Executive summary
This study analyses how seafood imports affect the European Union’s capacity to meet its own seafood demand – its self-sufficiency and food security. It compares production costs, competitiveness, and innovation between EU and non-EU producers and explores policy measures to strengthen EU seafood resilience in line with the European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy.
State of EU seafood self-sufficiency
EU seafood self-sufficiency has declined steadily, reaching 37.5% in 2022. This figure hides greater dependence, as much of the EU’s pelagic catch (like mackerel and herring) is exported while other species are imported. If exports are excluded, EU domestic production covers only 14.2% of total seafood consumption, meaning imports supply over 80% of what Europeans eat. Inflation, Brexit, and supply disruptions from the Russia-Ukraine war have compounded costs and reduced consumption, pushing consumers toward cheaper, imported seafood. The situation varies between commodity groups:
· Tuna – Mostly caught outside EU waters; self-sufficiency fell to 29% in 2022 due to expanding free trade and autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs) to supply EU canneries.
· Groundfish (cod, hake, Alaskan pollock) – Only 20% from EU sources; quotas and stock declines have cut EU landings by 43% since 2020.
· Salmonids – Almost all salmon consumed is imported (mainly from Norway and Chile); trout remains mostly EU-produced.
· Small pelagics – Once self-sufficient but declining; exports of blue whiting and imports of sardine and anchovy distort balances.
· Bivalves (mussels, oysters) – Traditionally strong, but climate-induced losses and competition from Chile are eroding market share.
· Crustaceans (shrimp) – Highly import-dependent (self-sufficiency circa 12%), with little scope for EU production expansion.
Competitiveness in capture fisheries
EU capture fisheries face higher production costs and lower productivity compared to key non-EU competitors. Wages account for about 33% of revenues – higher than in Morocco, India, Ecuador, and China, but lower than in Iceland and Norway. Fuel costs are about 21% of revenues. Even with tax exemptions, EU fleets face higher prices than many non-EU countries.
Productivity is a further factor in seafood competitiveness: Norway and Iceland offset high input costs with efficient, modern fleets with high catch-per-effort rates, while EU fleets are ageing and underinvested. Morocco, the EU’s largest wild capture seafood supplier, has lower energy and labour costs, making its canned sardines cheaper than EU equivalents. Moroccan waters are also highly productive, particularly in disputed Western Sahara waters, but have been overfished by domestic and foreign fleets, which now threatens resource sustainability. EU consumers and processors thus rely on imports with uncertain legality and ecological integrity.
About half of EU seafood imports benefit from reduced tariffs under trade agreements or autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs), which aid processors. Industry groups criticise the lack of sustainability and labour criteria in current trade regimes, calling for stronger ‘level playing field’ provisions.
Competitiveness in aquaculture
EU aquaculture output has stagnated at around 1 million tonnes, supplying just 10% of EU seafood consumption. Growth is constrained by high costs, complex regulations, and limited space and water access. In the case of finfish, feed (around 43% of total costs) is the largest input, followed by livestock (juveniles, 11%), wages (9%), and energy (3%). Feed prices have risen sharply since 2020 due to inflation and raw material shortages. Energy and wage costs remain substantially higher in the EU than in competitors like Türkiye and Chile.
Turkish seabass & seabream is imported from a vertically integrated aquaculture sector, which produces four times more seabass and seabream than the EU (mostly Greece). Labour and energy costs are far lower (electricity EUR 0.04 per kWh vs EUR 0.19 per kWh in Greece). Feed and juvenile fish are also cheaper due to local supply and economies of scale. Product prices are similar across both markets, but Greece targets premium niches while Turkish exports dominate the volume trade.
Competition from Chile and climate stress have reduced EU self-sufficiency in mussels from 80% (2019) to 70% (2022). Chilean mussel production has increased 17-fold since 2000 and now exceeds EU exports in volume. Production costs average EUR 0.69 per kilogram vs EUR 0.74 per kilogram in Galicia, achieved through automation, scale, and lower wages. Chilean mussels target processed and frozen markets, while Galician producers focus on premium fresh sales under PDO labels.
Aquaculture innovation and investment
With capture fisheries constrained by biological limits, aquaculture innovation is vital for improving EU seafood self-sufficiency. Two promising directions are:
· Offshore shellfish farming, which can expand capacity but faces technical, environmental, and regulatory hurdles.
· Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), enabling controlled-environment fish farming (including non-native species), though high capital costs limit scaling.
Funding mechanisms include Horizon Europe, EMFAF, and support from the European Investment Bank (Blue Invest), but fragmented national frameworks and slow licensing continue to deter private investment.
Policy recommendations
The study sets out a range of detailed policy recommendations relating specifically to the competitiveness of EU fisheries production (see overleaf). These recommendations are discussed in more detail in the final chapter of the research.
1. Increase direct support, address constraints and introduce innovative funding mechanisms to fisheries sector operators for green and digital transition.
2. Develop a fisheries-specific technology policy to introduce efficiency gains from artificial intelligence (AI), digital tools and automation in the fisheries sector and its governance.
3. Increase emphasis on growing and diversifying EU aquaculture.
4. Consider a long-term strategic realignment of EU aquaculture to adapt to, and benefit from, the expected consequences of climate change.
5. Support the development of coexistence between aquaculture, local communities and other marine economic activities.
6. Develop a coordinated, mission-oriented approach to encourage investment in aquaculture, framing aquaculture within the Green Deal and Blue Economy.
7. Ensure seafood imports are consistent with the EUs commitment to sustainable development in trade agreements.
8. Expand marketing standards and consumer labelling to include sustainability criteria.
Selection of visuals:
