Europe's Fight Against Illegal Fishing: Can Technology Make a Difference?

A fishing vessel working in the Arctic has little time to waste. Between unpredictable weather and the pressure to bring in a profitable catch, recording every fish may seem like a secondary task. Yet the information collected on board can make a real difference. If catches are incorrectly reported, authorities may struggle to establish how much fish has been taken from the sea, and whether fishing rules are being respected.

This is one of the problems the European Union is trying to address in its fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, commonly known as IUU fishing. The issue goes beyond vessels operating without permission. It also includes catches that are deliberately concealed, misreported or taken in breach of applicable conservation measures.

The consequences are not limited to the marine environment. Illegal fishing can give some operators an unfair commercial advantage over those who follow the rules, while putting pressure on fish stocks and coastal communities that rely on them.

The EU has spent years developing a legal framework to tackle these practices. Now, digital certificates, vessel tracking and artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly important parts of that effort.

Why illegal fishing is difficult to control

Fishing takes place across enormous maritime areas, often far from the authorities responsible for monitoring it. A vessel may operate for days or weeks at sea, while its catch can pass through several ports, processing facilities and countries before reaching a supermarket.

That makes it difficult to verify the origin of every fish product through physical inspections alone. Authorities need to know not only where a vessel was operating, but also what it caught, whether it had permission to fish and whether the catch was accurately declared.

The scale of the global problem is significant. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) notes that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing threatens fish stocks, marine ecosystems and the livelihoods of coastal communities. Estimates of its scale vary, and figures often quoted in public discussions should be treated as estimates rather than precise annual measurements.

For the EU, the issue also has a commercial dimension. If illegally caught fish enters the European market, businesses that comply with conservation rules may find themselves competing against products obtained at lower cost by avoiding those obligations.

The challenge is therefore twofold: preventing illegal activity at sea and stopping illegally caught products from entering legitimate supply chains.

Europe's legal response: controlling what enters the market

One of the EU's main tools is Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, known as the IUU Regulation. It established a system designed to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal fishing, including through catch certification and restrictions on products associated with unlawful activity.

Under this framework, marine fishery products imported into the EU generally need to be accompanied by validated catch certificates. These documents help establish that the products originate from fishing activities recognised as legal under the applicable rules.

The system also gives the European Commission a way to act against countries that fail to cooperate in tackling illegal fishing. The Commission can first issue a so-called yellow card, identifying shortcomings and encouraging corrective action. If the problems are not adequately addressed, a country can be listed as non-cooperating, a step commonly known as a red card. This can lead to restrictions on fisheries imports from that country.

The mechanism is important because illegal fishing is not always a problem that can be solved by inspecting individual vessels. The authorities responsible for a vessel's flag state also have obligations, and weak enforcement in one country can affect fisheries and markets elsewhere.

The EU's approach uses access to its market as a means of encouraging compliance. Given the importance of European consumers and importers in international seafood trade, the system can have consequences beyond EU waters.

A new digital tool from 2026

A significant development took place on 10 January 2026, when the EU's CATCH system became mandatory for EU operators and authorities handling imports of fishery products covered by the catch-certification scheme.

CATCH is an electronic system for submitting and checking catch certificates and related documents. It replaces the previous paper-based process with a common digital platform, allowing operators and authorities to exchange information more efficiently.

The change may sound administrative, but traceability is central to fisheries enforcement. Digital records can make it easier to identify inconsistencies, compare information and verify the documents accompanying imported products. A more harmonised system can also reduce differences in how checks are carried out across Member States.

CATCH does not, by itself, prove that every shipment is legal. Its effectiveness depends on the quality of the information entered into the system, the reliability of certificates validated by the relevant authorities and the checks performed when products arrive.

Even so, the move towards digital certification marks an important change in how the EU approaches seafood imports. Rather than relying on paper documents moving through a fragmented process, authorities have a common digital tool designed to improve verification and cooperation.

From satellites to artificial intelligence

Digital certification is only one part of the picture. The EU is also strengthening the monitoring of fishing activities themselves.

Satellite-based vessel monitoring systems can provide information about a vessel's position and movements, helping authorities identify activity that may require further investigation. Electronic logbooks and other reporting tools provide additional information about fishing operations and catches.

The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), based in Vigo, Spain, supports cooperation between national fisheries authorities and helps coordinate control activities. By bringing together information from different sources, monitoring systems can help inspectors focus their attention on vessels or activities that present a higher risk of non-compliance.

Artificial intelligence could take this process further. Algorithms can analyse large amounts of information and flag patterns that might otherwise be difficult to identify. For example, a vessel entering a restricted fishing area while moving in a way associated with fishing activity could trigger an alert for further assessment.

Similar technologies are being developed to record catches automatically. Through EU-funded research projects such as EveryFish, researchers are exploring the use of computer vision to identify fish species and estimate their size or weight as catches move along a conveyor belt.

If these systems become sufficiently reliable, they could reduce manual reporting and help produce more consistent catch data. That information could support scientific assessments of fish stocks and make it easier to detect discrepancies between what vessels catch and what they report.

However, an algorithmic alert is not the same as proof of illegal fishing. Vessel movements can have legitimate explanations, and automated identification systems can make mistakes. Technology can help identify where closer scrutiny is needed, but inspectors still have to assess the evidence and establish whether the rules have actually been breached.

Cameras on board: how far should surveillance go?

Some of the most sensitive questions concern the use of cameras on fishing vessels. Remote electronic monitoring can help authorities check whether particular fishing activities comply with the rules, including requirements relating to the landing of catches.

The EU's revised fisheries control framework, introduced through Regulation (EU) 2023/2842, provides for remote electronic monitoring systems that include CCTV on certain vessels assessed as posing a high risk of non-compliance with the landing obligation. This is a targeted requirement, not a general obligation for every fishing vessel to install cameras.

The legislation also recognises that fisheries enforcement must respect privacy. CCTV footage cannot simply be streamed live under these provisions, and recording is restricted to relevant areas and activities associated with fishing gear, the handling and storage of catches, and possible discarding. The rules also seek to limit the identification of individuals and require anonymisation where necessary.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is relevant whenever footage involves identifiable people and constitutes personal data. The collection and use of that information must comply with the applicable legal requirements, including the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation.

These safeguards are not a minor detail. A fishing vessel is both a workplace and a confined environment in which crew members spend long periods living alongside one another. Monitoring fishing operations may serve a legitimate public interest, but that does not mean every aspect of life on board should be recorded.

The legal challenge is to ensure that surveillance is proportionate to the objective being pursued. A system designed to detect unlawful discarding should not become an unrestricted tool for monitoring the crew.

The risk of relying too heavily on technology

The introduction of digital tools does not automatically guarantee better enforcement. Systems need to be accurate, properly maintained and used by people who understand their limitations.

A catch-recognition model might struggle to distinguish between similar species or estimate weights accurately in poor conditions. Satellite data may identify unusual movements without explaining why they occurred. Digital certificates can improve traceability, but they cannot make false information reliable simply by storing it electronically.

There is also a practical question of cost. Installing new equipment, maintaining it and training staff can place additional demands on fishing businesses, particularly smaller operators. If the new rules and systems are difficult to implement, their effectiveness may be reduced.

For these reasons, digital monitoring should complement rather than replace physical inspections, scientific expertise and professional judgement. The aim should be to give authorities better information and more effective tools, not to assume that technology can resolve every enforcement problem on its own.

Can Europe make fisheries fairer?

The EU's fight against illegal fishing brings together environmental protection, trade policy and the enforcement of common rules. Catch certificates aim to make the origin of seafood easier to verify, while monitoring systems and automated analysis can help authorities identify possible infringements.

For law-abiding fishers, effective enforcement matters because it can reduce the commercial advantage enjoyed by operators who ignore the rules. For consumers, traceability can improve confidence that seafood entering the European market has been obtained legally. And for coastal communities, protecting fish stocks is essential to the long-term viability of the industry.

The results will depend on how well these measures work in practice. Authorities need reliable data, cooperation between countries and enough resources to investigate suspicious activity. At the same time, the use of cameras and automated systems must remain subject to clear legal safeguards.

Europe's approach is moving towards a more connected system in which information gathered at sea can be checked against catch records and import documents. That will not eliminate illegal fishing overnight, but it can make the activity harder to conceal.

Ultimately, the success of this effort will not be measured by the number of cameras installed or the volume of data collected. It will depend on whether the information leads to better enforcement, healthier fish stocks and a fairer market for those who follow the rules.