EU CATCH System Mandatory from January 10, 2026; Argentine Media Questions Its Ability to Distinguish Unregulated Squid Catches from Outside the 201-Mile Zone Around the Malvinas/Falkland Islands

CATCH, the EU's digital tool for managing and verifying catch certificates and documents related to seafood imports, has been mandatory for EU operators and EU national competent authorities since January 10, 2026. The system is integrated into the TRACES NT platform and serves the EU's regime to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The catch certification scheme has existed since 2010; what CATCH does is digitize this process and facilitate the exchange of information between product traders and regulators.

CATCH can link vessel data, flag, species and catch volumes to each stage of the commercial chain. When raw material is processed in another country, the processing declaration must correspond to the original catch certificate. This documentary continuity is particularly critical when multiple vessels, multiple landings, transshipment or processing plants are involved before entry into the EU market. The system's practical use lies in comparing documents, identifying inconsistencies and triggering verification.

However, the Argentine fisheries port weekly Puerto emphasized in its October 28, 2026 report that CATCH is not a sustainability certification, nor does it itself set conservation rules for a given fishery. The information gathered by the system can be used to monitor compliance with applicable obligations, but a complete file does not in itself prove that resource exploitation is sustainable.

The discussion had follow-up in Vigo. At the most recent Conxemar Vigo seafood exhibition, traceability and the scope of CATCH were among the most frequently mentioned topics in presentations and industry exchanges. The Conxemar FAO MAPA International Conference held on October 5 devoted part of its agenda to digital traceability and fair trade conditions, with the organizers themselves emphasizing the centrality of these discussions and the need to advance common standards.

The discussion became concrete when the magazine Puerto asked Conxemar President Eloy Alvariza García about Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) caught by the Chinese fleet in the 201-mile zone around the Malvinas/Falkland Islands entering Spain. His answer pointed to CATCH as a tool for ensuring traceability from the source. This formulation acknowledges the system's importance but does not answer what exactly such traceability can prove.

The question is: can the system effectively distinguish products from regulated fisheries from those from areas without shared catch limits or specific multilateral conservation measures? Reconstructing documentary origin does not necessarily equate to proving the sustainability of a fishery. Answering this question also requires knowing what rules govern the fishing activity and how those rules are verified.

In the 201-mile zone around the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, i.e., the high seas adjacent to Argentina's exclusive economic zone, the Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) fishery lacks a specific multilateral regime that imposes shared catch limits and binding conservation measures on all fleets. This absence should be distinguished from any licenses or requirements that individual flag states may impose on their own vessels. The issue is the lack of a common conservation and management framework for resource exploitation in these waters.

For the Southwest Atlantic, this issue is of central importance. CATCH can require a complete documentary chain for products caught outside Argentina's exclusive economic zone, but it does not automatically turn an unregulated fishery into a legal one. The platform can provide elements for verifying compliance with existing obligations, but it cannot create missing conservation measures, nor can it remedy a violation through digital registration.

This judgment likewise does not mean that all fishing in areas without multilateral regulation is therefore automatically illegal. Article 2(4)(b) of EU Regulation No. 1005/2008 defines "unregulated fishing" as fishing conducted in an area without applicable conservation or management measures, and in a manner that does not comply with the conservation responsibilities of states under international law. Such a determination requires examining the conduct and applicable obligations and cannot be resolved solely by vessel position or a verified certificate.

The legality of an operation must also be distinguished from the sustainability of a fishery. A document can identify the vessel and declared quantities, but it cannot prove that the combined effort of all fleets is compatible with the conservation of the exploited stock. Moreover, the existence of a management regime requires evidence of effective monitoring and its results, and comparisons should focus on the management and surveillance conditions of each fishery.

The involvement of the flag state is decisive. Its verification should be based on verifiable information about the operations of its vessels. If EU competent authorities limit themselves to checking whether all fields are complete, they may preserve a formally consistent documentary chain without dispelling doubts about what actually happens at sea. The value of CATCH also depends on the verification that this information can support and on the responses required from the responsible authorities.

Squid processed in third countries faces the same problem. A batch of squid may be caught on the high seas, landed in one country, processed in another and then sold from a third country. In this path, traceability should identify the source of the catch without confusing it with the processing or shipping country. Commercial processing does not change the conditions under which the resource was extracted. Therefore, risk assessment should consider the source fishery, vessel activity and the regulatory capacity of its flag, as well as the correspondence between weights and documents. When inconsistencies or signs of IUU fishing appear, the documents should be used to initiate substantive verification. Digitalization provides information for this work, and its effectiveness depends on how competent authorities use that information.

Related concerns have been raised within the EU. In July 2026, the EU Market Advisory Council (MAC) and the Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC) recommended strengthening oversight of squid imports from high-risk fleets and from poorly managed or unregulated stocks, proposing verification, audits and inspections of batches and reinforcing the responsibility of flag states. They also pointed to gaps in high seas governance and called for management measures for these fisheries. These recommendations show that the issue goes beyond whether an information platform exists. Traceability requires oversight that can link declarations to actual operations and conservation obligations. Without this link, the accumulation of certificates can provide information on commercial pathways but cannot resolve risks at the catching stage.

For Argentina, this discussion has direct consequences. Fisheries subject to investigation, licensing, closed seasons and surveillance should be able to demonstrate these conditions in the market. Documentary compliance should enable competent authorities and buyers to identify verifiable differences between the management regimes of the products they receive.