In the middle of the last decade, a prominent environmental NGO, Sea Shepherd, intensified efforts to pursue illegal fishing vessels in Antarctica’s frozen seas. Long-running prosecutions and dramatic clashes—such as the sinking of the Thunder under questionable circumstances near São Tomé and Príncipe, engagements with ships like the Kunlun, and many investigations that led Spanish authorities to call out and prosecute Galician fishing clans—highlighted a pattern described by critics as deeply rooted in corruption. Operators reportedly changed vessel names, relied on shell companies, and enforced silence among crews. They also registered ships in jurisdictions that are difficult to monitor, including Liberia, Togo, North Korea, and even Mongolia, using flags of convenience to obscure illegal practices. Brussels now seeks to scrutinize these practices in depth. The European Commission has ordered an analysis of the impact of this questionable approach and the responsibility of flag states to ensure proper oversight.
Earlier this month, an EU tender valued at 400,000 euros was announced to fund a study on flags of convenience and the study’s findings have been forwarded to the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) as an updated assessment of economic dynamics and open records. The goal is a clearer picture for policymakers on how these flags affect enforcement, transparency, and accountability across fleets operating in European waters. This initiative underscores a broader concern about how vessel registration can shield wrongdoing and complicate oversight.
For Brussels, the implications are wide-ranging and not limited to environmental harm. There are concerns about poor working conditions, unsafe labor practices, and the potential for illegal fishing to thrive when flag regimes weaken regulatory reach. The same flags that ease registration can complicate tax compliance and sanction enforcement, making it harder for authorities to trace ownership and responsibility. EU officials emphasize that the use of flags of convenience is linked to looser national rules and less aggressive implementation of international conventions, especially when shipowners register under a different country from where crews operate.
The impetus for this assignment, financed by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), is the belief that the current picture remains incomplete. Brussels argues that a comprehensive view is missing, one that connects maritime labor standards, environmental impact, and compliance with international rules. Industry organizations, including the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), have warned about the consequences. The ITF points to signs of degraded crew welfare, including wages that do not meet living standards, insufficient food, limited potable water, and irregular rest periods, all of which contribute to fatigue and reduced vigilance at sea.
An illustrative case cited in discussions involves a Belize-flagged fishing vessel that reached Vigo and prompted ITF commentary. The ITF has highlighted this incident as a representative example of how flags of convenience can be used to mask labor and safety deficiencies. In that case, ITF investigators indicated the last owner may have been Portuguese, signaling how ownership chains can complicate accountability and oversight. The language from the ITF makes it clear that the flag choice can be part of a broader strategy to minimize scrutiny and shift responsibility away from the vessel’s actual operating conditions.