMOs, which manage highly migratory species/stocks

throughout their distribution range (their regulatory mandate generally includes both the high

seas and EEZs); and (ii) non-tuna RFMOs, which manage species/stocks that are not highly

60

migratory (their regulatory mandate is generally limited to the high seas). Membership can vary

from fewer than 10 to more than 50 Parties and generally includes coastal states and long-

distance fishing nations.

Figure 18 - Geographic coverage of the mandates of species-specific and general regional fisheries management organisations.

Source: FAO, Review of the state of world marine fishery resources – 2026, p. 129.

The main governing body of a RFMO (often called a commission) generally decides on

conservation and management measures by consensus during an annual meeting but some

RFMOs take decisions by majority voting. Adopted decisions are binding on the Parties. They

typically concern catch limits, vessel capacity limits, technical measures, spatial and/or

61

temporal fisheries closures, measures to limit the impact of fishing on the ecosystem, and

monitoring activities to ensure compliance with rules.

RFMOs’ conservation and management measures are based on advice provided by scientific

committees or other technical bodies composed of experts from the RFMOs’ members. The

scientific advice is mostly based on fisheries-dependent data as well as independent data that

has been collected and provided by their members. The implementation of the measures decided

by the RFMO Parties is ensured by the flag and port states through a range of monitoring and

control system tools and dedicated compliance-monitoring processes. RFMOs derive their

financial resources from the compulsory and voluntary contributions of their members.

Two other implementing agreements under UNCLOS concern deep-sea mining (adoption in

1994, entry into force in 1996) and the sustainable use of marine biological resources in areas

beyond national jurisdiction (adoption in 2023, entry into force on 17 January 2026 - also

known as the BBNJ agreement or High Seas Treaty). The BBNJ agreement establishes a global

framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas

beyond national jurisdiction. It addresses four key domains: marine genetic resources; area-

based management tools; environmental impact assessments; and capacity building and

technology transfer. The BBNJ agreement must not undermine existing relevant instruments,

frameworks and bodies, such as the RFMOs that oversee 95% of fishing in areas beyond

national jurisdiction. However, parties to the BBNJ agreement are required to promote its

objectives in other relevant bodies, such as the RFMOs, and the BBNJ agreement requires

enhanced cooperation to achieve its objectives.

International fisheries governance also includes a range of legal measures taken by the FAO.

These include the Compliance Agreement (adoption in 1993, entry into force in 2003) and the

Port State Measures Agreement (the PSMA; adoption in 2009, entry into force in 2016). The

Compliance Agreement officially has 45 Parties, including the EU. It was a direct response to

the problem of fishing vessels being reflagged to avoid their activities on the high seas being

controlled. It enhanced the role of the flag state by ensuring that the Parties strengthened their

controls over their vessels to guarantee compliance with international conservation and

management measures. The PSMA targets IUU fishing by preventing vessels that have been

identified as having engaged in IUU fishing from using ports and landing their catches.

Non-binding FAO guidelines include the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995)

as well as related international action plans on sharks, fishing capacity, seabirds and IUU

fishing. The FAO has also issued voluntary guidelines on the responsibilities of flag states

(2014), small-scale fisheries (2014) and the marking of fishing gear (2018). The adoption of

FAO voluntary guidelines for transhipment (2022) prompted flag, coastal and port States to pay

more attention to the at-sea and port transhipment operations that require MCS tools to comply

with the applicable conservation and management measures.

2. STATE OF GLOBAL FISHERIES

There is a wealth of international rules and frameworks to govern fisheries at the international

level, but the state of fisheries resources remains critical at the global level. This is due to

overfishing, pollution, the impacts of climate change, overexploitation of marine resources and

pollution (plastics). The overexploitation of certain stocks and the impact of fisheries on

ecosystems remain key challenges.

The FAO1 notes both progress and challenges in fisheries sustainability worldwide. The share

of the world’s biologically sustainable marine stocks dropped from 64.5% of all stocks

assessed by FAO in 2021 to 62.4% in 20232. Among the biologically sustainable stocks in 2023,

1  The following text presents key findings of FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026. 2 The decline reflects both assessment revisions and the inclusion of new records.

62

46.9% were classified as maximally sustainably fished and 15.5% as underfished, the remaining

37.6% being overfished (Figure 19). The proportion of overfished stocks has been increasing

by approximately 1% each year in recent times. However, when weighted by volume, 72.6%

of the landings of assessed originated from sustainably fished stocks, down from 77% in 2021.

This indicates that stocks with larger landings tend to be more sustainably managed and

that effective management supports the recovery and long-term sustainability of fishery

resources.

Figure 19 – Global trends in the state of the world’s marine fishery stocks by number, 1974-2023. (Source: FAO, Review of

the state of world marine fishery resources – 2026, p. 45).

There is considerable variation at regional level (Figure 20) continues. In 2023, several areas

maintained high proportions of sustainable stocks, reflecting the continuous implementation of

science-based management systems and precautionary harvest strategies. Conversely, areas

subject to high fishing pressure, strong environmental variability or limited assessment and

management capacity faced persistent challenges. Overall, high-latitude regions continue to

maintain high sustainability levels due to well-functioning management systems. At the same

time, improvements observed in certain areas, notably the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area

37), Western Central Atlantic (Area 31), Northwest Pacific (Area 61) and Southeast Pacific

(Area 87), confirm how science-based management can yield measurable recovery progress.

Figure 20 – Percentage of biologically sustainable and unsustainable fishery stocks in 2023 by FAO major fishing area and

selected species groups. Source: FAO, Review of the state of world marine fishery resources – 2026, p. 47.

63

Regarding landings, since 1950, areas with landings oscillating around a stable value since 1990

(this is associated with the dominance of pelagic, short-lived species - Areas 61, 67 and 77),

record the highest percentage of stocks at biologically sustainable levels (75%). By contrast,

areas with a continuously increasing trend in landings since 1950 (Areas 34, 51, 57 and 71) and

areas with an overall declining trend in landings following historical peaks (Areas 21, 27, 31,

37, 41, 47, 81 and 87) have the lowest percentage of stocks at biologically sustainable levels

(59% and 61% respectively).

There are strong variations between species. The ten species with the largest landings in

2023, which together, for 21% of global production in 2023, 73.6% of these stocks (by stock

number) or 76.5% (by volume of landings) were fished within biologically sustainable levels

in 2023. This is higher than the global sustainability for all stocks in 2023, but down from 86%

in 2021. The status of tunas and tuna-like species demonstrated the impact of strong

management action: 91.3% of assessed tuna stocks were classified as biologically sustainable

in 2023, and more than 99% of catches originated from biologically sustainable stocks. By

contrast, deep-sea fisheries continue to face challenges. Their long lifespans make them

particularly vulnerable. In 2021, only 29% of deep-sea stocks were being sustainably fished –

except in the Antarctic Area, where 100% of exploited stocks were estimated to be sustainably

fished. Highly migratory sharks are also under ongoing pressure. Of the stocks assessed, 60%

were classified as biologically sustainable in 2023, the most assessed species, blue shark, being

at 83.3% of assessed stocks classified as sustainable in 2023. Some are deliberately targeted,

but most are caught as bycatch in longline fisheries. Highly migratory shark species have cross-

jurisdictional ranges that require international cooperation to implement management measures

and secure their conservation and sustainable use.

64

ANNEX II

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT

This annex provides information on the overall consultation process that took place to inform

the preparation of the EU Strategy for Fisheries External Action and reports the views of

different stakeholder groups. Stakeholders were consulted in line with the ‘Better Regulation

Framework’ in a transparent, meaningful and proportionate approach to consultation. This

made it possible for the Commission to: (i) get useful feedback from a wide range of

stakeholders; (ii) take the views of these stakeholders into account; and (iii) reflect these

stakeholders’ messages in the EU Strategy for Fisheries External Action, where relevant.

1. CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND ACTIVITIES

1.1 Consultations on the common fisheries policy and call for evidence on external

action

In 2024, the Commission launched an evaluation of the CFP Regulation. The evaluation covers

the core instruments of the CFP’s external dimension because the CFP Regulation is their legal

basis. The call for evidence under the evaluation of the CFP Regulation (20 June 2024 –

6 September 2024) and the public consultation on the evaluation of the CFP (27 January 2025

– 21 April 2025) invited stakeholders and the public to provide their assessments of the CFP’s

achievements, including its external dimension. The results of these consultations are presented

in a staff working document accompanying the Communication on the Vision 2040 for

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

In 2024-2025, calls for evidence and public consultations were also carried out in the area of

external trade as part of impact assessments on better protecting sharks through trade and the

EU’s autonomous trade quotas. Their results are relevant and have therefore been integrated.

In view of these other engagements with stakeholders, the call for evidence on the EU strategy

for fisheries external action was delineated in such a way that it clearly complements these

other consultations. It focused on the strategic objectives that the EU’s future fisheries external

action, should pursue in the light of current and future challenges and the best possible

articulation of the EU instruments to achieve these objectives. Stakeholders were invited to

share their views on how fisheries external action can combine a set of EU instruments and

policies to (i) strengthen environmental sustainability; (ii) strengthen social sustainability;

(iii) strengthen economic sustainability; and (iv) promote enhanced global fisheries

governance and continue upholding the rules-based multilateral maritime order. The call was

published on 7 July 2025 in all 24 of the official EU languages and was open for feedback for

10 weeks until 17 September 2025. Stakeholders were able to contribute in any official EU

language.

The call received a total of 49 responses1 (76% from EU respondents and 24% from non-EU

respondents). These responses mainly originated from NGOs (42%) and from business

associations and individual companies (28%). Regarding EU respondents, it is noteworthy that

the main large EU industry associations and NGOs replied, as well as two Member States that

1  Technical problems prevented one contribution being uploaded on the HaveYourSay portal. It was

accepted by postal transmission instead.

65

account for 37.7% of the EU’s total fishing fleet by gross tonnage. The majority (58%) of the

non-EU respondents were NGOs, but two replies came from the fisheries ministries of third

countries.

1.2 Engagement with EU institutions, EU Member States and advisory bodies

In 2024-2025, informal meetings with Member States, Council conclusions and several

European Parliament reports provided opportunities for engagement on the EU’s future

fisheries external action. Moreover, targeted consultations were carried out with advisory

bodies and during major stakeholder events on EU fisheries and international ocean governance

policy.

1.2.1. Council of the European Union and Member States

EU Member States have been involved throughout the process. Several provided contributions

in response to the various calls for evidence and consultations mentioned above.

In 2020-2025, the Council adopted several conclusions that address the external dimension of

the CFP and EU fisheries external action. In 2020, the Council Conclusions on the Farm to

Fork Strategy linked fisheries policy to sustainability and trade, while the Council Conclusions

on Biodiversity – the need for urgent action underlined the relevance of global marine

biodiversity and global governance for fisheries. In 2022, the Council Conclusions on

International Ocean Governance focused strongly on sustainable fisheries outside the EU’s

waters and were reinforced by the Council Conclusions on the Fisheries Policy Package, which

called for continued and strengthened work on sustainability at the international level.

It is important to underline the Council’s role in preparing the EU’s positions in international

negotiations for informing the EU’s policy agenda for fisheries external action. The Council

must adopt an EU position before every EU engagement in an international organisation or

agreement relating to fisheries, trade and biodiversity. These Council discussions have

therefore provided many opportunities to identify key challenges and opportunities that can be

addressed through an effective EU fisheries external action.

In 2025-2026, specific substantive discussions on the objectives and key issues for the future

EU strategy were held in several meetings of the two main Commission expert groups for CFP

(the Expert Group for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Expert Group for Markets and Trade

in Fishery and Aquaculture Products), informal meetings of the national senior officials in

charge of fisheries and at several formal and informal sessions of the Council.

1.2.2. European Parliament

The European Parliament (EP) has regularly stressed the importance of the CFP’s external

dimension and EU action to promote sustainable fisheries at the international level. The EP has

from an early stage supported an ambitious EU global fisheries agenda and played an important

role in raising its public visibility.

In particular, in 2024, the EP Resolution on the Implementation of the Common Fisheries

Policy and Future Perspectives reviewed the CFP’s external dimension and called for a stronger

role in RFMOs and improved SFPAs, while the EP Resolution on the EU Action Plan:

Protecting and Restoring Marine Ecosystems for Sustainable and Resilient Fisheries addressed

global biodiversity and ocean governance and its links to the internal and external fisheries

policy of the EU. Previously, in 2022 and 2023, the EP focused on two specific aspects. The

EP Resolution on the Future of Fisheries in the Channel, North Sea, Irish Sea and Atlantic

Ocean post-Brexit focused on post-Brexit external fisheries relations and access to waters. The

66

EP Resolution on the Implementation of Article 17 of the CFP and the EP Resolution on the

Small-Scale Fisheries Situation in the EU and Future Perspectives were concerned with the fair

allocation of fishing opportunities (including under external agreements) and a better

integration of small-scale fisheries in external agreements. Finally, in 2026, the EP adopted the

Resolution on The role of ocean diplomacy for the competitiveness of EU fisheries and

aquaculture. This addressed a wide range of issues pertaining to EU fisheries external action in

the context of a more effective ocean diplomacy.

The exchanges leading to these own-initiative resolutions of the EP provided opportunities to

inform the preparation of the EU Strategy for Fisheries External Action by spurring a shared

understanding of the global challenges and the role and aims of the EU in addressing them.

This was supplemented by the regular reports and exchanges (especially with the EP’s

Committee on Fisheries) on the ongoing negotiations and implementation of international

agreements (particularly SFPAs, RFMOs, the fight against IUU fishing and the BBNJ

agreement). Other meetings with MEPs and EP staff helped develop a good understanding of

the current situation and challenges.

The EP has also commissioned two studies on The EU oceans and fisheries policy: Latest

developments and future challenges (2024) and Fishing outside the European Union: The

external dimension of the common fisheries policy in-depth analysis (2025). These studies

provided a timely contribution to the discussion of the main challenges facing the EU’s

fisheries external action.

1.2.3. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has adopted several opinions that are

internationally relevant. In its 2023 opinion on the Action plan to conserve fisheries resources

and protect marine ecosystems, the EESC called for consistency between internal and external

policies and for fair competition between EU and non-EU operators. In its 2025 opinion on the

Ocean Pact, the EESC supported a comprehensive European Ocean Pact, which would

strengthen the EU’s position in international negotiations related to the ocean (particularly on

an agreement on fisheries subsidies in the WTO) through global leadership and diplomacy and

using the EU market to improve environmental and social standards globally.

The EESC has also paid attention to specific geographic areas. In an opinion on Conservation

and control measures applicable in the North-East Atlantic fisheries (2023), the EESC

advocated enhanced conservation and control measures under regional conventions, with an

emphasis on compliance and sustainability. The EESC’s opinion on General Fisheries

Commission for the Mediterranean (2024) called for stronger cooperation on, and greater

sustainability for, Mediterranean fisheries. Furthermore, in 2026, the EESC contributed, in

partnership with the Long-Distance Advisory Council (LDAC), to a multistakeholder

workshop on the new generation of SFPAs.

The Committee of the Regions has addressed the EU’s fisheries external action in the context

of opinions on The Common Fisheries Policy on the ground: towards sustainable and resilient

coastal communities in the EU (2023) and the EU Oceans Pact (2025). These opinions

emphasise the need for stronger ocean governance at the EU and global levels, the importance

of a framework for fair competition, the strategic role of fisheries in the food value chain and

the application of EU standards to products entering the EU market.

67

1.3. Engagement with stakeholders

By far the bulk of stakeholders’ input was submitted as part of the regular activities of the

advisory councils (ACs), which are the institutionalised consultation channels between the

Commission and the EU fisheries stakeholders. In 2020-2026, all the ACs delivered a large

number of recommendations on the EU’s fisheries external action. The LDAC is the primary

policy driver on external fisheries, but other councils (e.g. the Market Advisory Council

(MAC) and regional ACs) also contributed complementary perspectives.

The Commission has also engaged with civil society organisations by attending workshops and

meetings initiated by some ACs, the Sea Fisheries Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee and the

EESC. In March 2025 and March 2026, the Commission carried out two important public

events in the context of the Ocean Days. The Commission has also met bilaterally at various

levels with civil society representatives as well as with the private sector upon request.

2. RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION

This section summarises the messages received from stakeholders during the preparatory

process. The overall feedback obtained from the call for evidence showed a strong consensus

on the fundamentals for future objectives and guiding principles of the EU’s fisheries external

action. However, concrete actions and nuances in positioning can be found in other types of

contributions (primarily the advice of the ACs in 2020-2025 as well as the resolutions of the

EU institutions).

2.1. The need for a stronger fisheries external action

The public consultation on the evaluation of the CFP Regulation covered various international

issues2.When assessing the CFP Regulation’s effectiveness in achieving environmental,

economic and social goals at the international level, approximately half of the respondents

assessed its contribution to international ocean governance as positive or very positive. The

CFP was also viewed positively for having helped to keep stocks at healthy levels and having

contributed to healthy marine ecosystems.

Regarding the efficiency of CFP policy tools with an international scope, the role of the EU in

international and regional fisheries management agreements and SFPAs was assessed as

positive. The EU’s role was assessed as mildly positive as regards the management of stocks

shared with third countries. However, very high ‘no opinion’ shares reflect low familiarity with

the issues. By contrast, allocation of fishing opportunities was rated relatively negatively in

terms of economic and social outcomes, reflecting domestic distribution tensions.

Concerning effectiveness in reaching environmental, social and economic sustainability, the

strengths of the CFP’s external action were seen in terms of reliance on scientific advice and

contribution to healthy marine ecosystems. Shortfalls concerned the management of

international/shared stocks: only ~17–21% saw the system as effective (~40–45% selected ‘no

opinion/unfamiliar’).

The EU fisheries international action remained relevant for a majority (64%), but its coherence

was considered insufficient. This was rated differently for different topics. Respondents

considered that the CFP was mostly coherent with the protection of biodiversity, promoting

IOG, the FAO orientations on fisheries and the UN SDGs. However, coherence was assessed

2  Report on the CFP regulation public consultation, 2025.

68

as weaker for FAO guidance on sustainable aquaculture and the BBNJ agreement (with a high

proportion of ‘no opinion’ responses). It was seen as mostly incoherent on climate change and

sustainable and fair trade.

2.2. Consensus on challenges

The answers to the public consultation on the evaluation of the CFP Regulation (Figure 21)

identified unfair competition as the primary challenge. This was linked to imports of products

produced under lower standards and to weaknesses in third-country fleets resulting in IUU

fishing. Food security and market unpredictability were widely considered to be important.

‘Lack of predictability of fishing opportunities’ also scored highly. Geopolitics (Brexit,

COVID-19 and Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine) were cited as external

shocks that were destabilising profitability and predictability. Stakeholders called for stronger

global enforcement, transparent bilateral agreements, oversight of EU vessels outside EU

waters and effective sanctions against IUU fishing to restore fairness.

Figure 21 – Source: Report on the CFP regulation public consultation, p. 23.

As regards the EU institutions, the EP’s successive resolutions have outlined the following

challenges: ensuring consistency between internal and external CFP objectives while

maintaining the socio-economic viability of fleets and coastal communities; post‑Brexit

adjustments to access and quota allocations with third countries in the North-east Atlantic;

combating IUU fishing globally and closing loopholes in control and market measures;

balancing environmental protection with food security, energy transition and employment; and

strengthening enforcement and conditionality linked to social and human rights.

2.3. A call for an overarching EU strategy

In 2020-2026, the EU institutions repeatedly adopted positions on EU fisheries external action.

Both the EP and the Council support the development of a new EU strategy for fisheries

external action. Council conclusions have focused on operational and diplomatic coordination.

The EP tends to adopt a more normative and rights-based approach and calls for a

comprehensive strategy that aligns the environmental, social and economic pillars; enhances

the EU’s ocean diplomacy; and ensures that imports do not undercut EU sustainability

standards. The EP’s resolutions have collectively called for a coherent approach between

SFPAs, RFMOs and trade instruments, with stronger traceability and labour clauses. They also

call for enforcement and transparency; demand the explicit inclusion of small-scale fisheries

in external agreements; and call for binding sustainability and human rights clauses.

The ACs also call on the EU to reassert its leadership and strengthen the coherence of its

external action with a whole-of-the-EU external toolkit that aligns SFPAs, IUU dialogues,

trade, development assistance and science cooperation; ensures predictable funding in the next

Impact of the CFP Regulation on contributing to various elements of economic sustainability n = 362

Ensuring availability of food supplies at reasonable prices for consumers

Supplying aquatic food to processors and consumers with adequate level of information

8% 17% 47% 19% 8%

19% 18% 41% 8% 13%

Improving stability of the fishery and aquaculture market 13% 17% 42% 16% 10%

Ensuring fair competition conditions between fishery and aquaculture stakeholders in EU market

9% 16% 17% 43% 13%

0%

negative

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

very positive positive neutral very negative no opinion/no answer

69

MFF; synchronises internal and external measures (e.g. RFMO transposition, multiannual

plans for stocks shared with third countries and import market controls) to avoid unintended

competitive disadvantages for EU fleets; strengthens and connects institutions; and ensures

consistent enforcement at home and abroad to preserve the EU’s credibility.

2.4. Widely shared objectives

The responses to the call for evidence show that there is general agreement across stakeholder

categories on the need for a rules-based, science-driven external fisheries policy that

strengthens RFMOs; combats IUU through traceability and transparency; and upholds social

as well as environmental standards.

The ACs’ opinions reflect the strong consensus on environmental sustainability and combating

IUU fishing; show an increasing emphasis on global supply chains and the importance of a

level playing field; and demonstrate increasing attention to social standards. ACs have also

increasingly focused on climate-resilient fisheries policies; the transparency of fishing

agreements and joint ventures; integration with EU development and trade policy; and the

geopolitical dimension of fisheries. Despite the variations in emphasis due to the ACs’ varying

mandates, there is consensus across ACs and among all types of AC stakeholders that the EU

should pursue the following core objectives: sustainable exploitation and biodiversity

conservation; promoting a rules-based maritime order and strengthening global ocean

governance; combating IUU fishing; and ensuring a level playing field in global markets.

Regarding the EU institutions, both the EP and the Council have very similar views on

sustainability, governance and fair trade in fisheries. They particularly agree on the need to

make sustainability a core principle in external fisheries policy; emphasise the EU’s leadership

role in IOG (especially through strong engagement in RFMOs and multilateral processes);

ensure a level playing field in seafood trade by aligning import standards with EU sustainability

rules; prioritise the fight against IUU fishing; use SFPAs as key instruments; adapt external

relations to reflect the post-Brexit situation; and ensure consistency with broader EU strategies

and sectoral initiatives.

2.5. Nuances regarding the policy toolbox

When asked about the use of policy instruments to strengthen the three dimensions –

environment, economic and environmental – of sustainability and fisheries governance, fault

lines arise among stakeholders on how to operationalise these goals.

Overall (Figure 22), the NGOs pushed for faster precautionary action, mirror measures and full

transparency. EU industry prioritised the need for a workable level playing field, predictability

and avoiding over-transposition that could undermine EU fleets and supply. Public authorities

(only four responded) were broadly in agreement with these approaches but had different

priorities among themselves on: mirror measures and consistency between different EU tools;

scientific leadership and control credibility; equal partnership and inclusive decision-making

with third countries; promoting climate-integrated science in RFMOs; technology transfer; and

flexibility when the EU needs to take precautionary measures.

70

Legend: ✓ = strong support/emphasis △ = qualified/mixed position ✕ = oppose (not observed in this sample)

Figure 22 – Who said what in the call for evidence on the future EU strategy on fisheries external action

Focusing on the key objectives reveals nuances in positioning and policy tensions, both in the

call for evidence and in the analysis of ACs’ positions.

To foster environmental sustainability, re-anchoring external action in science and rules

while factoring geopolitics and food security is a broadly shared objective. There is wide

agreement on the need to defend the rules-based order (UNCLOS, PSMA and WTO) and apply

the IUU carding system consistently (without geopolitical bias). Many industry respondents

called for food security, strategic autonomy and a level playing field to be made explicit

principles of external action.

All camps also underscored the importance of science-based management as the non-

negotiable baseline internationally; the need to avoid politically driven decision-making; and a

growing emphasis on climate-ready approaches. Regional ACs placed a particular emphasis on

development and the systematic use of scientific advice. All ACs called on the EU to lead by

example in RFMOs. More specifically, the ACs recommended putting forward and supporting

measures on real-time monitoring of vessels, IUU listings and observer schemes;

institutionalising harvest strategies across RFMOs and shared stock arrangements; and

ensuring that TACs follow the best available science. Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 should

be activated as a backstop when repeated unilateral quotas threaten stocks.

There was also a general recognition that biodiversity protection and bycatch reduction must

improve. There were also general calls for the promotion of ecosystem-based fisheries

management that pays particular attention to non-target species, bycatch-mitigation through

selective gears, area-based tools and biodiversity-friendly practices that are consistent with the

targets of the CBD.

The call for evidence nevertheless revealed that the stakeholders had differing positions on

several topics. First, on speed of change and burden-sharing, NGOs and science actors pushed

for faster climate integration and a precautionary approach; the industry asked for predictable

transitions and resourcing. Second, NGOs emphasised the importance of deep-sea protection,

climate-ready management and BBNJ/RFMO consistency in implementing the BBNJ

agreement; industry argued for case-by-case, science-based approaches and cautioned against

measures that outpace science or create asymmetries between EU and non-EU operators. Third,

on the management of fish aggregating devices (FAD), NGOs called for stronger limits or bans

71

and stricter compliance in the Indian Ocean; tuna industry representatives pointed to observer

coverage, FAD control and certification, warning against blanket measures that undermine

supply. Fourth and finally, NGOs called for the scaling-up of electronic monitoring and fleet

observers to 100% in high-risk fleets and transhipments.

To foster social sustainability, there was general support for raising global social standards

in the competent international organisations by promoting the implementation of major

agreements (e.g. ILO Convention No 188 and the IMO Cape Town Agreement). There was

also a general call to operationalise the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation with sectoral guidance,

risk-based enforcement and support for partner countries and SMEs. However, views varied

on the question of where to embed requirements. Some industry respondents warned against

including social criteria into ATQs for fear of distortion/complexity. They instead preferred

horizontal instruments on due diligence and a ban on products made with forced labour. NGOs

called for binding social provisions in trade regimes and SFPAs, and for harmonised

enforcement. The LDAC also proposed explicitly prohibiting forced labour and child labour in

seafood import regimes and SFPAs, and promoting EU labour standards in non-EU fleets’

operations tied to EU markets.

Proposals on social responsibility focused mainly on SFPAs. Stakeholders called for the

promotion of inclusive governance (representation of small-scale fisheries, women’s

participation) and for social dialogue in negotiations and SFPA governance. They stressed the

need to ensure a fair distribution of benefits in partner countries; allow EU co-investment in

third-country ports that benefit local communities; and acknowledge the role of responsible

joint ventures where governance safeguards exist.

To foster economic sustainability and the competitiveness of the EU fleet, the stakeholders

were generally agreed on the need to safeguard the EU’s food security and strategic self-

sufficiency through stable access to external fishing grounds and resilient value chains.

Industry also called for streamlining and simplifying the administration of the external fleet

(licensing and renewals).

To secure predictable access to fishing grounds, different stakeholders emphasised different

instruments for different geographic areas. In the Northeast Atlantic, there was a strong call to

ensure that management plans are recognised in all areas and by all parties (EU-Norway-UK)

and to prioritise comprehensive allocation settlements where unilateral quotas risk

overshooting TACs. Many stakeholders and several ACs called for activating the measures set

out in Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 to deter non-cooperative behaviour. Regarding the ‘new

generation’ of SFPAs, there were many calls to retain SFPAs as transparent access frameworks;

to tighten conditionalities on good governance and human rights, social clauses and

transparency on sectoral support; to improve scientific baselines; to recognise the role of

SFPAs in food security; and to ensure equitable value-sharing with partner countries. Some

respondents recommended focusing SFPA sectoral support on science, monitoring and control

systems and value-chain upgrading.

Building resilience and food security was the other aspect most cited by the respondents in

connection with supporting economic sustainability. There were calls to cushion exogenous

shocks along the value chain, while keeping the internal market open to legally and sustainably

produced seafood. Some stakeholders called for targeted public support to mitigate energy/feed

spikes and accompany working capital investments. Other stakeholders referred to the EU’s

outermost regions and called for recognition of low-impact tuna fisheries and protection from

unfair competition from large third-country fleets operating nearby.

72

Trade and market instruments were widely called for to ensure both fair competition and

sustainability across global supply chains. There was a broad consensus on the need to use EU

market access to raise standards on traceability, labour rights, forced labour ban and PSMA

implementation. There were nevertheless some differences of views: industry urged the use of

market levers to deter unilateral overfishing; NGOs warned that trade tools should remain

coherent and non-discriminatory, focusing on verifiable risk and transparency; and importers

stressed the need for pragmatic, phased-in requirements and capacity-building to avoid supply

disruptions. There was general support for introducing sustainability conditions into ATQs, but

some specific measures were advanced by only a minority of stakeholders: conditioning ATQs

and trade preferences on compliance with RFMO rules and international labour standards; and

introducing ‘mirror measures’ in trade regimes (i.e. equivalence of environmental/social

requirements between imports and EU products; or requiring eco-labelling for imports).

There was consensus both on the need for enhanced and rigorous import controls to make the

EU import-gate watertight against IUU fishing and social abuses, and on the importance of

implementing CATCH full digitalisation by January 2026 to harmonise Member States’ risk-

based checks. More generally, electronic documentation within the EU market should ensure

the full traceability of products at all stages of the value chain and consumer information should

be strengthened (species/origin for processed products) to reduce fraud and reward sustainable

value chains.

To strengthen global fisheries governance, there was agreement on a set of principles:

(i) upholding a rules-based multilateral order (with a focus on UNCLOS, UNFSA, PSMA,

BBNJ agreement and the WTO Subsidies Agreement) and enhancing EU ocean diplomacy to

align fisheries, biodiversity and trade agendas; (ii) improving RFMO performance; (iii) the

importance of the BBNJ agreement and the EU’s role in its implementation (including within

RFMOs); and (iv) acknowledging regional pressures in the North-east Atlantic and the need

for stable arrangements and science-based governance.

Key recommendations generally called for consistency between EU internal standards and

external positions and strengthened EU coordination across policy areas. The LDAC stressed

the need for coordination with development, environment and trade policies, as well as

transparency requirements for fisheries agreements with third countries and joint ventures.

NGOs and the LDAC pointed to capacity-building in third countries to support a just transition

toward climate adaptation and the upgrading of fisheries control. There were also some

proposals for stakeholders to be included at all stages from design to decision

(e.g. institutionalising AC input to the EU-UK SCF and RFMO preparation phases; ensuring

the participation of small-scale fisheries, women and youth; and protecting observers’ safety

at sea).

In conclusion, there are four recurring policy tensions behind an overall strong consensus

on key objectives: (i) access vs sustainability: balancing fishing opportunities with

conservation objectives; (ii) EU standards vs global realities: ensuring high standards without

disadvantaging EU operators; (iii) trade openness vs regulation: balancing market access with

sustainability requirements; and (iv) short-term economics vs long-term resilience, particularly

in climate and stock management.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 SWD(2026) 750 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{COM(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 751 final} - {SWD(2026) 752 final} - {SWD(2026) 753 final}

1

Table of contents

1. Call for Evidence feedback ..................................................................................................... 2

Supply ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Tools ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Labour as a key tool .................................................................................................................... 6

2. Targeted consultations ............................................................................................................ 6

3. Feedback from the European Ocean Days .............................................................................. 7

4. Feedback from the Youth Policy Dialogue ‘Young Voices for the Ocean’ ........................... 8

5. Feedback from the European Maritime Day ........................................................................... 8

2

This staff working document (SWD) summarises the extensive consultations carried out in support

of the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture. It brings together the views of stakeholders from

across the fisheries and aquaculture value chain, as well as public authorities, academia, civil

society, youth representatives and the general public. The feedback shows that there is broad

convergence around the need to strengthen the sustainability, competitiveness and resilience of the

fisheries and aquaculture sectors through healthy aquatic ecosystems, viable business models,

innovation, skills, simplification, fair market conditions and a level playing field. It also underlines

the importance of supporting the energy transition, sustainable aquaculture growth, generational

renewal, effective maritime spatial planning and a stronger external dimension of fisheries policy.

At the same time, it should be ensured that fisheries and aquaculture continue to contribute to food

security, coastal communities and the sustainable blue economy.

Issues relating to the energy transition and the external dimension of fisheries policy were also

examined through targeted consultation processes. The results of these are presented in the

respective SWDs 1 accompanying the Communication on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and

aquaculture.

1. Call for Evidence feedback

The following summary of the public consultation on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

is structured around its three pillars, namely Supply, Demand and Tools.

In addition, the feedback is divided by stakeholder group, namely businesses and business

associations, academic/research institutions, public authorities, EU citizens, non-governmental

organisations and environmental organisations.

A total of 171 valid feedback submissions were received, primarily from respondents in Belgium

(18%), Spain (14%) and the Netherlands (11%). Closer examination of the stakeholder groups

reveals that non-governmental organisations contributed the most feedback (32%), followed by

business associations (16%), companies/businesses (12%) and other respondents (12%). Fewer,

yet significant contributions came from EU citizens (9%), academic and research institutions (8%),

public authorities (7%) and environmental organisations (2%).

Supply

Public authorities generally highlighted the need to modernise the EU’s ageing fishing fleet,

infrastructure and farming methods to achieve decarbonisation and safety improvements, while

avoiding capacity increases.

To reduce dependence on imports (despite aquatic food’s role in food security) and boost EU self-

sufficiency by 2040, public authorities asked for binding self-sufficiency targets and fair trade

1 SWD(2026)751, SWD(2026)752, SWD(2026)753.

3

rules. These should include stricter bans on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and

exploitative imports (through digital tracking and tighter import controls) to ensure fair

competition with non-EU countries. According to the authorities, governance reforms and trade

rules must reinforce all of the abovementioned goals. Additionally, small-scale fleets should be

prioritised, while the Vision 2040 should also focus on low-impact, high-value production and

non-fed aquaculture.

Some businesses and business associations called for promoting algae-based feed and innovative

feed that uses circular-economy ingredients to reduce environmental pressure. A recurring priority

is the need for robust EU-wide standards to ensure fair competition and prevent unfair imports.

They also emphasised the need to embed these standards in global trade agreements to create a

level playing field. Their contribution highlighted the unique challenges that small-scale fleets face,

particularly in theMediterranean. These challenges require tailored support and ecosystem-based

management to ensure the fisheries’ economic and environmental sustainability. Respondents

stressed that food sovereignty must be treated as a geopolitical priority. Digitalisation and fleet

modernisation – seen as critical enablers – improve traceability, fish health and disease prevention

through new technologies, while also boosting overall efficiency. Additionally, the energy

transition emerges as a key concern, with stakeholders calling for investment in low-carbon

propulsion and energy-efficient technologies to reduce fuel dependency and mitigate cost volatility.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stressed the importance of stricter animal welfare laws

for aquatic animals. They argued that all imports must meet the EU’s standards via trade and

market policies, and that unethical farming should be banned to prevent unfair competition.

To cut reliance on wild-caught fishmeal and oil, they stressed that the Vision 2040 should promote

sustainable, algae-based feed and low-trophic aquaculture (e.g. herbivores, bivalves), all while

banning octopus farming. However, opinions on insect meal as feed remain divergent. Some

NGOs called for reducing use of antibiotics by replacing them with vaccines.

NGOs support fleet decarbonisation and the phasing-out of fossil fuel subsidies, while prioritising

small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF) (e.g. via ring-fenced quotas and support for diversification).

In addition, they highlighted the need for energy transition and more support for outermost regions.

These stakeholders also called for an end to overfishing and for science-led quotas to rebuild fish

stocks.

EU citizens and other organisations called for low-intensity aquaculture, alternative feed (e.g.

insect proteins and algae) and a greater focus on low-trophic species. Some stressed the importance

of both modernised infrastructure and food sovereignty.

Research institutions highlighted the importance of linking the energy transition to low-impact

fishing to minimise seabed disturbance. They also mentioned the role of digitalisation and

modernisation in increasing safety, but also in improving innovative, low-impact aquaculture. On

this issue, they agreed with environmental organisations, which stated the importance of phasing

4

out high-trophic aquaculture. They prioritised plankton-based feed to reduce reliance on wild-

caught fish and supported biodiversity. These institutions also highlighted the importance of

diversification to increase resilience and stabilise the incomes of fishers. Other stakeholders agreed

on the need to prioritise food sovereignty and local production.

Demand

Public authorities recognised the need for a stronger regulatory framework to promote sustainable

aquatic food products. A key demand was to improve labelling showing the origin of products to

protect local producers and boost consumer trust.

NGOs askedfor labelling to be reformed and for full disclosure of feed sourcing, farming method

and origin/fishing location. They highlighted the need for market transparency and a focus on

consumer awareness to better support local consumption and in turn production. They prioritised

aquatic food as a core pillar of food security and sustainability, given its nutritional value,

environmental impact and economic importance to guarantee fair livelihoods.

Businesses and business associations agreed on the importance of improving labelling,

traceability and transparency. They ask for the measures under Vision 2040 to focus on boosting

local markets and demand for sustainable aquatic food.

Local action groups agreed that consumer awareness is critical and should be increased by means

of campaigns and clearer labelling. They ask for local sustainable production to be promoted under

Vision 2040 to boost food sovereignty.

Tools

Business associations and businesses thought it was very important for regulations to be

streamlined and administrative burden reduced under Vision 2040, while ensuring flexibility for

small-scale operators. Their requests include easing gear restrictions, boosting research and

development (R&D) funding (including for algae farming) and enforcing stricter quality controls

with tougher penalties for operators breaching the law.

Some businesses argued that a shift towards freshwater and inland aquaculture (e.g. trout farming)

would benefit ecosystems, while many stakeholders demanded expanded support for

modernisation and decarbonisation under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund

(EMFAF) and the programme of options specifically relating to remoteness and insularity (POSEI),

as well as digital tools, especially for SSCF and remote regions. They argued that science-based

co-management, tailored to regional needs (e.g. adaptations in the Mediterranean), would improve

sustainability.

There were several requests for innovation, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and

digital supply chains, as well as for simpler rules for DNA vaccines and parasite monitoring to

5

drive progress towards sustainability and efficiency. Some stakeholders stated that spatial planning

must protect fishing grounds from wind farms and marine protected areas (MPAs), prioritising

fishing and shellfish due to their ecological and economical roles.

Public authorities and other organisations agreed on the need to simplify the Common Fisheries

Policy (CFP) Regulation and other legislation to reduce administrative burden.

These stakeholders also asked for more support for outermost regions as well as for more

regionalised governance and tailored management (e.g. quotas, MPAs and spatial planning) to

empower regions and help SSCF. They highlighted the need to tackle conflicts with other maritime

sectors (e.g. MPAs, energy, shipping and tourism) and called for fair spatial planning. There were

demands for stable funding to strengthen and catalyse the energy transition, fleet renewal,

infrastructure, modernisation and innovation, as well as to increase flexibility and boost funding

for training. Additionally, they asked for stricter controls on IUU fishing to protect local fishers

and sustainable stocks.

Academic/research institutions pointed out that Vision 2040 needs to place greater emphasis on

innovation – such as cost-effective methods – and needs to leverage technology to achieve real-

time monitoring and support data-driven/science-based decisions. They agreed with other

stakeholders on the need to simplify and reform the CFP Regulation to reduce burden. Regarding

funding, research institutions urge Vision 2040 to focus on sustainability, including waste-to-

resource systems, as well as data collection, research workforce and ecosystem restoration. Some

highlighted the demand for cross-border coordination, ecosystem-based management and more

involvement of regional stakeholders. They proposed multi-use models to address the spatial

planning conflict of interest (e.g. energy, fisheries and MPAs). These institutions stressed the

importance of combating IUU fishing. EU citizens agreed with this point and highlighted the need

for key performance indicators (KPIs) for circular aquaculture and the importance of funding

innovation.

NGOs called on Vision 2040 to simplify legislation and improve consistency (e.g. with the Ocean

Pact and Nature Restoration Regulation). They thought that funding should promote science-based

and stakeholder-inclusive tools for climate-resilient management and innovation in

decarbonisation and fleet modernisation/renewal. A particular focus should be placed on circular

systems and habitat repair. These are all measures that are crucial to modernising the sector while

minimising ecological impact and ensuring long-term resilience. NGOs also asked for Vision 2040

to address the lack of binding provisions on aquatic animal welfare. Some stakeholders highlighted

the importance of greater support for SSCF and ecosystem restoration. In addition, some

stakeholders called for a ban on destructive gear or destructive fishing, particularly in MPAs, the

protection of which needs to be strengthened.

6

Labour as a key tool

Businesses and business associations stressed that industry faces pressing challenges, including

labour shortages and an ageing workforce. These are challenges that threaten jobs and traditional

practices. They therefore called for funding for training and generational renewal, which is

essential to sustain local communities. In addition, they raised the point that environmental

regulations must be carefully balanced to avoid undermining livelihoods or driving jobs to

countries with lower standards. They believe that workers affected by industry closures should

receive compensation, while improved pay and working conditions could help attract younger

workers and women. They call for stronger enforcement of EU labour laws to protect migrant

fishers.

These stakeholders stated that additional training in marketing, green technologies and selective

fishing gear would support modernisation, thereby making the industry more appealing to new

talent. They also claimed that reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and restrictive policies would

further encourage innovation and growth, ensuring the sector remains viable for future generations.

NGOs agreed that fair wages, safer jobs and youth recruitment are needed, and they are calling for

expanded participatory decision-making, especially for coastal communities. These communities,

they argue, need extra support, and a shift to a regenerative blue economy would be welcomed.

Public authorities also asked for integrating fishers’ knowledge into the design of management

approaches, for training to attract new talent and for support for coastal communities.

Other organisations and EU citizens wanted Vision 2040 to simplify rules, create incentives to

attract new talent and develop a regionally inclusive strategy to secure fisheries’ role in the blue

economy, as well as to diversify their income.

2. Targeted consultations

Targeted feedback through meetings and position papers was also received from regional

authorities, NGOs, advisory councils (ACs) and scientific bodies. This revealed strong

convergence on key priorities for the future of EU fisheries and aquaculture, with recurring

demands for sustainability, economic viability, social equity and improved governance.

Some ACs and regional authorities emphasised a central and recurring demand for the EU to

prioritise food sovereignty by reducing reliance on aquatic food imports. ACs strongly advised

strengthening domestic production through the expansion of sustainable aquaculture, and ensuring

a level playing field for imports, with strict alignment with EU sustainability standards. In addition,

they highlighted a need for consumer-focused measures, such as harmonised value added tax

(VAT) for sustainable aquatic food, clear labelling and promotion campaigns (e.g. ‘Buy European

Food’) to shift demand towards local, high-quality products.

Another significant aspect in these consultations was the environmental dimension of the sectors.

NGOs asked for fishing’s ecological footprint to be minimised through different measures, such

as banning or strictly regulating bottom trawling. They called for the promotion of low-impact,

7

selective gear and multi-year management plans based on science and fishers’ empirical

knowledge and for the expansion of MPAs with co-management by SSCF, reserving the first 12

nautical miles for SSCF. They also thought that sustainable practices should be rewarded (e.g.

quota bonuses under Article 17 for selective fishing).

Some regional authorities and ACs mentioned the importance of climate adaptation and

decarbonisation by modernising the fleet to improve energy efficiency, safety and crew conditions,

with public funding for alternative propulsion (batteries, hybrid systems). They think the rules

should distinguish between fishing capacity (effort) and non-fishing capacity (e.g. space for safety

equipment, decarbonisation tech) to avoid penalising sustainability upgrades. They stressed the

necessity for better spatial planning to protect fishing grounds from competing maritime uses.

Some ACs and regional authorities called for more stable, dedicated EMFAF funding to support

fleet renewal (the current rules are seen as too restrictive), innovation (AI, digitals tools, selective

gear) and energy transition and diversification (e.g. ecotourism, direct marketing, multi-species

fishing) to stabilise income.

Various ACs emphasised the need to create fair market conditions and reduce the administrative

burden. They also argued that traceability needs to be improved to combat unfair competition from

non-EU imports and that there is a need for higher prices for high-quality, sustainable seafood.

Some NGOs and ACs maintained that support for small-scale fishers should be prioritised, such

as in quota allocation, and called for more recognition of women’s roles and improved working

conditions. In addition, they asked for stronger regionalisation of fisheries management and for

regional knowledge to be integrated into co-management models alongside science. Furthermore,

they stressed the need for simplified regulations and reduced bureaucratic hurdles as well as long-

term, stable policies to attract young fishers.

Some ACs raised the importance of aquaculture for food security and asked for more streamlined

permits and access to space. Additionally, they highlighted a need for investment in R&D for

sustainable feed, digitalisation and net-zero technologies, as well as better traceability and high

standards to boost consumer trust.

Further feedback was provided by some ACs on social equity and labour conditions. They stressed

the need to increase the attractiveness of the sector, and the diversification of livelihoods.

3. Feedback from the European Ocean Days

The European Ocean Days, held in Brussels in March 2026, included a high-level panel and

dedicated discussions on the future of fisheries and aquaculture. Participants highlighted the need

to strengthen the sustainability, competitiveness and resilience of the sectors through support for

small-scale fisheries, diversification of activities and greater value creation along the value chain.

Particular emphasis was placed on the role of aquaculture for food security, sustainability and the

8

blue economy, alongside the need for a clearer policy framework, simplified administrative

procedures and improved access to space.

Discussions also underlined the importance of improving access to finance and supporting fleet

modernisation, innovation and the energy transition, while reducing barriers that limit investment

and the uptake of new technologies. The need for stronger support for R&D, sustainable fishing

practices and business diversification was also emphasised. Participants highlighted the

importance of skills development, training and digital literacy to attract new generations and

support the deployment of advanced technologies, including AI and digital tools.

Further priorities included more inclusive governance, a level playing field for EU operators,

stronger support for EU-produced aquatic food and sustainable value chains, and measures to

reduce dependence on imports. Effective maritime spatial planning and better management of

competing uses of marine and coastal space were also identified as essential to ensure the long-

term sustainability and resilience of fisheries and aquaculture.

4. Feedback from the Youth Policy Dialogue ‘Young Voices for the Ocean’

In March 2026, in Ayia Napa, Cyprus, 30 young representatives from 27 EU Member States took

part in a Youth Policy Dialogue with Commissioners Costas Kadis and Glenn Micallef on the

future of ocean policies and the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture. Discussions focused on

attracting young talent to the blue economy, highlighting the need for better working conditions,

job stability, skills development, opportunities for mobility and greater awareness of career paths.

Participants also called for expanded education and training opportunities, including

apprenticeships and cross-border exchanges.

Looking ahead, young people emphasised that environmental sustainability must underpin the

future of fisheries and aquaculture, ensuring healthy ecosystems, food security and resilience to

climate change. They also highlighted the importance of sustainable aquaculture growth,

simplification of administrative procedures and innovation, including low-impact technologies,

digital tools and sustainable feed solutions accessible to all operators, including small-scale

producers.

5. Feedback from the European Maritime Day

The European Maritime Day took place in Limassol, Cyprus, on 21-22 May 2026. It brought

together representatives from maritime sectors, public authorities, academia, civil society and

industry to discuss the future of the blue economy. Discussions highlighted the need to strengthen

9

the competitiveness, sustainability and resilience of fisheries and aquaculture through fleet

modernisation, innovation, skills development, generational renewal and the energy transition.

Participants also stressed the importance of healthy ecosystems as the foundation for sustainable

fisheries and aquaculture, alongside effective maritime spatial planning, support for small-scale

fisheries, sustainable aquaculture growth and a level playing field. The need for consistent

implementation of existing rules, stronger value chains and reduced dependence on imports were

also identified as essential for ensuring the long-term future of the sectors and their contribution

to food security and coastal communities.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 COM(2026) 701 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{SWD(2026) 750 final} - {SWD(2026) 751 final} - {SWD(2026) 752 final} - {SWD(2026) 753 final}

1

1. Why a Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

Fisheries and aquaculture are, together with their value chains, vital to the European Union and

have a key role to play in the transition towards a sustainable and competitive food system. They

can support jobs, provide high-quality food, and are an indispensable part of the EU’s cultural

heritage and the identity of its rural and coastal communities.

Improving the sustainability and competitiveness of these sectors requires a holistic strategy with

immediate, medium-term, and long-term measures. This approach should take into account the

circumstances in which these sectors operate and the challenges they face. This rationale underpins

the European Ocean Pact, within the framework of which the Vision 2040 for fisheries and

aquaculture (hereinafter ‘the Vision’) is being developed.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Regulation1 evaluation highlights2 the progress made in

reducing fishing pressure towards maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) although this has not

translated into consistent stock rebuilding. In addition, the socio-economic performance of the

sectors has not improved as expected. Profit margins in fisheries have not increased as anticipated

and returns on investment remain low, with aquaculture production stagnating. The sectors’ fleets

and workforce are ageing, and it is difficult to attract young people. Climate change, the energy

transition, increasing spatial competition and geopolitical developments reinforce the need for the

sectors to adapt and transform.

A healthy aquatic environment is crucial for the socio-economic performance of EU fisheries and

aquaculture, as there is no alternative to operating within environmental limits. This is a critical

prerequisite for viable business models that can provide stable incomes and food supply and

sustain livelihoods.

Alongside healthy fish stocks, there are other factors that play a critical role and can be influenced

by policy and business behaviour. A key determinant of profitability is how the economic value of

available fishing opportunities is distributed in relation to the fishing capacity. Profitability is also

affected by fossil fuels, a substantive component of the operational costs in the sector, and the

soaring volatility of oil prices puts the fleet’s competitiveness under pressure. Delivering the

energy transition is essential for the competitiveness of the sectors, to reduce their vulnerability to

fuel price shocks (exacerbated by the current geopolitical context, i.e. Russia’s war of aggression

against Ukraine and the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz) and to support their sustainability,

including through a shift towards sustainable fuels, electrification and other clean energy

alternatives, while also contributing to the EU’s objective of climate neutrality by 2050 in a just

manner.

1 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 2 SWD(2026)120.

2

Moreover, the triple planetary crisis – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution – is affecting

the distribution of fish stocks and reducing the economic base of some traditional fisheries while

creating opportunities around shifting stocks. Aquaculture’s sustainable growth and long-term

competitiveness depend on a mix of important factors, including enabling conditions such as a

predictable and effective framework for licensing and access to space, innovation, adaptation to

climate change, increasing resource efficiency and environmental performance, and fair

competition on a level playing field.

Growing reliance on global value chains and stocks under shared management requires the

promotion of sustainable fisheries globally, ensuring a level playing field safeguarding the EU’s

interests, and promoting international ocean governance, including with its presence globally via

its outermost regions and overseas countries and territories.

The Vision 2040 is structured around three interconnected dimensions – supply, demand and key

enablers – and sets out the path to competitive, resilient and sustainable sectors. It is based on

extensive consultation with stakeholders3 and embeds two key initiatives: the Energy Transition

Roadmap for fisheries and aquaculture and the EU strategy for fisheries external action. These

initiatives are set out in the annexes, and their analytical underpinning is detailed in the

accompanying staff working documents (SWD).

The Vision contributes to broader Commission priorities, as reflected in initiatives such as the

European Ocean Pact 4, the EU Industrial Maritime Strategy5, the EU strategy towards a climate

target for 20406, the Vision for Agriculture and Food7, the Bioeconomy Strategy8, the strategic

approach to research and innovation for competitive, resilient and sustainable agriculture, forestry,

rural areas and food systems9 , the Union of Skills10 , the Consumer Agenda 2030 11 and the

Competitiveness Compass12. Implementation of this Vision should promote equal opportunities,

in line with the Union of Equality13, ensuring that no one is left behind.

3 SWD(2026)751, SWD(2026)752, SWD(2026)753. 4 The European Ocean Pact – Oceans and fisheries – European Commission. 5 COM(2026) 111 final. 6 2040 climate target – Climate Action – European Commission. 7 Vision for Agriculture and Food – Agriculture and rural development. 8 Bioeconomy Strategy – Environment – European Commission. 9 The Commission launches a public survey for shaping Food 2040, the upcoming Food Systems Research and

Innovation agenda | EU Agri-food Platform. 10 Union of skills – European Commission. 11 2030 Consumer Agenda – European Commission. 12 Competitiveness compass – European Commission. 13 Building a union of equality - European Commission

3

2. Recognising the megatrends shaping fisheries and aquaculture

Climate change

Climate-driven ecosystem shifts will intensify by 2040, affecting stock productivity and

distribution (migration of species from traditional spawning grounds), as well as aquaculture

production conditions. Changes such as warming waters, with global sea surface temperatures

exceeding 21°C in both 2023 and 2024 for the first time on record14, and ocean acidification

decrease the availability of traditional species, favour alien invasive species, and require more

adaptive management approaches, especially in areas highly vulnerable to climate change, such as

islands and the outermost regions.

Climate change can also lead to significant losses for aquaculture producers due, inter alia, to the

increase of harmful algal blooms and jellyfish blooms and parasites.

The EU Blue Economy Report 2025 underlines measurable impacts tied to climate change,

noting that coastal damage from flooding could rise from EUR 1.2 billion annually today to

between EUR 137 billion and EUR 814 billion annually by 2100, depending on greenhouse gas

emission scenarios15. An EU study has found that climate change can delay the recovery of

commercially important stocks such as North Sea herring and cod, requiring more flexible and

adaptive fisheries management to maintain resilient fisheries16. These changes have implications

for the resilience of coastal communities, as set out in the Commission Communication on the EU

Strategy on resilient, prosperous and liveable coastal communities17.

Demographic and societal change

Demographic trends will also influence the future of fisheries and aquaculture18. Member States

are experiencing structural challenges relating to an ageing workforce and weak inflow of young

people.

Broader societal changes, including evolving expectations regarding working conditions (such

as fair pay, gender equality and work-life balance) and shifting employment preferences will

further affect the sectors’ attractiveness. The long-term attractiveness of the sectors will also

depend on ensuring equal opportunities and non-discrimination for all. This includes removing

barriers to career progression, while fostering inclusive and respectful workplaces.

14 SP - Global ocean change in the era of the triple planetary crisis 15 EU Blue Economy Report 2025 - EU Blue Economy Observatory 16  European Commission: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, Bastardie, F.,

Feary, D., Kell, L., Brunel, T. et al., Climate change and the common fisheries policy – Adaptation and building

resilience to the effects of climate change on fisheries and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from fishing –

Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2926/155626. See also

the SWD(2026)751. 17 COM(2026) 530 final. 18 The Foresight study on fishers of the futures provides a forward-looking analysis of how demographic trends may

shape the sector in the future.

4

Consumption patterns are evolving in response to increasing trade-offs between prices, health

considerations, convenience and sustainability. Demand for affordable, healthy and sustainable

aquatic food will be a significant factor for the future of the sectors. Globally, demographic growth

presupposes rising food demand, including for protein, which in turn risks increasing the pressure

on wild stocks.

Technological transformation and digitalisation

Technological progress is accelerating. Digital tools, artificial intelligence, remote sensing,

advanced monitoring and control, selective gears, clean propulsion systems, precision

feeding and new production systems can improve efficiency, competitiveness, traceability,

environmental performance and safety. This is broadening the range of functions that operators

can perform, including public-interest tasks (e.g. data collection and ocean observation for marine

stewardship). By 2040, skills development and adaptive governance will be essential to ensure that

innovation supports CFP objectives and remains accessible to all operators.

Geopolitical developments and globalised value chains19

Over 60% of the EU’s aquatic food consumption is imported 20 , Securing access to key

resources and maintaining open trade while strengthening sustainable EU production and fair

global competition will remain a central challenge until 2040.

Diversification of supply chains is becoming essential to make fisheries and aquaculture

more resilient. The sectors’ integration into global value chains improves cost-efficiency, access

to inputs and market reach. However, it also increases exposure to geopolitical uncertainty through

shifting power dynamics, trade relations and disruptions. This can increase price volatility and

dependencies, especially in remote regions.

3. The European Commission’s long-term vision for resilient, competitive and sustainable

EU fisheries and aquaculture

By 2040, the EU fisheries and aquaculture sectors thrive, and contribute to healthy stocks and

ecosystems providing the vital basis for their long-term competitiveness and resilience. EU

fisheries and aquaculture adapt better to the major changes shaping their future, including climate

change, demographic shifts, technological and geopolitical developments, increasing competition

for space and evolving consumer habits.

A strong environmental foundation, supported by robust scientific advice, effective control, a

culture of compliance and viable and competitive business models, together with innovation and

19  SWD(2026)751 20 Self-sufficiency rate based on European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA)

data for 2025 (EU Fish Market).

5

diversified income opportunities and maximised valorisation of aquatic resources, will encourage

investment, improve incomes and working conditions, and enable generational renewal.

Together, fisheries and aquaculture strengthen Europe’s food and nutritional security by

providing affordable, healthy and sustainable aquatic food – a unique source of protein and

essential micronutrients, while supporting a fair transition towards more low-impact, climate-

neutral activities through innovation, cleaner energy alternatives, efficiency and skills

development.

By 2040, the EU will also have a more efficient external fleet operating in line with the principles

of the CFP, as well as a sufficient supply of sustainably produced aquatic food achieved through

more sustainable management of global fisheries and aquaculture, effective international ocean

governance and partnerships, thereby ensuring a level playing field for the EU fisheries and

aquaculture sectors.

4. Aquatic food supply: creating the conditions for a strong business model

4.1 The EU fishing fleet by 2040

By 2040, the EU’s fleet will be operating in balance with the available fishing opportunities and

adapting to changing ecosystems, in full alignment with the objectives of the CFP. It will be made

up ofnewer, modern and energy-efficient vessels that have a lower environmental impact and

greenhouse gas emissions and are more profitable, thereby supporting attractive working

conditions.

Healthy fish stocks provide the foundation for socio-economically sustainable fisheries. Ensuring

sustainable management of fish stocks will remain an uncompromised policy objective achieved

through robust science, effective control and a strong compliance culture. Fleet capacity

management is a major pillar of a viable business model, which should be aligned with available

fishing opportunities. Together with other management approaches, like total allowable catches

(TAC) based systems, the overall system needs to account also for the increasing impacts of

climate change on species distribution and the role of other external factors impacting economic

and social performance.

Available fishing opportunities are not always fully used due to a combination of biological,

economic and operational constraints, including constraints in mixed fisheries.

The diversity of the EU’s fleet remains a strategic asset. Small-scale coastal fisheries can

contribute particularly to coastal communities’ livelihoods, often in locations with few other

economic opportunities, such as in the EU outermost regions, in Island Member States, and to

territorial cohesion through diversified activities and shorter value chains. Large-scale fleets,

including the EU external fleet, can contribute particularly to food supply, employment,

competitiveness and innovation through improved productivity, cleaner energy solutions and

6

technological development. The EU’s fleet operates in both internal and external waters. It

requires stable access to fishing grounds and a level playing field in terms of fisheries management

rules to remain sustainable and competitive.

funding and targeted support will facilitate the diversification and complementarity of activities

and income, investments in vessels, skills development and resilience (particularly for small-scale

fishers) and maximised valorisation of resources with a view to increasing value and profit bases;

To support this vision:

• the Commission and the Member States will continue to work for healthy fish stocks by

implementing the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and rebuilding

strategies and combatting illegal fishing practices;

• the Commission will continue work with the EU’s scientific community to strengthen long-

term sustainability and higher stability, via multiannual TAC, while a balanced approach

on the socioeconomic dimension will be promoted when setting fishing opportunities;

• the Commission and Member States will continue supporting the functioning and creation

of producer organisations (POs), particularly through promoting the integration of small-

scale fishers into new or existing POs. This can be achieved through continued financial

support and programming, continued awareness-raising at Member State level as well as

operational support;

• the Commission will support Member States in rolling out an incentive-based approach for

more selective fishing and in continuing to promote pilot projects on gear selectivity;

• the Commission will launch in 2027 the process for assessing the possibility to develop

complementary indicators and assess technological developments which could further

improve the assessment of vessels’ effective harvesting capacity, taking account of the

characteristics of different fisheries. This assessment will also consider safety, working

conditions and the energy transition, in complementarity to Member States’ efforts in fleet

capacity management;

• Commission and Member States, with the support from the Commission as appropriate,

should improve fleet-capacity management to create better conditions for profitability,

taking measures to use available fishing opportunities while also supporting adaptation to

new realities, linked to changing stock distributions;

• Member States are encouraged to allocate fishing opportunities fairly and

transparently with attention to access for small scale coastal fishers and young entrants in

line with Article 17 of the CFP Regulation and using the guidance in the Commission

Communication for enhanced transparency and good governance in the allocation of

7

fishing opportunities by Member States21. Member States are also invited to use methods

for allocating fishing opportunities that allow the reallocation of unused quotas;

• Member States and regional authorities are invited to translate Vision 2040 into local

realities and to develop fleet-tailored strategies for the transition in a bottom-up

approach, if appropriate, through national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs), for

example through community-led local development (CLLD); they are encouraged to

ensure appropriate funding for small-scale coastal fisheries;

• operators, especially the large-scale fleet, are encouraged to invest in technological

innovation and skills development to strengthen self-sustained profitability and resilience.

4.2 EU aquaculture by 2040

By 2040, EU aquaculture will be a strategic and fully integrated pillar of the EU’s sustainable

food system. It will play an increasing role in the supply of high-quality aquatic food by expanding

EU production capacity while ensuring lower environmental impact and reducing the EU’s trade

deficit in aquatic products.

The sustainable growth of EU aquaculture requires: (a) a simplified governance framework;

(b) synergies with other sectors, including the maritime sector (through Maritime Spatial Planning

(MSP), agriculture, bioeconomy (to valorise side streams and underexploited resources), and with

nature protection and restoration (to benefit from ecosystem services offered by nature-positive

aquaculture); (c) reduced dependency on fossil fuels and imported inputs; (d) high environmental

performance and animal welfare standards; (e) climate adaptation; (f) consumer trust;

(g) economic profitability and fair income; (h) a level playing field for EU aquaculture producers

and (i) innovation. The sector relies on diverse and complementary production models, with small-

scale aquaculture supporting coastal and rural development and larger enterprises driving

efficiency, innovation and production capacity. Through circular, nature-positive and restorative

approaches, it will contribute to the implementation of EU policies to protect and restore

ecosystems.

By 2040, sustainable aquaculture needs to be fully integrated into MSP, enabling its sustainable

growth and building synergies with other maritime economic activities, also looking at economies

of scale. Inland aquaculture should be supported through integrated spatial and water resource

planning. For freshwater and transitional waters, this should also be coherent with River Basin

Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive 22 and, where relevant, Flood Risk

Management Plans and Natura 2000 objectives. In this context, new multiuse and coexistence

models will be mainstreamed. One example is the combination of offshore renewable energy

21  C/2025/6227, Communication from the Commission for enhanced transparency and good governance in the

allocation of fishing opportunities by Member States: A vade mecum on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. 22 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/2026-05-10

8

installations with low-trophic aquaculture (e.g. molluscs and seaweed) to create synergies that can

also benefit small-scale fisheries.

To support this vision:

• the Commission will put forward a proposal by the end of 2027 with the view to

addressing obstacles to unlock the full potential of EU aquaculture and ensuring a clear,

simplified and coherent regulatory and administrative framework across the EU that

provides certainty for investment and new entrants. This should enable flexible and

adaptive licensing approaches 23 (such as phased development, adaptive capacity

adjustments, and simplified procedures for low-impact systems), without lowering

environmental standards;

• as envisaged in the European Ocean Pact, the Commission will set up in 2027 an EU

Initiative on Sustainable Aquaculture24, a platform that will bring together key actors to

enable coordination and exchanges as regards sustainable growth of EU aquaculture

production.

• the Commission will further develop the EU framework for the welfare of farmed

aquatic animals across all stages of production, building on existing good husbandry

practices, guidance and scientific knowledge.

• taking into consideration the outcome of the evaluation of the CFP Regulation and the

guidance provided under the Commission strategic guidelines on EU aquaculture25, the

Commission will work with and encourage Member States to work towards:

o promoting synergies between fisheries and aquaculture, thereby supporting

innovation, diversified income sources and greater value creation, particularly

through shared infrastructure, services, processing and markets;

o strengthening the synergies between aquaculture and agriculture and related

territorial development to support a more circular EU food system, promote

cross-sectoral diversification, and enhance the resilience of rural areas, islands and

outermost regions;

o integrating aquaculture-specific measures in national climate adaptation plans,

including include adaptive spatial planning and licensing, environmental

monitoring and the promotion of resilient and climate-adapted species and strains;

o enhancing environmental and climate performance, as well as resource

efficiency, including by nature-positive and restorative aquaculture practices

into their implementation of EU and national environmental and climate policies.

The Commission will publish a staff working document in 2027 on how to promote

ecosystem and climate services of nature-positive aquaculture, including marine

23 Regulatory and administrative framework for aquaculture | EU Aquaculture. 24 As per the European Ocean Pact – COM/2025/281 final. 25 Climate change adaptation | EU Aquaculture.

9

aquaculture. The Commission will continue exploring reward mechanisms such as

nature credit schemes;

o increasing the strategic autonomy and resilience of aquaculture by supporting

production of alternative feed ingredients as well as hatchery capacity;

o strengthening producer organisations and improving value chain integration,

particularly for small-scale aquaculture producers.

Member States and regional authorities are invited to translate this Vision into local realities and

to include strategies for the transition in a bottom-up approach, into their NRPPs and, when

relevant, through CLLD.

4.3 Energy transition of fisheries and aquaculture: realistic, affordable, and socially just

By 2040, the fisheries and aquaculture sectors will have made substantial progress on the energy

transition with the goal of strengthening their resilience, competitiveness, sustainability and

reducing their carbon footprint.

The energy transition is an integral part of the wider transition to resilient, competitive and modern

EU fisheries and aquaculture. As evident during the energy price shocks in 2022 and 2026,

substantial parts of the EU fishing fleet are highly vulnerable to fossil energy price increases, with

also parts of the aquaculture sector being impacted. By progressing on the energy transition, the

sectors can both strengthen their resilience and ensure their fair contribution to achieving the EU

climate target for 204026. The Vision is therefore accompanied by the Roadmap27 for the energy

transition in fisheries and aquaculture (see Annex 2 and accompanying staff working document),

developed in close collaboration with stakeholders, including under the Energy Transition

Partnership for fisheries and aquaculture28.

Adopting energy efficiency measures are amongst the most feasible solutions for reducing

operational costs, strengthening resilience and improving the sectors’ emission performance in the

short run. In parallel, stepping up investment in the development and testing of clean technologies

and fuels is needed to adopt energy-efficient and low-carbon solutions in newly built vessels and

through retrofits, where possible. The modernisation of fishing vessels should ensure the safety of

fishing crews and address the sector’s needs for the energy transition. Importantly, the energy

transition should proceed in tandem with progress in balancing fishing capacity with the available

fishing opportunities.

26 COM(2024) 63 final, Securing our future. Europe’s 2040 climate target and path to climate neutrality by 2050

building a sustainable, just and prosperous society. 27 The Roadmap is based on the consultation of a wide range of stakeholders under the Energy Transition Partnership

for EU fisheries and aquaculture, as well as on the progress made in the sector by Member States and research institutes.

The reasoning and evidence underpinning the Roadmap is set out in the accompanying SWD(2026)752 and

SWD(2026)753. 28 The Energy Transition Partnership for fisheries and aquaculture.

10

The energy transition will require enhanced investment capacity, underpinned by the development

of a stronger business model, capable of mobilising the substantial private capital necessary to

support fleet modernisation. Besides, the transition requires investment in fuelling infrastructure,

alternative fuels, modernising ports and industrial capacity, and strengthening workforce skills.

These conditions should be created in synergy with the EU’s decarbonisation initiatives for the

maritime sector (including for ports and maritime industry) and the development of affordable and

available clean energy and infrastructure29. In aquaculture, the transition will advance through

increased use of renewable energy, efficiency and lower-carbon feed, alongside increased

production of low-trophic species.

Interdependence with other policies and coordinated action across governance levels is needed to

effectively create the conditions for making the transition. Setting out strategic actions on funding,

regulation governance and innovation, the Roadmap therefore provides a common pathway for the

transition at EU level, following two phases: first, supporting the adoption of energy efficiency

measures and research and innovation, while preparing for the long-term transition of the sectors;

then scaling up the development and adoption of sustainable fuels and technologies, while

preparing for the long-term transition of the sectors.

5. Aquatic food consumption: diversification, added value and supporting informed choices

By 2040, aquatic food in the EU market will meet high sustainability and quality standards, thus

ensuring that a highly diverse and affordable aquatic food mix contributes to healthy diets.

In 2023, EU-produced fisheries and aquaculture products met 38% of EU consumption 30 .

Dependency concentrated on five species (tuna, salmon, cod, Alaska pollock and shrimp), which

accounted for 42% of EU consumption but in which the EU had only 12% self-sufficiency.

Diversifying consumption patterns strengthens resilience, reduces supply-chain dependencies

and creates opportunities for the EU industry while boosting local employment. By 2040, EU

fisheries and aquaculture need to provide a range of sustainably sourced products and help

diversify value chains.The EU’s market power provides important leverage for promoting higher

sustainability standards globally.

Achieving diversification and more sustainable imports will require responding to consumers’

demand for transparent information so that they can make informed choices. Communication

activities can raise awareness of the value of aquatic products on the EU market, making

sustainability an integral part of purchasing decisions.

29 These initiatives include the EU Port Strategy, the EU Maritime Industrial Strategy, Alternative Fuels Infrastructure

Regulation and the European Grids Package. 30 EUMOFA – EU fish market 2025.

11

The EU rules on traceability and labelling ensure that retailers and consumers are provided with

relevant product information to make informed choices. This also supports product

differentiation in the market, which can both provide incentives to reward more sustainable

options and maintain an offer of affordable options.

Creating added value around aquatic food products is key to developing more sustainable and

competitive fishing and aquaculture sectors, thus strengthening their economic performance. Fully

maximising the economic use of fishery and aquaculture resources is crucial in this regard.

A consistent approach that combines consumer information, trade policies and ocean

diplomacy, as well as promoting sustainable EU production will therefore be essential to align

consumption patterns with the EU’s long-term nutrition and food security objectives.

To support this vision:

• the Commission will ensure that, by applying digital traceability to all products along

the supply chain by 2029, including processed products, the same transparency standards

as well as a fuller set of information will apply to EU products and imports; • the Commission will consider extending mandatory consumer information, in particular as

regards prepared and preserved fishery and aquaculture products;

• the Commission will launch a campaign in 2027 on the benefits and value added of EU-

produced and sustainable aquatic food31;

• the Commission will promote the consumption of a wider range of species (including

underused stocks, invasive wild-caught species (where possible) and low-trophic and

native farmed species), particularly through communication campaigns and collaboration

with retailers.

6. Enabling Vision 2040

6.1 Workforce of the future

By 2040, a sufficient number of young professionals will be attracted to the fisheries, aquaculture

and processing sectors due to their increased profitability and better working conditions.

As highlighted in the ‘Fishers of the Future’ study and the Youth Policy Dialogue32, the future

generation of fishers will combine traditional knowledge with digital skills, innovation and marine

stewardship (collecting data, observation, etc.). Young people will be attracted to meaningful

careers within quality job frameworks, while expecting safe and attractive working conditions, a

stable income, and suitable development opportunities. The sectors should be accessible and

31 As per the European Ocean Pact – COM/2025/281 final. 32 Feedback on youth perspectives on the future of fisheries and aquaculture was collected by the Youth Policy

Dialogue that took place in Cyprus on 18-20 March 2026.

12

attractive to people of all ages and backgrounds, promoting equal opportunities in education,

training, recruitment and career development. The sectors need to offer attractive career prospects,

provide opportunities for diversification and adaptation, and be based on profitable business

models that guarantee a decent livelihood while also contributing to sustainable practices. Modern,

connected and ‘smart’ vessels and aquaculture farms will make these professions more appealing

for new operators. Traditional and artisanal fishing vessels remain an important part of active

fishing activities and Europe’s maritime heritage.

Continuous improvement of working conditions throughout the value chain isessential to

ensure that labour is valued and protected. The EU and its Member States must lead by example

in improving working conditions. Directive 2017/15933 incorporates major parts of International

Labour Organisation (ILO) C188 into EU law, but the latter has not been ratified by all Member

States. There are no harmonised standards on training and certification of fishers in the context of

the 1995 IMO Convention on Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel

Personnel (STCW-F).

Equal opportunities for all, including gender equality, needs to be reinforced, with particular

attention being paid to strengthening women’s entrepreneurship and improving working

conditions and training. Women’s access to management positions also needs to be encouraged.

Women’s work, including in family businesses, should be recognised and formalised, with access

to social protection and finance.

Third-country nationals working on EU vessels are becoming an increasingly important part of the

workforce. Ensuring that they have decent working conditions that are on a par with those of EU

nationals needs to become standard practice.

Skills development is a key transition-enabler. The sectors need to benefit from strengthened

education and training that combine traditional knowledge with new skills34, building links with

maritime and connected sectors, including major delivery systems, such as water and energy

security. The Commission will continue to support investments in vessels to improve the safety

and working conditions on board. In fisheries, this includes safety training in line with

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) practices, marine knowledge, business skills and digital

literacy. In aquaculture, more specialised and continuous training will be needed, covering areas

such as aquatic biology, aquatic animal health and welfare, and innovative farming practices.

33 Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 of 19 December 2016 implementing the Agreement concerning the

implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation, concluded on 21

May 2012 between the General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union (Cogeca), the

European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing

Enterprises in the European Union (Europêche). ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/159/oj 34 Study to Support and Design Skills Development in the Blue Economy – European Commission.

13

Diversification and complementarity of activities is a key pathway for continuous adaptation

to structural changes affecting the sectors and for their resilience 35 creating new and

complementary sources of income, new products and innovative uses of aquatic resources and

strengthening overall resilience.

To support this vision:

• the Commission will promote the development of harmonised training and certification

standards for fisheries by tabling a proposal to integrate STCW-F36 into EU law by spring

2028;

• the Commission will in 2027 launch the Blue Generational Renewal Strategy 37 ,

supporting reskilling and upskilling across the broader blue economy and promoting

education, ocean literacy, and intergenerational knowledge transfer; it will consider paid

apprenticeships, mentoring, recognised qualifications and possible forms of support for

access to a first vessel or aquaculture business; • through the Blue Bioeconomy Innovation Initiative 38 to be launched in 2027 the

Commission will support the valorisation of side streams from fisheries, aquaculture and

processing,

• the Commission calls on the Member States to implement and enforce Directive 2017/159

as well as applicable Union legislation around health and safety at work;

• the Commission will encourage Member States and stakeholders to address barriers to

participation, combat discrimination and improve the accessibility of workplaces, training

and career development for all;

• stakeholders are invited to consider income diversification and complementarity,

including through aquaculture; innovative business models such as pescatourism39 ; and

local value chains, processing cooperatives, territorial branding and contributing to data

collection initiatives such as OceanEye40;

• stakeholders are invited to join existing up and reskilling actions in place under the Union

of Skills, in particular the EU Pact for Skills41;

• fisheries local action groups (FLAGs) are invited to support locally tailored projects and

the development of blue skills, thus promoting diversification and complementarity.

6.2 Access to finance

By 2040, fisheries and aquaculture will thrive on viable and resilient business models. Profitability

and sustainability will be the foundation for attracting investment in the sector accelerating the

35 Vertical diversification occurs within the same value chain. Horizontal diversification occurs between different

value chains. 36 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel. 37 As per the European Ocean Pact – COM/2025/281 final. 38 As per the European Ocean Pact – COM/2025/281 final. 39 Pescatourism: non-commercial fishing activities that use marine aquatic resources for recreation, tourism or sport. 40 OceanEye: An EU ocean observation initiative – COM(2026) 268 final. 41 Homepage of Pact for skills.

14

energy transition, driving innovation and modernisation and supporting both fleet and

generational renewal.

Meeting the investment needs of fisheries and aquaculture requires a combination of private capital,

national budgets and EU funding. At present, private investment remains constrained in parts

of the sectors due to limited profitability, relatively low return on investment42 and lack of

predictability. As the sectors become more economically viable, private financing will play a

growing role in supporting their transition. Unlocking the sectors’ full potential requires a

stable and predictable regulatory framework and stronger cooperation between different actors

from both the public and the private domain.

Public funding remains an important component of the financial framework. Given its scarcity, it

will need to increasingly focus on addressing market failures and investment gaps, derisking

and catalysing investment that would not otherwise take place, including investments in vessels

modernisation and high-end innovation. A more strategic use of public resources, combined with

wider use of financial instruments and accompanying technical assistance, can help mobilise

private investment and support further public-private partnerships. This could be particularly

relevant for outermost regions, where limited access to private finance makes public support

essential to unlocking capital. Accessible grants and technical assistance remain necessary for

safety, skills and a fair transition, particularly for small-scale operators, young entrants and SMEs.

Without prejudice to the outcome of the MFF negotiations, the Commission has proposed a

minimum reserved allocation of EUR 2 billion under the NRPPs for core CFP functions, which

Member States may complement in line with their priorities, including the indispensable need for

financing of fisheries control and data collection. The purpose of the proposed approach is to allow

Member States to build more integrated responses and stronger synergies across policy areas,

notably in the areas of CLLD, generational renewal and aquaculture. Moreover, the proposal

provides funding possibilities through the European Competitiveness Fund.

To support this transition:

• the Commission and Member States will need to prioritise public funding to support investments

that would not otherwise take place, including investments in vessels modernisation and high-end

innovation. In doing so, the use of de-risking mechanisms and innovative financial

instruments, particularly for pilot initiatives and for innovative or higher risk projects, can

help optimise the use of public money;

• the Commission will encourage collaboration between Member States, and financial

institutions, including the European Investment Bank and national promotional banks, to

42 Return on Investment (ROI) for the EU aquaculture sector as a whole was 5.1% in 2022 (latest data available) and

ROI for the EU fisheries sector as a whole was 4.6% in 2023 (latest data available). ROI can vary significantly by

unit of analysis (e.g. enterprise, vessel, fleet segment etc.). Source: own elaboration based on data retrieved from

STECF 24-14 and STECF 25-07.

15

mobilise tailored financing solutions, which could include venture capital, equity and

guarantee instruments;

• the Commission will strengthen technical assistance under the NRPPs to Member States

and operators to support the broader uptake of financial instruments;

• the Commission will undertake a study by the end of 2027 to analyse how fishing rights

can be leveraged to improve access to finance (for example, through their use as

collateral or financial guarantees or through the creation of a secondary market across the

EU), while respecting Member States’ competence for the design and implementation of

fishing rights schemes.

6.3 Smart and simple rules for competitive, resilient and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture

By 2040, the EU has a system of fully documented fisheries and aquaculture activities, and rules

that are effectively enforced. These will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the resources.

Fishers and aquaculture producers will have a strengthened environmental stewardship role.

The fleet’s monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems and their proper

implementation are the backbone of sustainable fisheries management. The revised Control

Regulation 43 will deliver tangible improvements in this direction and in the traceability of

fisheries and aquaculture products with digital and automated reporting tools that enable more

efficient compliance and reduce administrative burden.

Advanced tools can enhance data processing and risk-based control. Emerging technologies

(e.g. environmental DNA analysis) offer new opportunities for monitoring ecosystems and support

more informed management decisions. Increased use of technologies makes management

measures more effective by enabling cost-efficient monitoring of fishing and aquaculture

activities, including through electronic monitoring, space observation and data analytics. They can

support efforts to reduce unwanted catches, prevent by-catch of protected species and to detect

illegal fishing. In aquaculture, they can enhance real-time oversight of production, animal health

and welfare, and environmental performance

Trust in and ownership of the rules remain essential for their implementation. Communication,

participatory decision-making and strengthening analytical capacities will be key to ensuring

effective implementation and broad acceptance.

To support this vision and drawing from the CFP evaluation:

The Commission will on the one hand improve implementation of the existing legal framework,

and at the same time put forward targeted initiatives to address priority challenges, while ensuring

43 Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 amending Council

Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006 and (EC) No 1005/2008 and

Regulations (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2017/2403 and (EU) 2019/473 of the European Parliament and of the Council as

regards fisheries control. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj

16

sustainability, stability and predictability for fishers and the wider fisheries sector. In particular,

the Commission will take steps to address:

o the challenge of unwanted catches, including the by-catch of protected species,

taking into consideration that the landing obligation has not delivered the expected

results, notably in its practical application. In that respect, the potential of

technological developments and fully documented fisheries as well as

improvements on selectivity, will be taken into account, following a dedicated

stakeholder dialogue later this year.

o the need for fleet investments, in order to take into account the needs for fleet

modernisation, energy transition and improving working conditions on board,

including through better defining effective harvesting capacity next to capacity for

social or environmental purposes, as well as through updating the 2014 Guidelines

for assessing the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities

o the need to support small scale fishers, including through the future Ocean Act;

o upholding a level playing field and protecting the European fisheries chain from

unfair global competition, notably on seafood products. This could include

extending mandatory consumer information, in particular to prepared and

preserved fishery and aquaculture products;

o developing a legislative instrument for aquaculture as referred to in Section 4.2.

• the Commission will consider simplification actions, notably with regard to the EMFAF

Regulation and the four EU multiannual plans (MAPs). The recently proposed EMFAF

amendment, in particular, will provide more flexibility to Member States to implement

their national programmes for the remainder of the programming period;

• the Commission will, encourage Member States to use EU funding to strengthen

investments in advanced tools and technologies that enhance data-processing, fleet and

ecosystem monitoring and risk-based controls;

• the Commission and Member States will promote predictable and regular exchanges with

stakeholders (particularly advisory councils) and social partners. Implementation

dialogues held twice a year will foster a shared understanding of practical challenges and

will inform simplification initiatives;

• Member States are called to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of the

applicable rules and to fight against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The

Commission will continue to ensure compliance with the EU acquis through audits and

verification and, where necessary, enforcement measures;

• within multilateral agreements / regional fisheries management organisations

(RFMOs), the EU will promote simplification of reporting and notifications through

digitalisation as well as consistency of MCS across the different forums.

17

6.4 Access to space

By 2040, the use of maritime space will be guided by multiuse by design and synergetic approaches,

fairness, transparency, predictability and an ecosystem-based approach. Food production is one

of the strategic priority uses, contributing to the EU’s food security – particularly as land-based

food production faces increasing constraints.

Maritime space is becoming increasingly crowded, with growing needs for conservation, food,

energy, transport and other uses. MSP is essential to strategically develop sustainable fisheries

and aquaculture, avoid or manage potential conflicts and operationalise the ecosystem-based

approach, through stakeholder engagement, co-design and co-management, and via transparent

processes. MSP promotes coexistence and, where appropriate, multiuse of maritime space,

supported by appropriate safeguards and balanced interactions between sectors. Local action

groups are encouraged to contribute to co-design processes that translate EU objectives into

concrete local realities.

An ecosystem-based approach to MSP should ensure that space allocation decisions are

supported by robust environmental assessments, considering the suitability of specific areas for

each activity, cumulative impacts and climate adaptation. In this context, the Ocean Eye, the

European Ocean Observation initiative, and the marine knowledge services in particular,

Copernicus, through the Copernicus Marine Service (CMEMS), the European Marine Observation

and Data network (EMODnet) and the European Digital Twin Ocean (EDITO) can support the

identification of optimal sites for offshore or coastal aquaculture by providing operational marine

data relevant to water quality, temperature, water circulation and more, thereby helping operational

planning, risk reduction and resilience, including through tools that support the monitoring and

forecasting of ecological and climate hazards.

The expansion and effective management of marine protected areas (MPAs) and restoration

areas should be fully embedded in MSP processes. In addition, a source-to-sea approach

should be adopted to take into account interactions with land-based activities.

Low-impact and nature-positive aquaculture may be integrated with MPAs, where appropriate,

if compatible with the conservation objectives of the sites. In particular, careful planning, and

sustainable farming of bivalve molluscs and algae in those areas may enhance the protection of

marine ecosystems.

The Commission will, as already announced in the European Ocean Pact, support this transition

by proposing an Ocean Act in early 2027 building on the revision of the Maritime Spatial Planning

Directive. It will align with the parallel revision of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to

create a cohesive legal framework for sustainable ocean management, avoiding duplication and

maximising coherence.

18

6.5 Research and innovation (R&I)

By 2040, innovation will be a central priority. The gap between R&I and market uptake will have

been overcome. Sustainable solutions developed through research will be affordable and aligned

with the needs of operators, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

Science is essential for evidence-based decisions in fisheries management. It is a key factor in the

transition, helping the sectors understand the ecosystems on which they depend adapt to climate

change and improve knowledge of their economic base. In fisheries, improved gear selectivity and

real-time monitoring reduce bycatch, while AI may enable more targeted fishing, reducing the

need for corrective measures, provided that it pursues sustainability objectives. In aquaculture,

innovation strengthens environmental performance, competitiveness and resilience. Looking

ahead, stronger coordination of fisheries science at EU level could contribute to a more efficient

use of resources and greater synergies across scientific activities. This could include exploring

whether existing EU bodies, such as the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), could play

an enhanced role, where appropriate and within their respective mandates.

Data and knowledge are essential for understanding the ocean and for the development of ocean

science and innovation. Progress towards the ‘collect once, use many times’ principle and the

generation of recommendations should accelerate, ensuring efficiency, reducing burdens and

maximising its value for control, science and management.

Making full use of scientific data and products from these services, including space-based

observations, is essential to strengthen ocean monitoring, support ecosystem-based fisheries

management, improve climate adaptation, and underpin effective policy implementation.

Recreational fisheries are becoming increasingly important in some sea basins, yet information on

their scale, catches and impacts remains incomplete, creating challenges for effective fisheries

management.

The EU not only funds research and innovation under Horizon Europe, a framework programme

open to (almost) all operators, but it also promotes data collection, scientific cooperation and

knowledge-sharing as the basis for decision-making at international level. However, growing

demand for scientific advice means that the EU must adapt its institutional framework to match its

international ambitions. Strengthening the science-policy interface will support sustainable

management, improve future stock assessment, support ecosystem-based decision-making and

underpin adaptation to climate change.

19

To support this vision:

• the Commission will work with Member States to reinforce the EU fisheries scientific

community and specifically explore options for a more effective participation of EU

scientists in international fisheries management;

• the OceanEye will provide informationon the state of aquatic environments, supporting

early detection of changes and more informed decision-making, including at the

international level by promoting a strengthened UNESCO Global Ocean Observation

System (GOOS) through an International Alliance for global ocean observation. The EU

will also work on improving science-policy interface on ocean issues through the

International Platform for Ocean Sustainability (IPOS);

• the forthcoming EU Ocean and Water Research and Innovation Strategy, to be adopted

early 2027, will provide strategic guidance on key R&I priorities to support the objectives

of the Ocean Pact, based on a source-to-sea approach; • through initiatives such as the Energy Transition Partnership, the EU Sustainable

Aquaculture initiative or the Blue Bioeconomy Innovation initiative, the Commission will

facilitate cooperation between researchers, industry and public authorities, also

providing a forum to identify research priorities; • the Commission will accelerate RDI uptake through speeding up the practical application

of research results and innovations by facilitating experimentation, the adoption of new

solutions and their scaling up;

• the Commission and Member States will continue to develop RecFishing as a common

digital framework for recreational fisheries reporting, improving the availability, quality

and comparability of data on recreational catches;

• the Commission and Member States, building on the recently published Annual Social

Report 44,will work on enhancing the socio-economic angle of the scientific advice used

for policymaking.

7. Acting beyond our borders: an EU strategy for fisheries external action45

By 2040, the EU will be further engaged in pursuing the full implementation of fisheries

multilateral agreements and will continue the efforts against IUU fishing, including through

constructive dialogue and through implementing available tools. It will be a key driving force in

making RFMOs increasingly effective and efficient and in achieving the ratification and

enforcement of all fisheries-relevant ILO conventions on safety at sea and decent working

conditions. The EU has a diversified external supply of aquatic food and strong sustainability

requirements for EU imports. The EU’s ocean diplomacy is committed to enhancing sustainable

44 Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Social Data in EU Fisheries: methodology,

dissemination, analysis and evaluation (STECF 25-02 & 25-13), Publications Office of the European Union,

Luxembourg, 2026, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6411168, JRC145884. 45 The evidence underpinning the Strategy is set out in the accompanying staff working document SWD(2026)751.

20

fisheries management worldwide, as well as governance systems and capacities in partner

countries.

A stronger and more coherent external action is an integral part of the Vision for 2040. It aims to

foster sustainable fisheries and ocean governance at the international level in the context of

an evolving architecture of international agreements. It also aims to contribute to the EU’s

aquatic food supply by strengthening multilateral, regional and bilateral frameworks through

effective and fair fisheries management rules for all fleets and countries, thereby ensuring a level-

playing field.

Given the size of its market, the EU has the leverage to require a high environmental and social

sustainability of its supply chain for aquatic food and globally, and should make full use of this

leverage, thereby also fostering a level playing field for EU operators. It will continue efforts to

build up the resilience of the EU market by diversifying our sustainable supply of aquatic food, in

terms of both species and origin.

The EU will work towards the introduction of sustainability requirements in the Autonomous

Tariff Quota (ATQ) regime for fisheries products, building on the ongoing back-to-back evaluation

and impact assessment.

The EU strategy for fisheries external action will be guided by the following goals:

• strengthening multilateral cooperation, grounded in science, rules-based order and

partnerships;

• achieving strong monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) at international level as a

prerequisite for effective management, maintaining healthy fish stocks and safeguarding

the competitiveness of the EU’s external fleet;

• enhancing the transparency of vessels and ownership for all countries and fleets,

across multilateral, regional and bilateral forums;

• fostering the implementation of core labour rights by engaging within the ILO and in

fisheries management frameworks.

The EU’s approach will vary between marine regions, as well as according to the issues at stake

and its broader relations. This requires tailored approaches for the EU’s neighbourhood and the

parts of the ocean where EU fleets are most present.

In times of challenges to rules-based international relations, ocean diplomacy is vital to advance

the EU’s policy goals. Ensuring the sustainable management of fisheries resources to achieve the

Sustainable Development Goals (particularly SDG 14 on life below water) requires strengthened

international cooperation and the effective implementation of the legal framework

established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and related

agreements. Ocean diplomacy for sustainable fisheries will support science-based decision-

making and the precautionary approach. It will also support cooperation both within regional and

21

multilateral frameworks and with developing countries to strengthen their capacity to implement

international frameworks.

To achieve these goals, the Vision is accompanied by the EU strategy for fisheries external action

(see Annex 1 and accompanying staff working document). Its priorities will be to:

• promote the sustainable management of global fisheries and uphold the rules-based

multilateral maritime order;

• tackle global overcapacity and unfair competition;

• strengthen social responsibility in fisheries management frameworks,including labour

provisions and their monitoring and enforcement;

• engage at the regional level to ensure stable access to fishing grounds for the EU fleet in

international waters, in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, as

well as in West Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific regions through a new generation

of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs);

• build more sustainable supply chains through effective trade rules;

• use ocean diplomacy for sustainable fisheries worldwide;

• strengthening the cost-efficiency, transparency and sustainability of rules applying to the

EU fleet operating in non-EU waters.

8. Conclusion

The Vision 2040 sets a clear direction for a coordinated transition that is built on viable business

models and on investments in vessels and aquaculture farms. This transition promotes full and

innovative uses of sustainably exploited marine resources; a skilled workforce; support for low-

impact small-scale fishers and aquaculture producers in particular; diversificationand

complementarity; smart and simple rules; the fight against IUU fishing; and a level playing field

and fairmarket conditions. It will ensure that environmental sustainability underpins the sectors’

social and economic long-term prosperity. This approach will make the fisheries and aquaculture

sectors more attractive and enable generational renewal and inter-generational fairness for a viable

and resilient future.

Delivering on this vision in a 2040 perspective will require collective action by the EU, Member

States and stakeholders, supported by coherent and effective policies, governance and strategic

investment. These efforts will together enable a step-change in the sectors’ contribution to food

security, climate neutrality and a thriving blue economy in the EU.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 SWD(2026) 753 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roadmap for the energy transition in EU aquaculture

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{COM(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 750 final} - {SWD(2026) 751 final} - {SWD(2026) 752 final}

1

Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2

2. THE STATE OF PLAY IN EU AQUACULTURE ............................................................. 4

2.1. Sources of greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................ 4

2.1.1. Overall trends ...................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Emissions by production system .............................................................. 6

2.1.3. Emissions by farming stage .................................................................... 7

2.2. Structural challenges and enabling conditions for the energy transition ......... 8

2.3. Progress made on the energy transition ........................................................ 9

2.3.1. Progress through the Energy Transition Partnership .................................. 9

2.3.2. Initiatives on the energy transition ......................................................... 10

3. KEY AREAS FOR ACTION TOWARDS THE ENERGY TRANSITION OF THE EU

AQUACULTURE SECTOR ........................................................................................... 11

3.1. Strengthen energy and resource efficiency.................................................. 11

3.2. Optimise feed systems ............................................................................... 12

3.3. Transition to renewable energy and enabling infrastructure ........................ 12

3.3.1. Facilitate the deployment of on-site renewable energy .............................. 12

3.3.2. Accelerate the uptake of low-carbon propulsion systems for support vessels 13

3.3.3. Strengthen energy infrastructure systems ................................................ 14

3.4. Promote low-trophic low-carbon aquaculture ............................................. 14

3.5. Promote the standardisation of greenhouse gas emission monitoring ............ 15

3.6. Financial solutions for the energy transition ............................................... 15

3.7. Energy transition skills and knowledge ...................................................... 15

4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 16

Annex 1: Progress through the Energy Transition Partnership .................................. 17

Annex 2: Joint Considerations - EU Energy Transition Partnership for Fisheries and

Aquaculture ........................................................................................................... 19

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The European Commission Communication on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

sets out a future for sustainable, resilient and competitive fisheries and aquaculture sectors by

2040. As part of that ambition, it highlights the importance of reducing these sectors’

dependence on fossil fuels through the energy transition. To support progress on this objective,

the Vision 2040 includes a dedicated roadmap for the energy transition of fisheries and

aquaculture. This roadmap aims to provide additional guidance to the European Union (EU),

its Member States and stakeholders on how to advance this transition in a coordinated and

realistic way.

This staff working document (SWD) accompanies the Communication on the Vision 2040 for

fisheries and aquaculture. It provides the underlying analysis for the roadmap on the energy

transition of EU aquaculture, which forms an integral part of the Vision 2040. It also takes stock

of the work carried out with stakeholders in preparing the roadmap, in particular through the

Energy Transition Partnership for EU fisheries and aquaculture and brings together data on the

aquaculture dimension of the transition.

Data presented in this SWD shows that the energy transition in EU aquaculture is both an

environmental and an economic challenge. While the sector’s direct emissions remain limited

in the wider EU context, aquaculture is exposed to rising and volatile energy and input costs,

and its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are strongly influenced by feed use, electricity demand

and the energy intensity of certain production systems. Advancing the energy transition is

therefore important not only for reducing emissions, but also for improving the sector’s

resilience, competitiveness and long-term viability, particularly in the face of competition from

non-EU aquatic food producers.

The analysis set out in this SWD points to a number of priority action areas to advance the

energy transition in EU aquaculture:

• boosting energy and resource efficiency across production systems;

• optimising feed use;

• promoting the deployment of renewable energy solutions and the necessary enabling

infrastructure;

• supporting the development of low-trophic and lower-carbon forms of aquaculture;

• improving the monitoring and transparency of greenhouse gas emissions;

• facilitating access to appropriate financing instruments;

• strengthening skills and knowledge throughout the value chain.

•

Together, these elements underline the need for a gradual, economically viable and socially fair

transition, tailored to the diversity of aquaculture production models and regional circumstances

in the Union.

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2021, the Commission strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU

aquaculture (the ‘strategic guidelines’)1 set the objective of minimising ‘any potential negative

contribution made by aquaculture to climate change’. To achieve this, the guidelines state that

(1) SWD(2021) 102 final. These guidelines are now accompanied by a mid-term assessment of the

implementation of the Strategic Guidelines for EU aquaculture and the multiannual national strategic plans published in 2026.

3

‘energy consumption and carbon emissions from production, transport and processing must be

reduced as much as possible’.

In February 2023, the Commission adopted a Communication on the energy transition in EU

fisheries and aquaculture2 as part of the fisheries and oceans package3. The Communication set

the ambition for both sectors to become more resilient and carbon-neutral by 2050. This

initiative responds to a combination of pressures, including energy security concerns, rising

energy and operating costs, and the need to meet environmental targets, all affecting the sector’s

long-term sustainability and competitiveness.

In this sense, the Vision 2040 positions EU aquaculture as a strategic sector within the EU food

system, with a growing role in supplying aquatic food to EU consumers through sustainable

production expansion and complementing fisheries. For the roadmap, this implies that emission

reductions must be achieved in parallel with sectoral growth, so that higher output does not lead

to higher overall emissions. Environmental sustainability underpins long-term economic and

social performance, requiring attention not only on the carbon footprint but also on freshwater

and land use, dependence on marine resources, and biodiversity conservation. Nature-positive

and restorative forms of aquaculture, such as low-trophic and non-fed systems, can play an

important role by combining low emission intensities with wider ecosystem services.

Diversification of farmed species and production models can reduce input needs and improve

resilience to disease and environmental stress.

The Vision 2040 also points to increased demand for space at sea and in coastal areas, including

for conservation, protection and restoration of the marine environment, for transport, offshore

renewable energy and other uses. This creates both constraints and opportunities for the energy

transition in aquaculture. Multi-use and co-location with renewables can facilitate the

deployment of aquaculture and on-site renewable energy solutions, provided that maritime

spatial planning, permitting and infrastructure frameworks are supportive and innovation is

encouraged. More broadly, the transition of fisheries and aquaculture must be realistic,

affordable and socially just, attract young people to work in the sector, and take into account

the diversity of segments through a comprehensive approach that addresses structural

constraints, investment needs, skills gaps and value chains.

Since the adoption of the 2023 Communication on the Energy Transition of the EU Fisheries

and Aquaculture sector, several initiatives have been launched to better understand the sector’s

needs, support its transition, and provide relevant information to inform the Vision 2040. The

Commission established the Energy Transition Partnership (ETP) for EU fisheries and

aquaculture, bringing together stakeholders to develop recommendations through a

collaborative process. In parallel, as part of the implementation of the Strategic Guidelines, the

Commission published a Staff Working Document (SWD)4 that provided an overview of

solutions categorised by aquaculture production system, to improve energy efficiency and

increase the uptake of renewable energy, in turn reducing the carbon footprint of primary

aquaculture operations. Other studies, such as the ‘techno-economic analysis for the energy

transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector’ and ‘the study on EU aquaculture:

greenhouse gas reduction costs and pathways to net zero by 2050’ have examined the technical

and economic feasibility of different transition pathways.

(2) COM(2023) 100 final on the energy transition in EU fisheries and aquaculture. The fisheries and oceans

package also includes the common fisheries policy (CFP) communication, the common market organisation

(CMO) report and the maritime action plan.

(3) Common fisheries policy (CFP) - oceans and fisheries - European Commission. (4) SWD(2024)280.

4

Building on these efforts, this SWD provides the analytical background and presents the

technical solutions that can support implementation of the roadmap for the energy transition in

EU aquaculture. The roadmap is presented in the Annex to the Vision 2040 and runs alongside

the parallel roadmap for EU fisheries5. It offers a structured framework for action and identifies

strategic priorities and guidelines to support the sector’s pathway towards energy resilience and

reduced dependence on fossil fuels by 2050. The SWD is structured around four main

objectives.

1) Embed the energy transition within the wider Vision for fisheries and aquaculture by

2040 as a core dimension of the long-term transformation of the EU aquaculture sector.

While this roadmap focuses on energy transition, it should be viewed as a part of the

broader EU strategy for the future of the aquaculture sector, alongside fisheries, to

ensure its economic, environmental and social sustainability, as outlined in the Vision

2040.

2) Identify the key challenges and solutions to the energy transition in order to develop a

common understanding of the current situation and of the actions needed to implement

the energy transition.

3) Set out a realistic and feasible pathway for the energy transition towards 2050,

sequencing key actions and enablers.

4) Develop a coordinated approach involving public authorities, stakeholders and value-

chain actors, in order to ensure common ownership, policy coherence and clearer

investment signals.

This SWD provides analysis underpinning the actions set out in the roadmap for the energy

transition in EU aquaculture as presented in the Annex of the Vision 2040 for fisheries and

aquaculture. It is composed of four chapters including this introduction.

The introduction outlines the implications of the Vision 2040 for EU aquaculture and explains

how these shape an energy-transition pathway aligned with the sector’s broader environmental,

economic and social objectives. Chapter 2 presents the state of play in EU aquaculture,

including greenhouse gas emission trends, structural challenges and the progress achieved since

the 2023 Communication. Chapter 3 identifies the main areas of action and enabling conditions

for the energy transition. Chapter 4 sets out the conclusions.

2. THE STATE OF PLAY IN EU AQUACULTURE

2.1. Sources of greenhouse gas emissions

This section provides an overview of the trends in GHG emissions in the EU aquaculture sector

and identifies the key sources of emissions across production systems and farming stages. Its

objective is to provide a basis for a common understanding of the main issues to address in

order to advance the energy transition, and to identify priorities for decarbonisation efforts that

help maintain the sector's competitiveness and resilience.

(5) It accompanies, alongside a parallel staff working document on the energy transition in EU fisheries, the

roadmap annex for fisheries and aquaculture.

5

2.1.1. Overall trends

In 2024, the EU aquaculture sector's total GHG emissions were estimated at 2.8 million tonnes

of CO2-equivalent (CO2e), representing around 0.1% of the EU's total GHG emissions for that

year. Between 2005 and 2024, these emissions rose by 14.6%, a modest increase in the EU-

wide context but significant for a relatively small sector that is expected to grow further6.

Figure 1 Trends in GHG emissions from the EU aquaculture sector by production system

Meanwhile, the growth trajectories of EU aquaculture production have varied significantly

across its main production types. Between 2008 and 2023, total EU aquaculture output fell from

1.27 to 1.12 million tonnes (-13%), yet this overall trend masks a sharp expansion of marine

finfish production, which grew by 49% over the same period. By 2023, this segment had

become the sector's most valuable, accounting for 50% of its total value, despite representing

just 25% of production volume.

(6) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260123-1

6

Figure 2 Trends in production volume from the EU aquaculture sector by production system

By contrast, shellfish production, though still representing 48% of total volume in 2023, fell by

22% over the same period. Meanwhile, freshwater aquaculture, which represented 27% of

volume and 24% of value in 2023, fell by 25%. Algae remained marginal, contributing less

than 1% of both value and volume. The shift towards more fed- and energy-intensive production

systems is a key factor in understanding the sector’s recent economic and emission trends.

2.1.2 Emissions by production system

The EU aquaculture sector is highly diverse in terms of species and farming methods.

Therefore, emission intensities vary widely across production systems. Over the past 20 years,

GHG emissions from intensive fish farming systems were substantially higher than those

related to shellfish farming. Indeed, cage and recirculated aquaculture systems (RAS) were the

most energy-intensive production systems, accounting for 22% and 2%, respectively, of the EU

production volume but for 40% and 12%, respectively, of the EU emissions in the sector. Non-

fed aquaculture (e.g. shellfish and algae) was the most energy-efficient production method,

accounting for 54% of production and 18% of total emissions7. This difference can be seen in

the average emission intensity per unit of live weight (LW), where emission intensity from

finfish farming (e.g. carp, rainbow trout, seabass) can be 10 to 20 times higher than that of

shellfish farming (e.g. clam, mussels, oyster)8.

(7) Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

(8) Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector. The

difference is less marked when considering edible weight, but still important (approx. 4 to 10 times).

7

Figure 3 Aquaculture production (a) and associated emissions (b) from different production methods in EU from

2005 to 2024. Source: EU Aquaculture: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Costs and Pathways to Net Zero by 2050

(2025)

2.1.3. Emissions by farming stage

These varied emission profiles reflect differences in farming practices, energy requirements and

the use of upstream inputs, particularly feed. Over the past 20 years, the largest share of GHG

emissions stemmed from feed production and transportation (54%), followed by the grow-out

stage (28%) and hatchery (9%), whereas emissions from boat trips to the aquaculture sites

contributed to only 2% of emissions9. This pattern is especially striking for cage and tank and

raceways production methods, where feed accounted for respectively 71% and 50% of total

emissions. In marine fish production, feed accounts for a larger share of emissions, partly

because feed conversion ratios (FCR) are around twice those observed for trout.10 In RAS, the

main driver of emissions is the grow-out phase because of the high amount of electricity needed

to run the system, but feed-related emissions remain an important source11. Energy use in the

grow-out stage is mainly related to the use of fuel in support vessels in marine segments, while

in land-based trout farming it is mainly due to electricity use12.

(9) EU Aquaculture: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Costs and Pathways to Net Zero by 2050 (2025)

(10) Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

(11) Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

(12) Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector

8

Figure 4 Contribution to fed aquaculture emissions in EU Member States of different processes and stages

during the last 20 years for specific production systems. Source: EU Aquaculture: Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Costs and Pathways to Net Zero by 2050 (2025)

2.2. Structural challenges and enabling conditions for the energy transition

The energy transition of the EU aquaculture sector is shaped by two key structural factors: (i)

the expected growth of the sector, which will influence future energy demand, and (ii) its

fragmented structure, which affects investment capacity and knowledge diffusion.

As previously stated, the EU's aquaculture policy has a dual objective: to expand the sector's

role in food provision while simultaneously reducing its environmental impact. However,

increasing production is likely to drive higher energy demand, challenging the reduction in

GHG emissions in the aquaculture sector. Therefore, emission savings will need to offset the

additional emissions associated with increased production and energy demand.

Furthermore, the fragmented structure and the fact that small-scale businesses dominate

the EU aquaculture sector have several implications for the energy transition. First, small-scale

business operators often have limited financial capacity, which can hinder technological

upgrading13. The substantial upfront investment required for decarbonisation, such as on-site

renewable energy generation infrastructure or low-carbon feed alternatives, may be beyond the

financial reach of small business operators.

Another important structural feature is that a large share of aquaculture’s carbon footprint arises

from indirect, upstream sources related to other sectors, in particular feed production and

transport, electricity generation and fuel supply. Under the EU Climate Law14 and related

climate and energy legislation, emission reductions are primarily targeted in key sectors.

(13) EU Aquaculture: Short Economic Overview and Outlook to 2040 (STECF, 2026).

(14) Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the

framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU)

2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj).

9

Consequently, aquaculture’s transition not only depends on on-farm measures but also on the

decarbonisation of its broader value‑chain segments.

The study on EU aquaculture: greenhouse gas reduction costs and pathways to net zero by 2050

(GHG study)15, estimated relatively high marginal abatement costs for several technologies and

offsetting measures, which are therefore challenging to adopt for SMEs. Moreover, these

business operators may lack the financial buffers, collateral, or risk absorption capacity needed

to secure long-term financing. In addition, fragmentation can limit the emergence of learning

networks and collective knowledge diffusion, slowing the adoption of best practices which tend

to spread faster through vertically integrated value chains or coordinated producer

associations16. Moreover, unlike larger, vertically integrated firms, small-scale operators have

limited opportunities to achieve economies of scale. This fragmentation can delay the sector’s

uptake of resource- and energy-efficient solutions, even where they should be technically and

economically viable. However, even when consolidation and integration can help attract

investment, they may have social and economic implications, given the importance of small-

scale producers for local economies. Any future policy or support measures to enable the energy

transition will therefore need to take account of these distributional aspects and ensure that

smaller business operators are not left behind.

2.3. Progress made on the energy transition

2.3.1. Progress through the Energy Transition Partnership

Since its inception in June 2023, the Energy Transition Partnership has been successfully

mobilising stakeholders around the energy transition of EU fisheries and aquaculture. They

have made significant efforts to prepare the grounds for the energy transition, facilitating

discussion. This includes organising thematic working groups on inland aquaculture and on

offshore aquaculture.

The ETP’s inland and offshore aquaculture working groups developed joint considerations and

sector-specific recommendations for the energy transition towards climate neutrality by

2050.17. These recommendations, together with the results of in-depth analysis and studies, the

SWD on the energy transition of EU aquaculture18, the ETP joint considerations, and

sector recommendations form the backbone of the roadmap for the energy transition of

the EU aquaculture sector towards 2050.

In addition to facilitating stakeholder collaboration, the ETP has become a key hub for energy-

transition topics in fisheries and aquaculture. It provides practical resources to support

stakeholders in the transition, including:

• a compendium of best practices19,

• a guide on financing the energy transition20,

• regular updates on relevantprojects and Member State initiatives,

(15) https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/digital-publications/study-eu-aquaculture-greenhouse-gas-reduction-

costs-and-pathways-net-zero-2050_en

(16) EU Aquaculture: Short Economic Overview and Outlook to 2040 (STECF, 2026)

(17) https://atlantic-maritime-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/joint-considerations-and-sectoral-recommendations-

energy-transition-eu-fisheries-aquaculture

(18) Brussels, 13.12.2024 SWD(2024) 280 final

(19) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/23464c13-b1c0-11ed-8912-01aa75ed71a1 (20) https://aquaculture.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-base/guidelines/guide-financing-green-energy-transition-

fisheries-and-aquaculture

10

• and an interactive online tool guiding stakeholders towards financing opportunities for

the green energy transition in fisheries and aquaculture21.

To make this information more accessible, the ETP also publishes a quarterly newsletter, which

has been available online since October 202522.

2.3.2. Initiatives on the energy transition

Action on the energy transition has now extended beyond the ETP. Many other private and

publicly financed initiatives have emerged since 2023, including by the aquaculture sector,

public authorities and research institutes. Many of them are listed in the ETP's23 repository,

which compiles best practices to support the energy transition in the fisheries and aquaculture

sector. This includes measures to improve the efficiency of pumps and aeration systems, on-site

renewable power for aquaculture facilities, digital monitoring to optimise feeding and oxygen

management, and better insulation and heat-recovery solutions in hatcheries and recirculating

systems.

(21) https://maritime-forum.ec.europa.eu/theme/blue-economy-and-fisheries/blue-energy/energy-transition-

partnership_en#news (22) https://maritime-forum.ec.europa.eu/theme/blue-economy-and-fisheries/blue-energy/energy-transition-

partnership_en#newsletter (23) Best practices - Maritime Forum - European Commission.

Box I – ETP recommendations on aquaculture and how they inform the roadmap

The joint considerations and the aquaculture working groups of the ETP identify

several priorities for the energy transition of the EU aquaculture sector.

• Need to make funding for the energy transition more accessible, especially for

smaller operators, including through public guarantees that de-risk private

investment and support pilot and demonstrator projects. • Importance of targeted capacity-building and training programmes along the

value chain to equip the workforce with the skills required to operate new

technologies. • Central role of feed as a driver of emissions and the need to promote

low-trophic aquaculture and develop strategies and pilot projects for

sustainable, low-carbon feed ingredients. • Value of awareness-raising, guidelines, good practices and case studies to

support energy-efficient and low-carbon solutions, and to improve

understanding and implementation of EU rules.

11

3. KEY AREAS FOR ACTION TOWARDS THE ENERGY TRANSITION OF THE EU

AQUACULTURE SECTOR

3.1. Strengthen energy and resource efficiency

In the short- to medium-term, energy and resource efficiency are the most effective and

economical ways to reduce direct emissions, as they should also reduce operating costs. The

GHG study, the 2024 ‘Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries

and aquaculture sector’ (the techno-economic study), and the SWD on the energy transition of

aquaculture identify energy efficiency improvements as key measures for the energy transition

given their potential for rapid implementation and substantial emissions reduction within a

relatively short timeframe. Some of these measures (e.g. improved insulation) can be

particularly attractive and beneficial to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which may lack

the financial resources or knowledge to adopt certain new technologies. Energy efficiency

measures typically represent improvements in energy management. They can also include (i)

improved process design and the deployment of cost-effective technologies, such as optimised

pumps and aeration systems; (ii) improved feed conversion ratios; (iii) selective breeding

for climate adaptation; (iv) increased digitalisation and investment in precision fish farming

tools; (v) more efficient motors and controls; or (vi) improved insulation.

More generally, the energy transition is significantly driven by economic stakes. Despite their

opportunities, energy-efficiency measures have not always been perceived as a priority by

business operators, as energy inputs were not historically regarded as a main operational cost

item, due to relatively stable energy prices and the modest energy requirements of many

production systems. Nevertheless, recent sharp increases in energy costs have increased the

importance of resilience to energy-price volatility for aquaculture operators. This may also

strengthen incentives to invest in energy-efficiency measures24.

In practice, there are several key areas of intervention on energy and resource efficiency.

• Energy management and optimisation: systematic energy audits, monitoring and

benchmarking of energy use, processes and equipment upgrades, including optimisation

of pumping, aeration and heating/cooling regimes, more efficient blowers, improved

insulation and heat-recovery.

• Digitalisation, AI and precision aquaculture, including the deployment of sensors,

using imaging and Internet-of-Things devices together with AI-based decision tools to

monitor oxygen, temperature, pH and fish behaviour in real time, and to optimise

feeding strategies and equipment operation. This can significantly reduce feed waste

and energy consumption while maintaining growth and welfare.

• Genetic improvement and husbandry practices, particularlybreeding programmes

that improve feed conversion ratios, growth rates and resilience to environmental

stressors, together with husbandry measures that reduce energy and resource use per

unit of output.

• Operational and organisational measures, in particular staff training on energy

management and digital and AI tools, preventive maintenance to keep equipment

operating efficiently, and improved planning of production cycles and farm logistics to

reduce energy peaks, downtime and other operational inefficiencies. For example,

(24) https://maritime-forum.ec.europa.eu/study-techno-economic-analysis-energy-transition-eu-fisheries-and-

aquaculture-sector_en

12

aligning pumping, aeration and feeding schedules to off-peak periods or avoiding

unnecessary vessel trips.

3.2. Optimise feed systems

Decarbonising feed inputs stands as one of the most impactful actions to lower emissions in the

aquaculture sector. Indeed, the use of feed accounts for the largest share of emissions in the

sector due to its energy-intensive production, transport and delivery to aquaculture operators.

Overall, the sector is highly reliant on these carbon-intensive inputs, and alternative low-carbon

feed sources (e.g. single-cell proteins, agricultural by-products) have been identified as critical

solutions to decarbonise the sector25. However, the use of low-carbon feed alternatives remains

limited in the short term due to limited commercial availability, higher costs, and biological

constraints linked to the nutritional needs and physiological limits of alternative fed fish26. In

line with these findings, the GHG study highlights that alternative feed materials will need to

play a critical role in the energy transition, but only in the medium to long-term, once these

solutions achieve commercial viability.

Current assessments suggest that for now sourcing low-trophic pelagic species for feed remains

more cost-effective than large-scale production of alternative protein sources, such as insect

meal or fermented mycoproteins27. Furthermore, many of these novel ingredients still require

relatively high energy inputs throughout production. As a result, significant reductions in both

costs and greenhouse gas emissions will depend on greater access to low-carbon electricity and

further process optimisation.

Even under those conditions, any long-term savings are likely to require significant upfront

investment in new production facilities and in the renewable-energy capacity needed to power

them.

3.3. Transition to renewable energy and enabling infrastructure

3.3.1. Facilitate the deployment of on-site renewable energy

A priority for accelerating the energy transition in EU aquaculture is to enable the deployment

of renewable energy across both marine and land‑based systems, including pond-based and

recirculating aquaculture farms. However, complex and protracted permitting and licensing

procedures for renewable‑energy infrastructure and grid connections remain a well‑documented

barrier to progress. Delays in issuing such permits and licences, often due to high application

volumes and procedural complexity, can delay returns on investment, create financing

uncertainties and risks, and hinder progress towards decarbonisation. In this context, the EU

ports strategy28, which refers to the EU grids package and the guidance on efficient and timely

grid connections29, will accelerate grid connections for viable projects, including those in ports

(25) https://maritime-forum.ec.europa.eu/study-techno-economic-analysis-energy-transition-eu-fisheries-and-

aquaculture-sector_en

(26) For example, salmon, trout, seabass etc. need specific amino acid and fatty-acid profiles, so you cannot

just replace fishmeal/oil with any ‘low-carbon’ ingredient without affecting growth, health or welfare

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38315337/. (27) https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/small-pelagic-fish-supply-abundant-affordable-

micronutrients-low-middle-income_en

(28) EU ports strategy COM(2026) 112.

(29) The ‘EU grids package’, COM(2025) 1005 final, and the Commission Notice ‘guidance on efficient and

timely grid connections’ (C/2025/6703). European grids - European Commission; see also the Renewables

Energy Directive 2018/2001/EU.

13

of all sizes. This, in turn, can support faster and more reliable electricity supply for coastal and

port-based aquaculture operations.

In addition, unclear or fragmented rules on on‑site renewable installations, connection to the

grid, and the use of shared infrastructure can further discourage investment in technologies.

This includes investments in solar PV for ponds and land‑based farms, or renewable‑powered

equipment and support vessels for marine systems. Maritime spatial planning (MSP)

frameworks are designed to manage competing uses and create synergies between sectors,

including offshore renewables and aquaculture. In this context, the TEN-E Regulation22 is the

key piece of legislation governing offshore renewable energy development, with obligations to,

inter alia, adopt offshore network developments plans (ONDPs) in line with requirements for

maritime spatial planning, stakeholder consultations, co-existence and environmental and

climate law23. In practice, the way MSP and other planning tools allocate space and define

conditions for multi‑use will strongly influence where and how on‑site renewable energy can

be deployed for aquaculture. Looking ahead, the European Ocean Pact and the announced

proposal for an Ocean Act are expected to further support a more integrated and

forward‑looking approach to combining aquaculture and marine renewable energy. This

includes spatial planning.

The climate benefits of switching from grid electricity to locally produced renewable energy

vary by Member State, depending on the carbon intensity of their electricity grids. In Member

States where the grid is already largely decarbonised, the additional emission reductions may

be relatively modest, compared to those with more carbon‑intensive power mixes. This

underlines the importance of assessing on‑site solutions in their broader energy‑system context,

while still recognising their value for reducing exposure to energy‑price volatility and

improving the resilience of aquaculture operations.

3.3.2. Accelerate the uptake of low-carbon propulsion systems for support

vessels

The adoption of low-carbon propulsion systems for aquaculture support vessels, particularly

their electrification and, where technically and operationally feasible, wind-assisted

propulsion technologies, has been identified as a potential measure to reduce GHG emissions

in relevant production systems30. Emissions from these vessels represent a small share of

sectoral emissions (around 2%, see Figure 3). The use of electric or hybrid support vessels is

technically more feasible for near-shore farms, where shorter distances and easier access to

charging infrastructure reduce constraints linked to battery capacity and recharging needs.

However, some aquaculture segments are expected to move further offshore, which might limit

the situations in which full electrification of support vessels is realistic with current

technologies. Operational measures aimed at reducing energy demand, including voyage

optimisation, improved logistics planning and the use of digital tools to minimise unnecessary

vessel trips, can further contribute to lowering emissions and enhancing the effectiveness of

low-carbon propulsion technologies. Beyond GHG reductions, moving away from fossil fuels

can also reduce exposure to fuel-price volatility and in turn boost the resilience of these

aquaculture production systems. However, the cost-effectiveness of such measures may be

limited due to high marginal abatement costs. Significant upfront investments are needed to

adapt propulsion systems, while the resulting emission cuts are relatively modest at sector level

(GHG study).

(30) Techno-economic study, SWD(2024) 280, GHG study.

14

3.3.3. Strengthen energy infrastructure systems

The energy transition, particularly the electrification of operations, depends on the availability

of suitable infrastructure. Limited grid connections and infrastructure gaps in rural and coastal

areas can hinder the adoption of low-carbon technologies in aquaculture. Similarly, land-based

support systems and port facilities play a critical role in enabling electrification, both in terms

of reliable power supply and storage capacity. Since much of this infrastructure is shared with

other sectors and embedded in broader energy and transport systems, aquaculture's

decarbonisation progress will depend heavily on wider efforts in these areas, efforts the sector

can make use of where feasible.

3.4. Promote low-trophic low-carbon aquaculture

Promoting the expansion of low-trophic and low-carbon production systems can also support

the overall energy transition in EU aquaculture. Given the wide variations in emission

intensities across species31, the composition of EU aquaculture production plays an important

role in determining the sector's GHG emission trajectory. Low-trophic and low-carbon species,

such as bivalves, offer an effective strategy to reduce GHG emissions while increasing

production. These species are associated with the lowest emission intensities and deliver

broader environmental benefits (e.g. habitat provision), indirectly supporting climate mitigation

efforts.

Moreover, even when modelling the implementation of energy transition measures, non-fed

aquaculture systems exhibit the lowest-carbon footprint in the sector, 4 to 13 times lower than

fed production systems (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 Total emission forecast per tonne of LW, 2026-2050 across production systems

However, the growth of low-trophic aquaculture remains limited by little overall market

demand, which is partly explained by the low consumer awareness of the environmental

benefits associated with these production systems. On the supply side, producers may also lack

the financial incentives, such as market premiums, to adopt or expand these practices.

Addressing these demand-side barriers through market-based instruments (e.g. labelling

schemes, certification, consumer awareness campaigns) could stimulate demand for low-

trophic species and provide operators with the financial means to invest in renewable energy

and increase energy efficiency.

(31) Jessica A. Gephart et al., ‘Environmental Performance of Blue Foods,’ Nature 597, No 7876 (2021): 360-65,

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2.

15

3.5. Promote the standardisation of greenhouse gas emission monitoring

GHG emission monitoring is essential to inform the energy transition of the aquaculture sector.

To be effective, transition strategies will need to be supported by sufficiently robust

measurement and reporting to track progress over time.

Recent analytical work, including the aquaculture GHG study, has for the first time provided a

coherent baseline and a common methodological reference to estimate emissions across

production systems and at Member State level.

Building on this methodological baseline, additional data streams – such as farm‑level activity

data, STECF32 and EUMOFA33 economic datasets, and more detailed energy‑use records –

would help to (i) refine emission factors; (ii) improve comparability between production types

and Member States; and (iii) better capture the effects of decarbonisation measures. However,

limited availability of farm‑level data may hinder efforts to design targeted policy incentives,

monitor progress, and evaluate the effectiveness of decarbonisation measures.

In this context, efforts to address remaining data gaps and promote simple, proportionate

indicators for energy use and emissions in aquaculture, aligned with broader EU climate and

energy reporting frameworks, could improve transparency and provide a stronger evidence base

for designing effective policies and support measures to accelerate the energy transition. This

approach can build on existing tools and practices, including voluntary energy audits and

decision‑support approaches, without imposing disproportionate burdens for business

operators, particularly on SMEs.

3.6. Financial solutions for the energy transition

Facilitating access to suitable financial solutions is an important lever to advance the energy

transition, particularly given the fragmented structure of the sector. As outlined in Section 2.2,

a substantial share of business operators, especially small-scale farms, have relatively low

investment capacity. This restricts their ability to adopt capital-intensive, low-carbon

technologies required for decarbonisation. Financial barriers include high upfront costs for

system design and installation, limited collateral, and uncertainty around return on investment,

particularly where payback periods are long.

To mitigate these challenges, a combination of public and private instruments can be used to

reduce risk and improve access to capital. For example, by blending targeted grants with loans

and guarantees, or by using risk-sharing instruments that lower collateral requirements for

smaller business operators. In addition, setting aside specific funding for the energy transition

in existing EU and national funding programmes can help aquaculture operators, including

SMEs, to access the support they need. Overall, such approaches should aim at making

well-designed decarbonisation projects financially viable and attractive, while keeping

procedures as simple and proportionate as possible.

3.7. Energy transition skills and knowledge

The aquaculture sector is expected to undergo significant operational changes and, in some

segments, structural changes. These changes include (i) the wider use of digital monitoring

systems and AI; (ii) the uptake of renewable-energy solutions; and (iii) a gradual shift further

offshore for certain production models. Shifting further offshore will increase the need for

remote-operation tools and digital supervision of farms, as well as longer and more complex

(32) Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (33) European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture (EUMOFA)

16

support-vessel operations. To support this transition, the sector must address existing skill gaps,

particularly in areas such as energy management, digital monitoring and control, operation and

basic maintenance of renewable-energy systems, and energy and emissions accounting. This

highlights the need for new expertise and underlines the importance of ensuring that the next

generation of aquaculture operators receives appropriate training. This includes developing and

promoting training programmes to equip the workforce with the skills needed to manage, repair

and maintain these technologies across the value chain, as well as familiarising them with

carbon and energy accounting and related reporting requirements.

4. CONCLUSIONS

This SWD provides the analytical background and presents the main technical solutions that

could support the implementation of the energy transition roadmap for EU aquaculture, as set

out in the Annex to the Vision 2040. The Annex sets out a pragmatic pathway for the fisheries

and aquaculture sectors to become more resilient, competitive and aligned with the EU’s

climate and environmental objectives.

This SWD shows that, while aquaculture’s overall contribution to EU greenhouse gas emissions

remains limited, the sector faces specific challenges linked to energy use, adaptation to climate

change impacts, strong dependence on feed, infrastructure constraints and a highly fragmented

structure. Addressing these challenges will require a combination of measures that:

• improve energy and resource efficiency;

• optimise feed systems and promote the use of alternative low-carbon feed ingredients;

• support the deployment of renewable energy and enabling infrastructure;

• promote low-trophic and low-carbon forms of aquaculture;

• improve and harmonise greenhouse-gas-emissions monitoring;

• facilitate access to finance, skills and knowledge.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach: transition pathways must reflect the diversity of species,

production systems and regional contexts, and remain realistic, economically viable and

socially fair.

Successful implementation will depend on coordinated action by public authorities, producers,

value-chain actors, and financial institutions, as well as alignment with broader initiatives, such

as the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture, the European Green Deal and future ocean

governance frameworks. If these conditions are met, the energy transition can strengthen the

long-term resilience and attractiveness of EU aquaculture, boost its contribution to sustainable

food systems and help position the sector as a strategic component of the EU blue economy.

17

Annex 1: Progress through the Energy Transition Partnership

Arguably, it was not the recent developments in terms of energy consumption and intensity

since 2023 that were more important for the energy transition in the short term, but rather the

significant efforts made by stakeholders preparing the ground for making the energy transition

in the long run.

Since its inception in June 2023, the

Energy Transition Partnership

(ETP) has successfully mobilised

over 690 stakeholders for the energy

transition of EU fisheries and

aquaculture in an innovative and

inclusive way. They are cooperating

with each other to face the key

challenges for making the energy

transition in the sector.

In 2024, the Commission appointed

10 support group coordinators for

thematic groups representing all key

stakeholders: i) small-scale coastal

fisheries (SSCF), ii) large-scale

fisheries (LSF), iii) distant water fleet

(DWF), iv) non-governmental organisations (NGOs), v) research and academia, vi)

shipbuilding, vii) inland aquaculture, viii) offshore aquaculture, ix) fishing ports, and x) the

processing sector34. The support group coordinators have been key in facilitating discussions

and directly involving the subsectors and stakeholders in the work of ETP and its different

working groups.

The ETP working group delivered a set of joint considerations and 10 sectoral

recommendations for energy transition in 2050. Together with the results of in-depth analysis

and studies, the ETP joint considerations and sector recommendations form the backbone

of the roadmap for the energy transition. For reference these joint considerations and

recommendations are included as an integral part of Annex 1 to the SWD. The key outcomes

were also presented and discussed by the working group coordinators at the high-level

conference on the energy transition and fisheries and aquaculture, held on 17 February 2026.

Beyond collaboration, the ETP serves as a key hub offering practical resources to support

fisheries and aquaculture stakeholders in their transition: a best practices compendium35, an

interactive financing guide36, updates on relevantprojects and Member State initiatives. A

quarterly newsletter (600+ subscribers since October 2025) showcases these initiatives and

informs the sector about the latest developments.

In May 2026, the ETP launched its pilot ambassador programme – building on ETP knowledge

– appointing contacts in Member State administrations to provide on-the-ground guidance to

fishers and operators, facilitate access to funding and technical support, and channel national

(34) ETP Support Group - Maritime Forum - European Commission. (35) Best practices - Maritime Forum - European Commission. (36) Guide on Financing opportunities for the Green Energy Transition of Fisheries and Aquaculture - Maritime

Forum.

In figures: key achievements of the Energy

Transition Partnership for EU fisheries and

aquaculture

• 690 members cooperating under the Energy

Transition Partnership

• 10 support groups, with stakeholder-led

coordinators

• 2 high-level conferences

• 14 thematic workshops and 40 working

group meetings under the ETP

• Presence in key forums and conferences,

including the European Maritime Days

• 600+ subscribers to the ETP newsletter

18

feedback into ETP activities. Lessons learned from the pilot will inform decisions on the

programme’s continuation and expansion of its network after September 2026.

Initiatives on the energy transition

The action on the energy transition has extended far beyond the Energy Transition Partnership.

Many other private and publicly financed initiatives have emerged since 2023, including from

the fisheries sector, public authorities, research institutes and beyond.

Institutional stakeholders have been constructive in making progress on the transition. In 2024,

Parliament adopted, by a large majority, a resolution on the decarbonisation and modernisation

of EU fisheries37 and recently prepared an own-initiative report on the decarbonisation and

modernisation of EU fisheries (92024/2123(INI)). The AGRIFISH Council adopted

conclusions on the energy transition, among other things. In March 2026, on the initiative of

the Cyprus presidency, EU ministers responsible for fisheries and aquaculture held an exchange

of views on advancing the energy transition in EU fisheries and aquaculture. The discussion

focused on how to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels while maintaining the sector’s

economic viability and competitiveness.

Member States and regional authorities have deployed their own tailored plans for making the

energy transition in the sectors. They have been proactive in working at EU and regional level

on creating the conditions needed to progress on the transition in the fisheries and aquaculture

sectors. Some have launched specific funding opportunities for improving the energy efficiency

of their fishing fleet within the possibilities of the EMFAF, with substantial uptake by the

sector.

A major achievement has been launching a range of pilot projects throughout the EU.

Parliament, together with the Commission, launched its own Zero Emission Demonstrative

Fishing Vessel powered by a hybridised system of hydrogen fuel cell and batteries (Hy2Fish)38.

Other Horizon Europe projects39 40, have focused on digital technologies, energy efficiency and

small-scale fishing vessels. The ETP website contains a continuously updated repository of

demonstrators and other projects relevant for making the energy transition in the sector41.

(37) https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-document-summary/pdf?id=1881375. (38) HY2FISH | The Future starts today. (39) HORIZON-MISS-2025-03-OCEAN-03 Digital technologies and energy transition in fisheries and/or

aquaculture.

(40) HORIZON-MISS-2023-OCEAN-01-05 Lighthouse in the Baltic and the North Sea basins - Green and

energy-efficient small-scale fishing fleets. (41) Best practices - Maritime Forum - European Commission

19

Annex 2: Joint Considerations - EU Energy Transition Partnership for Fisheries and

Aquaculture

*Disclaimer This document has been prepared by the ETP Support group members,

it reflects the views only of the authors. The European Commission is not liable for its content

and any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.

Background

The ETP Support Group is a collaborative advisory body that supports the Energy

Transition Partnership (ETP) in advancing the energy transition for EU fisheries and

aquaculture. It is organised into ten working groups, each focused on a core segment of

the sector: distant water fleet, large-scale fisheries, small-scale coastal fisheries, inland

and offshore aquaculture, ports, fishing shipbuilding, processing and trading, research

and academia, and NGOs.

From February to September 2025, these working groups, guided by their coordinators,

convened stakeholders to identify challenges and develop sector-specific solutions.

Over this period, 38 online meetings brought together nearly 400 participants,

contributing to the formulation of sector specific recommendations for the energy

transition roadmap.

The first phase of the process concludes with a coordinated set of cross-sector

considerations that complement the sector-specific guidance. Acknowledging that a

“one-size-fits-all” approach is not suitable, the support group calls for regionally

tailored policies that reflect ecological, cultural, technical, and economic diversity, as

well as different gear types, production systems, and infrastructure.

Guiding principles

A successful energy transition in European fisheries and aquaculture requires a holistic

approach focusing on reducing energy use and carbon emissions across the food system;

while ensuring marine ecosystems are in good health so they provide optimal natural

sequestration and storage. It must integrate ecological restoration and conservation,

technological innovation, vessel and infrastructure capabilities, and social equity while

addressing climate pressures, biodiversity loss, ageing fleets, competitiveness

challenges, and ecosystem degradation. Policies should be regionally tailored, aligned

with EU and international frameworks, and provide long-term certainty, while being

consistent with ending overfishing, sustainable stock recovery and supporting coastal

communities through inclusive, socially just approaches.

Advancing the transition requires coordinated governance, stronger research

collaboration, and improved information sharing, alongside practical testing of cleaner

propulsion systems, energy audits, and the development of resilient port and fuel

infrastructure, as well as appropriate support for the industries underpinning the

transition, such as shipyards and maritime equipment suppliers. For the seafood

processing and trading sector, this also includes improving energy efficiency,

optimising logistics, and supporting low-carbon supply chain solutions. It is key to

20

provide policy certainty to all segments, in particular the small-scale sectors for

enabling a viable future which at the same time addresses its generational renewal. Fleet

modernisation—through energy efficiency, impacts reduction, renewal and targeted

retrofits—should prioritise profitable, modular, adaptable, safe, and future-proof

vessel designs. Regulatory simplification and alignment with climate and maritime

objectives are essential, including evaluating relevance of fishing capacity

measurement and certification frameworks to accommodate emerging technologies.

Effective financing and investment incentives—through financial instruments,

guarantees, and tax measures—are needed to support clean-technology uptake, while

skills development, training, and generational renewal will build the workforce

required for new energy systems and digital tools. By embedding these principles, the

transition can reduce fossil-fuel dependence, strengthen environmental resilience, and

secure a competitive, sustainable future for European fisheries and aquaculture.

1. De-risk investments with EU funding to incentivise decarbonisation in fisheries

and aquaculture and unlock capital for the energy transition.

High costs and perceived risks in the fisheries and aquaculture sector limit funding and

private investment in the energy transition. Although the European Commission’s

proposes to relax eligibility conditions in the 2028–2034 MFF, current funding—

especially EMFAF until 2029— remains restrictive, with caps on retrofitting and

thresholds.

Targeted reform is needed to unlock funds quickly and equitably, including easing

restrictions on newbuilding and retrofits, enabling pilots and demonstrators, allowing

pre-financing, and simplifying access for small operators. Grants should complement

loans and guarantees and be tied to clear sustainability, climate, and biodiversity

objectives.

In parallel, State aid frameworks should be made more flexible to allow targeted

national support for decarbonisation, innovation, and fleet modernisation, while

ensuring a level playing field. Stronger engagement of the European Investment Bank

(EIB)—through guarantees, blended finance, and tailored instruments—can further

crowd in private capital and reduce risk.

Transparent, accountable funding is essential to support a fair and just transition toward

energy-efficient, low-impact, and resilient fisheries and aquaculture while safeguarding

food security.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Discuss the current EMFAF rules to remove retrofitting and fleet renewal

restrictions and simplify access for all operators, including pre-financing and

reduced reporting.

• Establish a ring-fenced, meaningful funding window in the EU budget for

small or capital-constrained operators.

21

• Support regional and community demonstrators, cooperative financing, and

shared infrastructure projects.

• Define policies that can provide public guarantees to de-risk private

investment, complemented by grants for the riskiest projects.

• Facilitate flexible State aid for decarbonisation and innovation and strengthen

EIB support to de-risk private investment and scale clean technologies.

2. Demonstrate technical and economic feasibility of the energy transition through

EU demonstration programme to strengthen business case in the sector

Fisheries and aquaculture have limited experience with low-carbon propulsion and

energy efficient, low-impact technologies, slowing adoption due to uncertainty.

Demonstration programmes tested under real operating conditions are essential to build

confidence, assess technical and economic feasibility, and accelerate the transition to

cleaner, more efficient operations.

Regionally tailored, participatory approaches—actively involving the entire fisheries

and aquaculture value chain, and local authorities—ensure technologies meet real

needs. Demonstrators should integrate port and onshore infrastructure, creating “living

labs” for holistic testing of innovation ecosystems. For aquaculture, programmes should

include energy-efficient systems, renewable integration, and low-carbon processing.

Results should feed into the Knowledge Hub and guide wider replication across the EU.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Launch co-designed EU demonstration programmes for low-carbon

propulsion, energy-efficient, and low-impact technologies, including prototype

vessels and aquaculture systems, validated under real-world conditions.

• Implement regionally tailored “living labs” that integrate vessel

technologies, port infrastructure, and renewable solutions, reflecting

environmental, operational, and socio-economic diversity.

• Support pilot projects and collaborative initiatives that actively involve

industry, research, and local communities, ensuring validation of environmental,

social, and economic performance, as well as practical relevance and cross-

sector learning.

3. Establish a Decision-Support Programme for energy efficiency assessment in the

entire value chain of fisheries and aquaculture

Entire EU fisheries and aquaculture value chains lack a systematic way to assess energy

use, identify inefficiencies, and guide technology adoption. Existing audits are

fragmented, inconsistent, and often inaccessible, limiting evidence-based investment

and slowing sector wide efficiency gains.

Without a coordinated approach and an appropriate baseline, opportunities for quick

improvements, cost reductions, and low-carbon, low-impact adoption may be missed,

and policy decisions risk being uninformed. A structured, EU-wide system could

22

generate comparable data, support planning and assess progress, and provide a

foundation for equitable, technically feasible, and economically viable energy transition

measures across the sector.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Establish a coordinated EU-wide energy audit programme and funding

support for operators, including a methodology, tools and devices that enable

assessment and efficiency improvements.

• Establish a baseline that takes into consideration direct emissions and impact,

indirect emissions, impacts on biodiversity and emissions related to the

destruction of carbon sinks and that takes into consideration the entire value-

chain. It should also take into account: the reduction previously made by the

fisheries and aquaculture sectors since 1990 in accordance with the Climate

Law.

• Conduct regional audits and pilot studies to reflect different environmental

and operational conditions, informing targeted decision-support tools and

national energy transition strategies.

• Engage industry actors in testing and implementing energy-efficiency

measures and collective approaches, while integrating results into shared

knowledge systems to track progress and support wider adoption.

4. Strengthen energy infrastructure and supply systems for fisheries and

aquaculture to support the uptake of clean fuels, electrification, and renewable

energy.

Fisheries and aquaculture lack the port and energy infrastructure needed to adopt

cleaner fuels and low-emission technologies, creating a major barrier to the energy

transition. Investments in port electrification, renewable energy connections, and

bunkering infrastructure for low-carbon fuels are therefore essential to enable modern,

low-impact operations.

Planning must be based on a clear understanding of existing infrastructure, future

energy needs, and regional differences, covering both maritime - ports and inland

aquaculture facilities. Reliable access to renewable electricity, smart grid systems, and

small-scale local generation will be key, particularly for small-scale operators.

A coordinated rollout—supported by (EU-level) funding and integration into broader

clean transport and energy strategies—will ensure cost-effective, regionally adapted

infrastructure development and support cross-border operations for fleets operating

beyond national waters.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Map existing ports, piers, quays and landing sites used for fishery and

aquaculture operations, landing site, and energy infrastructure, and assess fleet,

aquaculture and processing energy needs to guide targeted investment and

planning.

23

• Integrate fisheries and aquaculture into EU sustainable transport and energy

strategies, prioritising renewable and low-carbon fuels, charging, and refuelling

infrastructure.

• Promote interoperable, scalable, and regionally adapted infrastructure

solutions through pilot projects, public–private partnerships, and stakeholder

engagement.

• Coordinate across ports, fleets, and aquaculture operators to align

infrastructure development with operational realities, regional contexts, and the

broader energy transition.

5. Establish a progressive and incentivised transition plan for the fleet that promotes

tailored solutions.

European fisheries and aquaculture operate some of the oldest fleets in the maritime

domain. Heavy retrofits on end-of-life vessels offer limited long-term benefits

compared with strategic fleet renewal. Fleet renewal, however, is not just an energy

transition measure — it also provides opportunities to reduce climate and biodiversity

impacts, enhance crew safety, improve working conditions, and support inclusivity and

the attractiveness of maritime professions.

A progressive, incentivised fleet transition plan should prioritise renewal of older

vessels while targeting retrofits for mid-life vessels where technically and economically

viable. New vessels should integrate advanced propulsion, circular design, safety

features, lower impact gears diversifications and accessibility considerations. Financial

support must address the limited investment capacity of small-scale coastal fleets,

ensuring a fair and inclusive transition. Coordinated renewal and retrofitting, aligned

with the broader energy transition roadmap, will contribute to deliver environmental,

social, and operational benefits across the sector.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Develop a European Fleet Transition Strategy integrating energy transition,

profitability, climate and biodiversity impacts, safety, circularity, and inclusivity,

with clear eligibility and prioritisation criteria for vessel renewal, retrofitting,

and prototype development.

• Establish coordinated funding mechanisms, including EMFAF, Horizon

Europe, and EIB facilities, and later the Competitiveness Fund, with facilitated

support for small-scale operators.

• Promote regional demonstration clusters and shared retrofitting/maintenance

facilities to test and deploy new designs adapted to local fleet and operational

needs.

• Support training, capacity building, and partnerships to ensure adoption of

safe, low carbon, inclusive, and circular vessel designs across the sector.

6. Strengthen the workforce and attract new generations through education,

training, and upskilling in advanced technologies.

24

The fisheries and aquaculture sectors face a critical need for workforce renewal and

skills development to support the energy transition. Technological innovation is

accelerating, but the workforce often lacks the expertise to operate, maintain, and

manage clean technologies. At the same time, an ageing workforce and limited

recruitment of young professionals threaten knowledge transfer and the social and

economic resilience of coastal communities.

A future-oriented strategy must combine technical training, generational renewal, and

inclusivity, ensuring stable and rewarding careers. Education and upskilling should

equip workers to manage hybrid vessels, alternative fuels, digital tools, and circular

economy practices, while embedding gender equality and equal opportunities across the

value chain. Lifelong learning, entrepreneurial skills, and awareness of climate,

biodiversity, and sustainability issues will empower workers to lead the transition

toward energy-efficient and low-emission operations.

Mentorship, apprenticeships, and demonstration projects can bridge experience gaps,

fostering knowledge transfer and trust between generations. A comprehensive, inclusive

skills strategy is essential to ensure that the energy transition delivers economic

opportunities, social resilience, and a sustainable future for fisheries and aquaculture.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Assess workforce gaps in energy transition relevant areas and integrate

together with digital, and sustainability skills into education, training, and

upskilling programmes, including apprenticeships and mentoring schemes.

• Promote gender equality, inclusivity, and practical skills development

through targeted funding, micro-credentials, and innovation-driven training

initiatives.

7. Integrate energy transition of fisheries and aquaculture into broader EU policies

and harmonise regulatory frameworks

Fisheries and aquaculture face regulatory fragmentation across ports, shipbuilding,

trading, processing, and maritime sectors, creating uncertainty and limiting access to

EU funding for energy transition. Integrating the energy transition of fisheries and

aquaculture into broader EU strategies—such as the Green Deal, Clean Industrial Deal,

Industrial Maritime Strategy, the Industrial Accelerator Act, the Sustainable Transport

Investment Plan, and the Circular Economy Act—is essential to simplify procedures,

build trust, and enable coordinated sector wide transition.

Clear regulatory alignment, supported by expert review, can harmonise rules on fuels,

licensing, and infrastructure, reduce administrative complexity, and facilitate

technology adoption. Harmonised frameworks will support both short-term efficiency

measures and long-term initiatives, including fleet renewal, low-emission fuels, and

low-impact technologies, while providing a stable environment for investment and

innovation.

How the Roadmap can address this:

25

• Align EU maritime, transport, climate, and industrial strategies with fisheries

and aquaculture energy transition needs, and harmonise regulations across

fleets, ports, shipbuilding, and processing industries.

• Ensure regional and national authorities coordinate implementation,

accounting for local ecological, technical, and socio-economic conditions.

8. Strengthen EU shipyards and technology suppliers to drive innovation and

competitiveness in clean maritime solutions and energy-efficient seafood

production.

EU shipyards and their suppliers face growing international competition, with many

foreign operators benefiting from lower environmental standards and greater

government support. Strengthening Europe’s industrial base in cleaner and energy-

efficient vessel technologies will boost competitiveness, retain the benefits of the

energy transition domestically, and create skilled jobs.

Shipyards will have to scale up their capacity to handle newbuilding or retrofitting of

fishing and aquaculture vessels in Europe. This requires significant productive

investment in facilities and production efficiency, which are capital-intensive and now

very attractive to traditional banks. Public support for these investments is necessary to

ensure it is viable for the shipyards.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Support EU shipyards and technology providers with funding and incentives

for clean vessel technologies for fisheries and aquaculture, energy-efficient

production, modular design, and circular manufacturing processes.

• Prioritise industrial competitiveness and innovation by aligning EU and

national programmes, fostering SME participation, and facilitating collaboration

between shipyards, research centres, and seafood producers.

• Develop and adopt EU-wide modular and adaptable vessel design standards

for fisheries and aquaculture, covering multi-fuel capability, hybrid propulsion,

multi-use and diversified low-impact operations, and safety integration.

9. Evaluate how the fishery capacity measurement system is fit for purpose for

energy transition

Current CFP capacity metrics (GT/kW) were designed to limit fishing effort and prevent

overexploitation. However, low-emission technologies—such as batteries and

alternative-fuel systems—add weight and take up space, with potential to push vessels

beyond these thresholds. This creates a practical barrier to adopting clean technologies.

Capacity control remains crucial for conservation. The capacity ceilings are also

currently crucial for social safeguards, as they are linked to fishing entitlements, vessel

value, and retirement benefits. Changes to accommodate energy transition risk

unintended biological, economic, and social consequences. Safety and classification

concerns also arise with new fuels and batteries, requiring compliance with design,

stability, and port regulations.

26

A fit-for-purpose capacity system is needed—one that is sector-specific balances

support for clean technology with effective fisheries management, accounting for

fishing effort, catching efficiency, auxiliary power, and technological creep, not

allowing overfishing and preventing fraud. Any revisions should be evidence-based,

segment-specific, and sensitive to regional differences, building on the ongoing CFP

evaluation process.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Examine the definition of fishing capacity and GT/kW restrictions in the CFP

evaluation, considering evidence-based amendments to support the energy

transition while maintaining conservation and social safeguards.

• Convene an expert task force (e.g., STECF/ICES) with meaningful

engagement of relevant stakeholders to assess the fitness of current metrics,

explore alternative capacity measurement options indicating its social, economic

and environmental consequences, evaluate safety and space implications of low-

emission technologies, and produce time-bound recommendations; complement

with fleet- and sea-basin level technical studies.

10. Establish the Energy Transition Partnership (ETP) for EU fisheries and

aquaculture value chain as a permanent platform to implement the roadmap

Policymaking for the energy transition in fisheries and aquaculture is fragmented,

causing duplicated efforts, misaligned standards, and missed opportunities for

technology transfer. A central, light governance mechanism is needed to coordinate

R&D, harmonise standards, and consolidate best practices in a public Knowledge Hub.

The ETP should serve as this mechanism, with a concise mandate to implement the

roadmap, coordinate R&D, forecast investment needs, build collaborative investment

plans, and oversee time-limited workstreams such as Standards & Interoperability,

Innovation, and Regional Pilots. A two-tier structure—Strategic Board (Commission,

Member State focal points, and representative stakeholders) supported by a technical

secretariat—would combine strategic oversight with technical delivery, with national

focal points ensuring domestic coordination.

The ETP should prioritise regional differentiation and technology flexibility and

neutrality, set clear targets with an annual dashboard, and secure predictable funding for

pilots, infrastructure, and innovation. Stakeholder engagement should be streamlined

via umbrella representation, a single portal, digital consultations, and predictable

schedules, ensuring equitable participation of all fisheries and aquaculture sectors,

NGOs, research and academia, ports, shipyards, energy suppliers, and supply-chain

actors.

How the Roadmap can address this:

• Establish the ETP as a single-entry platform with a Strategic Board and

Technical Secretariat to implement the roadmap, coordinate R&D, and oversee

time-limited workstreams with clear milestones, KPIs, and deadlines.

27

• Expand the Knowledge Hub to consolidate vetted project dossiers, lifecycle

assessments, and best practices, requiring standardised submissions and linking

outputs across EU-funded projects.

• Develop a comprehensive baseline and monitoring system for the fisheries

and aquaculture sector, covering fleet and production facilities, energy use,

emissions, biodiversity, carbon sinks, and socio-economic indicators, while

integrating life-cycle assessments of new technologies and operational impacts.

• Engage stakeholders through umbrella organisations, digital consultations,

and timeboxed workshops, ensuring equitable participation across all fisheries

and aquaculture sectors, industry, research, and coastal communities.

• Promote regional pilots, cross-sector learning, and coordination with existing

EU fora to test interoperability, fuel supply chains, retrofitting solutions, and to

avoid duplication and silos.

WGs recommendations main recommendations.

Disclaimer*:These documents have been prepared by the ETP Support group members, it

reflects the views only of the authors. The European Commission is not liable for its

content and any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.

This section is anticipating the full recommendations coming from the 10 Working

Groups set up under the ETP. Please revise also the full documents as they contain more

details, analysis and recommendations.

See below the main actions recommended by each WG and links to the full documents

issued by its members.

Fishing shipbuilding Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

• Policies can provide public guarantees to de-risk private investment,

complemented by grants for the riskiest projects.

• The fishing sector should forecast its modernisation/renewal needs, allowing

the shipbuilding industry to plan capacity along a long-term roadmap.

• Launch a legislative amendment to resolve the technical bottleneck,

incorporating input from naval architects and mitigating potential negative

effects, such as overcapacity or overfishing.

• Launch and finance a demonstrators programme to showcase new

technologies in real-world and business conditions, involving fishers directly

to secure their buy-in.

Small Scale Fisheries Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

The Small-scale Fishing sector (SSF) has reached a tipping point in decline. Therefore,

issuing a binding Plan of Action to support SSF in Europe is needed to provide the

necessary certainty for a brighter viable future which will act as a key enabler not just

for the Energy Transition but also for its generational renewal. If that is done, SSF are

well placed to keep leading the energy transition thanks to their already very low carbon

footprint, creating an opportunity to revitalise the sector and provide better working

28

conditions. Prioritising public funding for the energy transition of this sector (which is

ring-fenced, meaningful, accessible and tailored to them) is essential to achieve a fair

level playing field.

Large Scale Fisheries Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

The Large-Scale Fleet (LSF) deeply believes that an energy transition is necessary to

achieve the goals of the CFP, support the EU Green Deal objectives and the general aim

of transition to sustainability, while securing a future for fisheries as contributor to food

security by providing benefits to society through blue food: low-carbon, sustainable,

and highly nutritious source of protein.

This requires a forward-looking and socio-economically viable approach that not only

encourages innovation but also ensures that regulatory constraints do not hinder

progress. By fostering a policy environment that supports adaptation and

modernization, through fleet renewal and removal of the fishing capacity, the EU can

facilitate the European fishing sector to be both sustainable and competitive. 

Distant Water Fleet Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

• Regulatory constraints: Current rules, including fishing vessel registry

limits on gross tonnage (GT) and engine power (kW), can restrict upgrades and

retrofits. Addressing these barriers— through regulatory review, exemptions for

low-carbon technologies, or targeted compliance pathways—is essential to

enable modernization.

• Financing and capital availability: Insufficient access to funding hampers

both retrofits of existing vessels and the construction of new, energy-efficient

ships. A blended finance approach is needed, combining grants (e.g., EMFAF)

with loan guarantees and concessional credit to de-risk investments and improve

bankability.

• Pilot projects and capability building: Launching pilot programs is critical

to build confidence and know-how in retrofit design. These should develop

technical and economic models, standardize methodologies, and provide

practical guidance to help vessel owners assess feasibility, costs, and expected

performance of their energy transition projects.

Aquaculture Working Groups main recommendations- See here the full document

Offshore Aquaculture:

• Operators require a review of funding mechanisms for ET to make them

more easily accessible also by small companies. Funds should be made

available sufficiently to promote green reconversion. The operators require

that a single level playing field for fund access is guaranteed at EU level.

• The development of tailored capacity building and training programs is

needed to equip the offshore aquaculture workforce with the necessary skills

to manage the new technologies, all along the blue value chain. Support training

courses that are adaptable across Member States, with EU-level recognition to

ensure consistency and relevance.

• Developing targeted strategies to optimise feed production methods and

sourcing of raw materials is another important goal, together with the

implementation of pilot projects to supply feed industry with novel and

29

sustainable raw materials. Low trophic aquaculture should be consistently

promoted.

Inland Aquaculture:

• Targeted awareness raising, training, guidelines, good practices and case

studies for the aquaculture and related sectors could improve understanding

and provide more just grounds for energy transition.

• A roadmap and policies could enhance public guarantees to de-risk private

investment, complemented by grants for the riskiest projects.

• More research on environmental and economic sustainability of specific

energy transition cases could support financial decision making.

• Guidelines, case studies and good practices from the EU could ensure a better

understanding of EU rules and regulations and encourage countries to adapt

them, ensuring a fairer ground for aquaculture producers.

NGOs Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

The NGO segment underlines that the energy transition of fisheries and aquaculture

requires a holistic, system-wide approach, integrating climate mitigation, biodiversity

protection, social justice and economic resilience. The transition must address the entire

value chain, covering direct and indirect emissions, impacts on marine ecosystems and

carbon sinks, and links with food systems and coastal communities. A just transition

is essential, supporting fishers and aquaculture producers—especially small-scale

actors—through clear regulation, funding, training and innovation. A clear and

coherent regulatory framework, aligned with existing EU legislation and strategies,

is essential to provide certainty, ensure coherence across policies and enable investment.

Robust scientific baselines, mapping and monitoring are needed to assess progress,

guide decision-making and ensure accountability. The roadmap must be backed by

adequate funding, fiscal incentives, skills development, research and innovation,

with improved access for small-scale actors and safeguards against overcapacity.

Finally, a just and inclusive transition, supported by permanent stakeholder dialogue

and effective governance, is identified as key to delivering lasting climate, biodiversity

and socio-economic benefits.

Processing industry Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

• Develop harmonised EU templates and protocols for collecting energy and

emissions data.

• Provide guidance and tools to help companies meet sustainability reporting

obligations, particularly in light of CSRD delays.

• Improve data comparability to support investment decisions and sector-wide

monitoring.

• Conduct coordinated EU–Member State assessments of grid capacity, spatial

constraints, and permitting challenges in processing sites, logistics hubs, and

ports.

• Support investments in energy hubs, renewable energy deployment, onshore

power systems, and expanded charging infrastructure.

• Promote shared logistics solutions and optimisation of cold chains to reduce

fuel use and emissions.

• Align infrastructure planning across ports, shipyards, fisheries / aquaculture,

and trading & processing industries.

30

• Expand EU funding for pilot and demonstration projects specifically for

processing, trading, logistics, and circular-economy applications.

• Strengthen cooperation with academia, research bodies, and the ETP

Assistance Mechanism to advance technology readiness and support knowledge

transfer.

• Compile and share best practices and successful models from EU and global

experience to guide operators toward viable solutions.

• Enhance financial tools (grants, guarantees, and incentives) to de-risk

investments and ensure regional and economic feasibility.

Ports Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

• Machinery and equipment unloading fish catches, transporting catches inside

the port or loading the catches for further transport leads to high amounts of

emissions related to fishing and aquaculture. The ETP should establish an EU co-

financing program to replace diesel-powered equipment (forklifts, trucks, cranes,

etc) with electric or hybrid alternatives, complemented by a joint European

procurement mechanism to reduce costs for small ports. Include in the programs

the obligation to measure and monitor carbon emissions.

• The lack of Onshore Power Supply (OPS) in fishing ports is due to a

combination of factors including implementation costs, inconsistent grid

capacity, lack of standardised equipment, and a mismatch between vessel and

port infrastructure. The ETP should financially and technically support the

implementation and deployment of OPS in all EU fishing ports by 2030 through:

o Creating specific EU funding lines to co-finance the implementation of

OPS infrastructure and/or the placement of new substations and electrical

infrastructure in small (<5.000 t/year) and medium ports (5.000 – 20.000

t/year).

o Co-designing incentive schemes such as reduced port fees or preferential

electricity tariffs for connected vessels.

o Supporting harmonisation and standardisation of OPS technologies at EU

level to ensure interoperability across ports and fleets.

• Excessive dependence on traditional energy sources like fossil fuels leads to

environmental issues such as air and water pollution and climate change, while

also creating geopolitical vulnerabilities and economic instability due to

fluctuating prices and supply chain risks. In this sense, Ports are significant

energy consumers, primarily relying on non-renewable sources like diesel and

fossil fuel-generated electricity for operations such as container movement,

cranes, and lighting. The ETP should facilitate/encourage EU-financially

supported pilot projects (through calls) and/or co-financed investments (i.e. EIB,

CEF) to support the integration of renewable sources of energy (i.e. solar, wind,

etc.), battery storage systems into port operations, prioritizing refrigeration and

ice plants.

• The roadmap should promote a participatory and inclusive approach by

integrating social engagement plans and supporting pilot projects that combine

technological and social innovation, to reduce conflicts and align renewable

energy deployment with local community’s needs.

Research and Academia Working Group main recommendations– see here the full document

31

• Conduct a baseline study about the EU fleets reality (structure, fuel use,

profitability) and explore feasible energy transition solutions to generate mutual

trust (research, industry, sector).

• Detailed study on fuel use and emissions regulations and incentives within

the EU fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Determine which regulations could be

uniformly applied or tailored to fishing and aquaculture sectors, considering

promotion of the efficient energy use and associated emission reductions.

• Encourage and support demonstration sites for testing solutions for

decarbonising the fisheries and aquaculture sectors; identify sites where a

holistic solution is possible, involving all the actors, from the vessel to the port

and create a Living lab or demonstrator site to test solutions in real environment,

with active involvement of the operators.

• Support and enhance capacity building of the fisheries and aquaculture

workforce to new alternative fuels and solutions. Support specialised workforce

trainings, help streamlining certifications and credentials within EU (adaptation

of curriculum and allowing credentials to be used all along EU), and even

promoting a micro-credentials system as a potential solution for training new

workforce or re-skilling existing one.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 20.10.2026 SWD(2026) 752 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roadmap for the energy transition in EU fisheries

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

{COM(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 750 final} - {SWD(2026) 751 final} - {SWD(2026) 753 final}

1

Table of Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3

2. Baseline: a short analysis of the energy transition in fisheries ................................ 5

3. Considerations on a realistic, affordable and fair transition ................................ 10

3.1. Modelling projections for the energy transition in EU fisheries .................... 10

3.2. Considerations for developing the roadmap................................................ 11

4. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 20

Annex 1: Progress through the Energy Transition Partnership .................................. 21

Annex 2: Joint Considerations - EU Energy Transition Partnership for Fisheries and

Aquaculture ........................................................................................................... 23

2

Executive summary

The Communication (COM (2026) 701) on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

outlines the future for a sustainable, viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture sectors by

2040. It highlights two particular points of action to help achieve this ambition: i) reducing the

sector’s dependence on fossil fuels through the energy transition, and ii) strengthening fisheries

external action. To support progress on these two points, the Vision includes a dedicated

roadmap for the energy transition as well as a strategy on fisheries external action. The roadmap

for the energy transition in fisheries and aquaculture aims to provide additional guidance to the

European Union, its Member States and stakeholders on collectively setting a course for making

this transition.

This staff working document (SWD) accompanies the Commission Communication on a Vision

2040 for fisheries and aquaculture and its roadmap for the energy transition in fisheries and

aquaculture, which forms an integral pillar of the Vision 2040. It aims to provide the evidence

and analysis underpinning the fisheries dimension of the roadmap and take stock of the

extensive work done with fisheries stakeholders in drawing up the roadmap, in particular under

the Energy Transition Partnership for EU fisheries and aquaculture.

The evidence provided in this SWD reaffirms that the EU fisheries sector continues to be highly

dependent on fossil fuels. This causes parts of the fleet to be particularly vulnerable to fuel price

changes and contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases. Making an energy transition is

therefore both an economic and an environmental imperative.

On the basis of the extensive collaboration with stakeholders, as well as the results of several

studies on the topic, six considerations emerge which are crucial for ensuring a fair, realistic

and feasible energy transition in the sector. First, the energy transition requires a coordinated

approach across different levels of governance (from EU to local action), as well as strong

collaboration between sectors, in particular the maritime and waterborne sectors. Second, the

energy transition must be achieved in full synergy with the other objectives of the common

fisheries policy (CFP), in particular as regards progress on achieving fishing capacity balance.

Third, the energy transition requires moving towards a stronger business model for fisheries

that can enable private investment in a sustainable way. This is one of the key enablers for the

transition and it is strongly linked to the broader challenges of modernising the fleet and making

the sector more attractive. Fourth, the speed of the energy transition is bound by progress in the

development of viable, net-zero technologies, shipyard capacity and port infrastructure. Strong

alignment with the wider EU initiatives aimed at decarbonising the maritime sector is therefore

crucial for achieving the energy transition in fisheries. Lastly, adequate consideration should be

given to the fairness of the transition in the fisheries sector. This includes considering the

impacts on coastal communities, balancing the costs and benefits of the transition, ensuring

opportunities to develop workforce skills during the transition and ensuring an inclusive

governance.

3

1. Introduction

In February 2023, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the energy

transition in EU fisheries and aquaculture1 as part of the fisheries and oceans package2. In 2022,

alarmed by the impact of rising energy prices on the profitability of the fisheries and aquaculture

sectors, the Commission set the ambition for resilient and carbon-neutral sectors by 2050. This

was to be achieved by steering the sectors towards an energy transition in line with the

Commission’s ambitions for climate neutrality and the Green Deal. The energy transition has

the aim of reducing the sectors’ costly vulnerability to fluctuating fossil fuel prices, while setting

a course for their long-term decarbonisation.

The urgent need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels became clear once again in 2026, following

the start of the war in Iran and the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Prices spiked for the fuel

types that are most important for fisheries and aquaculture, in particular marine gas oil (MGO).

This pushed many fishers and aquaculture operators into financial difficulty for the second time

in the space of four years. In response, the Commission activated the temporary crisis

mechanism under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for the

second time, as well as additional support measures allowing Member States to help the

industry absorb the worst impacts of the crisis3.

This shows once more that it is imperative, from both an economic and an environmental

perspective, to break the dependence on fossil fuels through an energy transition in the fisheries

and aquaculture sector, in order to ensure a resilient, competitive and sustainable future, in line

with the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture.

The energy transition in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors cannot happen overnight but rather

requires sustained effort. Rather than proposing quick fixes, the 2023 Communication proposed

launching a new form of cooperation with stakeholders on the energy transition, namely an

Energy Transition Partnership (ETP) for EU fisheries and aquaculture. The ETP offers an open

platform for all stakeholders, facilitating cooperation, coordination and the sharing of

knowledge.

With over 690 members4, the ETP has enabled a unique, constructive and collaborative

approach. As a concrete deliverable, the ETP supported and informed the development of the

roadmap for the energy transition. An overview of the activities and progress made under the

ETP, and other initiatives, is provided in Annex 2. This SWD provides the underlying analysis

and considerations made for the roadmap for the energy transition in the EU fisheries sector, as

set out in COM(2026) 701. A parallel SWD [SWD(2026)753] sets out a dedicated roadmap for

the aquaculture sector.

As a key input to the roadmap, the ETP carried out extensive consultations with stakeholders

and experts. These were consolidated into a set of 10 key considerations, as well as detailed

recommendations by each of the 10 working groups of the ETP5. In addition, efforts by the

European Parliament, advisory councils, Member States and sector initiatives have equally

informed the roadmap. The recommendations and considerations were presented by the ETP

stakeholders on 17 February 2026 at the conference on the energy transition in EU fisheries and

1 COM(2023) 100 final on the energy transition in EU fisheries and aquaculture. The fisheries and oceans

package included also the CFP Communication, CMO Report and the marine action plan. 2 Common fisheries policy (CFP) - Oceans and fisheries - European Commission. 3 Emergency funding to shield fisheries and aquaculture from Middle East crisis - EU Blue Economy

Observatory. 4 In April 2026. 5 Joint Considerations of the ETP Support Groups on EU Fisheries and Aquaculture.

4

aquaculture6. Besides, the Commission and national administrations have provided support for

pilot and research projects, including with the European Parliament, of which the results are

also reflected7.

Energy transition comes at the same time that the EU, together with the Member States and

stakeholders, is reflecting on a broader set of questions on the future of the fisheries and

aquaculture sectors in the EU. The evaluation of the Regulation on the common fisheries policy

(‘CFP Regulation’)8 indicates that, despite progress in rebuilding commercial fish stocks

towards the maximum sustainable yield, the sector continues to face several critical challenges,

including an ageing fleet, lingering overcapacity and a weak profit base. This raises more

fundamental questions about the future of the fisheries sector. The energy transition roadmap

set out in this SWD is an integral pillar of the reflections in the Vision for 2040 and the future

policy considerations on the CFP.

A clear, sector-specific long-term roadmap setting out priorities in the different phases of the

transition can reduce policy uncertainty for stakeholders. It facilitates coordination among

shipyards, ports, fuel suppliers and fishers, as key stakeholders in the transition. In short, the

roadmap aims to serve three main objectives.

1) Make the energy transition an integral part of the Vision for 2040 on the future of the

fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the EU.

2) Set out a realistic and feasible pathway for the energy transition towards 2050 with

several intermediary milestones.

3) Develop a common understanding and coordinated approach across stakeholders on the

crucial steps, aiming for collective ownership of the actions and enablers for

implementing such a transition. This in turn will provide a clear policy direction and

guidance for investment in the energy transition.

This document is divided into four chapters that aim to describe the reasoning behind the energy

transition roadmap presented in COM(2026)701 on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and

aquaculture. Chapter 2 analyses the data used to determine the starting point for the transition.

Chapter 3 highlights the six main considerations for the energy transition, which underpin the

choices made in designing the roadmap and which are based on the complex work with

stakeholders, as well as the results of various studies and projects. Annex 1 includes a short

overview of the progress made with stakeholders since 2023. Annex 2 includes the joint

considerations and sectoral recommendations made by the ETP and its working groups.

Energy transition in the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture

Energy transition is one of the key pillars of the transition towards the overarching Vision 2040

for fisheries and aquaculture. The energy transition roadmap is therefore not a stand-alone

initiative but has been developed in order to be fully aligned with the broader objectives set out

in the Vision. This has several implications.

First, fisheries are likely to be profoundly affected by: i) ongoing technological progress, ii) the

inevitable and increasing effects of climate change on the marine environment, iii) biodiversity

loss and pollution, iv) demographic changes and v) the development of EU coastal

communities9, among other things. When developing a roadmap for the energy transition in

6 Navigating Change: Towards the Energy Transition in the EU Fisheries and Aquaculture - European

Commission. 7 Including through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) and Horizon Europe. 8 Register of Commission Documents - SWD(2026)120. 9 COM(2026) 530 final.

5

fisheries and aquaculture towards 2050, the goal is therefore not the transition of today’s sector,

but shaping the pathway towards a carbon-neutral, profitable and low-impact sector for the

decades ahead.

Second, the full recovery of fish stocks and a healthy marine environment are the true

fundamental pillars for the future of the EU fisheries sector, including for the energy

transition. Healthier and more productive stocks strengthen the basis for economic performance

in fisheries and support the decrease in energy intensity, which in turn enables investment,

including in the energy transition.

Third, the energy transition should anticipate that the EU fishing fleet will look different

in the future than it does today. The Vision for 2040 recognises that, in order to move to a

more productive and viable fleet, EU fisheries will need to operate even more in balance with

marine ecosystems. There will likely be fewer, newer and more efficient vessels in the future

in order to remain competitive and operative in a viable business model.

It is thus crucial that the energy transition roadmap takes a holistic approach to the transition

towards a low-impact, viable fleet, in line with the Vision for 2040, of which energy transition

is just one dimension. Synergies with other EU fisheries policy objectives should be considered

carefully in this roadmap, while acknowledging that the outcomes of parallel processes, such

as the ongoing negotiations on the future of EU funding, are unknown. This is discussed in

Chapter 3.

2. Baseline: a short analysis of the energy transition in fisheries

Before setting out a pathway for the energy transition towards 2050, it is important to better

understand the main sources of emissions and vulnerabilities in the fisheries sector. The

presented graphs and findings in this chapter are based on the socio-economic data collected

under the EU’s data collection framework (DCF)10, as well as the two dedicated studies11,12.

Finding #1: Total fossil fuel consumption has reduced, but this is also caused by a reduction in

fishing effort.

The EU fishing fleet remains highly dependent on fossil fuels as a main source of energy for

propulsion and on-board operations. In 2023, the EU fleet consumed approximately 1.564

billion litres of fossil fuel13:by far the majority being Marine Gas Oil (MGO). At the same time,

the overall fuel consumption of the EU fleet is part of a long-standing reducing trend, with a

decline of 28% since 2008.

The large-scale fleet, responsible for 75% of total emissions in 2022, saw a 45% reduction in

fuel consumption since 2005.14 The small-scale fleet also almost halved its emissions over the

same period, representing 8% of total emissions in 2022, while landings were about 7% of the

10 Home - Data Collection Framework - DCF - European Commission. 11 European Commission: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, ECORYS,

SML, BlueFarm and CE Delft, Techno-economic analysis for the energy transition of the EU fisheries and

aquaculture sector, Publications Office of the European Union,

2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2926/425550. 12 European Commission: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, CE Delft, Ramboll,

Scholten, P., Hindriks, I. et al., Study on greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction costs, scenarios and

pathways for EU fisheries to achieve net zero by 2050, Publications Office of the European Union,

2026, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/3293497. 13 On the basis of data collected under the EU data collection framework (DCF). 14 i.e. the reference year for the EU Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), under which fisheries’ emissions are

covered.

6

EU total. The distant water fleet increased its baseline emissions by roughly 22% between 2005

and 2022, and accounted for about 17% of total fisheries emissions by the end of the period.

At EU level, this reduction can partly be attributed to the progress made on energy efficiency

in the fleet, such as by adopting modern gear, energy-efficient on-board equipment and engines,

stock recovery, and possibly changes in the composition of landings and structure of the fleet.

This has led to an overall reduction of about 15% of emissions per tonne of landings. However,

as shown in Figure 1, fleet fuel consumption also correlates strongly with fishing activity

indicators, such as the number of fishing days, which ultimately lead back to available fishing

opportunities. This suggests that a significant part of the emission reductions achieved is driven

by a reduction in fishing activity, rather than progress on increasing energy efficiency.

Figure 1 – Trends in energy consumption, fishing effort (days at sea) and fuel intensity (litres of fuel per tonne of landings). (2008=100) (AER, 2025)15

Finding #2: Energy use per kg of landings is highly diverse across different fleet segments.

As explained in Finding 1, the energy transition aims to reduce both the vulnerability of

fisheries products to fuel prices, and their carbon footprint. It is therefore useful to consider not

only the total emissions, but also the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint per unit of landed product.

Figure 2 shows the GHG emissions per fishing technique and fleet category16. It shows that

there is a high diversity of energy and carbon intensity in landings across different parts of the

EU fishing fleet. Both the small-scale and large-scale fleets have energy-intensive and non-

energy-intensive sectors, in terms of their direct emissions. In fact, both highly energy-efficient

fishing methods, for example pelagic trawling, and the least efficient methods, namely beam

trawling, are in the large-scale fisheries (LSF). The carbon intensity of the techniques used

within the small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF) also varies greatly. All parts of the fleet are

therefore responsible for the energy transition, requiring an inclusive approach while taking

into account also their specific challenges and opportunities while making the energy transition.

15 Data collected under the 2025 Annual Economic Report of the EU fishing fleet (AER) data call of the DCF. 16 i.e. Large-scale fisheries (LSF), distant water fleet (DWF) and small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF).

7

Figure 2 – CO2-equivalent emissions per kilogram of landings by fishing technique

Finding #3: Direct emissions from fisheries are concentrated in a small number of energy-

intensive fleet segments.

Despite differing levels of emissions per unit of landings, overall emissions remain significantly

concentrated in relatively small subsets of the sector – in particular the energy-intensive parts

of the large-scale fleet. Figure 3 shows the concentration of emissions across different parts of

the fishing fleet. Demersal trawlers and seiners, and the beam trawl segments in particular have

a high total emissions and high energy costs. Combined, they account for around 60% of total

emissions, while also accounting for 40% of landings value and making up 10% of active

vessels in the EU fishing fleet.

Figure 3 Annual total greenhouse gas emissions in CO2-equivalents and number of vessels.

8

Finding #4: The large-scale fleet is especially vulnerable to fuel price hikes.

Large fluctuations in fossil fuel prices over the last five years, as well as the increasingly

unpredictable geopolitical environment affecting global oil markets, have further underlined

the need for the transition.

The sensitivity of different parts of the sector to fuel prices can be assessed by looking at their

long-term break-even fuel price. The long-term break-even fuel price is the fuel price at which

a fisher no longer makes an operational profit17. For example, if the long-term break-even price

is EUR 1.50 per litre, it means that, at this price, fuel costs would be at a level that yields zero

operational profits, assuming everything else stays the same. A low break-even fuel price thus

implies that a small increase in fuel price from the average would result in losses for that fleet.

Figure 4 shows that demersal trawlers and seiners, and beam trawlers (and to a lesser extent

pelagic trawlers) are by far the most sensitive to fuel price fluctuations. Their real break-even

fuel prices of EUR 0.68 and EUR 0.73, respectively, are the lowest among the EU fleet,

meaning that these are the first to suffer losses when fuel prices increase. Put differently, even

a minor increase above the historic average real fuel price could render this part of the fleet

unviable in the long run. These three segments together represent about half of the value of

landings of EU fisheries. Note that these figures are in real terms and represent averages, and

that there may thus be substantial variation between individual vessels using the same fishing

techniques. Besides, even if segments are not likely to make losses as a result of fuel price

increases, the socio-economic impacts can still be significant when returns from fisheries

reduce.

Figure 4 thus highlights that the energy transition is not only a long-term consideration, but that

there is an urgent short-term need to reduce vulnerability to fossil fuel price fluctuations by

strengthening profit margins and increasing fuel intensity.

Figure 4 – Long-term break-even fuel price by fishing technique, and mean and distribution of EU marine gas oil (MGO) price

Abbreviations used: DTS = Demersal trawlers and/or demersal seiners; TBB = Beam trawlers; TM = Pelagic

trawlers; DFN = Drift and/or fixed netters; PGP = Vessels using polyvalent passive gears only; MGO = Vessels

using other active gears; MGP = Vessels using polyvalent; HOK = Vessels using hooks; DRB = Dredgers; PS =

17 i.e. the gross profits minus the depreciation of assets.

9

Purse seiners; active gears only; PMP = Vessels using active and passive gears; FPO = Vessels using pots and/or

traps.18

3. Considerations on a realistic, affordable and fair transition

Chapter 2 provided quantitative insights into the baseline sources of emissions and the

vulnerability of the sector. Looking forward, a complex set of social, economic and technical

considerations, as well as important normative and political considerations, must be made when

drawing up a feasible roadmap, as done in the Vision Communication.

This chapter aims to provide evidence and reflections on some of the key strategic, political,

technical and economic considerations for the transition. These considerations aim to underpin

the choices made when drawing up the energy transition roadmap as set out in the

Communication on the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture. The joint considerations

prepared by the ETP, and the recommendations delivered by its 10 dedicated working groups,

informed these considerations19. In addition, insights from various studies20 were also used.

These analysed the technological and economic feasibility of the transition, such as economic

viability of technologies, projected fuel availability and the relative costs of different emission

reduction pathways.

3.1. Modelling projections for the energy transition in EU fisheries

In 2025, the Commission procured a modelling study on a set of alternative pathways for the

energy transition in the fisheries sector, to help develop the energy transition roadmap. This

18 Note that this graph is made on the basis of average historic fuel price of MGO (EUMOFA) in the period

2015-2025. It should be noted that the SSCF, at least in some MSs, may buy fuel at higher prices, or used other

types of fuels such as gasoline, this may, in overestimate their ability to cope with fuel prices. 19 ETP Support Group - Maritime Forum - European Commission. 20 Study on greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction costs, scenarios and pathways for EU fisheries to

achieve net zero by 2050 - Publications Office of the EU.

Box 1: Considerations on the indirect emissions of the fisheries sector.

A subject of debate has been how to consider the indirect emissions stemming from the

fisheries sector, other than those from fossil fuels. The focus of discussions has been on

strengthening the resilience of the sector in the wake of the energy price shock of 2022, as

well as on the need to align with the wider energy transition of the EU’s economy. The

efforts of the ETP have primarily focused on reducing the sector’s dependence on fossil

fuels, i.e. emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by fishing vessels. However, the

Vision 2040, of which this roadmap is part, takes a holistic approach to the future role of

fisheries and aquaculture in the EU. This raises questions about how to consider possible

indirect emissions in the context of the sector’s transition towards 2050.

Beyond the direct emissions from fossil fuels combustion, the indirect emissions of the

fisheries sector are linked, among other things, to transportation of crew, electricity use in

port, production of physical capital, waste and consumables. And there is a considerable

amount of ongoing scientific research focused on better understanding other possible

impacts that fisheries could have on the potential for ocean carbon sequestration. This

research includes the effect of removing biomass that contribute to the ocean carbon flux,

the reduction of living biomass that stores carbon and the disturbance of the seabed

sediments by benthic trawling. Research on the latter subject (i.e. sediment disturbance

leading to carbon release) was prompted by recent publications. The results of these strands

of research could require consideration for the future when clearer evidence is available.

10

modelling study builds on the results of an earlier techno-economic study on the energy

transition, which assessed the technical and economic feasibility of different technologies for

the energy transition.

This modelling exercise allows the different aspects of the transition to be linked together in a

coherent way. It allows different scenarios to be tested and compared, ballpark estimates of the

costs of the transition to be made, and the key bottlenecks that hamper the transition to be

identified. This also helps to identify more clearly where collective actions and efforts could be

focused, while also giving an idea of which technologies are technically and economically most

feasible for driving the transition in the future. While recognising the limitations of modelling

approaches, which always involve simplifying a complex reality, the study models five

alternative scenarios on the basis of different assumptions, policy measures and market

environments for making the transition in the sector. The authors of the study came to the

following conclusions.

• Adopting quick-gains measures for energy efficiency is the most effective and economic

way to reduce both costs and emissions and step up resilience in the short run. Policy

measures should focus especially on this in the short run.

• Fleet renewal is one of the key enablers for the energy transition. However, the current

socio-economic situation in the fleet, the availability of infrastructure, the accessibility

of alternative fuels and the capacity of shipbuilders are major barriers that need to be

addressed.

• The transition to alternative fuels will likely happen only later in the transition, as fuel

prices fall and the availability of fuels and fuelling infrastructure improves. An

important policy consideration is how to overcome the price gap between conventional

and alternative fuels.

• Infrastructure is a crucial enabler that requires planned effort with other stakeholders,

including port authorities and the maritime sectors.

The results of the study, while taking into account its limitations, helped to inform the roadmap.

Further details and results can be read in the published study19.

3.2. Considerations for developing the roadmap

Consideration 1: Progress on the energy transition can only be achieved through a coordinated

and multi-level governance approach.

Achieving the energy transition in the fisheries sector is a highly complex endeavour, both from

an economic, technical and governance perspective, and in light of the increasing impacts of

climate change. A coordinated approach is needed due to the diversity of the fleet, the structure

of the sector and the fact that competence is spread across different levels of governance,

different sectors and a wide range of stakeholders, amongst others.

Need for a regional and tailored approach

The EU fishing fleet is diverse, in terms of vessel types and sizes, target species, gear use, trip

length, management practices and local contexts. This means that, depending on the Member

State, tailored national, regional and/or local strategies will be needed for making the

transition. Examples of such strategies are emerging throughout the EU. By aligning these

national, regional and local approaches to the fishing fleet with the possibilities under EMFAF

and the future multiannual financial framework (MFF)21 programming, Member States have

21 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en.

11

the opportunity to promote selective low-impact fishing practices and energy-efficient practices

and facilitate a just transition that preserves coastal livelihoods and increases competitiveness.

Cross-sector coordination

Furthermore, the transition requires strong cooperation across different sectors. The energy

transition requires close coordination between stakeholders such as fishers, port authorities,

energy providers and shipyards, in order to overcome fundamental market coordination

problems. As in other sectors, stakeholders in the fisheries and surrounding maritime sectors

often face information asymmetries or they risk coordination failures22 that hinder the energy

transition. These gaps lead to hesitation and postponed investments, while misaligned economic

incentives and planning horizons create vicious cycles, such as ports delaying bunkering

capacity without guaranteed demand, and shipowners avoiding orders for vessels dependent on

unavailable fuels. The EU ports strategy refers to some of these challenges, and some flagship

actions for the way forward, in the measures under the European Grids Package23.

In terms of innovation and technology development, the fisheries sector can benefit from cross-

innovation in other maritime sectors, such as the waterborne transport sector. This is especially

relevant given that, due to its size and structure, parts of the sector have a lower capacity to

drive fundamental technological development, such as future propulsion technology, and will

therefore need to benefit from solutions, infrastructure and innovations in the wider maritime

cluster.

Lastly, coordination across the value chain, from harvesting to processing, logistics and

marketing, is essential to ensure that there is a comprehensive approach to decarbonisation

efforts on fisheries and aquaculture products. In this context, multi-stakeholder governance and

multi-level governance are crucial enablers for the energy transition in the sector.

Consideration 2: Progress on the energy transition should be achieved in synergy with other

objectives of the CFP.

The energy transition is only one of the pillars of the transition towards a viable, resilient and

low-impact EU fishing fleet, as set out in the Vision. The approach and actions put forward in

the roadmap should therefore be addressed holistically and, as far as possible, seek synergies

with other EU fisheries policy objectives, such as reducing environmental impacts, supporting

the transition towards a viable business model and improving working conditions and safety on

board.

An important aspect in that regard isthe balance between EU fishing capacity and available

resources. Historically, imbalances between the capacity of the EU fishing fleet and available

resources have played an important role in the overexploitation of resources, and they

undermine the socio-economic performance of the sector24. In order to prevent this, the CFP

Regulation provides measures and safeguards aimed at preventing overcapacity, notably the

measures laid down in Articles 22 to 2425. The total capacity of the EU fishing fleet is capped

22 European Commission: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, CE Delft, Ramboll,

Scholten, P., Hindriks, I. et al., Study on greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction costs, scenarios and

pathways for EU fisheries to achieve net zero by 2050, Publications Office of the European Union,

2026, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/3293497. 23 COM/2025/1005 European Grids Package 24 European Union’s fishing fleet - Publications Office of the EU 25 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the

Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and