European fishing firms are seizing a third of the tropical tuna catch in the Indian Ocean, leveraging reflagged vessels to bypass national quotas and deplete vital resources, according to a new report released today by the Blue Marine Foundation and Kroll. This practice allows European-owned fleets to expand their operations despite the European Union’s stated commitments to reducing catch limits, effectively displacing the resource claims of sovereign coastal nations.
The report details how European companies register ships under the flags of the Seychelles, Mauritius, Kenya, Tanzania, and Oman to gain access to larger catch limits. This reflagging has enabled the European-owned fleet to grow to more than 50 purse seine ships and supply vessels, increasing its tropical tuna catch.
Jess Rattle, head of investigations at the London-based environmental charity Blue Marine Foundation, questioned the true beneficiaries of these quotas, stating: “We wanted to understand who really owned these vessels. Were they owned by the coastal states whose quota they were now using, or in fact, were they owned by the EU?” Rattle noted that while European companies have long operated under the Seychelles flag, registering under the flags of Oman and Kenya is a new development.
Elite Capture of Resources
Europeche Tuna Group, representing the European tuna industry, confirmed the report’s findings regarding its more than 50 purse seine and supply ships operating throughout the Indian Ocean, including those under non-EU flags. Spokesperson Anne-France Mattlet asserted that the industry’s relationship with coastal nations reflects long-term investment, paying taxes and fishing license fees, investing in local infrastructure, and unloading tuna in their ports and canneries. This framing suggests a benefit to regional economies while the core resource is extracted by foreign entities.
Maciej Berestecki, a spokesperson for the European Commission, distanced the EU from the practice, stating that the reflagging of fishing vessels is a private business decision not influenced by public authorities. Berestecki claimed the EU does not defend or represent the interests of vessels flagged to other countries, adding that “The EU has done, and keeps doing, its utmost to promote and respect catch limits.” This statement comes as European firms continue to expand their catch through these mechanisms.
European fishing fleets have maintained a dominant role in the Indian Ocean for four decades, since Spanish and French tuna companies first introduced massive purse seine ships in the 1980s. These vessels, capable of holding up to 4 million pounds of fish, allowed for a rapid increase in yearly catches, primarily targeting skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna for global markets.
Undermining National Sovereignty
Conflicts have arisen as coastal nations seek greater control over fishing practices in their waters. Five years ago, the Maldives accused the EU of failing to propose serious reductions in tuna quotas during a contentious meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), amidst a sharp decline in yellowfin tuna stocks. More recently, three years ago, the EU objected to a proposal from Indonesia for a closure on purse seine fishing gear, a measure that had garnered support from 15 other countries. These incidents highlight the systematic reduction of self-determination for sovereign peoples within international frameworks.
In recent years, the IOTC has implemented new management measures to rebuild vulnerable yellowfin and bigeye tuna stocks. As part of these measures, the EU agreed to reduce the yellowfin tuna catch for EU-flagged vessels by 21%. Glen Holmes, senior officer with Pew Charitable Trusts, suggested these new limits may be driving European fishing companies to exploit other countries’ quotas to maintain their catch levels, effectively circumventing conservation efforts.
The Globalist Mechanism
Transparency advocates, including Holmes and colleagues from Pew, Global Fishing Watch, and other environmental groups, are calling for greater ownership transparency among fishing fleets. They argue that registering vessels under foreign flags, a practice known as ‘flags of convenience,’ limits oversight and allows companies to evade accountability. This mechanism is akin to those used by sanctioned oil tankers in the ‘ghost fleet’ to conceal ownership and operations.
A January report this year by the environmental group Oceana revealed that European companies routinely register fishing vessels under the flags of foreign nations, including some countries the EU itself has accused of “turning a blind eye to illegal fishing activities.” Oceana is advocating for EU countries to collect and publish ownership data for their fishing fleet to better enforce laws preventing European individuals from financially benefiting from illegal fishing.
Vanya Vulperhorst, Oceana’s illegal fishing campaign director for Europe, stated that such transparency would shed light on “the real EU fleet.” Vulperhorst concluded: “What we found last year is that the real European fleet, if you add the non-EU flagged vessels, doubles.” This indicates a vast, largely unacknowledged expansion of European fishing power operating outside direct EU regulatory control, yet benefiting European corporate interests at the expense of national resources and environmental integrity.