EJF Warns Southeast Pacific Squid Fishery Near Crisis as Investigation Finds Labor Abuse, IUU, and Lack of Oversight

Why It Matters

The fishery’s instability threatens global squid supplies and exposes seafood brands to reputational and regulatory risk, while unchecked labor abuse undermines human‑rights standards in the maritime sector.

Key Takeaways

• Chinese fleet accounts for 99% of Southeast Pacific squid jigging
• 2023 catch reached nearly 500,000 metric tons, 42% global landings
• Chile reported 52% decline in squid catch rates in 2025
• Over 90% of surveyed crews experienced forced‑labor indicators
• At‑sea transshipment enables two‑year deployments, obscuring traceability

Pulse Analysis

The Southeast Pacific jumbo flying squid fishery underpins nearly half of the world’s squid market, yet its governance framework is woefully inadequate. The SPRFMO has failed to impose catch limits, by‑catch controls, or marine‑mammal protections, allowing a Chinese‑flagged fleet of more than 500 jiggers to harvest almost 500,000 MT annually. Declining catch rates—Chile alone saw a 52 % drop in 2025—suggest the stock may have peaked a decade ago, raising the specter of ecological collapse that would reverberate through global seafood supply chains.

Compounding the ecological threat is a deep‑seated labor crisis. Interviews with 81 crew members from 60 vessels uncovered physical violence, forced‑labor indicators exceeding 90 %, and routine shark finning. The industry’s reliance on at‑sea transshipment lets vessels remain offshore for up to two years, effectively isolating crews and obscuring traceability. For buyers in the U.S., EU, and U.K., this opacity makes it nearly impossible to guarantee that squid products are free from abuse, heightening compliance and brand‑reputation risks.

Solutions exist but require decisive political will. Introducing species‑specific HS codes would sharpen trade data, while stricter import controls and mandatory vessel‑level traceability—such as CCTV, Wi‑Fi, and real‑time grievance mechanisms—could curb abuses. Limiting or banning at‑sea transshipment would dismantle the primary conduit for opacity, forcing operators to adopt more transparent practices. Prompt action by governments and seafood companies can stabilize the fishery, protect marine ecosystems, and safeguard workers’ rights before the crisis becomes irreversible.