Market evolution: Prepared crustaceans and molluscs (CN 1605) — 2015–2025
Introduction
This report examines the EU's external trade in prepared crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates (Customs heading CN 1605) over the period 2015–2025. The heading covers a wide range of products — from shrimps and prawns (in and out of airtight containers) to mussels, clams, cuttlefish, squid, octopus and crab — all prepared or preserved but excluding smoked items.
The EU is structurally dependent on external supply in this category. In 2025, extra-EU imports stood at €1.09 billion, more than three times the value of exports (€317 million), leaving a persistent trade deficit of approximately €775 million. Over the decade, however, the market did not simply expand — it reorganised. Three main dynamics stand out: first, a diverging price trajectory between imports and exports; second, a pronounced geographic reorientation of both supply sources and export destinations; and third, a product-level shift in which certain mollusc segments gained ground at the expense of traditional shrimp-centred trade.
1. Volume growth and a diverging price regime
The EU's import volumes rose faster than value
Between 2015 and 2025, extra-EU import volumes of CN 1605 grew by 21.8%, rising from 170,486 tonnes to 207,674 tonnes. Over the same period, import value increased by only 5.7% (from €1.03 billion to €1.09 billion), implying a 13.2% decline in the average import unit price — from €6,060/t to €5,258/t. This suggests that the EU sourced greater quantities of lower-priced prepared seafood, likely reflecting increased procurement from cost-competitive Asian and Latin American suppliers.
Export prices moved in the opposite direction
EU exports told a different story. Export volumes grew more modestly (+10.5%, from 30,102 to 33,253 tonnes), yet export value rose by 22.9% (from €258 million to €317 million). The average export price climbed 11.3%, from €8,559/t to €9,524/t. This divergence — falling import prices alongside rising export prices — points to a value-added positioning: the EU increasingly re-exports or transforms lower-cost raw imports into higher-value finished products destined for affluent markets.
| Indicator | 2015 | 2025 | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Import value (€M) | 1,033 | 1,092 | +5.7% |
| Import volume (t) | 170,486 | 207,674 | +21.8% |
| Import price (€/t) | 6,060 | 5,258 | −13.2% |
| Export value (€M) | 258 | 317 | +22.9% |
| Export volume (t) | 30,102 | 33,253 | +10.5% |
| Export price (€/t) | 8,559 | 9,524 | +11.3% |
| Trade balance (€M) | −776 | −775 | ≈ 0% |
Source: General Overview
The trade deficit stabilised despite higher volumes
The trade balance in value terms barely moved over the decade, fluctuating between a trough of −€928 million (2019) and a peak of −€657 million (around 2021). That the deficit did not widen despite a 22% rise in import volumes is explained by the offsetting effect of lower import unit prices and higher export unit prices. In volume terms, however, the EU's net import reliance clearly deepened.
2. A geographic reorientation of supply and demand
Vietnam emerged as the dominant import supplier
The most striking change on the import side was the rise of Vietnam. In 2015, Vietnam supplied €187 million worth of CN 1605 to the EU; by 2025 this had grown to €277 million (+47.7%), making it by far the largest single supplier. Vietnam's share expanded as other suppliers stagnated or declined: Norway (−18.2%), the United Kingdom (−3.8%) and especially China (−26.1%, from €59 million to €43 million) all lost ground.
| Top import partners | 2015 (€M) | 2025 (€M) | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viet Nam | 187 | 277 | +47.7% |
| Chile | 146 | 172 | +17.8% |
| Greenland | 98 | 139 | +41.1% |
| Morocco | 114 | 101 | −11.2% |
| Norway | 61 | 50 | −18.2% |
| United Kingdom | 44 | 42 | −3.8% |
| China | 59 | 43 | −26.1% |
Source: Top partners by value
Chile (+17.8%) and Greenland (+41.1%) also consolidated their positions, while Morocco — historically a key supplier of molluscs — saw its share erode slightly. The concentration of imports (measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index on value) rose from 991 to 1,240 (+25.2%), confirming a moderate increase in supplier concentration driven by Vietnam's outsized growth.
The United States replaced the United Kingdom as the primary export destination
On the export side, the reorientation was even more dramatic and is best explained by Brexit. Exports to the United Kingdom — by far the largest destination in 2015 at €125 million — fell to €75 million by 2025 (−39.8%). Meanwhile, exports to the United States surged from €20 million to €88 million (+336.7%), and those to Japan grew from €14 million to €31 million (+125.1%). The United States thus overtook the UK as the EU's leading non-EU export market for this product category.
| Top export destinations | 2015 (€M) | 2025 (€M) | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 125 | 75 | −39.8% |
| United States | 20 | 88 | +336.7% |
| Norway | 31 | 30 | −1.2% |
| Switzerland | 24 | 30 | +26.3% |
| Japan | 14 | 31 | +125.1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 18 | 5 | −72.3% |
| China | 1.5 | 4.3 | +196.7% |
Source: Top partners by value
The Herfindahl index for exports fell sharply from 2,722 to 1,645 (−39.6%), indicating that the export base diversified significantly — the UK's formerly dominant share was replaced by a more balanced spread across the US, Japan, Switzerland and Norway.
Spain and Denmark became key EU-level trade hubs
Within the EU, Spain emerged as a major importer (from €92 million to €173 million, +87.8%) and an even more spectacular exporter (from €25 million to €112 million, +344.4%). Denmark remained the largest single EU exporter (€106 million in 2025) despite a 16.4% decline, while its imports also contracted (−22.1%). The Netherlands maintained a stable role as a transit and processing hub, accounting for around €170 million in imports and €19 million in exports. Italy's imports grew by 27.3%, reflecting rising domestic demand for prepared seafood products.
| Top EU importers | 2015 (€M) | 2025 (€M) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 283 | 221 | −22.1% |
| Netherlands | 180 | 170 | −5.6% |
| Spain | 92 | 173 | +87.8% |
| Sweden | 91 | 90 | −1.5% |
| France | 97 | 93 | −4.6% |
| Germany | 102 | 82 | −19.5% |
| Italy | 70 | 89 | +27.3% |
Source: Top reporters by value
3. Product-level shifts: the rise of molluscs and the shrimp price squeeze
Shrimps remained dominant but faced price erosion
Shrimps and prawns — whether in airtight containers (CN 160529) or not (CN 160521) — continued to account for the largest share of EU imports in both volume and value terms. In 2025, shrimp imports amounted to approximately 92,000 tonnes (44,902 t of 160529 and 47,033 t of 160521) worth a combined €676 million. However, unit prices fell across both subcategories: for 160529, the import price dropped from €7,755/t in 2015 to €7,148/t (−7.8%), and for 160521 from €8,718/t to €7,332/t (−15.9%). This likely reflects intensified competition from Vietnamese and other Asian suppliers.
On the export side, shrimp re-exports (160529) held roughly steady in volume (8,915 to 10,930 tonnes) but the unit price also eased from €10,560/t to €9,418/t (−10.8%).
Mussels and clams showed the strongest import growth
The most dynamic import segments were mussels (CN 160553) and clams, cockles and arkshells (CN 160556). Mussel import volumes grew from 38,012 tonnes to 50,367 tonnes (+32.5%), while their value rose from €113 million to €165 million (+46.4%), implying higher unit prices (from €2,961/t to €3,271/t). Clam imports followed a similar trajectory: volumes more than doubled from 23,521 to 50,399 tonnes, and value nearly doubled from €60 million to €117 million. These segments benefited from growing consumer demand for affordable shellfish preparations and expanded supply from sources such as Chile, Vietnam and Morocco.
Octopus exports surged
The standout performer on the export side was octopus (CN 160555). Export value surged from €12 million in 2015 to €61 million in 2025 (+414%), while the unit price tripled from €5,864/t to €19,615/t. This likely reflects both the EU's processing role (importing raw octopus from Mauritania and Morocco, processing and re-exporting) and the growing global appetite for premium prepared octopus, particularly in Asian markets.
| Key product segments — Imports | 2015 volume (t) | 2025 volume (t) | 2015 value (€M) | 2025 value (€M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shrimps, airtight (160529) | 43,505 | 44,902 | 337 | 321 |
| Shrimps, other (160521) | 42,038 | 47,033 | 366 | 345 |
| Mussels (160553) | 38,012 | 50,367 | 113 | 165 |
| Clams (160556) | 23,521 | 50,399 | 60 | 117 |
| Crab (160510) | 4,006 | 2,169 | 44 | 34 |
Source: Product segment breakdown
| Key product segments — Exports | 2015 volume (t) | 2025 volume (t) | 2015 value (€M) | 2025 value (€M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shrimps, airtight (160529) | 8,915 | 10,930 | 94 | 103 |
| Cuttlefish/squid (160554) | 4,303 | 6,722 | 17 | 45 |
| Shrimps, other (160521) | 4,963 | 2,945 | 59 | 29 |
| Octopus (160555) | 2,028 | 3,119 | 12 | 61 |
| Mussels (160553) | 2,163 | 3,595 | 11 | 20 |
Source: Product segment breakdown
EU domestic production shifted toward higher value
EU domestic production data (where available) confirms the value-upgrading trend. Production volumes declined by 5.4% (from 690 million kg to 652 million kg), yet production value increased by 30.7% (from €3.07 billion to €4.02 billion). This implies a substantial rise in the average value per kilogram of EU-produced prepared crustaceans and molluscs, consistent with a shift toward more processed, branded or premium-positioned products.
Denmark and the Netherlands displayed the highest revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in this sector, with RCA values of 7.0 and 2.1 respectively in 2025, confirming their roles as specialised processing and re-export hubs. Spain also showed strong specialisation (RCA of 3.3), reinforcing the picture of the Iberian Peninsula as an emerging centre for prepared seafood trade.
Source: Most specialised reporters
Supply-side volatility and isolated price shocks
Volatility analysis reveals that certain supply relationships were more unstable than others. Imports from Canada showed the highest coefficient of variation (0.62), followed by Morocco (0.31) and the United Kingdom (0.36). On the export side, flows to Ukraine (CV of 0.86), Morocco (0.66) and China (0.50) were the most volatile.
Three notable price shock events were identified:
- Greenland imports, 2019: a 34.7% price shift with an abnormality score of 16.1, likely linked to quota changes or catch variability in the North Atlantic shrimp fishery.
- Norway exports, 2022: a 20.6% price shift (abnormality 8.6), potentially related to post-pandemic demand recovery and energy cost inflation.
- China imports, 2022: a 33.1% price shift (abnormality 6.8), possibly reflecting supply disruptions linked to China's COVID-19 containment measures and their impact on aquaculture processing.
Conclusion
Over the 2015–2025 period, the EU market for prepared crustaceans and molluscs underwent a structural transformation rather than simple growth. The overall trade deficit remained broadly stable at around €775 million, but this stability masked significant shifts beneath the surface.
Three defining trends emerge from the data. First, the EU's sourcing geography consolidated around a smaller number of larger suppliers — above all Vietnam, which consolidated its position as the leading provider of prepared shrimp — while import concentration increased. Second, the export geography diversified markedly, with the United States and Japan replacing the United Kingdom as the primary destinations, a shift largely driven by the post-Brexit trade regime. Third, the product mix evolved: while shrimps remained dominant, mussels and clams gained substantial import share, and octopus became a high-value export speciality.
The underlying price dynamics — declining import prices alongside rising export and production values — suggest that the EU is increasingly positioning itself as a processor and re-exporter of prepared seafood, adding value through quality, branding and processing sophistication rather than competing on volume. Whether this model proves resilient in the face of potential supply shocks (as seen with Greenland and China in recent years) and evolving trade policy will be a key question for the years ahead.