Fisheries Ministers Risk Breaking EU Law, Jeopardising Baltic Sea Recovery

CCB • October 28, 2025

EU Council decision on 2026 fishing limits fails to implement legally required safeguards, jeopardising the fragile marine ecosystem

Luxembourg, 28th of October 2025 - Environmental organisations across Europe (Baltic Salmon Fund, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Coalition Clean Baltic, Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, FishSec, Oceana, Östersjölaxälvar i samverkan, Pasaules dabas fonds, Seas At Risk, WWF Baltic Sea Programme) express grave concern following today’s EU Fisheries and Agriculture Council of Ministers' (AGRIFISH) decision on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2026, warning that the agreement fails to provide the precautionary approach necessary  to rebuild the Baltic Sea’s critically depleted fish populations and fragile marine ecosystem.


Despite clear scientific warnings[1] about the dire state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, well-established legal frameworks to remedy the situation, as well as a good, precautionary and recovery-oriented proposal on fishing opportunities for 2026 from the European Commission, the Council set fishing limits that breach legal requirements[2] under both the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Baltic Sea Multiannual Plan (MAP), prioritising short-term economic interests over long-term ecosystem recovery.


"The evidence is clear: the Baltic Sea ecosystem is in severe distress, and current management approaches are not working," said Aimi Hamberg, Marine Policy Officer at Coalition Clean Baltic. "We need fishing limits set well below single-stock scientific advice to account for ecosystem interactions, data uncertainties, and the critical role these fish species play in the Baltic food web. Instead, the Council has yet again continued to push biological limits to their breaking point."


Breaking the law on herring stocks


Of particular concern are the decisions on pelagic forage fish populations—herring and sprat—which form the backbone of the Baltic Sea food web. The Council's Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for central Baltic herring and Gulf of Bothnia herring exceeds the levels required to comply with Article 4.6 of the Baltic Sea MAP, which mandates that fishing opportunities must be set to ensure a less than 5% chance of stocks falling below critical biomass levels (Blim).


The Council agreed to increase the central Baltic herring  quota by 15% compared to 2025 levels, despite the stock being in poor condition and barely above critical levels[3]. This decision violates the Baltic Sea MAP by creating an unacceptably high risk and exceeding the legal 5% probability limit of falling to critically low levels that could impair the population’s reproduction.[4]


For Gulf of Bothnia herring, while the Council reduced the quota by 41%, this reduction also falls far short of what is needed to comply with the law. The agreed TAC creates a much higher probability of the spawning stock falling below Blim, thereby directly violating legally binding safeguards designed to prevent irreversible damage to fish populations.


Sprat: Reckless 45% increase despite uncertain recruitment forecast


The Council's decision to increase the sprat  quota by 45% compared to 2025 is particularly alarming given the scientific uncertainties and the stock's decreasing trend. From 2021 to 2023, Baltic Sea sprat suffered some of the lowest recruitment rates ever recorded for the stock. While the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advised catches based on a seemingly strong 2024 year class, this estimate relies on a single autumn survey in northeastern areas, making its contribution to overall sprat biomass highly uncertain.


The sprat decision is further complicated by ongoing issues with misreporting between sprat and herring, as well as mixing with degraded herring stocks in fisheries—factors that demand extra precaution rather than quota increases.


Cod: recovery remains elusive with a too high bycatch quota


ICES continues to advise zero catch for both eastern and western Baltic cod stocks, which remain below critical biomass limits despite years of severe catch restrictions. Despite the Commission’s proposal to reduce the bycatch quota on both stocks, the Council failed to acknowledge the severity of the situation or prioritise the recovery of these depleted top predators by maintaining the unacceptable high bycatch quota.


Maintaining a high by-catch quota for threatened species is not only against the scientific advice of zero catch, but it also does not incentivise the fishing industry to fish more selectively. 


Further restrictions on salmon fisheries are necessary


Baltic salmon populations
  have suffered from poor survival during their feeding migration in the sea. This has led to a drastic decrease in the number of returning spawners in the rivers. It is impossible to predict the survival of salmon during their sea phase in advance, so the current status and development of salmon stocks are on very uncertain grounds.


The Council decided to decrease the main basin salmon TAC in line with the ICES advice by 27% and maintain the ban on commercial salmon fishing in the main basin of the Baltic Sea. In the Gulf of Finland, it was decided to increase the level by 1% compared to 2025 due to the stable or improving status of the Gulf of Finland wild salmon populations.


Joint commitment offers hope, but action is needed now


While the Council's decisions on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities are deeply disappointing, there is a glimmer of hope in the joint commitment issued by the European Commission and Baltic Sea Member States agreeing on the need to request ICES to provide specific scientific advice on fish stocks rebuilding trajectories. Although this commitment is not legally binding and falls short of the immediate action needed, environmental organisations hope it signals a turning point in efforts to rebuild the fragile fish populations of the Baltic Sea.


The full joint PR is available here.


_END


***


EXTRA NOTES TO EDITORS


● The Baltic Sea Multiannual Plan (Regulation EU 2016/1139) establishes legally binding rules for managing cod, herring, and sprat stocks in the Baltic Sea.

● Article 4.6 of the Baltic Sea MAP requires that fishing opportunities be set to ensure less than 5% probability of stocks falling below Blim.

● ICES has advised zero catch for western Baltic herring since 2019, for eastern Baltic cod since 2020, and for western Baltic cod since 2025.

● The Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation EU 1380/2013) requires that all fishing opportunities be set according to the precautionary approach (Article 2.2) and ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (Article 2.3)

● Full NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2026 are available here


FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS, PLEASE CONTACT:


● Aimi Hamberg, Marine Policy Officer, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), aimi.hamberg@ccb.se

● Arielle Sutherland-Sherriff, Policy Advisor, Oceana, asutherland@oceana.org

● Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer, Senior Fisheries Advisor, FishSec, Cathrine@fishsec.org

● Joonas Plaan, Member of the Management Board, sustainable fisheries expert, Estonian Fund for Nature, joonas.plaan@elfond.ee

● Justyna Zajchowska, Fisheries Lead, WWF Baltic Sea Programme, jzajchowska@wwf.pl

● Claudia Romero-Oliva, Policy Officer Marine Conservation, Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V., romero@duh.de 

● Magda Jentgena, Baltic Sea and Freshwater Programme Manager, Pasaules dabas fonds, mjentgena@pdf.lv

● Morten Rosenvold Villadsen, Havpolitisk rådgiver, Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Morten@dn.dk

● Rémi Cossetti, Marine Policy Officer, Seas At Risk, rcossetti@seas-at-risk.org

● Thomas Johansson, Chairman, Östersjölaxälvar i samverkan and Secretary General of the Baltic Salmon Fund, thomas@balticsalmonfund.com

● Valeska Diemel, Fisheries Policy Officer, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), valeska.diemel@bund.net


***

NOTES

[1] See for instance the HELCOM HOLAS assessment (HELCOM (2023): State of the Baltic Sea. Third HELCOM holistic assessment 2016-2021. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings n°194 or ICES (2024). Baltic Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem Overview. ICES Advice: Ecosystem Overviews. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.27256635.v1

[2] Preamble 10 and Art. 2.2 of the CFP requires that sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources should be based on the precautionary approach. In addition, Art 4.6 of the Baltic Multiannual Plan mandates that fishing opportunities be set to ensure less than 5% probability of stocks falling below Blim.

[3] ICES assessment of central Baltic herring shows that this stock has a relative spawning-stock size below MSY Btrigger and below the precautionary limit Bpa, and only slightly higher than the critical limit reference point Blim, below which reproduction is likely to be impaired.

[4] An estimated catch of 103 073 t corresponds to 5% for p(SSB(2027)<Blim)=5% (ICES advice for central Baltic herring, Table 2). However, in order to account for Riga herring to be taken in SD 28.2 and central Baltic herring to be taken in the Gulf of Riga (SD 28.1), as well as for the Russian share, the catch should be below 89 827t.




 


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.