CCB´s submission to the EU Call for Evidence on the Ocean Act

CCB • February 19, 2026

Uppsala, February 2026 - CCB supports the Ocean Pact and Ocean Act objectives for improving coherence, coordination and effectiveness of EU ocean governance. Yet, in order to achieve this, the Act has to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and make reaching Good Environmental Status, as defined in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), a cornerstone of the Act. The Ocean Act can set us on a path to recovery of the marine environment under a sustainable and just blue economy, but only if the Act includes the points outlined below and is implemented swiftly and fully.

*** [Short version]***



  • Coherence: Align the goals and existing timelines of EU marine legislation, policies and strategies in the Act and make them binding. Furthermore, the Ocean Act must stipulate that national maritime spatial planning has to address all existing and emerging pressures, such as shipping, underwater noise, mining, gravel and sand extraction, Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE), Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), tourism, aquaculture and commercial and recreational fishing.
  • Breaking silos: The Act must foster collaboration between different agencies and ministries in national governments implementing it, by e.g. stipulating that its implementation should be shared between the environmental and fisheries ministries and that relevant ministries and agencies must consult each other.
  • Targets for national & regional MSPs: The Act should mandate legally binding national MSPs as well as regional MSPs for each sea basin, where at a minimum all the national plans are collated and harmonized, leading to strengthening of regional cooperation, data sharing, and in the long-term to regional maritime spatial planning.
  • Regional Considerations: Acknowledge and address regional challenges, which for the Baltic Sea include the severe effects from eutrophication, mainly due to nutrient runoff from land-based sources, primarily from agriculture, as well as the high levels of other pollutants and hazardous substances. The poor state of the Baltic Sea ecosystems and fish stocks must also be tackled. 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.
  • Strengthening the role of RSCs: To improve coherence, coordination and effectiveness of marine governance the role of the Regional Seas Conventions in implementing the Act and EU marine legislation must be strengthened.
  • Ocean Act adopted as a regulation: To ensure its swift and coherent implementation across EU seas in all Member States the Act should be adopted as a regulation instead of a directive.
  • Land-sea interface: requirement in the existing MSPD must be strengthen in order to ensure that land-based activities don’t have detrimental impacts on the marine ecosystems. It is also important to include land-based efforts when planning for costal and marine restoration, a so-called Source-to-Sea approach, to ensure effective recovery of the Baltic Sea ecosystems.
  • Fisheries and aquaculture: must be included in the national and regional MSPs as activities and pressures that are planned for in a way that reduces their impacts on the ecosystems, sensitive species as well as all harvested species. Likewise, aquaculture prohibition zones should also be implemented, as these can have considerable impact on achieving GES. The Ocean Act should align and support achieving the goals of the CFP regarding rebuilding fish stocks and ending overfishing. The Ocean Act must furthermore require that national and regional MSP map all essential fish habitats and that negative impacts on these by other sectors using the sea, including fisheries, are mitigated. In addition, zoning should prioritise restoration of essential fish habitats.
  • Climate change: the EU goals for reducing greenhouse gases and reaching climate neutrality (as outlined in the European Climate Law and the EU Green Deal) should also be aligned into the Act and planned for when implementing it. Furthermore, national and regional MSPs should include climate change resilient spatial planning.


The full text of the submission is available here.


***
Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions:

-
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)

By CCB • November 6, 2026
Widespread exploitation of the critically endangered European eel population continues against scientific advice, despite no signs of recovery. Today, the International Exploration of the Sea, ICES, published its scientific advice on fishing opportunities and conservation for European eel for 2027. As in previous years, ICES advises zero catch for all life stages, all uses and in all habitats. Despite very clear advice, over 1,500 tonnes were landed commercially in the EU in 2025 with an additional > 300 tonnes taken in recreational fisheries. The scientific advice on European eel requested by the EU, the UK and Norway makes very clear that no catches can be considered sustainable and that the “zero catch” also applies to glass eel landings used for restocking and aquaculture. Given the state of the eel population, ICES advises that all other anthropogenic impacts, such as pumping stations, hydropower and pollution, should also be zero. The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) has been listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN since 2008, and is on the European Red List for freshwater fish. It is also included in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 2007. Despite the need for protection and efforts to aid its recovery, European eel continues to be fished across most of its natural range. In the past decade, total reported commercial landings of yellow and silver eel have remained above 2 000 tonnes per year; with several countries reporting annual landings of over 100 tonnes. In 2025, reported commercial glass eel landings were 57.1 tonnes. Where available, estimates of national recreational landings of yellow and silver eels show that they can be of the same order of magnitude as those of commercial fisheries. All in contradiction with the scientific advice. Only Ireland, Slovenia, Malta and Norway have closed all fishing for the species. In the EU, the Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel was adopted in 2007 – almost 20 years ago. Since then, there has been some fluctuations in the very low levels of recruitment and yellow eel index, but no recovery. For 2026, levels are extremely low again with recruitment for “Elsewhere Europe” at 6.4 % and North Sea index at 1.2 % of the 1960–1979 reference level, respectively. – One has to wonder when European eel will be considered critically endangered enough for this exploitation to stop, says Niki Sporrong, Senior Policy Advisor for Migratory Fish at Coalition Clean Baltic. When will the obligation to protect and restore the population set out both in EU law and international agreements be prioritised? Measures to aid eel recovery have been agreed and implemented across and beyond the EU. Mediterranean long-term management measures for European eel were agreed in 2024 under the General Fisheries Committee for the Mediterranean (GFCM). Eel fishing closures, together with a complete ban of recreational fishing, intended to protect eel migration and recruitment have been adopted in EU marine waters, but their application has had insufficient effects on fishing mortality so far. Trade in European eel is regulated under CITES, and only earlier this year a Single Species Action Plan for the full range of the population was adopted by the Convention on the Conservation of Migration of Wild Animals (CMS). But without properly addressing key threats such as fishing, migration barriers and habitat loss it is hard to see how even the resilient eel will be able to survive combined pressures further exacerbated by climate change. – Exploitation of European eel continues against scientific advice, says Niki Sporrong. Agreed EU objectives for the rebuilding of fish stocks and biodiversity are simply not applied to this remarkable species. Urgent measures to minimise eel mortality must be implemented now, in both national, EU and international waters. —END— Notes to editors: [1] The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) population has been declining for a long time and is classified as Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2018). [2] The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) data on recruitment shows a dramatic decline since the assessment baseline (1960-1979), and no significant recovery. Glass eel recruitment continues to be very low. This year, the preliminary estimate for the North Sea area is 1.2 % of the baseline average and for “elsewhere Europe” 6.4 %. Yellow eel recruitment in 2024 was estimated to 16.4 %. [3] Assessment of European eel is complex due to the great geographical range of the population, including a number of countries outside of the ICES areas. This makes it impossible for ICES to use fishing mortality, Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and other standard reference points for eel. As data on eel fisheries and other anthropogenic impacts remain incomplete, the assessment is based on time series for glass eel and yellow eel recruitment. Even without defined biological limit reference points, it is ICES’s assessment that the European eel population remains well below any potential reference points, such as Blim. [4] ICES has advised that all anthropogenic mortality should be kept as close to zero as possible since 2003 (ICES, 2020). Since 2021, the advice has changed to zero for all anthropogenic mortalities, including all fishing. [5] A Council Regulation (1100/2007) establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel was agreed in 2007. Since then, almost 20 years after its adoption, no notable recovery has been observed in the European eel population. [6] Only three EU countries – Ireland, Malta and Slovenia – have prohibited all fishing for the European eel , despite the fact that it is also on the European Red List of Freshwater Fishes. Six EU countries still landed over 100 tonnes in 2025 : the Netherlands (428 t), France (361 t), Germany [extrapolated from latest reported landings of >200 t], Denmark (126 t), Poland (120 t) and Sweden (114 t). Outside of the EU, Turkey (267 t) also reported landings over 100 tonnes. Egypt, which has a substantial fishery for European eel and mainly targets yellow and silver eel, does not report any data to ICES and is not included in the overall estimates. [7] Trends in landings – reported commercial landings of yellow and silver eel continue to fall overall. In 2024, landings were 2,074 tonnes and in 2025, landings were around 1,922 tonnes, if we assume that Germany landed >200 tonnes based on landings from recent years. However, France and Denmark stand out in 2025 for increasing reported commercial landings compared to the previous year, and the Netherlands for significantly increasing landings since the EU eel regulation was adopted. [8] EU glass eel landings – in 2026, reported commercial landings of glass eel, a fishery completely dominated by France, were at 53 tonnes. In France, landings have been increasing since 2011 with a peak at 54.5 tonnes in 2022. This year, France reported landings of 48.3 tonnes (prel. figures) – 91% of the EU catch. After Brexit, UK landings have fallen dramatically, from more than 3 tonnes to 0.6 tonnes in 2025. Spain is the only country still fishing for glass eel in the Mediterranean, and the Mediterranean landings almost doubled in 2026. [9] Recreational landings of yellow and silver eel are completely dominated by Germany. Total r eported recreational landings for 2022 – the last year with complete figures – was 550 tonnes. In Germany, recreational landings remain very high , higher than reported commercial landings, with 275 tonnes reported for 2022. This is over half of all reported recreational landings in the EU (52%). [10] Restocking involves catching wild glass eels in one place and letting them go in another, often spreading viruses and disease in the process. It has been used for decades in many countries – not as a conservation measure but in order to sustain fisheries for eel. Despite the prolonged practice, no net benefit to eel reproduction has been proven. In its advice for 2026, ICES notes that “restocking is reliant on a glass eel catch, which is in contradiction with the current advice”. [11] Eels have a complex life cycle , going through several different life stages and generally live for 10–20 years. The very small, translucent eels arriving at European coastlines every year are called glass eels . When they reach brackish or fresh waters, they transform into less transparent elvers , and then grow into yellow eels , which live along our coasts, in rivers and lakes for up to 25 years. When mature, they transform again into silver eels , which will undertake the long journey to the Sargasso Sea to spawn.
By CCB • November 5, 2026
Brussels, 4 November 2026: Environmental NGOs welcome the European Commission’s decision to not include a revision of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in its 2027 Workplan, announced today, and call on the Commission to maintain this course. To improve ocean health and biodiversity, BirdLife, BLOOM, Coalition Clean Baltic, ClientEarth, Environmental Justice Foundation, Oceana, and Seas At Risk urge the Commission to prioritise full implementation and enforcement of the existing CFP to rebuild fish populations, protect marine ecosystems, and secure a sustainable future for fishers and coastal communities. “The Commission has rightly chosen to follow the findings of its own CFP evaluation , published in April this year, and to focus on holding Member States accountable for implementing the law”, said the NGOs. “Reopening a policy that has not yet reached its full potential would halt timely implementation, waste valuable time and delay the meaningful action that European fishers and marine ecosystems urgently need.” A competitive and resilient fisheries sector can only be built on: healthy fish populations; a system that gives a fair share of space and resources to fishers that have a low impact on the marine ecosystem; and a fleet that is enabled to make a just transition to lower environmental impact, reducing dependence on subsidised fossil fuels, and responding properly to the climate crisis. The CFP outlines a precautionary pathway forward, centering fisheries management on scientific advice and ecosystem protection, minimising the impact of fishing on the marine environment while aiming to provide a sustainably sourced food source for people throughout Europe. “The European Commission must now demonstrate its political ambition by delivering on the CFP, which will allow fish populations to recover, will help achieve food security, along with the wellbeing of European fishers and coastal communities, and protect ocean health”, said the NGOs. “With imminent annual fisheries negotiations between the Commission, Member States and third countries, including the UK and Norway, this will be a key opportunity to finally close a major CFP implementation gap by setting fishing limits that are geared towards rebuilding struggling fish populations and fisheries.” The environmental NGOs call on member states to cooperate with the European Commission on stronger implementation measures to fulfil the objectives of the CFP, and put European citizens and environment at the heart of their position going forward.