Calls for Emergency Halt to Baltic Fishing

CCB • May 29, 2019

Brussels May 29, 2019:- Responding to scientific advice that a number of important Baltic fish populations are in a state of crisis and cannot be fished sustainably, four non-governmental organisations have demanded a halt to fishing for western Baltic herring and eastern Baltic cod for 2020 – and to end overfishing, as is required by EU law. Coalition Clean Baltic, Oceana, Our Fish and WWF today called on the European Commission – which is responsible for proposing fishing limits – and on fisheries ministers – who make the final decisions, to not exceed the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) when setting all fishing limits in the Baltic Sea.

The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) requires sustainable exploitation of EU fish stocks by 2020. [1]. Scientific advice published by ICES on 29 May 2019 clearly states that western Baltic cod [2], eastern Baltic cod [3], and western Baltic herring [4] fisheries are in a dire state, both as a result of, and contributing to, a deteriorating situation in the Baltic Sea. ICES has recommended that catches of eastern Baltic cod and western Baltic herring in 2020 should be zero in order to meet CFP objectives, and to safeguard fish populations and deliver sustainable fisheries in the future.

“Western and eastern Baltic cod, as well as western Baltic herring, underpin the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem, yet decades of overfishing, and the ignoring of scientific advice by the EU Commission and Baltic governments, has been one of the drivers of destruction and a tragedy for the coastal communities”, said Ottilia Thoreson, Director, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme. “Due to these years of destruction and neglect, we are now facing a situation where fishing must be halted, if we are to have a chance to fish and sustain livelihoods in the future”.

“The only sane response to the collapse of the eastern cod population is to stop all fishing now and develop a recovery plan, rather than wait for 2020”, said Nils Höglund, Fishery and marine policy officer, Coalition Clean Baltic. “With this clear advice from ICES, EU Member States must act without delay – and if they do not, the Commission must take action – there are still fish that can be saved, and spawning season is happening right now”.

“The European Commission has a responsibility to start pulling Baltic fisheries back from the brink and rebuilding its ecosystems, when it proposes the fishing limits for 2020. When doing so, it is essential for the Commission to put forward fishing limits that do not exceed scientific advice, to set an example for member states on responsible fisheries management”, said Andrzej Białaś, Policy Advisor, Oceana.

“All EU governments committed to end overfishing and to return our seas to good health, when they signed up to the reformed Common Fisheries Policy in 2013. Yet six years later, the situation in the Baltic Sea is worsening, with governments still caving in to short term industry pressure [5]. This year, the EU Commission and Baltic member states, must follow the science, and begin managing our fisheries and Baltic Sea ecosystem for the long term benefit of all citizens and nature, not just the short-term profits of a few”, said Rebecca Hubbard, Programme Director, Our Fish.

The Common Fisheries Policy demands that exploitation of all fish stocks is sustainable by 2020, without exceptions. Yet, for two years in a row, the Commission has requested ICES advice for fishing limits to Baltic plaice that do not meet these requirements, which only serves to undermine its own ambition, and that of Member State governments to fish at sustainable levels [6]. If the European Commission would like to contribute to Baltic Sea wealth and restoration they should fully respect Common Fisheries Policy requirements.

Western (Baltic) Spring Spawning Herring Western Baltic herring is in crisis: scientific advice from ICES to stop fishing last year was ignored, and the population has been further depleted this year [4]. ICES scientific advice suggests that the herring population will not recover unless emergency measures are taken to save the fishery, including an immediate halt on fishing. For the year 2020, ICES still advises a fishing limit of zero tonnes.


Eastern Baltic Cod According to ICES, the eastern Baltic cod population is in a state of distress, with reproduction of the population at the lowest on record since 1946 [3]. Growth, condition (weight at length) and size at maturation has substantially declined during the last decades, and yet EU governments have repeatedly set fishing limits for eastern Baltic cod above scientific advice [3]. Unreported, illegal discarding of eastern Baltic cod is also believed to be rife and increasing, as a result of poor monitoring and control [7]. ICES advice for eastern Baltic cod fishing limit in 2020 is zero tonnes.


Western Baltic Cod Western Baltic cod is still in a precarious state with estimates of the population revised down by over 60% this year [2]. ICES warns that the number of young fish entering the fishery in 2018 and 2019 are the lowest on record, and reports that if this doesn’t change in the coming years, there will be a rapid decline in the population. ICES therefore suggests to use the lower value when setting the fishing limits. This equates to zero catches in subdivision 24 (Baltic Sea west of Bornholm) in order to comply with the zero catch advised for eastern Baltic cod (where there is mixing of eastern and western Baltic cod), and a commercial fishing limit of between 2,329 and 3,065 tonnes of western Baltic cod for subdivisions 22-23 [2].

Contacts:

Dave Walsh, Communications Advisor, Our Fish, dave@our.fish , +34691826764
Nils Höglund, Fisheries Policy Office CCB, nils.hoglund@ccb.se , +46 708 679 249
Ottilia Thoreson, Director WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme, ottilia.thoreson@wwf.se , +46-8-624 74 15
Andrzej Białaś, Policy Advisor, Oceana, abialas@oceana.org , +48 501 58 88 33

Tampering with EU Fisheries Policy would ‘open Pandora’s Box’, NGOs warn

By CCB • March 30, 2026
Brussels, 30 March 2026 - Today, Fisheries Ministers from EU Member States meet with the European Commission for the AGRIFISH Council. On this occasion, Oceana, BLOOM, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Seas At Risk and WWF EU, handed a symbolic ''Pandora’s Box'' to the EU Commissioner Costas Kadis, sending a clear message as the European Commission prepares its 2026 evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The box represents the risks of revising EU’s main fishery policy framework: once opened, competing demands from Member States, industry, small-scale fishers, and coastal communities could quickly spiral into division, regulatory delays and uncertainties. This would put at risk the hard-won progress made in restoring Europe’s fish populations and improving the profitability of the fishing sector. NGOs urge decision makers to build on the progress made to date and to prioritise the full and timely implementation of the existing rules. Reopening the CFP and its related provisions would undermine ocean health and the long-term future of Europe’s fishing communities. '' Europe's fisheries policy is facing a credibility test. The law is already there. The tools to rebuild our seas already exist. What's missing is the political will to deliver. Overfishing should have ended by 2020 at the latest. Reopening the CFP would signal that missed deadlines carry no consequences, erode trust, revert the progress made, and put the future of our fisheries and coastal communities at stake ’’, said the NGO coalition. *** Oceana: Vera Coelho, Executive Director and Vice President in Europe BLOOM: Claire Nouvian, Founder and General Director ClientEarth: John Condon, Lead of Marine Ecosystems Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB): Ida Carlén, Co-Chair Environmental Justice Foundation: Steve Trent, CEO/Founder Seas At Risk: Dr Monica Verbeek, Executive Director WWF EU: Ester Asin, Director

CCB´s submission to the EU Call for Evidence on the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

By CCB • March 10, 2026
Uppsala, March 2026 - CCB has closely worked with the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ever since its adoption and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback to this crucial directive for marine biodiversity and ocean health through the EU Call of Evidence . Evaluations conducted by the EU Commission previously found many positive effects for EU marine waters stemming from the directive, but also that the directive has some shortcomings. CCB however, maintains that the largest obstacle to fully implementing the directive and achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) is the lack of political will among Member States to do so. This forthcoming revision must therefore result in a framework directive that is more easily enforceable, measurable and implementable, accompanied by sufficient funding to carry out the measures. Furthermore, in order to achieve GES as fast as possible other key pieces of EU legislation must also support reaching it and focus on achieving the goals of the MSFD in their objectives. Seeing that European seas generally are in poor condition and under mounting pressure from human activities and that in the Baltic Sea the situation is especially dire there is an urgent need for truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and for reaching GES. The revised MSFD can help us achieve this, but only if it includes the points outlined below and the directive is fully and swiftly implemented: *** [Short version]*** Operationalise the overarching GES goal: EU sea areas were supposed to reach GES already in 2020, but due to low political ambition, sadly did not do so. Member States should therefore strive to reach GES as fast as possible now. Setting a new overall deadline for when to reach GES is not the answer on how to achieve this goal most efficiently, instead tools that address pressures and measure progress and ensure actual, timely implementation of ambitious measures must be included in the revised directive in order to operationalise achieving the overall GES goal. CCB therefore recommends making the existing and forthcoming threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria legally binding and part of the main directive. Improving regional coordination and implementation: To improve the coherence, coordination and effectiveness of MSFD implementation, assessment of GES, monitoring and the national PoMs the role of the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) must be clarified. CCB would welcome collating all the national PoMs into one regional PoM for the Baltic Sea, which should be aligned with, in addition to reaching the goals of the MSFD, with achieving the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Land-sea interface: For the Baltic Sea to achieve GES it is key that land-based pressures, primarily nutrient runoff from agriculture causing severe eutrophication, is also addressed and that implementation of the MSFD goes hand in hand with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The goals of the MSFD and achieving GES should also be included when implementing and shaping the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as any synergies with implementing the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan which are also important to identify and utilise. The Baltic Sea also has a too high prevalence and level of other pollutants and hazardous substances affecting marine life. Fisheries and aquaculture: As one of the main pressure factors on the marine environment in general, as well as in the Baltic Sea, fisheries and aquaculture and the effects they have on the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity must be addressed in order to achieve GES. This is especially crucial when considering the MSFD descriptor for Biodiversity (D1), Fish and Shellfish (D3), Food webs (D4) and the one for Seabed integrity (D6). Climate change: Climate change is also affecting the Baltic Sea faster than other marine regions and must be factored in when managing the sea area and its resources to ensure EBM and the full implementation of the MSFD and achieving GES. The effects of the climate crisis should be accounted for when setting pressure reduction targets and threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria, in a way that when an effect cannot be measured nor predicted the precautionary principle must be used. Revising Art. 14 of the MSFD: Article 14 in the MSFD outlines the acceptable exceptions when reaching GES is not possible. The article needs to be revised in the forthcoming revision, since it contains too many and too broad in scope possibilities for exemptions (e.g. in Art. 14(4)), which jeopardise the implementation and fulfilment of the directive as a whole. A possible way of modifying it would be to introduce an obligation for Member States to demonstrate that they have taken all measures within their control nationally and that they have tried to address the problem and advance solving it on a regional level through cooperating with other Member States, before they can apply for a possible exemption. Make the Programme of Measures contain ambitious & concrete measures: One of the cornerstones of the MSFD is the national PoMs that are published every six years and are precluded by an assessment of GES in national waters and a monitoring programme. Unfortunately, the current approach to PoMs where Member States freely can choose measures has led to an overall too low level of ambition in the PoMs, and to large differences within regions and between neighboring countries in terms of which measures are included. In order to fully implement the directive and to achieve GES it is of paramount importance that the national PoMs have a high level of ambition and contain concrete, implementable measures and that there is regional coordination. Easing the reporting burden: One of the results from the evaluation of the MSFD was that the current reporting burden is considered to be too high and a possible way to address this is to align the reporting obligations of the MSFD to more reassemble those of the WFD, that has a more simplified 6-year cycle compared to the MSFD. The implementation cycle however should not be revised or at least not in a way that delays reaching GES. Improve coherence with other legislation: To ensure that the revised MSFD is fully implemented it is essential that coherence with other relevant legislation is improved. The MSPD (foundation for the forthcoming Ocean Act) is also currently being revised and to reach the goals for both the directives achieving GES needs to be a cornerstone of the Ocean Act. This is the only way to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas, and the revision of both directives should therefore be coordinated and focused on achieving GES. CCB looks forward to continuing to provide input to the revision process of the MSFD as well as working with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in the Baltic Sea. CCB expects that the revision will result in a more enforceable directive that leads to the fast implementation of ambitious measures to improve the state of the Baltic and European Sea areas and to the achievement of GES. The full text of the submission is available here . *** Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions: CCB’s submission to the Call for Evidence for the Ocean Act Guiding Recommendations for Source-to-Sea Restoration in Riverine, Coastal, and Marine Ecosystems (Coalition Clean Baltic, 2025) Position Paper on Marine Protected Areas (Coalition Clean Baltic 2024) Don’t sink the Common Fisheries Policy – fulfil its potential (joint NGO Briefing 2025) Blue Manifesto (joint NGO paper)